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 JUNE 20, 2007
THE OFFICES OF SWRPA
STAMFORD GOVERNMENT CENTER
STAMFORD, CT
Present were: Jim Cameron, Chairman; Vice Chairmen Terri Cronin and Jeff Steele; Joe McGee, Rodney Chabot, Sue Prosi, Stan Trybulski, Chris DeSanctis and Bob Jelley, Members of the Council; Peter Cannito, George Okvat, Tom Trendy, George Walker, Ann Doyle Mary Nodell, Donna Evans, John Longobardi, Ed Lydecker and Scott Ornstein, Metro North Railroad; Floyd Lapp, SWRPA; George Hakalis, Phil Strong, Joe Clift, Al Papp, David Johnson, Regional Rail Working Group; Richard Stowe, Jim Pogozelski, Walter Turpin, Christine Trani, David Stepeck, Roger Cirella, members of the public.
The meeting began at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the May meeting were approved.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Jim Cameron said that he had recorded a Cablevision editorial reply since the last meeting in which he expressed the position taken by the council at its May meeting that there should be no fare surcharge, that the new M-8s should be paid for out of general funds of the State, and that there should be no summer cut in the gasoline tax.
Mr. Cameron also reported that he had been interviewed by someone from Deloitte Consulting, the firm engaged by MTA Executive Director, Lee Sander, to do a report about all of the units, including Metro North Railroad, operated under the MTA umbrella. He reported that Gene Colonese and Peter Richter had also been interviewed by the representative from Deloitte Consulting.
Mr. Cameron also reported that he had asked the State Ethics Commission whether he was acting as a “lobbyist” when he testified about railroad matters before committees of the State Legislature. He said that he had received an e-mail reply saying that he was not a lobbyist when acting in that manner. Bob Jelley (who is also an attorney) said that he had seen a copy of the e-mail, and that the reasoning given in the letter was incorrect, but the result was correct.
Mr. Cameron also mentioned that the Task Force formed by the MTA to look into drinking on the railroads and the railroad stations had reported that there were no problems from drinking and had recommended that liquor sales in stations and on trains continue. Terri Cronin said that the report found that there were no automobile accidents that could be attributed to drinking on the trains and that there was no serving of alcohol to minors. It also reported that the bartenders were very careful about no serving alcohol to people who had drunk too much.
Mr. Cameron introduced new Commuter Council member Chris DeSanctis, who spoke briefly about his background and interest in transportation matters. DeSanctis was appointed by Governor Rell.
APRIL 25, 2007 WIRES DOWN INCIDENT
At this point Peter Cannito, President of MNRR and a number of members of his staff arrived at the meeting. Mr. Cannito, in speaking of the letter written by Mr. Cameron about the communications with riders during the April 25 wires down incident between Cos Cobb and Greenwich, said that he disagreed with Mr. Cameron’s assertion that communications are a continuing problem but that he agreed that it was useful to talk about communications during the April 25 incident. He went on to say that MNRR is always analyzing its communications with riders and hoping to improve communications.
Mr. Cannito said that the incident began at 5:12 a.m. when a
train’s pantograph got tangled in the wire between CP 232 and CP 229. [As I
understand it, that means between mile posts 32 and 29. Although Mr. Cannito
did not say so at that time, it seems to be clear that the incident at 5:12
a.m. involved only one track (probably track 3) and the real problem did not
begin until a few minutes before 6:00 a.m., when a GCT bound train was
switching tracks at the interchange between Cos Cobb and Greenwich and pulled
down all four wires.] Mr. Cannito said that the control center at Grand
Central Terminal was in charge of communications about the incident, and that
it was impossible to communicate with riders until the full dimension of the problem
was known. He went on to say that once the problem was recognized, it also
took time to develop the proper messages to be sent to all of the stations
affected, to the media, and by e-mail alerts. He said that a lot of different
messages were required. He said that he was in the situation room that
morning, although he did not say what time he was in the situation room. He
said a lot of emphasis was placed on getting messages out for different to
people in different places. Tom Tendy said that once messages went out, automatic
PA platform announcements were made every 7 minutes about the delays, and there
were intervening non-automatic messages. Mr. Tendy said that he thought the
entire communications team did a good job.
