Passenger Trains > DC Metro Rail cancels "rush hour", sort of

Washington Post reports on a proposal to reduce train service during the traditional rush hour as "9 to 5" workers diminish.  The agency intends to use more bus service, and "spread out" rail operations.  The so called peak service fares will stick around, however.

Paywall likely:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-train-bus/2021/02/16/c0aa812a-7090-11eb-b8a9-b9467510f0fe_story.html

I believe I read something similar regarding Metra in Chicago, proabably not to the same extent.
My take is if peak ridership does not return to a large extent, say over a 5 year period then the viability of many routes will be in doubt.

Bob
Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Washington Post reports on a proposal to reduce
> train service during the traditional rush hour as
> "9 to 5" workers diminish.  The agency intends to
> use more bus service, and "spread out" rail
> operations.  The so called peak service fares
> will stick around, however.
>
> Paywall likely: 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcom
> muting/metro-train-bus/2021/02/16/c0aa812a-7090-11
> eb-b8a9-b9467510f0fe_story.html

Highway traffic should also improve.

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

I have always believed rush hour surcharges were a classic ripoff of the lower wage workers who have no schedule flexibility.   Worse yet, WMATA has an ugly history of not providing the promised frequent service through the surcharge period.  

Monthly passes are the work-around of paying peak fares. Off peak fares are intended to lure people with options off of rush hour trains.
WMATA's peak hours should be reduced form 4 to 2 hours since the schedules no longer reflect it. 
 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Monthly passes are the work-around of paying peak
> fares. Off peak fares are intended to lure people
> with options off of rush hour trains.
> WMATA's peak hours should be reduced form 4 to 2
> hours since the schedules no longer reflect it. 
>  

Low-income travelers who are financially burdened by peak period surcharges also find it difficult to come up with enough money to purchase monthly passes.

Best I know Metra has no peak pricing, maybe just high all the time?

I don't see logic in peak pricing, commuter railroads exist for "rush hour" and just fill in during the day.

As has been noted, monthly pass is less desirable if workers are now on a more flexible schedule, ie not going in every day.

Bob

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Washington Post reports on a proposal to reduce
> train service during the traditional rush hour as
> "9 to 5" workers diminish.  The agency intends to
> use more bus service, and "spread out" rail
> operations.  The so called peak service fares
> will stick around, however.
>
> Paywall likely: 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcom
> muting/metro-train-bus/2021/02/16/c0aa812a-7090-11
> eb-b8a9-b9467510f0fe_story.html

This has already happened on the Caltrain commute service between San Francisco and San Jose/Gilroy.   There is no longer peak service for morning and evening rush hour periods.  Instead, trains travel at half-hour intervals throughout weekdays, with hourly services on weekends.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/21 12:02 by chakk.

Years ago, you would see people waiting outside the turnstiles Until The chime sounded at 9.15 am (?).

If you entered after, the card charge was 50% less.

Posted from Android

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Low-income travelers who are financially burdened
> by peak period surcharges also find it difficult
> to come up with enough money to purchase monthly
> passes.

On NY-MTA, the peak fare is not the surcharge; it is the regular fare. Everything else (off-peak, 10 trip ,weeklies, monthlies, seniors) are derived from it by formulas. But MN and LIRR are currently allowing use of off-peak fares at all times. Senior fare = 50% of the regular fare (rounded). 

There is a financial penalty when you buy four weekly unlimited NY cards versus buying a monthly. Used to be about 10% more costly to use weekly cards.

Posted from Android

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a financial penalty when you buy four
> weekly unlimited NY cards versus buying a monthly.
> Used to be about 10% more costly to use weekly
> cards.
>
True. Financially challenged people who commute daily still buy weeklies, though more expensive in the long run, since they seldom have enough cash or credit line at the time to afford the monthly.  About 7% of NYC residents have no bank account.  

Unlimited 7 day Metrocard = $33 (four of them in a row = $132).
Unlimited 30 day Metrocard = $127

Commuter railroads are very arcane, still on a rigid Sunday-Friday weekly and calendar monthly, not floating 7 and 30 days.
Their rationale is most people are done with weeklies on Friday; they would toss them on the floor on the way home, and someone would pick them up and use them for "free" travel over the weekend. 
LIRR Zone 7 weekly to west of Jamaica = $98.50 (four of them in a row = $394)
LIRR Zone 7 monthly to west of Jamaica = $308

People with 1099 and W2 six month or similar contract jobs and academic types don't commute on a consistent monthly basis, so get screwed at the beginning and end of their terms. 

MTA revenue departments are too stubborn to come out of the last century.
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/21 10:19 by joemvcnj.

NJT got rid of their off peak fares for commuter rail routes years ago; in fact, a little over a decade. Now people have to the same fares and a high price for crappy service. Passengers shouldn't have to pay very expensive ticket prices for service that is very crappy. NJT commuter rail still has a long way to go.

I don't think the MTA should be charging very high fares for Long Island Railroad and Metro North passengers. The fares need to be reduced, regardless of how many upper class people may live in Westchester and Nassau Counties in NY State as well as Fairfield County in Connecticut.

Passfanatic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NJT got rid of their off peak fares for commuter
> rail routes years ago; in fact, a little over a
> decade. Now people have to the same fares and a
> high price for crappy service. Passengers
> shouldn't have to pay very expensive ticket prices
> for service that is very crappy. NJT commuter rail
> still has a long way to go.
>
> I don't think the MTA should be charging very high
> fares for Long Island Railroad and Metro North
> passengers. The fares need to be reduced,
> regardless of how many upper class people may live
> in Westchester and Nassau Counties in NY State as
> well as Fairfield County in Connecticut.

