Expanded City Zone service/Paycard Entry/Crew Reduction

I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but here it goes:

I've had this idea of expanding service to city zone stations for a while now, but a recent trip to Sweden gave me the idea for the fare collection part. I'm suggesting that service be increased to 20 min headways (30 mins 11p-5a) to all city zone stations except Little Neck and Douglaston, as well as the opening/re-opening of additional stations on the Montauk and Far Rockaway branches and possibly the main line. The reason for this being that eastern Queens has ZERO subway access, the 7 and Queens Blvd Express services are pretty much maxed out, the bus to subway commute is hell, and express buses are inefficient and while they take cars off the road, still contribute and are prisoner to the congestion problem. My thinking is use the LIRR to provide service to areas it already has access to and, if money ever becomes available, extend the subways to the places that otherwise don't have service. Fare would be paid by metrocard (or whatever new-fangled electronic regional pass they eventually manage to come up with) either while entering or exiting these city zone stations (machines would have to also be able to read the standard printed LIRR ticket for anyone not traveling with NYP/GCT as their origin or destination). Crews on these trains would be down to 2 (I'm assuming that's legal given the 2 man crew waiver that unfortunate Metro North train had), but with increased service there should be an overall increase in labor hours (gotta make the unions happy ya know ). Fare would be comparable to the express bus but come with a free transfer to the subway. The operation structure of some lines would also change. The budget for this would have to come from NYC since this would be done as a benefit to city residents.

Fares: Paycard entry/exit gates installed at all city zone stations except FBA, NYP, GCT, Douglaston, and Little Neck. At the city zone stations you would swipe to enter and then exit at NYP as normal (or swipe to exit your intermediate station), and on the return you would do the same but reverse (swipe when exiting your station). For anyone traveling city zone to LI, you would continue to use your ticket as normal, but the city zone entry/exit gates will still have to read it as well. Paycard enables free transfer to NYCT

Port Washington:
City Zone trains operating 20 min headways (30 min 11p-5a) making all stops to Bayside. E of Bayside stations can either be served by trains running 1st stop Bayside, 1st stop Douglaston, or having 1st stop at Flushing, 2nd stop Bayside, or some combination thereof. During peak, if all E of Bayside trains to PW isn't possible, continue to turn some at Great Neck and operate all stops to NYP/GCT.

Far Rockaway:
New station at Linden Blvd. City Zone trains operating 20 min headways (30 min 11p-5a) originate at Valley Stream (NOT a city zone fare station), all stops to Jamaica, every 3rd train operates non-stop to NYP/GCT. Far Rock/Long Beach trains make Jamaica 1st, Valley Stream 2nd, then all stops.

Montauk:
New station at Merrick/Springfield Blvds. City Zone trains operating 20 min headywas (30 min 11p-5a) originate at Freeport, all stops to Lynbrook (NOT city zone fare stations), Merrick/Springfield, St Albans, Jamaica, every 3rd train operates non-stop to NYP/GCT. E of Freeport trains make Jamaica 1st, then operate some combination of 2nd stop Lynbrook, 2nd stop Freeport, 2nd stop E of Freeport.

Hempstead:
New stations at Francis Lewis Blvd and Hillside. New flyover constructed to carry WB Hempstead track over both mainline tracks*. City Zone trains operating 20 min headways (30 min 11p-5a) originate at Belmont (using flyover WB), all stops to Jamaica, every 3rd train operates non-stop to NYP/GCT. Hempstead trains operate 1st stop Jamaica, 2nd stop Queens Village, all stops to Hempstead.

The biggest question on all this is will there be capacity at GCT/NYP for this even if LIRR were to continue thru-running to FBA (or even maxed out LIC with new platforms as well), and would LIRR have capacity to add service on LI still as well? I'm assuming that since the LIRR already has service to these stations, the increased service wouldn't overwhelm the system as much as one would initially think since part of it is just a restructuring of the way certain branches operate. If needed, the service could be spread between all 3 terminals (NYP/GCT/FBA) since the idea is more to provide additional service to the city zone stations than it is to provide a one seat ride to any one terminal. The smaller question, how do we handle far beaters EB (enter holding a paycard, oops I forgot to get off at Bayside)? Do we end up just installing paycard gates system-wide?