Mr. Cannito said that full service on the New Haven line was back about 10:30 a.m. In answer to questions about media reports, he emphasized that the media got their information from MNRR and that media reports were not always accurate. [The implication was that announcements from MNRR are always accurate.] Mr. Cannito concluded his introductory remarks by saying that they recognized they could always do better with communications. He said that it was striking that they received only about 50 complaints about communications the morning of April 25, and that he thought that indicated that the vast majority of riders were satisfied with the communications. He said that he knew that people were more forgiving if they knew what was happening.
Mr. Cameron said that the first e-mail alert was at 6:55 a.m., almost two hours after the beginning of the incident. Mr. Cannito said that e-mail s go out from corporate and media relations, and they were not yet at work. Mr. Cronin said that the media had better information than was being reported by e-mail alerts. She said that she learned of the incident at 7:10 a.m. on the radio. Mr. Cannito said that railroad people in New York City learned that all four wires were down by 6:12 a.m. Mr. Tendy defended the timing of announcements. Mr. Cameron then read the various conflicting e-mails sent out by MNRR and CDOT between 6:55 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., particularly noting the promise of busses in some of the CDOT e-mails. Mr. Cannito said that MNRR was not aware at the time of the CDOT e-mail announcements. Mr. Richter said that some of the CDOT e-mails were not based on actual knowledge, but instead were based on speculation as to when the matter would be cleared. He and Mr. Colonese explain that the CDOT computer system automatically puts out an announcement that the situation has been cleared when an effort is made to delete prior announcements of the problem. Mr. Colonese agreed that, in the future, CDOT will defer to MNRR on e-mail announcements.
Mr. Tendy said that the first announcement of a train delay at the station occurred at 5:56 a.m.
Mr. Cameron asked Donna Evans, who is in charge of corporate and media relations, how she reaches the media when there is an incident. She said it is by direct phone calls to the Associated Press and to Shadow / Metro / TransCom (which furnished information to smaller stations.) She went on to say that, at the time of the wires-down incident, she was on the Long Island Railroad at Jamaica on the way to work, and therefore could not send out e-mail s alerts until she got to her office at GCT.
Mr. Cameron raised the question or whether there was a seat drop after the incident. George Walker said there was. Ms. Evans said that whether or not to have a seat drop was based on the number of trains affected and the length of the delay (she did not furnish a copy of the criteria.)
Mr. Cannito raised the question of buses. He said that there always seems to be an expectation of buses when trains cannot run but that this incident happened at a bad time for getting bus substitutions because all of the busses were busy taking care of morning bus commuters. He said that the Railroad got a pretty good response to its request for buses, but by the time buses arrived at station, the trains were about to run or were running again, and therefore the buses were not used. He said that a total of 30,000 – 40,000 passengers were affected by the incident.
In answer to a question, Mr. Cannito said that the railroad knew that all wires were down at 5:55 a.m. and that at 6:00 a.m. it instituted “Code Red”.
Jeff Steele, who commuters from Fairfield to GCT, said that, so far as announcements and information are concerned, he felt “in the dark” both on platforms and on trains on a regular basis. Mr. Tendy said that he should make complaints on the MNRR’s complaint line and he would look into those complaints. [Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Cameron has given council members Mr. Tendy’s phone number and has suggested that they make complaints about announcements problems that they experience.]
Mr. Cannito said that the present MNRR communications system operates on an “exception” basis. He said, as he has said at prior Council meetings, that that means that there are announcements only when there is a problem. [For example, there is no platform announcement telling waiting passengers that the next train is on time. There is only a platform announcement if the next train is expected to be more than six minutes late.] Mr. Cannito went on to say that it is his view that the railroad should have a system that is constantly informing passengers about train arrivals, and not simply about late arrivals. He said that the White Plains station was being used as a “model station” to develop a system to give constant information, just as the monitors at Stamford and New Haven stations tell whether the next train is on time or is expected to be late.
Mr. Steele said that the announcer at Stamford station is frequently hard to understand. Mr. Tendy specifically refused to comment on that.
