METRO NORTH NEW HAVEN RAIL COMMUTER COUNCIL

(Established in 1985 under Connecticut Public Act 85-239, now Sections 13b-212b and

13b -212c of the Connecticut General Statutes)

 

MINUTES OF

APRIL 18, 2007 MEETING

THE BUSINESS COUNCIL OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY OFFICES

STAMFORD, CT

 

Present were:  Bob Jelley, Vice Chairmen Terri Cronin and Jeff Steele, Joe McGee, Rodney Chabot, Stan Trybulski, and Sue Prosi, Members of the Council; Bob McLagger, Ed Lydecker and Jeff Watson, Metro North Railroad; Eugene Colonese, CDOT; Bruno Lacaria, Roger Cirella, David Stepah, Chris Trani, Kristan Pulp, Jim Pogozelski, Vincente Bonaparte and Walter Turpin, members of the public.

 

The meeting began at 7:00 p.m.  The Minutes of the February and March meetings were approved.

 

FARE SURCHARGE

 

Sue Prosi outlined the Nickerson-McDonald proposal to replace the $1.00 ticket surcharge, legislatively established in 2005 to become effective January 1, 2008, with a 1% per year fare increase.  She said that the proposal envisioned that in the first year of its effectiveness, 2010, fares would increase 1%, and they would continue to increase 1% additional each year for seven years.  The effect of the Nickerson-McDonald proposal would be to have riders pay the interest on $140 million of bonds ($20 million to be issued in each of the seven years) and the principal of the bonds to be paid out of general revenues. 

 

There was much discussion about the effect on ridership.  Ms. Prosi said that the Governor was making a counterproposal on what taxes would pay off the bond issue.  Rodney Chabot said he thought there should be no fare increase at all.  Terry Cronin suggested that there seemed to be general agreement that no surcharge of any sort should be put into effect until the new M-8s have been delivered. 

 

Bob Jelley asked whether, under the 1% scheme, the DOT intended to continue to round fares to the nearest 25˘ cents, and Gene Colonese said that the DOT wanted to continue to round to the nearest 25˘ cents.

 

Ms. Prosi asked about the effect of fare increases.  Bob McLagger of Metro North said that some markets were more elastic than others, and that there was less elasticity for commuters than for occasional riders.  Mr. Colonese said that the DOT has considered the effect on ridership of both the $1.00 and the 1% schemes, and that he would get back to us about the availability of that study data. 

 

At the end of the meeting, Mr. Chabot proposed that the Council take a position on the fare surcharge.  He moved that there be no fare surcharge until there were enough new cars and rehabilitated cars so that 95% of trains on the New Haven line were at full length.  The motion passed unanimously. 

 

NEW APRIL 1 TIMETABLE

 

Ms. Cronin asked how the DOT and Metro North came up with the changes in the timetable.  She said that her observation was that the morning trains she rode used to have people getting off as well as on at stations, whereas with the changed timetable, no one got off.  She said that the effect of the difference was that in the past if one got on a crowded train, one usually found a seat as people got off, but now, with no one getting off, one stood all the way.  Mr. McLagger said that Metro North used to run longer trains in the morning and shorter trains in the evening, because the morning peak period was more compressed than the evening peak period.  That method of operation required uncoupling cars from trains after the morning peak period to create the shorter evening trains.  He said that the constant coupling and uncoupling was damaging to cars.  As a result, Metro North is now operating more shorter trains in the morning peak period, resulting in reduced coupling damage and permitting more trips with the shorter trains.  He went on to say that Metro North was doing passenger counts at Grand Central Terminal and Harlem, as well as some passenger counts at Rye, Greenwich and Stamford.  He noted that no passenger counts were being done upstream from Stamford.  He also said that they were doing on-off studies on every train in the system.

 

Mr. McLagger said that there would be minor adjustments in the timetable in June because of construction. 

 

To better understand proposed consists, Ms. Prosi asked Mr. Colonese for the planned number of cars on each train on the New Haven line, and Mr. Colonese said he would get that for us. 

 

Mr. Jelley asked about the possibility of an earlier train from GCT to New Haven in the morning.  He said that people have complained that they cannot get to New Haven in time to get to work at 8:00 because the earliest train gets to New Haven at 7:46.  Mr. McLagger said that an earlier train had been tried at one point and attracted few passengers.  He also said that the earliest train could not leave GCT before 5:30 a.m. because the Terminal is closed before that time. 

