Amtrak to Long Island

[jis]

I think that just the facility to buy an add-on segment to an Amtrak itinerary that allows the passenger to avail of a commuter segment to get to/from his/her final/initial destination/origination point, is easy to handle. It is basically a Thruway-like deal, and operates nicely on say the NJT Atlantic City Line. Those tickets would be sold only by Amtrak, and would require no linking up of ticketing systems. Amtrak can choose to designate certain groups of commuter stations as a Thruway Zone and issue a Zone segment ticket, and arrange with the commuter agencies to accept such tickets. Amtrak would use its ticketing system to track and transfer revenues for the same to the actual operator of the segment.

So for LIRR for example Amtrak could designate three add-on tickets - Zone 4 for $7 (Jamaica + Far Rockaway, West Hempstead, Hempstead, Port Washington), Zone 10 (Patchogue/Medford/Port Jeff)) for $16 and all zones for $25, or some appropriate discount agreed to by LIRR, any station upto and including the stations mentioned covered from NYP. So if I am coming in on the LSL and want to go to Babylon, I'd get the Zone 9 add-on and LIRR would collect that ticket allowing me to connect from the LSL to any train to Babylon, and of course vice-versa too. I think something like that s workable. The Amtrak issued ticket may cost a bit more than an LIRR issued ticket, since Amtrak would probably not issue tickets for each of the zone for simplicity's sake.

Making it possible for Commuter Agency TVMs to sell Amtrak tickets is a completely different ball of wax and is most likely too complicated and costly to contemplate.

 

[DingDong]

What's interesting is that Amtrak already runs a whole bunch of the US commuter network under contract (Metrolink, Shore Line East, etc.). You'd think that would make it easier to do interline ticketing (or at least displaying the commuter schedules and destinations on the Amtrak ticketing website).

If they're just getting paid to run the trains, then no, I don't think that would have much bearing on their ability to cross-ticket.

Yes, of course. But I meant that they already have relationships with many commuter authorities, have developed trust with, and also presumably have a lot do with, or at least have access to, the schedule and fare information of these railroads. That's not enough, but it should be an important start.

 

[DingDong]

There's no advantage for local commuter systems to take part in such a system. Any transfers from Amtrak to local commuter trains probably wouldn't increase ridership or revenue that much for the commuter trains. As stated above, the commuter just sell tickets without regard to who will be riding what train. There would be little gain for the commuter authorities and probably a lot of cost to link up with an Amtrak intercity ticket sales computer system.

Metrolink does it, although thats with Amtrak California.

Metrolink offers interline ticketing with Amtrak California? I can't find anything about that elsewhere on the web.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Why can't Amtrak do something like they do with Atlantic City. You can buy tickets for Atlantic City on NJ Transit via Amtrak. Maybe this shouldn't be done for parallel lines, but just think a National Train System where you can buy tickets to places not just served by Amtrak but other commuter railroads. It would have to help the railorad indistry on a whole. Maybe not though.

It is not exactly that difficult to buy tickets for LIRR at NYP. It is a commuter train system, no reservations needed. Just walk up to the ticket machine and buy a ticket. For intercity transportation, we could use more integration or sharing in buying tickets, but for commuter trains I don't see much benefit to the idea.

I see large benefits. Imagine I live in Danbury and want to go to Philadelphia (or vice versa). Now, I'm likely to drive to Stamford and just take Amtrak directly, or maybe just drive the whole way. It takes work to figure out what Metro North train you want to leave on, where you should make a connection, how much time you should give yourself etc. etc. I know people on this forum probably know that you connect at Stamford and you would probably enjoy comparing the MNRR schedule to the Amtrak one to figure out what two trains go together. But most people aren't railfans. It would mean a lot, I should think, if the average person could go to amtrak.com, put in Danbury and Philadelphia and have the computer do all the thinking for him/her.

This.

I should be able to go to Amtrak.com and make a Pittsburgh to Jamaica NY city pair and the computer puts me on the 42 to NYP with a connection to another train with "service provided by LIRR".

