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 17, 2009
SWRPA
STAMFORD, CT
Present were: Jim Cameron, Chairman; Rodney Chabot, Terri Cronin, Joe McGee, Drew Todd, and Sue Prosi, members of the Council; Ben Henson, SWRPA Regional Planner; Gene Colonese, Jeff Parker, and Jim Redecker, CDOT; John Longobardi, MNRR; Capt. Jim McKenna, MTA Police; Sgt. Henry Lennon, Stamford Police; Martin Cassidy, Stamford Advocate; John Austin Sr., Richard Stowe, and Kristan Tulp, members of the public.
The meeting began at 7:00 pm. The council did not have a quorum so the minutes of the May meeting were not approved. Gene Colonese requested changes to the May minutes.
i. In the 1st paragraph Gene’s comment at the Naugatuck meeting was that there were ‘limited opportunities’ for more trains to be added to the Waterbury line not that more trains could not be added
ii. The Bridge mentioned as part of the construction projects was in Ansonia not Derby
SWRPA Parking Study (4)
Ms. Prosi introduced Mr. Henson, a SWRPA staff planner, who presented the preliminary findings of the SWRPA parking study.
The study looked at parking throughout the SW region (Municipalities; Darien, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Weston, Westport, and Wilton) 19 stations in total, and only at facilities managed by town or state not spaces on the ‘black’ market. SWRPA staff conducted site visits and interviewed parking owners about their long-range plans, permit processes, and waitlist management.
They found that parking facilities are managed very differently at each station, there are multiple parties involved in the process, and Mr. Henson stated that he didn’t feel there was a correlation between cost and demand.
Capacity is managed very differently 2/3 of the stations over-issue their spaces, Westport by a ratio of approximately 3:1, Darien are under-issued by a ratio of approximately 0.6:1 with 1,114 people on the waiting list for an average of 60 months! There are approximately 9,000 people in the region waiting for a permit.
The cost of parking can also vary significantly, $225 USD Westport vs. $492 USD in New Canaan. Surface lots are typically ½ the price of covered lots / structures. Between 2002 – 2008 parking costs increased by an average of 25% region wide, this equates to an annual rate of 4% compared to cost of living increase of approximately 2%- 4% (2002-2008)
Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, and Westport are the only towns with parking websites; however, they have varying degrees of information and services.
Recommendations of the study included:
Creating a division in municipal government to allow communities to manage better the process, increasing the level of coordination and communication between operating entities, a cost increase to generate revenue and improve services, perhaps adopting a policy of regularly scheduled increases or at least a regular review, and looking at all the options for increasing capacity.
Improvements in capacity could be achieved by conducting regular counts of actual usage, making bus / pedestrian connections to schools and shopping, shared parking options / park ‘n’ ride, or even simply repainting / configuring layout to optimize parking capacity.
Better waitlist management with a uniform process across all towns would allow for greater transparency, a uniform permit would be optimal, though unlikely to be adopted.
Mr. Henson concluded the presentation and Mr. Cameron opened to the council for questions.
Mr. McGee commented on the nearly 9,000 people currently on the waiting list, Ms. Prosi suggested that these numbers might be inflated due to inefficient process management; many people that have applied may have moved, changed job, or just no longer require the permit. Mr. Henson was asked how many separate parking authorities are involved and he sated that this varies by station. Mr. Cameron suggested that the operators should get together and share best practices, Ms. Prosi advised that this process was started with a networking event.
Mr. Colonese commented that CDOT has spaces and the SWRPA Parking Study overlooks this. CDOT has been working with towns to determine appropriate costs. There is no major difference between the cost of a CDOT and municipal parking space. Gene Colonese is to provide a similar cost / usage table for CDOT spaces.
Mr. Parker noted that there is a wide variation in permits issued to available spaces, 2.6:1 – 1:1 and asked if there was a recommendation as to the appropriate ratio.
Members commented that some people are hording and even subletting parking permits. Mr. Chabot mentioned that in New Canaan you can get a partial refund for a parking permit but still get a new permit the following year, he suggested that this is a good incentive to counter hording.
CDOT RAIL STATION PARKING TASK FORCE
Jim Cameron asked for a brief update regarding the status of the Rail Station Parking Task Force. Mr. Redecker advised that the final nominees have been received and the first meeting of the members has been scheduled for July 7. The objectives of this first meeting are to establish where we are today, what projects are in the works, where we looking to go in the future, and a general brainstorming session.