 

Mr. Jelley also asked about the one hour-twenty minute gap between trains from New Haven to GCT between 7:57 p.m. and 9:16 p.m..  Mr. Colonese said that that gap was caused by construction at New Rochelle Station, which is ongoing.  Mr. Colonese agreed to update the Council on that construction and when it would be finished.

 

DANBURY LINE

 

Mr. Chabot asked where the planned signal system for the Danbury line stood.  Mr. Colonese said that plans for the system will go out to bid sometime later this year.  He said that because the 345 kilovolt power line that is being constructed crosses the Danbury rail-line, it may have an impact on the signal system, and therefore some changes in the plans need to be made. 

 

WATERBURY LINE

 

There were a number of Waterbury line passengers at the meeting.  One said that Waterbury line passengers wanted an earlier train than the 6:45 a.m. train in the morning, they wanted longer trains, and they wanted a return train between the 12:07 p.m. and 4:35 p.m. trains in the afternoon.  Mr. Colonese said that he would look at those questions. 

 

Another Waterbury passenger reported on the number of bus substitutions, and particularly spoke of the 5:55 p.m. train from Bridgeport on March 12, 2007.  That train was canceled, and only one bus was provided for 85 passengers.  There was to be a second bus, but it never came.  He went on to say that there were also bus problems on March 16, 2007, during a snow storm, when once again there was only one bus.  Mr. Colonese said that Metro North does the contracting for buses.  Mr. Chabot said that the 8 used locomotives purchased from Amtrak were supposed to solve the bus substation problem on the Waterbury online and asked where they were.  Mr. Colonese said that he would report at the next meeting.

 

Another Waterbury passenger said that there was never advance notice when trains were not running.  He pointed out that if one knew in advance in the morning that there were no trains, one could drive to one of the main line stations.  He emphasized the importance of notice to passengers through local media and e-mail alerts. 

 

NEW CANAAN BRANCH

 

Mr. Chabot reported that there is still no telephone at the Talmadge Hill station. 

 

SHORE LINE EAST

 

Mr. Jelley spoke of the day two weeks earlier when the first evening train, the 3:20 from New Haven, was canceled without explanation.  He said that he had been at State Street Station, that it was a beautiful day, and that commuters waiting for the train were confused as to why the train was canceled and uncertain whether the 4:30 train might also be canceled.  Mr. Jelley said that it turned out that a railroad employee had derailed the Shore Line East train in the New Haven yard.  He said that it was his view that if the announcement had also included that information, it would have given waiting passengers more confidence that the next train would run.  Mr. Colonese disagreed, and said that it was his view that it was unnecessary for the railroad to give any explanation of a cancellation. 

 

MAIN LINE

 

Jeff Steele said that the platforms at Fairfield Station continue to be poorly lighted. 

 

Mr. Jelley said that he had bought a family fare ticket for his grandson at a ticket machine.  The ticket machine said that the ticket was valid on all trains except morning peak trains into GCT, whereas the ticket itself said that it was valid only on off-peak trains.  Mr. Jelley said that the information on either the ticket machine or the ticket had to be wrong.  Mr. McLagger agreed and said that the ticket machine information was correct.  He said that it was probably too much trouble to change the information printed by the ticket machine on the ticket. 

 

Ms. Cronin asked why the trains she rides always seem now to come in on the lower level at GCT, whereas they used to come in sometimes on the upper level and sometimes on the lower level.  Mr. McLagger said he didn’t know the reason.

 

Mr. Colonese said that track 3 (the inbound local track) between Norwalk and Stamford will be back in service in June or July. 

 

There was a question as to why senior tickets are available only at age 65, and not at an earlier age.  Mr. McLagger said that New York law provides for senior tickets at age 65.  There was a question about Connecticut law.  [In fact, federal law requires transportation facilities receiving federal funding to provide half-fare off-peak tickets for passengers 65 and over, but would permit half-fares at a lower age.] 

 

There was a question about the obligation of conductors to make announcements in each car of a train if the public address system wasn’t working, and Mr. Colonese said that conductors had that obligation. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.  The next meeting is Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at The Greenwich Railroad Station, Greenwich, CT.

 

 

\88888888\1005\649539.1