"The Secrets of Grand Central Terminal"

There is possibly no more beautiful railroad station in the world than New York City’s Grand Central Terminal. As the destination of over 55,000 daily rail commuters from Connecticut, it’s a place we where spend a fair amount of time. But rather than rush to or from your train, next time you’re in GCT, look around and enjoy some of its hidden secrets.

Based on my 40+ years of commuting experience, here are some of the nooks and crannies within the station that I find most fascinating… and useful.

Underground Access: Sure, you can enter Grand Central from street level, but in bad weather you can find your way underground from blocks away. The new north-end access entrances at Madison and 47^th St., Park Ave. and 48^th Street and the Helmsley Building walk-ways are dandy, though not open on weekends. But did you know you can also access from 43^rd or 45^th Street, west of Vanderbilt, from inside the Chrysler Building, the Hyatt on 42^nd Street or via the shuttle station, on the south side of 42^nd Street, just west of Park?

Fastest Way from/to the Lower Level: If your train dumps you on the lower level, forget about the ramps or stairs for the long climb to street level, especially with luggage. Walk to the forward end of the train and look for the elevator near Track 112. It’ll take you to the upper level or, better yet, to within steps of Vanderbilt Avenue (see below). Getting to the lower level platforms from street level is just as easy. On the main level look for the elevators and take them down to “P” (Platform) level avoid two flights of stairs.

Best View of the Main Concourse: Ever notice the elevated glass walkways at the east and west ends of the station? They’re accessible (though public access is seriously discouraged). Just go to the entrance to Michael Jordan’s Steakhouse on the mezzanine level near Vanderbilt Ave. and take the elevator up two or three floors. When you get off, go left and through the un-marked door on your left. Walk out and you’ll have a panoramic view of the station from almost roof-level.

Washrooms with No Wait: The new washrooms at the west end of the lower level have helped a lot, but still there’s often a line. Take the nearby escalators up one level, turn around, and on your left is the Stationmaster’s Office complete with a waiting room and lav’s. Or, go right and just before the ramp up to 42^nd St. and Vanderbilt, look on your left for the sign for the Oyster Bar. Go down the steps into the bar and you’ll find ornate bathrooms known only to a few.

Best Place To Get A Cab: Forget about the long line at the taxi stand on 42^nd St east of Vanderbilt. Instead, go out the west end of the Main Concourse, up the stairs and out onto Vanderbilt Avenue. Cross the street and wait at the corner of 43^rd. Taxis flow through here, dropping off passengers every few seconds. If you’re heading west you’ll avoid the traffic on 42^nd Street too.

Where to Have A Smoke: Want to enjoy a cigar before your train? Forget about lighting up anywhere inside the station. Instead, visit the old taxi stand on Vanderbilt and you’ll be “outside” but still under shelter. Or go to the Hyatt, up two levels to their taxi stand and you’ll find yourself on the raised Park Avenue as it wraps around GCT.

These are a few of my favorite “secrets” of Grand Central. Drop me an e-mail with yours and I’ll include them in a future column.

"Value Pricing Our Highways"

Tired of sitting in bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic on I-95 and the Merritt? Well, esteemed economist Milton Friedman has the answer.

Almost a decade ago, Freidman wrote that traffic congestion was just a matter of supply and demand: too much demand and not enough supply. Some have suggested expanding the supply of roadways by double-decking I-95 or widening the Merritt Parkway. But can you imagine the billions of dollars in cost and years of disruption? And how would the “upper deck” look soaring 90 feet in the air to cross existing bridges? A simpler (and less costly) solution to gridlock seems to be in managing the demand using “value pricing”.

Today, when we drive our highways at rush hour it costs us no more than if we drive off-peak. That is wrong. The value derived from being able to cruise (or crawl) on I-95 in morning rush hour is much higher than at midnight, and should be priced accordingly.