UPDATE ON M8’S (3)
The council had received word that the M8’s had failed their stress tests, Mr. Cameron stated that he had contacted Mr. Tom Tendy for comment but he had not received a response. The incident occurred during the normal required test, which for the most part went well. There were some areas that will need work, the train was ‘squeezed’ and there was a failure around window sill, this was minor and they believe that it can easily be corrected, the failure was described as a wrinkling of the metal around the sill. Kawasaki has already designed something and Metro North has approved the correction.
The council asked if this was an FRA mandated test, Mr. Longobardi and the representatives from couldn’t say, just that it was a part of the specifications. The council was eager to know if it will it slow delivery, Mr. Longobardi did not think so that the correction could be easily corrected on the next car shell. The council inquired about the delivery schedule questioned the response, originally advised that the cars would be in use in January but the message in this meeting had been early 2010 1st Quarter. They were assured that the agreed upon delivery schedule had not be changed.
CDOT were asked id the MTA had paid its portion of purchase price. Mr. Parker thinks they are still waiting for approval of the cab plan. Mr. Cameron asked if CT had paid all the costs to date, Mr. Colonese advised that NY had paid 100,000,000.
The council asked about the option to buy more cars, 210 were included in original deal, they took 1st option for additional 90 cars, the next option is for an additional 80 cars but the deadline for this decision is still 2 years away. CDOT advise that they would need to wait for the MTA’s budget to be finalized before they could consider exercising the additional 80 option.
MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT (7)
Mr. Longobardi ran through the Major incidents on the operations report.
· Lost power in Cos Cob this was caused by a problem with the sub station and has now been rectified
· A police incident that delayed the train by 1hr 15 min
· Wire damage to track 1 at Pelham they lost 2 inbound tracks for a period of time, the wire snagged on 1 of the new pantographs, there was no damage to the pantograph and it didn’t come down.
· Mr. Todd reported an incident that occurred on May 26, 1 train was cancelled 12:40 PM, the announcements indicated that the next train was at 1:40 PM, but there was actually another train at 1:20 PM. Drew Todd pointed to the poor communication during this incident and John Longobardi said he would look into it.
Mr. Cameron asked if it would be possible to get emails every time there is a delayed train, a twitter like service, as opposed to just major incidents, he suggested that this would be better that the alternative of ill informed commuter groups posting inaccurate or incomplete information. Mr. Cameron said that perhaps the council should raise the issue at the next meeting when there is a larger MTA contingent.
Ms Prosi commented on the importance of making frequent announcements when there are delays on the train, and said that this could not be expressed enough.
Ms. Cronin inquired about the bar car sat north of Stamford train station, the council was advised that the car needs a heavy repair job and there is no room in the yard at this time. The council inquired about the Bar Car Wrap initiative and Mr. Colonese advised that the interest in this by advertisers has declined and is not currently being pursued.
RAIL FEASILITY STUDY JUNE 17, 2009
Mr. Cameron attended this meeting, the 1st of 3, and recounted to the council some of the comments made. It was a spirited discussion and many commuters expressed their frustration. Many of comments made were in line with the feedback received at the Waterbury CRCC meeting in May.
There were complaints about poor cleaning; one commuter reported seeing vomit on the morning train. Mr. Longobardi advised that this should not happen as the trains are cleaned every night in New Haven, he noted that the reason the VRE cars are much cleaner is because they see fewer riders. Mr. Colonese added that as the schedule for the morning train is very tight there is not as much cleaning time as they would like. There are scheduling changes that should alleviate this problem, giving the crews an additional 3 hours to clean.
FOLLOW-UP TO NAUGATUCK MEETING ON MAY 20, 2009 (6)
Mr. Redecker was able to report that the conditions at the Waterbury train station have been substantially improved since May. The brush was cleared and they are in the process of installing security cameras in the hope of further deterring the vandalism at the station, the station now has a regular monthly maintenance schedule.
Capt. McKenna talked further about the security improvements at the Waterbury station; the MTA police have increased their patrols, as have the Waterbury police department. Capt. McKenna then introduced Sgt. Lennon to talk about the Viker behavioral detection officers, part of the Patriot program started by MTA Police to give tools to officers already on patrol. This is achieved without any additional cost. Sgt. Lennon said that the often used phrase “The nail that stands out gets hammered” sums up the focus of the training.
PROPOSED FARE INCREASE – DISCUSSION (1)
The budgeting process is at an impasse; Gov. Rell has proposed an increase in rail and bus fares. The concern is that these increases, especially bus riders, would affect the lowest income groups in the state. There is no public support for an increase in the gas tax or toll hikes. Mr. Cameron stated that we may need a new revenue stream but asked the council if they felt that should come from rail riders or as a general policy change. Ms. Cronin believes this should be viewed as a statewide issue. Mr. Cameron said that it’s an easy target, a tax on commuters that have no other choice.