Rodney Chabot said that the New Canaan station has electric message signs, but that they never give any information except the name of the station and the time. He asked why they were not used to report problems. Mr. Tendy said that that the electric message system was an ADA requirement, so that messages on the public address system could be written out for people who could not hear the public address system
Sue Prosi raised a number of points: (1) she said that the First Selectman of Westport was interested in having Westport Station be a model station like White Plains. Mr. Cannito said that the Westport First Selectman was also interested in selling equipment to MNRR; (2) Ms. Prosi also said that she thought there should also be television monitors with train arrival times on the platforms at Stamford, and Mr. Cannito agreed that that would be a good idea; (3) Ms. Prosi said that the conductors on the trains she rides are very good about giving information to passengers; and (4) she said that she thought the lack of complaints about MNRR’s handling of communications during the April 25 wires-down incident did not mean that the Railroad was doing a good job on communications. She said that people simply don’t find it worthwhile after the fact to get in touch with MNRR and complain.
In response to a question from Bob Jelley asking whether, as a result of the April 25 incident, MNRR had put into place any system for getting out e-mail announcements faster than they were in April (Mr. Jelley said that he does not listen to the radio of watch television news). Ms. Evans said that she was pleased that someone considered the e-mail announcements so important, but said that it always takes at least 45 minutes to get e-mail announcements out. She did not say whether, as a result of the incident, her office was now better staffed to get out e-mail announcements at times other than regular business hours.
SURCHARGE MODELING
Mr. Cameron noted that at the April meeting, the issue of whether CDOT had done any study or modeling of what effect of the $1.00 fare surcharge would have on ridership. He said that Mr. Colonese said that he would supply that information. Mr. Colonese then said that all CDOT had done was do some calculations that showed that a $1.00 fare surcharge would produce the necessary $20 million per year, but there was no study of the effect of ridership. Al Martin said that budget discussions between the Governor and the Legislature were ongoing, and that there was every reason to believe that a budget agreement, which would include some change in the fare surcharge now slated to take effect on January 1, 2008, would be included in that budget agreement. Richard Stowe complimented Mr. Cameron on having done well on the surcharge issue.
PENN STATION AND SERVICE TO NEW JERSEY
Mr. Cameron noted that there had been two developments in connection with possible New Haven line service to and through Penn Station: (1) Mr. Sander, Executive Director of MTA, announced in May that beginning in 2008, the MTA will find a way to provide New Haven line service to Giants and Jets games through Penn Station to Secaucus Junction in New Jersey; and (2) Governor Rell has recently asked CDOT to submit a report by August 1 outlining obstacles to New Haven line service to Penn Station.
Mr. Cameron asked about the fact that the new M-8s being designed will only be able to go as far as Penn Station and not beyond into New Jersey. Mr. Walker said that Connecticut only asked to have the M-8s be able to go as far as Penn Station. [The obstacle to going west of Penn Station is that the catenary from Queens through Penn Station and into New Jersey and on down to Washington, DC, operates on 25-cycle power rather than the standard 60-cycle power in use elsewhere.] Mr. Walker opined that adding equipment to permit the M-8s to operate on 25-cycle power would occupy too much space and make the cars too heavy. He also said that it was his view that there was no room in Penn Station for New Line access at present.
Mr. Richter said that CDOT was becoming far sighted about additional service, including New Haven to Springfield, New Haven to Providence, and going into Penn Station. He said that the Department will have the study requested by the Governor done by August 1. Joe McGee asked whether indeed the M-8s will be able to run to Penn Station, and the answer was that they will, using an over-under third rail shoe on the LIRR tracks into Penn Station.
George Hakalis said that he was happy that Connecticut was looking at interstate service. He mentioned that New Jersey has 60 locomotives that can pull trains from New Jersey to Boston. He also mentioned the Penn Station Access Study of 5 years ago done by the MTA in connection with determining the ability of Penn Station to accommodate more trains.