How will the MTA and NJT pay for the improvements they want to make, notably the new Hudson River Tunnels?

My guess? They will ask the federal government to take money from every other state to fund their pet projects. Fares need to be raised, not lowered.

Posted from iPhone

altoonafn Wrote:-
> How will the MTA and NJT pay for the improvements
> they want to make, notably the new Hudson River
> Tunnels?
>
> My guess? They will ask the federal government to
> take money from every other state to fund their
> pet projects. Fares need to be raised, not
> lowered.

MTA does not use the Hudson River tunnels. Amtrak and NJT do.
Fares on transit system cover parts of the operating budgets, not capital budgets.
In case you forgot, we all had to pay for I-99.  You did not seem to mind paying for I-70 thru Glenwood Canyon, Colorado's "pet project".
 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/21 07:15 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> altoonafn Wrote:-
> > How will the MTA and NJT pay for the
> improvements
> > they want to make, notably the new Hudson River
> > Tunnels?
> >
> > My guess? They will ask the federal government
> to
> > take money from every other state to fund their
> > pet projects. Fares need to be raised, not
> > lowered.
>
> MTA does not use the Hudson River tunnels. Amtrak
> and NJT do.
> Fares on transit system cover parts of the
> operating budgets, not capital budgets.
> In case you forgot, we all had to pay for I-99. 
> You did not seem to mind paying for I-70 thru
> Glenwood Canyon, Colorado's "pet project".
>  

MTA does in face use the Hudson River tunnels, as West of Hudson riders transfer at Seacaucus to other trains. Therefore, MTA does have a stake here. 

I wasn't old enough to have a say when those two highway projects were done. With that said, they are a clear part of a national system. NJT and MTA commuter rail improvement projects are not. 

altoonafn Wrote:

> MTA does in face use the Hudson River tunnels, as
> West of Hudson riders transfer at Sea caucus to
> other trains. Therefore, MTA does have a stake
> here. 

 Very tiny stake, less than 500 riders a day. Perhaps that sounds like a lot by Altoona standards. 

> I wasn't old enough to have a say when those two
> highway projects were done. With that said, they
> are a clear part of a national system. NJT and MTA
> commuter rail improvement projects are not. 

Too bad if you are not old enough, but transit projects all over the country have been a federal responsibility since the mid-1960's. Interstate Commerce is a FEDERAL responsibility. Read your Constitution. "National system" for highways means nothing. Most driving is local and/or by commuters.  If auto commuter and their rights of way can be federally funded, so can transit's. 
 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/21 11:53 by joemvcnj.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> altoonafn Wrote:
>
> > MTA does in face use the Hudson River tunnels,
> as
> > West of Hudson riders transfer at Sea caucus to
> > other trains. Therefore, MTA does have a stake
> > here. 
>
>  Very tiny stake, least than 500 riders a day.
> Perhaps that sounds like a lot by Altoona
> standards. 
>
> > I wasn't old enough to have a say when those
> two
> > highway projects were done. With that said,
> they
> > are a clear part of a national system. NJT and
> MTA
> > commuter rail improvement projects are not. 
>
> Too bad if you are not old enough, but transit
> projects all over the country have been a federal
> responsibility since the mid-1960's. Interstate
> Commerce is a FEDERAL responsibility. Read your
> Constitution. "National system" for highways
> means nothing. Most driving is local and/or by
> commuters.  If auto commuter and their rights of
> way can be federally funded, so can transit's. 
>  

And yet the federal government has decided that rail transpiration under 750 miles is a state issue, not a federal one. Except, of course, for the NEC for some reason.

I am simply proposing that NJ, NY, and the rest of the blue states in the northeast be treated the same as red states “flyover country” when it comes to passenger rail. Nobody using NJT or MTA rail services is traveling over 750 miles on them. Thus, any subsidy or capital programs should be funded locally.

Posted from iPhone

altoonafn Wrote:

> And yet the federal government has decided that
> rail transpiration under 750 miles is a state
> issue, not a federal one. Except, of course, for
> the NEC for some reason.

You are grasping straws. 

What Gardner, Lautenberg, and Boardman decided on how to subsidize Amtrak service has nothing to do with local transit funding, or how many state boundaries are crossed. Amtrak does not receive FTA funding.  That "some reason" is due to Amtrak's sense of entitlement to the NEC and all else is a hobby. 

> I am simply proposing that NJ, NY, and the rest of
> the blue states in the northeast be treated the
> same as red states “flyover country” when it
> comes to passenger rail. Nobody using NJT or MTA
> rail services is traveling over 750 miles on them.
> Thus, any subsidy or capital programs should be
> funded locally.

I don't like PRIIA-209 and think it should be abolished. It makes zero sense. The 750 miles is only relevant to Amtrak outside the NEC, and was politically decided to draw a line between the Carolinian and the Capitol Ltd. 

That is not a valid excuse to terminate federal transit funding. Those are totally unrelated issues.

Your time would be better spent trying to restore Harrisburg - Pittsburgh to the national network with a Three Rivers/Broadway Ltd, rather leave it solely at the mercy of an impoverished and highway-obsessed Penn DOT.

altoonafn Wrote:

> My guess? They will ask the federal government to take money from every other state to fund their pet projects. Fares need to be raised, not lowered.


How Many Times do folks need to be reminded that New York and New Jersey are Donor States that send Far more money off to the Federal Government than they get returned?

  https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/donor-states

It looks like Pennsylvania is a welfare state.  Perhaps you should give your money back to where it came from and let New York and New Jersey build some infrastructure...

Brian