Consider the other services we consume that offer off-peak pricing. Go to a movie on a Saturday night and you’ll pay more than on a weekday afternoon. Take a flight on a busy holiday weekend, when everyone else wants to fly, and you’ll pay more. Even Metro-North offers peak and off-peak (reduced) fares. So too should our highways.

Using electronic tolls (think E-ZPass), motorists who want or must drive at rush hour would pay a small price for the privilege. Those who don’t need to be on the roads at the busiest hours would wait, and pay less (or maybe nothing). That would mean fewer cars at rush hour and less congestion. Those paying the tolls at rush hour would get faster trip times… real value for the price. And the money raised could pay for long overdue highway improvements or, better yet, subsidies for mass transit to keep fares low and attract even more cars off the highways.

Is it worth, say, $4 to drive eleven miles at rush hour? You bet, if it means you pick up your kid at daycare on time and avoid their $1 per minute penalty for late pick-up… or if you can actually make that important 8:30 am meeting that wins you an important piece of business. Time is money.

Value pricing is already underway on the George Washington Bridge. In rush hour, big-rigs pay $40 to cross. But off-peak with E-ZPass it’s only $35 and overnight the toll drops to $27.50. Since its introduction, value pricing has evened out the bridge’s traffic load, saving everybody time and money.

Why haven’t we put such technology to use in Connecticut? Three reasons: 1) people think tolls actually slow down traffic, 2) there are fears of another fiery truck crash into a toll booth and 3) there is a myth that if we reinstate tolls on our highways we’ll have to repay the Federal government billions of dollars. All are false.

Drive the Garden State or Jersey Turnpike using EZPass and you can sail thru the barrier at top speed. Trucks don’t collide into toll booths (and if you’re really worried about trucker safety, let’s open the Greenwich inspection station 24 x 7). And even the Federal DOT acknowledges that it will approve highway tolls used as a traffic mitigation tool.

While other states rapidly embrace “congestion pricing”, Connecticut’s still trying to get together a study of the concept. Seven years after it was formed, you can expect the state-wide Transportation Strategy Board to finally discuss such a plan next month.

Studies, debates, delays. Is this why we’re called “The Land of Steady Habits”?

Fixing the Connecticut DOT

It’s the government agency we love to hate. Who hasn’t been stuck in endless construction delays on I-95 and not cursed the Connecticut DOT? And what commuter hasn’t shivered on an aging Metro-North train lacking heat and not asked “Who’s running this darn railroad?”

Mind you, I have a lot of respect for the CDOT and its 3,800 employees, most of whom labor long and hard to improve transportation in our state. [Full disclosure: I wanted to be a transportation engineer and studied that at Lehigh University for about one semester before the Arts College seemed more viable.] The problem is, the CDOT is so unwieldy and poorly managed that the staff can’t get things done.

Remember the collapse of the Mianus River Bridge 20 years ago? CDOT took most of the blame, but it was the governor and legislature that cut funding and forced a reduction of safety inspections.

Sure, there are corruption and payoffs. The mess over the I-84 storm sewers showed us that, but again it was lack of oversight that didn’t catch that problem. And yes, there’s even an arrogance among some staffers which doesn’t endear the agency to the public.

True story: a CDOT engineer was at a public meeting over a planned highway widening project requiring the felling of some old trees. When a citizen asked why it was necessary to chop down the trees, the CDOT engineer answered… “You wouldn’t understand. You’re not an engineer.” Nice.

The recently issued Critelli Commission report on reform of the CDOT recounts dozens of such problems within the agency. And to her credit, Governor Rell has not only read the report’s recommendations but is acting upon them.

In her recent budget address, Governor Rell called for splitting the CDOT into two agencies… a Department of Highways and a separate Department of Public Transportation, Aviation and Ports. Connecticut would thus follow the lead of the other 49 states that recognize the need to carve out separate agencies for these disparate duties.

For years now I’ve been calling for creation of a CTA… Connecticut Transportation Authority… and this comes pretty darn close. It’s time to get mass transit away from the asphalt and concrete interests that dominate CDOT.