Mr. Richter said that he believed that the Federal Railroad Administration will require Amtrak to convert the line from Penn Station to Washington from 25 cycles to 60 cycles, and that’s the reason that M-8s have not been ordered with ability to run on 25-cycle power. Al Papp suggested the possibility of doing a couple of demonstration trains running from the New Haven line through to New Jersey to gauge the desire for thru-running service. Mr. Cameron wondered why the Governor was interested in service to Penn Station and speculated that Bombardier, which did not get the contract for the M-8s, is looking for a way to sell its double-decker trains for Penn Station access. Mr. Walker suggested that that is a possibility.
LOWER LEVEL GCT ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES FOR NEW HAVEN LINE TRAINS
Mr. Walker agreed that whereas previously 31%-38% of New Haven line trains arrived and departed on the lower level, it is now about 52%. He said that the reason was the problem of an earlier derailment of a train coming into track 19, with a result of difficulty in getting the passengers off the train. He said that the curvature of tracks on the upper level, on the east side of GCT, had been a problem ever since the purchase of the M-2 cars 30 or more years ago, because the M-2 cars were longer and heavier than the curvature of the tracks were designed for. He said that the shorter 6-car platforms were on the lower level and the 8, 10, and 12 car platforms were on the upper level. As a result, all of the shorter trains on the New Haven line have been put on the lower level where they can most efficiently be accommodated. He said that many of the longer morning peak trains had been split into two shorter trains in order to make them be able to arrive on the lower level. He commented that it will take another 4 or 6 weeks to study how to handle the risk of a derailment problem. He noted that the New Haven line trains generally use the more easterly tracks at GCT, whereas the Harlem and Hudson line trains use the more westerly tracks.
Mr. Walker was asked whether Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal for congestion pricing for access to Manhattan might increase the demand for New Haven line train service into GCT. Mr. Walker thought not; he said that the Railroad already gets a relatively high percentage of its commuter market into Manhattan. Mr. Papp asked about keeping old M-2 cars as a reserve fleet when the new M-8s arrived. Mr. Walker said that the new M-7s had a failure rate of about 600,000 miles and that the Hudson and Harlem lines were working well with excess cars available if needed, and that he contemplated that a reserve fleet of older cars would be retained on the New Haven line as well.
MAY OPERATIONS REPORT
The question was raised once again as to why there were no more cars going through the CSR rehabilitation program. Mr. Colonese said that cars that had already gone through some portion of the rehabilitation program were being finished up, now that parts that were previously unavailable are finally in stock. He said that also the bar cars are taking a longer time for rehabilitation, particularly the floors, than anticipated. Mr. Walker said that the program was not planning to do as many M-2s as originally anticipated, as a result of the M-8 order. Mr. Colonese said that the 122 cars completed, includes cars that are only partially completed, and said that he would break down that figure for our next meeting to better reflect partially vs. fully rehabilitated cars.
In answer to another question, Mr. Colonese said that of the eight Amtrak locomotives leased from Amtrak, six or seven are being used everyday. As for the Virginia (VRE) cars, he said that 23 cars and one cab car had been completely rehabilitated but only thirteen were in service. Roger Cirella asked why none of the Virginia cars were being used on the Waterbury line. Mr. Colonese said that one or two of the Virginia cars were being used on the Waterbury line, but until there are more cab cars available, other Virginia cars cannot be used on the Waterbury line.
MAIN LINE OPERATIONS
Mr. Colonese was asked why one of the afternoon thru Short Line East trains was canceled just before the meeting, and Mr. Colonese said that Metro North did not want to run that train with a higher locomotive because of risk of snaring the wires.