When I book my flights to Cologne Germany on Lufthansa, the final leg of my journey is Lufthansa flight # LHXXX operated DeutscheBahn. That is the way it should work.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I absolutely agree with the idea of selling inter-line tickets universally across the US. US has to be one of the few countries in the work that does not have interline ticket clearing house for RRs.

Any ideas on why it has not happened?

Because commuter railroads fall under the jurisdiction of transit authorities, and, among other challenges:

1) Transit authorities generally don't have reservations systems and, for the most part, have only basic/rudimentary ticketing systems (even the fancy Cubic/GFI vending machines that you see in large train stations don't really do much except sell you a fare from A to B). Amtrak's system is based around reserving space on a specific train (even for unreserved trains, you still have to pick a train when booking your trip). Transit systems would need to generate some kind of feed that would input a schedule, and fares, into Arrow or whatever ticketing system was ultimately used. They would probably argue that the added cost of doing so (individually) would not be covered with higher overall fares, and therefore they can't do it. Metra in Chicago, for example, didn't even take credit cards until recently (they claim due to the cost), and except for Millennium Station, do not have ticket vending machines anywhere. Other than that, all ticketing is done manually (again, they claim it would cost too much to convert to a system that uses vending machines).

Those schedule data dumps are already available. Nearly all major transit authorities supply the raw feed to whomever wants to request it.

This is a problem because:

2) Transit is horribly, terribly, atrociously underfunded in the US. Most of the rest of the world has money available to develop/implement common ticketing systems. In the US, every transit system is for itself, and getting even neighboring transit systems to come to an agreement on fare integration, let alone a system where someone could start their trip on SEPTA, ride to 30th Street, take Amtrak to Boston, and ride MBTA all on one ticket, is extremely difficult.

The core systems to do such a thing already exist. Yes they need to be implemented in the U.S., but they wouldn't be reinventing the wheel. For example, SEPTA can already sell me a ticket from 30th Street to Princeton (actual, not Junction), with the last two tickets the machine spits out applying to the NJT parts of the trip. Amtrak can do through ticketing to Atlantic City on NJT....

The vestigial parts are already there and in place.

This results in a situation where:

3) Transit systems have different fare structures and rules and policies. There is no nationwide standard for transit fare payment (and this ties into 2) above), and developing one would require every system to agree on things, and then take tons of money to implement. Some systems are proof-of-payment based, where a ticket is only valid for a certain period of time after you purchase it. Other systems use conductor lift (similar to Amtrak), where a ticket is valid until used (or until a certain expiration date) and a conductor lifts it/takes it/hole punches it/staples it/eats it/folds it up/throws it away.

A time-based proof-of-payment ticket wouldn't work on Amtrak today because you wouldn't know if your train was going to be on time or not. Some systems have ticket validators, but then you'd need to change Amtrak's ticketing, and standardize on something that could work in a universal validator (so that once you arrive, you can validate your ticket and have it good for the next train out).

Trying to impose a federal mandate that transit systems standardize their fare collection policies to work with a nationwide rail network would offend all sorts of "states rights" folks. Having a system be compatible with dozens (hundreds?) of different fare and ticketing systems so that each could run their own would be unmanageable. Yet one or the other would pretty much be necessary in order to implement this kind of service.

None of which can't be overcome, especially with E-Ticketing coming online very very soon.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

There's no advantage for local commuter systems to take part in such a system. Any transfers from Amtrak to local commuter trains probably wouldn't increase ridership or revenue that much for the commuter trains. As stated above, the commuter just sell tickets without regard to who will be riding what train. There would be little gain for the commuter authorities and probably a lot of cost to link up with an Amtrak intercity ticket sales computer system.

I disagree. I think SEPTA and NJT would rather appreciate interline ticketing. Amtrak being able to sell me a ticket from Pittsburgh to Doylestown or Newtown or Atlantic City would push more people into the commuter railroads and away from the rental car counter.

A novice traveler heading to Doylestown from Pittsburgh would book a train to TRE and then rent a car to go the rest of the way. If I could book through to Doylestown without leaving Amtrak.com, I could just have my grandmother drive over to pick me up at the station. In the process, SEPTA gains a rider.

 

[trainman74]

Metrolink offers interline ticketing with Amtrak California? I can't find anything about that elsewhere on the web.