Sen. Schumer has stated that NY lags behind many states and has unveiled a plan to promote WIFI Access Mr. Todd wondered in the state had the budget for this.
The onboard fare penalty has been increased to $6 USD and this was communicated to commuters in a seat drop.
A decrease in the gas tax has been proposed, Mr. Chabot believes that this is a mistake. The fare box returns continue to show that CT has the highest fares. Mr. Austin raised the issue of fare collection and the council agreed that this is an ongoing problem; conductors need to be monitored more closely as rail could be losing substantial revenue. The council generally agreed that that a gas tax makes more sense as it aids all travelers and gets more cars off the road. When the gas price went up the additional revenue went into a general fund. The highway trust fund is bankrupt and is the wrong mechanism for raising funding.
Mr. Parker stated that any fare increase is a public policy decision and reminded the council that CDOT may be required to begin the process of fare hearings even while the legislature is debating the increase. Mr. Cameron stated that the council has made there position very clear, they will oppose any fare increases unless the cars are in use in January and hold the legislature to their word.
STAMFORD GARAGE REDEVELOPMENT (2)
Mr. Parker advised that the RFEI has been put out by the DOT and they are beginning the process of exploring potential opportunities, he would like to leverage the existing parking garage to improve parking access and facilities for commuters at the station. Mr. Parker stated that they are committed to securing a permanent replacement spaces, perhaps a little further away, before proceeding with an agreement. The next step is to issue an RFP and collate the developer’s proposals / concepts. Mr. Parker stated that by the end of this year he hopes to have a clear view of the way forward. There was an initial meeting on June 5 attended by 19 firms, approximately 30 people.
Mr. Chabot was appalled at the very idea that we would trade the existing structure, which is perfectly situated for its purpose, and replace it with something that is a block or two away. Mr. Parker argued that he doesn’t feel that the walk would be substantially different from other stations on the line, and that by expanding away from the station place there is real opportunity to improve the overall access.
Mr. Chabot commented that 2 years ago there was suitable land but that we have lost opportunities with all the delays. Mr. Parker didn’t think that the state should compete with developers, that locking up land for 2 years was not a good idea; he felt that we had one shot to get this right in the next 40 years and we shouldn’t waste it. Ms. Cronin asked if the commuters would be given an opportunity to comment on the proposals, she felt that riders do not want to shop and do not want to park a far away from the station. Mr. Parker stated that it wasn’t just a question of shopping but amenities, and a lower level could be left open for taxis and pedestrian circulation. Ms Cronin wanted to know at what point the public get their say. Mr. Parker responded that after the ‘expression of interest’ has been received. Mr. Cameron questioned why we are asking businesses to determine the best use of state land. Mr. Austin suggested that light rail might be an alternative solution; urban transit projects would provide developers with an opportunity to benefit from dollars given for public use and minimize the cost to the state.
Mr. Parker stated that CT has a hard 32 mil USD in allocated funds to rebuild the garage this is what they are working with. The submissions in response to the RFEI are due on July 10th and that a decision would ideally be made in 2009 so that the process can start in 2010.
Mr. McGee stated that he felt the concept as laid out is fine, and said that he is not sure the garage does need to be in the same spot. We all need to ensure that the state and city work together to find the best solution, the city has hired a consultant; Mr. McGee hopes that the private interest of a developer will not drive the decision about how the space is used. Mr. McGee said that the BCFC like the city process because public input is an integral part.
Mr. Parker gave the example of Chicago’s union station, which two entrances are maintained by different entities, the back entrance is managed by the transit agency and there is an office building at the other end, this space is much nicer and is not being paid for by the commuter. Mr. Parker has promised to explore opportunities in a way that is transparent and will post all suggestions on a website for comments.
CRCC REAPPOINTMENTS
Mr. Cameron was saddened to report that Mr. McGee would be leaving the council; he thanked him for all of his hard work for the commuters of the region in the last 10 years. Mr. Cameron advised that many of the council members were up for reappointment and that any members interested must reach out to their legislator by June 30, 2009. Mr. Cameron advised that all of the information regarding member appointments and terms can be found on the website, http://www.trainweb.org/ct/ and advised that the incumbent sit on the council until a replacement is appointed.
Mr. Cameron adjourned the meeting at 9:00pm