In 2005, when Metro-North was at a near melt-down due to lack of investment in new rail cars, CDOT spent 76% of state transportation improvement money and 84% of Federal flexible funds on highways.

While states like California have long ago halted new highway construction in favor of mass transit, we in “the land of steady habits” see our DOT spending six years and $1.5 billion on the Q bridge project in New Haven. Were that money instead invested in expanded Shore Line East service, we’d lessen traffic for decades and avoid years of construction delays.

On the mass transit side of the current CDOT there’s too little staff and far too much work. Long over-due projects to repair our stations and expand parking languish on the “to do” list as rail and bus administrators just try to keep the system running week to week.

But a new day is dawning for Metro-North riders come the delivery of new rail cars in 2009 – 2010. We have much to do to prepare for their arrival… including an $800 million maintenance shop in New Haven that’s way, way over budget. But that’s the topic for a future column.

“The Critelli Commission”

The Governor’s “blue ribbon” commission studying the reform of the Department of Transportation, headed by (Darien resident and) Pitney Bowes Chairman Michael Critelli, has finally issued its draft report.

While much of the report addresses the dysfunctional organization of this immense agency, I am personally pleased that the Commission also picked up on some suggestions for improving rail service. Among them…

• Expanding parking at all rail stations, but leaving the towns to price and administer the issuance of permits.
• Revisit the Metro-North contract for the operation of our trains with an eye toward greater parity between the railroad and CDOT.
• Focus on the maintenance and repair of our railroad bridges, 206 of the 325 of which are rated as being in less than satisfactory condition.
• Better coordinate bus and rail schedules to offer riders of both an inter-modal transit experience.
• Evaluate an independent Transportation Authority (like the MTA or NJ Transit) which could serve the interests of mass transit apart from the highway interests which dominate our current CDOT. (Connecticut is the only state in the union that runs mass transit out of its DOT).
• Speed up construction of commuter rail on the New Haven to Springfield corridor.
• Expand service on the Danbury, Waterbury and Shore Line East branch lines.
• Finally do something to offer a rail freight alternative in Connecticut.

But, beyond rail, the Critelli Commission also suggested some ideas to make CDOT more “user friendly”, following the lead of other states.

• Have a website where consumers can actually find information. For example, when construction projects are scheduled and, if they are running late, why and when they’ll be completed.
• Offer a 511 dial-in service for all traffic and transit updates. Using such a service a traveler could ask “If I leave Stamford right now, how long would it take under current conditions to get to New Haven?”, and be told travel time by road and rail.
• Finally, the Critelli Commission deserves commendation for embracing an often forgotten transportation alternative… pedestrians and bikers. Think of how many additional auto parking spaces could be found at stations if bike paths and bike lockers were available at stations for local commuters… or even sidewalks to walk safely to mass transit.

The Critelli Commission report is now added to that ever-growing pile of studies and reports on what ails our state’s transportation systems. Nay-sayers will claim this study, like scores before it, will add up to nothing. But I’m an eternal optimist and feel otherwise.

If the current national search for a new Commissioner of the DOT turns up someone with organizational skills and vision, the Critelli Commission’s recommendations could become a roadmap to our future.

"A Report Card for Metro-North"

True to its legislative mandate, the CT Metro-North Rail Commuter Council has just issued its annual report to Governor Rell, the legislature and MTA. The full 97 page report is available on our website, but here are the highlights.

The Council gives the railroad high marks for running an on-time system despite our aging and decrepit fleet. In 2007, 97.1% of all trains ran “on-time” (defined as arriving at their destination within five minutes and 59 seconds), a new record.

When things have gone wrong, such as several wires-down episodes, the railroad got things up and running again with admirable speed.

The problem is, such an on-time record makes commuters expect such service, and when things go wrong, they need to understand why. Here is the railroad’s greatest shortcoming.

Communication with passengers on the platforms, on the trains and through the media is spotty at best. While automated PA announcements have improved, passengers stuck on delayed trains can’t rely on train crews for updated information.