There's no actual interline ticketing, but there's a bit more integration than you get with other commuter railroads:

1. Metrolink ticket vending machines can perform many of the functions of an Amtrak Quik-Trak machine.

2. Metrolink monthly passes for Ventura County Line and Orange County Line trains are also valid on Pacific Surfliners.

3. All Metrolink and Amtrak tickets are cross-honored on Metrolink and Pacific Surfliners between L.A. Union Station and Burbank-Bob Hope Airport.

 

[DingDong]

To give you an idea of the possible, take a look at Die Bahn's website: www.bahn.de -- put in any two points in Europe and it will give you the schedules between them. Within Germany and some other countries, it has everything down to streetcar schedules (in the periphery, e.g., Russia, Turkey, the schedules aren't as detailed and seem only to include long-distance routes). Ferries? Also there, along with some buses. It's fun to check Cork to Moscow schedules, or Narvik to Istanbul or Lisbon to Palermo.

It can't sell you a ticket unless the travel actually originates in Germany or is on a DB train (and maybe a few other cases), but it makes travel within Europe by rail so much easier.

 

[Ozark Southern]

This happens around the world, and especially in countries reputed for their transit systems. Heck, where I now live (in Paris) the subway system interlines with commuter rail, and even local buses operated by private companies! In your subway station, you can buy a ticket to an outer suburb, including the subway trip, and the connecting train. Your monthly pass is good on any bus, train or street car operating within your pass' zones, anywhere in the region (and there are something like 50 operators!).

As a testament to the efficiency of this system, I actually had no idea there was more than one operator until this very moment. I took whatever subway/commuter train/bus I needed to all around Paris. The system just got me where I needed to go, and I never had to think about it.

 

[Blue Marble Travel]

VIA has started doing interline tickets in Montreal:

http://www.viarail.ca/en/about-via-rail/media-room/latest-news/1790/26-april-2012-via-rail-canada-and-the-agence-metropolitaine-de-transport-announce-

 

[Anderson]

It's a shame that, at the very least, this can't be done more on the NEC (were you do have interline ticket observation, albeit often with an upcharge, between Amtrak and commuter agencies...either on weekends/holidays or in general). Of course, that would involve getting seven or so commuter agencies onboard (VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, SLE, and MBTA at the very least)...but that's one place that this would probably be a bit easier to manage. Of note, I think that all of the listed agencies operate on at least some of the same tracks as Amtrak does.

Of course, this does harken back to an idea in the 80s to create an "Amtrak Commuter" agency of sorts in the NEC that went nowhere (and resulted in the odd situation of the Clockers, where Amtrak was basically running commuter trains for NJ and PA...and when Amtrak dropped the Clockers, through service at the commuter level went with it). Part of the problem tends to be getting any group of states to stay on the same page (witness the trouble with some interstate corridors...coughIowacough)...and of course, the other end is the fact that the Feds don't step in and support many of these agencies on a reliable, continuing basis.

 

[jis]

It's a shame that, at the very least, this can't be done more on the NEC (were you do have interline ticket observation, albeit often with an upcharge, between Amtrak and commuter agencies...either on weekends/holidays or in general). Of course, that would involve getting seven or so commuter agencies onboard (VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR, SLE, and MBTA at the very least)...but that's one place that this would probably be a bit easier to manage. Of note, I think that all of the listed agencies operate on at least some of the same tracks as Amtrak does.

and LIRR.

I have no idea what operating on the same tracks has to do with getting a common fare instrument or being able to issue tickets spanning multiple agencies. All that is a pre-requisite is that there is a customer need for cross-agency travel, and that there is in the NE.

My suspicion is that the New York/Philly area agencies are drifting towards the same open standard based smart card. Not clear whether Amtrrak will get involved in such at all.

Of course, this does harken back to an idea in the 80s to create an "Amtrak Commuter" agency of sorts in the NEC that went nowhere (and resulted in the odd situation of the Clockers, where Amtrak was basically running commuter trains for NJ and PA...and when Amtrak dropped the Clockers, through service at the commuter level went with it). Part of the problem tends to be getting any group of states to stay on the same page (witness the trouble with some interstate corridors...coughIowacough)...and of course, the other end is the fact that the Feds don't step in and support many of these agencies on a reliable, continuing basis.

