Transit - Greater Greater Washington

WMATA presents options for SmarTrip negative balances

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:56:00 EDT

WMATA raised the hackles of many riders when it announced SmarTrips would no longer go negative. Responding to the outcry, CFO Carol Kissal and her team developed six alternatives for handing the issue, which they presented to the Riders' Advisory Council last night.

Photo by MattHurst on Flickr.

RAC members complimented Kissal and her team on presenting a number of options and seeking rider feedback. While it would have been better to get more feedback before the initial announcement, the followup garnered more praise. The WMATA Board will discuss the issue on September 16th.

To recap, right now SmarTrip cards cost $5. In most places you can buy them, including vending machines at stations with parking and most CVS, Giant and other stores, they cost $10 and come with $5 of stored value. At commuter stores and Metro sales offices as well as some private stores, they go for $5 and a zero balance.

A rider who buys a zero balance card can immediately get on rail or bus and take a trip, going negative. They just have to fill the card up to or above zero before they can get onto transit again using the card. The SmarTrip negative balance option doesn't apply to parking garages; people have to have the parking charge on the card.

Compare this to the paper farecards, which you can't use to get on a bus or train unless it has the minimum fare, and can't exit without adequate fare. If you don't have enough, you have to go to the Exitfare machine, which only take cash and are limited in number.

The WMATA Board asked for the SmarTrip price to go down to $2.50 to make them more affordable for poorer riders. However, officials started to worry. Someone could buy a SmarTrip for $2.50 (at a commuter store or sales office) with $0 value, immediately take a $4.95 long-distance ride or $6 airport bus trip, and throw away the card, basically cheating Metro out of up to $3.50.

Their best guess was that this could cost $1 million a month in lost fare revenue, plus quickly deplete the existing stock of SmarTrips. In my earlier post, I expressed skepticism that there would really be so much cheating, and they wait and see whether there is indeed abuse. They told the RAC last night that this would be an option, and they do have the ability to track how many SmarTrips go negative and then don't get used any more.

Or, they could modify the plan. They devised six options:

A: Wait and see. Drop SmarTrips to $2.50 but don't change the way any systems work. Track whether there is widespread abuse.

B: Rebate. Charge $5 for the card, but automatically give a $2.50 fare credit to the rider after they complete 2 trips. Basically, it's like paying $5 and getting $2.50 of fare on the card, but you have to ride a couple of times first.. This would require some small programming changes which they are researching.

C: No negative. This is the plan they suggested last week. It will require delaying until October so the Exitfare machines can be modified. They actually already have the SmarTrip technology installed, and won't cost WMATA much to reconfigure, but it will take a little time.

D: Don't reduce the price. Keep everything the way it is today, with $5 SmarTrips.

E: Require a minimum fare to enter. Instead of letting a rider enter with $0 on their SmarTrip, require $1.10 or more. That way, it's much harder to cheat. Since $1.10 plus $2.50 card cost is $3.60, only trips over $3.60 could result in a negative balance that costs WMATA if the rider throws away the card. Plus, someone who buys a card would have to put $1.10 on it to maximize cheating, which takes time and effort for little reward.

They estimate that lost revenue would be only $75,000 per month. This option would require some programming change and mean a small delay, probably until December.

F: Cap the negative balance at $2.50. The system could still let people go negative, but only to $2.50 in the hole. More than that and they'd need to use Exitfare. This means nobody can cheat, and most riders won't get stuck because many trips are less than $2.50 and most people who go negative start with some balance on their cards already. However, some people would need to use Exitfare. This would also require a delay until about December.

While I'm not sure I would pick this one, I suggested an option G: Sell all cards with minimum value. As it is, many cards at stores cost $10 for $5 of value, and many stores will simply start selling $7.50 cards for $10 instead. WMATA's old vending machines at stations with parking also can't handle different prices, so they plan to simply load them up with $7.50 cards and keep charging $10.

If all cards cost $5 and came with $2.50 of value, it would be difficult to cheat. If you purchased a card and then took a long trip, the most you could cheat is $1 on an airport bus, which is also possible under today's system. To cheat more, you would need to take more than one trip. This is very similar to option B, except you don't have to wait or take two trips first.

However, the primary purpose of the change was to reduce the barriers for riders with low incomes to get SmarTrips, since some apparently find the initial outlay of $5 to be an obstacle. Paying $5 but getting $2.50 in value could be better, since even if they got a $2.50 card with no value those riders would still have to load some money on at least before the second trip. But it still means that you need $5 right then and there to get a card.

I therefore lean toward options A (just drop the price), E (require some fare to enter), or F (only allow negative up to $2.50). If A, WMATA should pick a backup plan and know how quickly they can implement it. That way, if A does create excessive cheating, they could go right to the backup.

