RAILforum: Empty monorail trains over 1&9 (EWR)

This is topic Empty monorail trains over 1&9 (EWR) in forum Commuter Trains at RAILforum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/12/57.html

Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :

Anyone besides me left wondering just what the Port Authority was thinking when they charged those exorbitant surcharges on fares to/from the EWR monorail transfer station...? Judging by the many empty monorail trains I see crossing the highway into and out of the airport, I'd say that their stab at garnering revenue in this fashion is not paying off too well. Perhaps a drop in fares may attract more passengers...? They'd be getting far more revenue with a lower fare what with more passengers using the trains than they currently are with high fares in place and riders scared away by them, IMO.

Posted by TR-00 (Member # 1494) on :

Gosh, Chief, this looks like the same post made on ENJAYDOTCOM!

I make 4 daily stops at EWR, (afternoon and evening), and our passenger counts at the airport vary from 30 to 70 off and on. The first monorail train is probably crowded, but after that they must run empty until the next arriving train.

There seems to be no logic in when the monorails arrive and depart. Obviously, the computer knows better than we do. It must be irritating to travelers who watch an empty monorail leave as they reach the platform with nary another in sight.

All in all, the EWR stop is doing better than we, the train crews predicted it would.

Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :

Better than the crews claimed it would...? How bad were the initial predictions...???

Well, perhaps the monorail trains should have their activity coordinated with the actual arrival of connecting trains...? (After all, the old NYCTA has no problem holding trains on the local track to wait for one on the express track, at an express stop...of course, there's no automated operation on there, at least not yet, but they're testing that out on the L-train, rumors say.) Maybe they ought to take a lesson from BART and have a human operator on board, who can take over from the computer when operations go awry (as is reputed to be the case quite often)??

Adding NEC trains and dropping down the price of that surcharge wouldn't hurt either; it won't hurt the PA either, much as they cry that it would...but they're getting less revenue now what with the empty trains that do go over the highway, never mind the passengers that frequent the stop right now.

Posted by dguruswamy (Member # 1330) on :

Actually the EWR monorail station is simply an extension of the existing system. Currently, the ALL the service makes the entire length of the route (there are no short turns). The busiest points are between terminals B and terminal C (some CO flights go out of B and many people transfer).

quote:
Originally posted by TR-00:
The first monorail train is probably crowded, but after that they must run empty until the next arriving train.
There seems to be no logic in when the monorails arrive and depart. Obviously, the computer knows better than we do. It must be irritating to travelers who watch an empty monorail leave as they reach the platform with nary another in sight.
All in all, the EWR stop is doing better than we, the train crews predicted it would.

Posted by dguruswamy (Member # 1330) on :

A couple of points. The Port Authority makes big $$ of parking, do you actually expect them to endanger that? The current target for Airtrain at EWR is the coat and briefcase crowd that would otherwise be taking taxis or limos. They don't care what it costs, and prefer it to a taxi because the travel time is predictable (plus its cheaper).

As for Amtrak adding more NEC service, the issue of adding more Acela Regional trains is that of timing. Amtrak is given slots by Metro-North (and if they miss em they are behind the local!) and the only way to add EWR is to drop another station. So which other New Jersey stop do you drop Trenton or Metropark?

quote:
Originally posted by irishchieftain:
B
Adding NEC trains and dropping down the price of that surcharge wouldn't hurt either; it won't hurt the PA either, much as they cry that it would...but they're getting less revenue now what with the empty trains that do go over the highway, never mind the passengers that frequent the stop right now.

Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :

The Port Authority makes big $$ of parking, do you actually expect them to endanger that?

I've always wondered just how much money they do make on that scam. It's just pure greed. Is the parking authority at O'Hare Airport endangered by the CTA's Blue Line subway going there? Somehow, I think not. The same people who have driven to and parked at the airport in the past will continue to do so, a nice convenient (and affordable) rail link notwithstanding. No danger of losing significant revenue at all.

Besides...what about one of the things the Port Authority was formed to do, namely construct a freight rail link between New Jersey and Manhattan/Brooklyn??? No sign of that materializing...

Posted by drew_henderson (Member # 1480) on :

"some CO flights go out of B and many people transfer"

Actually CO's international flights arrive at B but depart from C. Co's domestic ATL, ORD, & DFW flights all depart and arrive at A.

What would really help is to speed up the damn thing. I use it at least once a week and think there are a fair number of people doing same - especially NYC bound. What bothers me is that it takes so long - 15-20 minutes to terminal A - 10 minutes to terminal C.

The speed almost doubles once you get across the highway. Why?? Are they purposely making the trip difficult??

Posted by jrr7 (Member # 1475) on :

They don't want it to be too convenient. If they wanted it convenient then they would have connected to Penn Station.

PA is still a very car-centric institution.

Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :

PA is still a very car-centric institution

That makes their name of "Port Authority" all the more ironic...