There was no "Amtrak Commuter" as such. Amtrak inherited the Clocker and Keystone services. It struck a deal with NJT to have it subsidized in exchange for NJT monthly tickets being valid on them, and a similar subsidy deal on Keystones later. Good old Barb, when she was dreaming up the Acela branding fiasco posited something called Acela Commuter, a moniker that was going to be applied to the Clockers and Keystones. That of course never happened, and Clockers were finally taken over by NJT. No one really wanted Amtrak to get into Commuter business on the NEC given that there are half a dozen outfits that are supposed to be doing that anyway. Amtrak's remit is to do intercity higher speed service on the NEC, and that is the way it should be.

The Springfield Corridor will get CDoT run commuter service soon as has New Haven - New London. This will further allow Amtrak to concentrate on its primary mission. Meanwhile the arguments will continue about how many Regionals should stop at more local stops.

 

[Anderson]

jls,

I think you're misreading what I was referring to. When the Feds pulled Conrail out of the commuter businesses they inherited from Conrail (the pullout was in '83, IIRC), I believe that an above-state-level agency was considered as an option (i.e. in lieu of NJT and SEPTA handling business with a "fun" cut in service at the state border, there would be a unified agency). This had nothing to do with the Acela branding fiasco...and obviously, it also never came to pass.

It comes up because there's now talk of extending commuter service to cover the gap between Perryville, MD and Newark, DE (IIRC), and SLE and MBTA seem to be creeping together as well. I guess what bugs me is why you have 8 or so agencies doing the same thing with erratic territorial gaps and/or overlaps (I forget the relationship, but IIRC there's some overlap between NJT and MNRR west of the Hudson since some of the lines leave NY, enter NJ, and then head back into NY as they go north). Does that make sense?

 

[jis]

It comes up because there's now talk of extending commuter service to cover the gap between Perryville, MD and Newark, DE (IIRC), and SLE and MBTA seem to be creeping together as well. I guess what bugs me is why you have 8 or so agencies doing the same thing with erratic territorial gaps and/or overlaps (I forget the relationship, but IIRC there's some overlap between NJT and MNRR west of the Hudson since some of the lines leave NY, enter NJ, and then head back into NY as they go north). Does that make sense?

The reason is easy to explain. The number of people who cross those territorial gaps are miniscule when compared to the numbers that travel towards the focal point of each agency. Large agencies would be a disaster under those circumstances, and I know that at least NJ would strenuously oppose losing some amount of autonomy that they have with NJT, because of the danger of getting second class citizenship status in an outfit that mostly serves New York. There are similar issues involved with the other agencies too. The way territorial gaps will be crossed are by judicious joint services where both states agree to step upto the plate. The reason there is no through service between New york and Philadelphia is mainly because PA is unwilling or unable to cough up their share. They are even unwilling or unable to pony up for a station in Morrisville which will be used entirely by Pennsylvanians.

What they should be able to achieve rather easily is through ticketing, as NJT and SEPTA already has, but surprisingly NJT and MTA seem to be unable to so far.

 

[SubwayNut]

Metro-North, an interstate railroad, has an extremely complicated relationship with the state of Connecticut since it runs the New Haven Line directly into that state. I know that for equipment purchases for example they must be funded 75% connecticut, 25% MTA. The reason the newest New Haven Line cars, the M8s took so long to be built is because of getting funding from Connecticut as part of their agreement and why that line had a total meltdown (service was even reduced) in last year's terrible winter. The Harlem and New Haven Lines got new cars from the M7s a few years ago (and Metro-North said directly that they wanted new New Haven Line cars but were waiting for the State of Connecticut). I don't know how the agreement governs the diesel fleet but you routinely see Connecticut locomotives and Shoreliners on the Harlem and Hudson Lines. For example, last weekend I went up to Wassaic and my shuttle train from Southeast had a New Haven Line Locomotive and 3 Red CDOT owned Shoreliners. The Connecticut Danbury and Waterbury Shuttles routinely use Metro-North owned locomotives and Rolling stock

For the West of Hudson Service Metro-North is like the State of Connecticut contracting out to New Jersey Transit for operations. Thru-ticketing is complete here, all tickets are simply NJ Transit Tickets. They own some rolling stock and their Locomotives and Comets see service on plenty of Bergen County/Main Line trains that stay within the state of New Jersey and are not extended to Port Jervis. These diesel trains all originate in Hoboken (you need to transfer in Secaucus for an electric into Penn Station) so only enter New York once.

