Due to a series of complicated agreements between Metro-North, New York and Connecticut, our fair neighbor to the east may soon be paying the commuter railroad to keep down costs. Because Connecticut Department of Transportation can help Metro-North set fare rates, when the MTA implements a fare hike early next year, tickets to and from Rye and Port Chester would be more expensive than those from the nearby Greenwich station. Thus, riders would be encouraged to head to Connecticut to travel.
To avoid this situation, Metro-North is working with ConnDOT to control the fares. Martin B. Cassidy of the Connecticut Post has more:
Because of Connecticut’s decision to avoid New Haven line fare increases this year, Metro-North is seeking an agreement to lessen the effect on Port Chester and Rye riders by having Connecticut pay Metro-North the difference between the cost of a Greenwich and Port Chester, ticket.
The agreement, often called a “hold-down” fare agreement, assures that price levels remain even across state lines, as Connecticut chooses to put off fare increases, Anders said. Under the agreement, the state would pay Metro-North a certain amount for each monthly ticket sold at the Port Chester or Rye stations, thereby keeping the price of a monthly ticket at Rye and Port Chester to $237, Anders said.
Connecticut’s monthly payments would be calculated on total ticket sales at those stations, Anders said, including subsidies for all forms of peak and off-peak tickets. Metro-North Railroad is currently finalizing a similar agreement with New Jersey Transit, Anders said. “Finally when Connecticut DOT raises fares, Metro-North would then adjust the Rye and Port Chester, fare to $247 and the hold-down payments would stop,” Anders said.
While it’s clear that New York riders and Metro-North would benefit, Connecticut politicians are wary of the hold-down agreement. Connecticut Rail Commuter Council Chairman Jim Cameron says Metro-North is just trying to back-door its way to a fare hike. “These changes are really no more than a hidden fare increase and they are not helpful in encouraging ridership on the trains,” Cameron said. “It looks as though the MTA are scrambling to find every nickel and dime they can, and doing a stealth fare increase like this will just discourage people from wanting to take the train.”
I can’t imagine anyone who takes the train would find it less desirably to pay more than to sit in traffic on the Merit and Hutch for hours on end two times a day, five days a week. I can certainly see why Connecticut might view this as some creative fare work by Metro-North.
13 comments
I live in Port Chester. It is never the end station on a train from GCT. So EVERY time I buy a ticket home from the city, I’d be buying a ticket to Greenwich and just getting off. There are work arounds on this without going to CT.
So NYS is now asking CT to, in effect, enable their budgetary folly? Way to go, neighbor.
If Connecticut residents uses Metro North..otherwise…this is just panhandling…
It’s not folly, and it’s not panhandling. There is no reliable way to make the Port Chester-GCT fare higher than the Greenwich-GCT fare; the MTA is asking that Connecticut acknowledge that.
Sure it is. MNR has to raise fares because NYS ‘stole’ its money. So now, MNR is asking CT to in effect, subsidize the fare increase for the NYS portion of the route and thus making up some of the ‘stolen’ funds.
NYS only stole money coming from NYS taxpayers. People in CT are not subject to the MTA tax, so NYS never stole their money.
Agreed. NYS, through its proxy, MNR, is asking those same CT taxpayers to now make up some fare differential that exists solely because NYS stole the money in the first place.
No, it’s still fair to CT residents. The MTA bailout involved taxing NYS, not CT, even though the alternative would have raised fares and cut service to both NYS and CT.
A tax isn’t theft. I think Al is referring to NYS’s theft of dedicated MTA tax revenues, which is a different matter entirely.
Yes, that’s what I’m assuming Al refers to. The MTA bailout consisted of taxing NYS residents to pay for keeping service levels to both NYS and CT. Albany stole the dedicated taxes, so now the MTA needs to find more money; it’s asking CT to pony up for some.
This is exactly the kind of political chicanery that makes people distrustful of public transit agencies. It’s hard enough to judge whether a proposed fare increase is “fair” when everyone knows it’s not tied to reality in any meaningful way… now you’ve got the various constituent administrative divisions playing games by trying to tweak the system in their favor – it’s ridiculous.
Reality is the difference between operating costs and current subsidies and fare proceeds.
The failures of multi-state cooperation are really what I find disheartening.
This is a pretty standard arrangement on transit lines that span fare-setting bodies. The same thing happens (in the other direction) on the Pascack Valley and Port Jervis lines – the fares at the northernmost New Jersey stations are kept artificially low, with the difference covered by Metro-North, to avoid having lower fares for longer trips than for shorter trips.