In several cases last year, trains were delayed for several hours. Passengers seeking information from on-board crew members not only didn’t receive it, they found conductors hiding from customers in their control-cabs. This is just wrong, and while the railroad says it agrees with the Council, these problems persist.

Metro-North’s new e-mail alert system and website seem the most reliable sources for updates, but in several incidents CDOT confused the situation by sending out conflicting e-mails. By “trying to help” they just messed up communications.

In its work with the railroad, the Council has encountered similar problems. Senior management of Metro-North has, on at least two occasions, responded to the Council’s efforts to improve communications with an attitude of arrogance and denial. We should all be on the same side, not adversaries.

On a positive note, the Council’s efforts did bring about positive change for commuters… halting the plan to dump morning rush-hour riders on unheated, unsheltered platforms all winter for the sake of needed catenary work… replacing an ill-conceived $1 per ticket fare surcharge with a 1% fare hike for each of seven years starting in 2010… persuading MTA not to ban alcohol sales at stations and on bar-cars… convincing the railroad to add more service on the growing Waterbury line… and getting Metro-North to add a special e-mail alert system for branch riders.

Best of all, design and construction moves forward on the new M8 cars, still due to start arriving in August of 2009. These will truly be world-class rail cars, delighting passengers and adding badly needed seats.

But one huge unresolved problem is that of station parking. With new seating capacity coming down the track, the Council remains concerned that nothing is being done to add more parking at stations to encourage ridership.

Sure, a new station is planned in Fairfield with 1,500 parking spaces, but there are already 3,400 commuters on the waiting list for annual permits there. A new garage is planned in Stamford to replace the old one which must be demolished, but the private / public partnership building it remains a mystery and despite numerous requests, the Council can get no information about the design or local traffic flow. Waiting lists for parking permits at most stations run three to four years.

Finally, it’s been 18 months since the Commuter Council launched its “Fix My Station” campaign documenting dozens of stations with safety issues, yet the $6 million allocated by the state to repair these hazards remains unspent. Why?

Commuters in Connecticut deserve better, and the Commuter Council will keep fighting to make sure they get it.

Catenary vs Third Rail

The Commuter Council’s recent battles with CDOT and Metro-North to keep winter service from the existing platforms was prompted by the multi-million dollar catenary replacement program… like trying to change the fan-belt on a moving car. But why fix this flawed system instead of converting to third-rail? Here’s the story…

Ours is the only commuter railroad in the US that operates on three modes of power… AC, DC and diesel. On a typical run from, say, New Haven to Grand Central, the first part of the journey is done “under the wire”, the trains being powered by 13,000 volt AC overhead wires, or catenaries. Around Pelham, in Westchester County, the conversion is made to 660 volt DC third rail power for the rest of the trip into New York. Even diesel trains must convert to third-rail as their smoky exhaust is banned in the Park Avenue tunnels.

And there’s the rub: Connecticut trains need both AC and DC, overhead and third-rail, power pick-ups and processors. That means a lot more electronics, and added cost, for each car. While the DC-only new M7 cars running in Westchester cost about $2 million each, the dual-mode M8 car being designed for Connecticut will cost $3 million each.

So, some folks are asking… “Why not just use one power source? Just replace the overhead wires with third-rail and we can buy cheaper cars.” Simple, hardly. Smart, not! And here’s why.

Ø There’s not enough space to lay a third-rail along each of the four sets of tracks in the existing right of way. All four existing tracks would have to be ripped out and the space between them widened. Every bridge and tunnel would have to be widened, platforms moved and land acquired. Cost? Probably hundreds of millions of dollars, years of construction and unimaginable service disruptions.

Ø Even with third-rail the CDOT, would still be required to provide overhead power lines for Amtrak’s trains. That would mean maintaining two power systems at double the cost. We’re currently spending millions just to upgrade the eighty-year old catenary, so why then replace it?

Ø Third-rail AC power requires substations every few miles, meaning further construction and real estate. The environmental lawsuits alone would kill this idea.