The MTA Railroads and NJ Transit have tried some through ticketing and even trains with football specials running from New Haven over the Hell Gate Bridge to Secaucus Junction using NJT MultiLevels and as part of that agreement a ticket can be purchased from any Metro-North or LIRR Station to the Meadowlands. The main problem with this are the Secaucus and EWR Airport stations that have fare gates. All NJT ten-trips and round trips are individual one-way tickets with magnetic strips (even for trips nowhere near these stations) while on the LIRR and Metro-North you get one ticket the conductor punches per ride.

I agree that through ticketing would be good so I could go up to any TVM and buy one ticket to any SEPTA, NJT, LIRR, Metro-North, and Shore Line East would be beneficial. (although that would be a ton of stations to have to scroll through). The only problem with Metro-North and Shore Line East is that they go to GCT and everything else goes or connects to Penn Station.

 

[DingDong]

I know that at least NJ would strenuously oppose losing some amount of autonomy that they have with NJT, because of the danger of getting second class citizenship status in an outfit that mostly serves New York.

I don't doubt that New Jersey Transit would strenuously oppose being lumped into a regional agency, but there a number of bistate regional agencies that work fairly well. One example would be the Port Authority and PATH. Another is the New Haven Line in Connecticut--I've never heard Connecticut complain that the MTA treats it like a second-class citizen.

 

[jis]

I know that at least NJ would strenuously oppose losing some amount of autonomy that they have with NJT, because of the danger of getting second class citizenship status in an outfit that mostly serves New York.

I don't doubt that New Jersey Transit would strenuously oppose being lumped into a regional agency, but there a number of bistate regional agencies that work fairly well. One example would be the Port Authority and PATH. Another is the New Haven Line in Connecticut--I've never heard Connecticut complain that the MTA treats it like a second-class citizen.

NJTransit does not do anything that the Governor of NJ does not want done. The entire NJT Board is the Governor's chosen people and NJT essentially is the fiefdom of the Governor. One of the reasons that NJT has been hard to be brought into a better governance situation is that no Governor of NJ so far has wanted to give up their absolute control.

Actually it is not at all clear that the PANYNJ really works that well. But that is another argument for another forum another day. If PANYNJ is the example for justifying another such, then we are better off not going down that route IMHO.

 

[Chris S]

How the MTA Make Its Two Commuter Railroads More Efficient.

The MTA seems only to implement small changes. They have not made more aggressive changes in order to get more support of all modes of public transportation. The public transport must be accessible, convenient, reliable and frequent. Public transport must also be simple and direct so that a person can get to their final destination. Here on Long Island, the LIRR however seems to have two classes service for their commuters. One type service is at electrified stations. These stations in most cases offer the criteria of convenient, reliable and frequent service. This type also offers simple and direct so that a person can get to their final destination. The second type is train service from non- electrified stations. This train service from these maybe reliable, but is sometimes not convenient because it is not frequent as electrified stations.

To bring better train service to non- electrified rail lines access to Penn Station for the LIRR. Better access to Penn Station means the start of train service from Metro-North Upper Hudson Division to Penn Station and continues onto the Long Island Railroads Upper Port Jefferson Branch after a change of crews. This type of train service is similar to Amtrak Baseball Special which operated between Albany and Shea Stadium Station, on the LIRR Port Washington Branch.

This would give the Long Island Railroads Upper Port Jefferson Branch more direct through train service to a Manhattan Railroad Terminal. At present the LIRR Upper Port Jefferson Branch, only offers two peak round trips and some holiday service through service to Penn Station. This year they have modified their direct train service to Penn by offering one round trip on a modified weekend schedule during bad weather on Monday –Friday. There one round to and from Penn Station for some special events and holidays.