*Because it's me, I have to add in that the Queens flyover would be especially beneficial if the central was ever rebuilt E of Garden City, since that would be an increase in WB trains otherwise fouling the main

Back when the AirTrain to LGA plan came out, I did some math as to determine how much it would cost the LIRR to add two trains per hour all day long to Little Neck, and then lower the zone 3 fare for Port Washington Branch stations from what they are now to $2.38, the same effective price as the subway.

Adding two additional trains per hour all day long (48 trains, 9 crews working 9-hour shifts) would provide 15-minute headways during most of the off-peak periods, a minimum of 30 minute headways during the late night period, and eight additional trains during each rush hour period. The approximate annual additional operating expenses for doing that would be approximately $4.4 million per year. The impact of additional crews, equipment, or track maintenance is minimal, considering this is largely an expansion to off-peak service, where the LIRR operates well below capacity. Implementing something like this would also not require any additional infrastructure expansions beyond what is currently planned for East Side Access.

Next, lowering the fares from the existing zone 3 fare ($9.50 peak, $7 off peak) to the effective fare for the subway ($2.38) at stations Woodside through Little Neck would result in about $34.6 million per year in lost revenue. This does not consider those that might travel with monthly commutation tickets or unlimited MetroCards, but considering that the multi-ride ticket proportion is much higher for an unlimited MetroCard (47 trips) than it is for a zone 3 monthly (22 trips peak, 30 trips off-peak) the impact is likely not that significant.

Both of those together results in a $39.0 million shortfall for the LIRR. To plug that gap, the railroad would need to attract approximately 16 million annual new riders paying $2.38 fares to break even, or about 44,000 a day. Considering that the ridership on local bus routes that roughly parallel the Port Washington Branch sums to over 14 million riders per year, the LIRR is only left with an effective difference of 2.1 million riders per year, or a little over 5,800 additional riders per day, which is reasonably attainable given the fast, more frequent, and significantly cheaper service, and general growth patterns in Queens.

Something like this would do a ton to stimulate growth in eastern Queens, and as long as the LIRR can attract slightly more than 5,800 new riders per day (which is very possible, especially considering Cuomo's AirTrain to Willets Point...), they would even stand to make money off of something like this.

Do either one of you consider equipment availability with your pipe dreams? Turn cycles, shop count, inspections etc. Sounds like you want to transform this place from a Railroad to a Subway.

Considering how many trains sit doing nothing during the middle of the day, overnight, and weekend hours, I find it hard to believe that it would be impossible to find equipment to run an additional two trains per hour. It's not like every piece of equipment is being inspected every minute it's sitting in a yard...

Other countries have found ways to operate commuter rail lines as rapid transit services (i.e. the RER in Paris), and to tremendous success. What makes the LIRR so special?

The trains are being cleaned, repaired & inspected in the off hours. Clearly the person suggesting this plan has no clue about equipment or crew manipulation. Where do they suggest the money comes from to build these new stations?

onorclose7 wrote:The trains are being cleaned, repaired & inspected in the off hours.

Every single train is not being cleaned, repaired, or inspected every second it's sitting in the yard...

Of all of those trains that sit in West Side Yard in the middle of the day: is every single one of them being cleaned, repaired, or inspected every minute they're in there??

(for those who haven't noticed, this resistance to change (resistance to improvement) is exactly the reason why this railroad, and other railroads in the US, are so far behind those overseas)

One problem a plan like this would surely encounter would be resistance from LIRR's sister agency, New York City Transit. That's what happened about twenty-five years ago when it was proposed to rebuild the Lower Montauk and I doubt things would be different today.

The reality is, despite all the good things projects such as these may do, they do not produce an operating profit. As a result, to build them the LIRR is cut off from private financing, they have to get government money, essentially tax dollars.