Ø DC driven third-rail is less efficient. Trains accelerate much faster using overhead AC voltage, the power source used by the fastest trains in the world… the TGV, Shinkansen, etc. On third-rail speeds, are limited to 75 miles an hour vs. 90 mph under the wire. That means, mile for mile, commute time is longer using third rail.

Ø Third-rail ices up in bad weather and can get buried in snow, causing short circuits. Overhead wires have problems sometimes, but they are never buried in a blizzard.

Ø Third-rail is dangerous to pedestrians and track workers.

The idea of conversion to third-rail was studied in the 1980’s by consultants to CDOT. They concluded that, while cumbersome and costly, the current dual-power system is, in the long run, cheaper and more efficient than installing third-rail. This time, it seems, the engineers at CDOT got it right.

So like it or not, we’re stuck with this railroad anomaly. And work must continue on the catenary replacement. But that doesn’t mean Metro-North should send commuters to Siberia for the sake of their on-time performance. Let’s stick with existing platform operations adding the bridge-plates, even if it means trains are a tad late. At least we won’t freeze to death in the name of fixing the wire.

The Truth About Trucks

Two years ago, in my very first “Talking Transportation” column, I tried to dispel the myth that our highway problems are all caused by trucks. “Let’s Blame the Trucks” attacked that common wisdom with facts that didn’t win me many friends. But that’s hardly my goal in these musings.

Hardly a week goes by without some spectacular highway pile-up involving a truck. But check the facts and you’ll find most of those accidents were caused by motor cars, not the trucks drawn into the incidents.

Do trucks drive too fast? Sure, but don’t we all? Next time you’re on I-95 check who’s in the high-speed left lane and you’ll see cars, not trucks.

Should there be better safety inspections of trucks? Absolutely! And Senators Duff and McDonald deserve kudo’s for their long fight at keeping the Greenwich inspection station open more hours. So too do my friends at the Connecticut Citizens Transportation Lobby deserve credit for forcing better reporting on what those inspections turn up in the way of violations and fines ($2 million between July and December 2007).

But for every over-weight truck or over-worked truck driver there are doubtless hundreds of unsafe cars and equally road-weary warriors behind the wheel whose reckless disregard endangers us all.

Truckers drive for a living. They are tested and licensed to far more rigorous standards than anyone else. And because they drive hundreds of miles each day, overall I think they are far better drivers. When’s the last time you saw a trucker juggling a cellphone and a latte like many soccer moms?

And remember… they’re not out there driving their big-rigs up and down the highway just to annoy us. We put those trucks on the road by our voracious consumption patterns. Every product we buy at stores large and small, including the very newspaper you hold in your hand, was delivered by trucks. Want fewer trucks on the road? Just stop buying stuff.

By definition, trucks are high-occupancy vehicles. Compare the energy efficiency of a truck delivering its cargo to you in your “SOV” (single occupancy vehicle), even if it is a hybrid. Only rail offers better fuel efficiency.

Why are trucks jamming our highways at rush hour? Because selfish merchants required them to drive then to meet their delivery timetable. If big-box stores and supermarkets only took truck deliveries in the overnight hours, our highways would flow must better at rush hour.

Truckers must use the interstates while passenger cars can chose among many alternate routes. Why is the average distance driven on I-95 in Connecticut just eleven miles? Because most of us drive the ‘pike for local, not interstate trips.

If we were smart enough to “value price” our highways (ie return tolling) we’d see fewer vehicles of all kinds on I-95, and those that were willing to pay for the privilege of motoring there would get real value in a faster ride.

I’m hardly an apologist for the trucking lobby. But neither will I allow us to blame anyone but ourselves for highway safety and congestion. It’s the SOV crowd, not the truckers, who are to blame. Excessive speed and drinking cause most accidents, and the majority of accidents involve cars, not trucks.

Let’s be honest about this mess of our own making and stop trying to blame truckers as our scapegoat. As the great philosopher Pogo once put it, “We have met the enemy and he is us!”