All commuters have to remember that the Eastside Access to Grand Central is for electric trains; the Long Island Railroads’ non-electric lines commuters who live near the Upper Port Jefferson Branch, would have to ether drive and park their car at an electrified station or change trains probably at Jamaica to get the same destination. This defeats the purpose of having fewer cars on the road and not making the MTA’s two commuter railroads more efficient. The LIRR’s Eastside Access to Grand Central should also incorporate through Metro-North’s Lower Hudson Division and Harlem Division electrified portion with some of the LIRR electrified routes. This could be done third rail adjustable shoes.We do however have great transportation system under the MTA, but it still needs a little refinement to make it better. It would also stop the problem of bunching of passengers at electrified station which mark the end of electrification. The term bunching of passengers, means, large amounts of passengers scramble for certain seats as the train stops at the station. This is partly caused by people who live near non-electrified station, but drive an electrified station for better train service and use these trains.

Though train service via Penn Station should also be discussed with New Jersey Transit and Amtrak’s other routes, once New Jersey Transits new dual powered catenary locomotives are proven reliable

All these railroads should have representatives meet to discuss this issue and come up with a plan and implement it.

If you want more detailed information please read about proposal by Metro-North, to operate beach trains to Long Island using dual mode train sets. See New York Times Articles 1991-1993. One such article is entitled “‘back To the Beach”. Metro-North did not go through with this at the time, because they said it not generate enough passengers to cover the fare. Also See Newsday July 1991 article for more info on Albany and Port Jefferson Station train.

This interstate train service between Metro-North and the LIRR, would give Long Islands sport fans better access to trains to Yankee Stadium at Metro-North’s Yonkers Station.

Let’s find and spend public dollars wisely for all commuters who use our railroads and improve service.

Please contact the MTA and your New York State Legislator in written form on this matter. and tell them that you want better train service for non electrified areas of the Long Island Railroad.

 

[MikefromCrete]

All this talk of through ticketing, through trains and a regional oversight is very nice, but most commuter rail traffic is travel to and from a central city. Philadelphia has trains that run from suburb to suburb through the central city but I doubt if many passengers actually travel that way. Local agencies serve the people who pay for them. Lumping SEPTA, NJT, MN, LI into one big agency would be a bureaucratic nightmare that would please no one.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsday.com/amp/long-island/amtrak-passenger-service-lirr-mta-1.26280998

Perhaps Amtrak service on Long Island may actually happen at some point. I would be shocked if Amtrak started doing engine changes at NYP, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility of service to ALB or even future NEC service with dual modes or MUs. It does seem strange to me that service to Boston is explicitly mentioned, considering how circuitous that route is, the fact that it would require changing direction at NYP, and the existence of ferries from LI to Connecticut, some of which make Amtrak connections.

 

[jis]

Or it may simple be to enable through service between MNRR (Hudson Line) and LIRR for starter. In involves no reversing at Penn Station even.

Yeah mention of Boston is a bit strange.

 

[railiner]

Yeah mention of Boston is a bit strange.

Agreed.   It would be running in the opposite direction of the original historical purpose of the building of the LIRR in the 19th century....to link New York and Boston, by running trains to Greenport, then ferry to Connecticut, then back on trains to Boston.  The completion of the  all-rail route along the Connecticut shoreline ended that.

 

[cpotisch]

I honestly don't really see the market for direct intercity service to Long Island. There are several different lines to serve, and to transfer to Amtrak, it's just one easy transfer in Penn Station, so is this really worth all the time and money? 

 

[jis]

I honestly don't really see the market for direct intercity service to Long Island. There are several different lines to serve, and to transfer to Amtrak, it's just one easy transfer in Penn Station, so is this really worth all the time and money? 

What exactly is the additional time and money involved other than tinkering a bit with the coded cab signal receiver to accept the single additional alternative code used by LIRR, in the P32ACDMs or future dual modes?

Of course for any additional service some additional equipment would be required. But that is true for any additional service, and is not specific to this particular one.

MNRR could run through service from the Hudson Line to some point, any point, in LI to avoid having to turn Hudson Line trains to Penn Station (if and when that happens) in Penn Station.