Mr. McGee asked why wires seem to be coming down as frequently as they have recently, particularly considering that these are the new or replacement catenaries, rather than the old catenaries. Mr. Jelley reported that he had observed on some detail the replacement of a catenary in Westchester County and the Westchester County line as a result of the wires down incident in April and on May 23. He said that he had compared the construction of the New Haven line catenary with the new Amtrak catenary between New Haven and Boston. He had noted three differences: (1) on curves on Amtrak, the support structures are closer together, permitting the catenary to follow the curves of the tracks. On Metro North, the support structures continue to be widely spaced on curves, and on the outside of the curve, there is a new steel post with a span wire attached to all four catenaries, pulling the wires out to a more close approximate of the curve of the tracks. He noted that with the four catenaries attached together by a span wire, it was easier for a train to pull all four wires down at one time; (2) he reported that on Amtrak, the catenary supports are much closer together at interchanges, thereby better supporting the diagonal wires that follow the switch tracks. He said that in Westchester County, there were no intermediate supports at interchanges but that at the Greenwich interchange, which was involved in the April 25 incident, there were new support structures between the old support structures. He noted that Connecticut seems to have done a better job there than New York State; (3) he said that in the constant tension system on Amtrak, both the wire under which the pantograph ran and the support wire, were separately tensioned by pulleys and weights, whereas on Metro North, the support wire and the running wire were coupled together once they had reached a point outside of the tracks and were tensioned by only one set of pulleys and one weight. He noted that the support wire and the running wire were different kinds of wire, and raised the question of whether they might expand and contract differently, and wondered whether the Amtrak system of tensioning was not better. In conclusion, he recognized that there were portions of the Connecticut catenary replacement yet to be done and wondered whether the design should be looked at. Mr. Colonese said that he was prepared to talk about that.
With respect to the replacement of the old Stamford parking garage, Mr. Colonese said that it would take 24-36 months to design a new garage.
Mr. Steele asked about the question of who was taking care of fixing the lighting at Fairfield Station platforms, and Mr. Colonese said that money was required for a new conduit. In response to a question about the Council’s “Fix My Station” campaign last year, Mr. Richter said that there was $5 million in the Governor’s budget proposal for fixing stations. Mr. Cameron asked when, after the new fiscal year starts July 1st, would the repairs begin. Mr. Richter said that CDOT must first consult with the Towns to decide who was responsible for which repairs. Mr. Cameron asked why, knowing that funding would be available July 1st, those negotiations had not begun months earlier.
BRANCH LINES
Commuters from Waterbury who attended the meeting, once again spoke of the desire for an earlier morning train from Waterbury to GCT and an additional afternoon train that was more appropriately timed for Waterbury line passengers who work in New York. There was also a question about a portion of the Waterbury line that has a second track which frequently has freight cars on it. One passenger wondered why that could not be used as a passing track. Mr. Richter said that the second track was not appropriate to be used for passenger trains, and another passenger said that it was used for passenger trains. The commuters claimed that Waterbury ridership would go up considerably if trains were at more appropriate times.
Mr. Chabot once again mentioned the absence of a telephone at Talmadge Hill Station. Mr. Martin said that he would see that it was taken care of.
Mr. Jelley spoke about the man, who works at the Engineering Department at Yale, who uses a wheelchair and takes the 7:41 Shore Line East train from Guilford to State Street. Mr. Jelley said that he knew that the man in the wheelchair had had elevator problems at State Street before, and on the day of the meeting, saw him still at State Street when Mr. Jelley arrived on the following train. The man said that the elevator had not worked until he had investigated and discovered that the electric eye was not working because the reflector was dirty, and after he had cleaned the reflector, he was able to use the elevator but had to wait for the next bus. Mr. Jelley went on to say that in the afternoon, he had himself examined the elevator and was not able to find the electric eye. He said that the man in the wheelchair said that he had been told previously by an elevator repairman that the elevator was not serviced on a regular basis but was only fixed when it didn’t work. Mr. Jelley went on to say that the elevator in the building in which he works in New Haven is serviced weekly, and he believed that weekly service was the standard in the industry. Mr. Colonese said that there is obviously maintenance done on the elevator but that he would check to see when it is done.
MEET THE COMMUTER DAY
There was discussion about having a Meet The Commuter day, and Stamford was chosen as the station to do it at.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Cameron was re-elected as Chairman for the next fiscal year and Ms. Cronin and Mr. Steele were re-elected as Vice Chairmen. Mr. Jelley will continue to serve as Secretary.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. A summer meeting will take place on Wed., August 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in Stamford, with the location TBA somewhere in the Government Center.
Bob Jelley
Secretary
Phone: (203) 498-4306
e-mail : rjelley@wiggin.com
\88888888\1005\657333.1