In the case of the Lower Montauk -- and this came from people who were involved in it -- Transit argued it was their job to serve the city's neighborhoods and to move riders within the city. The LIRR's job was to serve Nassau and Suffolk County and to move riders to and from those destinations. That neither New York State nor the MTA should use scarce resources to provide what are essentially duplicate services. Transit argued that the resources that would be used for the Lower Montauk improvements would be better spent improving area transit. Buy more buses and increase service, install bus tracking systems for riders, possibly extend subway lines.

Transit also pointed out that when riders entered the NY City Transit system they had access to all of the city, to literally thousands of destinations. When people boarded LIRR trains they only had a few possible destinations within the city and only one in Manhattan.

The gentleman who discussed this -- and it was on the old Railroad.Net or possibly Subchat I think -- said that LIRR presented counter arguments but the MTA board agreed with NYCT and the proposal to rebuild stations on the Lower Montauk, including putting in high level platforms, was turned down. Not only that, I believe it was around that time that service to the local stations on the Lower Montauk was discontinued.

Lirr42's attitude is priceless. No mention of how he plans to pay for all the improvements that he suggests. And as far as reducing crew members, it's not gonna happen

If you actually read my post, I showed that the losses could be easily offset by capturing ridership from parallel/redundant bus routes as well as new riders from Willets Point off the LGA AirTrain...

One important factor has been overlooked. The current fares do not cover the actual cost of providing the service. The shortfall is in the neighborhood of six dollars per rider. So even if LIRR was able to attract sixteen million additional riders per year that loss would be conservatively in the neighborhood of about eighty million dollars a year plus the aforementioned forty million dollar loss.

The farebox recovery ratio varies from branch to branch. The taxpayers do not pay as much for somebody from Little Neck's ride as they do for somebody from Greenport, and the Port Washington Branch has one of the better farebox recovery ratios of the system. Also don't forget that the operating subsidy for the local and express busses that more frequent Port Washington Branch service could replace is also nonzero. In fact, the operating subsidies for express busses are nearly double the LIRR's average, and more than double what the subsidy would be for the Port Washington Branch, so the MTA, and the taxpayers, could stand to save money off of this...

The figures I found, from 2010 (link), show that the Port Washington Branch has the highest farebox recovery ratio of any of LIRR's lines, however, the average revenue shortfall on the Port Washington Branch was $2.77 per rider. On the Far Rockaway Branch it was $9.42.

Expanded service on the Port Washington and Far Rockaway Branches at transit fares is not going to eliminate local bus service. They perform different functions and serve different riders. You might be able to reduce some express bus service but almost certainly not enough for a net gain.

In the case of the Port Washington Branch, if you could increase the ridership by sixteen million a year -- and that's a lot (it would increase LIRR's total ridership by close to 20%) -- you might get some economies of scale but you are still going to have an additional loss of at least thirty million dollars a year plus the forty million.

These figures are ratios, they are not flat costs...if you carry twice as many passengers on the same amount of trains, your operating cots do not double, they stay the same. Likewise, the subsidy per passenger does not stay the same, in fact, it gets cut in half. I showed in my post above that adding two trains per hour to Great Neck each day would cost the railroad $4.379 million in additional operating expenses, and that is the extent of the additional operating expenses.

The main idea here is that this sort of thing is elastic---you can increase service by 20% and get a ridership jump of 40%, or you can decrease fares by 10% and get a ridership jump of 30%--things do not change in 1-to-1 ratios. As you attract more passengers, the denominator in that ratio increases and the railroad requires less subsidy per rider. If you consider all of the potential growth that is possible along that branch--both with general growth in Eastern Queens and the upcoming LGA AirTrain it's not unreasonable to assume that ridership on the Port Washington Branch could increase considerably if high fares and infrequent service is not an obstacle (as it is now).

Even if you dial back the amount of riders you could attract any additional losses incurred are still very small (nowhere near $70 million a year...) and could easily be offset by potential ridership growth with the LGA AirTrain.

The figures in the LIRR report I linked are not ratios. They're dollar amounts.



In 2009 it cost over $100 million to carry the 13.4 million riders on the Port Washington Branch. I don't believe it would be possible to more than double the ridership while only incurring about $5 million in added cost.

I read your pipe dream post. My question was about where do you intend to get the money for the initial capital projects, not the extra fares ten years down the road?