If I had to pick one, I'd say F. It's strictly better than C (no negative), except for the extra two-month delay and unless there's a substantially larger cost to modify the software to disallow negatives over $2.50 versus modifying it to disallow all negatives. But it eliminates the cheating opportunity while still allowing most riders to go negative in most circumstances.

What do you think? I'll compile your suggestions and send them to Ms. Kissal.

39 comments

Is blocking negative SmarTrip balances really necessary? (Aug 25, 2010)
Can SmarTrip work for riders with the lowest incomes? (Jul 15, 2010)
SmarTrip Web site, passes coming this year (Jun 8, 2010)
SmarTrip passes, autoload, Web site now coming mid-2010 (Dec 14, 2009)
What do SmarTrip cards cost? (Dec 12, 2008)

Combine the Circulator and Metro maps for visitors

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:13:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Visitors to DC generally navigate using the Metro map and a street map. The Metro map has become so iconic that it forms many visitors' mental images of DC. However, that map makes no mention of Georgetown, Adams Morgan, and other major destinations.

The Circulator serves those areas, and one of its roles is to serve as an easier-to-understand, no-change-required tourist bus to the places tourists might go, including the Mall, Georgetown, Adams Morgan, the Capitol, Barracks Row, and the ballpark. However, the Circulator's official map only shows Metro stations, not the lines themselves.

These two maps don't work together well.

To really navigate DC, a visitor would need to look at both maps and figure out how to merge the two. Why make them do this work? Why introduce the potential for confusion and mistakes?

DC should create a merged map.

One side (when the map is printed on paper) should have the well-known stylized Metro layout with the Circulator added in:

Click to enlarge.

Visitors would use this to understand how areas relate to one another and plot transit routes between them. Meanwhile, the other side should use a street-based layout, but including Metrorail lines as well as Circulator lines. Visitors would use that one to figure out where exactly to find a Circulator stop or a Metro station.

This map could go into guidebooks, be handed out in hotels, and be posted on kiosks in visitor-heavy areas. Maybe Metro could even include it, along with the regular map, at some downtown stations. This map could form visitors' new mental image of the layout of DC. Instead of leaving out many important areas, it would incorporate them.

Transportation agencies need to think beyond simply how to showcase their own services. Visitors, residents, and others don't really care which agency runs a service; they care what service gets where they need to go. We need maps that show people the services they might want, tailored to their needs.

44 comments

Circulator now in Google Transit (Feb 22, 2010)
Circulator/Metro map version 2 (Apr 4, 2009)
The new Circulators and the Metro map (Mar 31, 2009)
Circulator thrombosis (Mar 16, 2009)
Jim Graham's northern Circulator (Sep 11, 2008)

For state legislature in Montgomery County

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:46:00 EDT

by David Alpert

Unlike the County Council, the state legislature has little day to day impact on shaping Montgomery County. Instead, they decide longer-term big picture issues, like how much funding is available for transportation, and individual delegates and senators also sign on to letters circulated about different issues.

Because the state is involved in transportation funding but much more rarely in land use, from GGW's point of view the the state legislative races primarily come down to the marquee transportation issues: the Purple Line, funding Metro and MARC, widening I-270, and the Intercounty Connector (ICC).

To make decisions in the many legislative races, I've talked with advocacy groups in the county, reviewed responses to questionnaires like ACT's (scroll to the bottom) and pledges like Purple Line Now's, and looked over what letters the incumbents did or didn't sign onto in the last session that related to our issues, such as the letter advocating for more Metro funding, the bad pro-I-270 widening letter, and the good I-270 transit alternative letter.

I've listed the downcounty races first, followed by the other districts.

District 16 (Glen Echo, Bethesda, Rockville Pike) has the western end of the Purple Line, significant bus ridership, a number of Metro stations and the county's most walkable downtown.

Senator Brian Frosh has been a leader on transportation issues, including circulating the letter supporting a transit alternative to widening I-270.

ACT is displeased with delegate Bill Frick's lack of absolute firmness on the Purple Line, and he specifically said he supports the 270 widening. However, he did sign the Purple Line Now pledge, and took the time to send a letter to the National Park Service after reading about a Rock Creek Park issue here on Greater Greater Washington. We feel he deserves another term.

Kyle Lierman and Scott Goldberg are among the many challengers vying for the one open seat or one of the incumbents'. Mr. Lierman's strength mostly comes from family political connections, but he wants to champion the Purple Line, get more funding to Metro, and raise the gas tax.

Mr. Goldberg, whom Cavan interviewed, also strongly supports the Purple Line, definitely understands induced demand, and wants the state to do better to minimize car-dependent sprawl. Either would make an excellent representative for the area.

District 18 (Chevy Chase, Kensington, Wheaton) contains the Town of Chevy Chase and Columbia Country Club, Ground Zero for the Purple Line battle. The political race for Delegate has not disappointed, boiling down largely to a referendum on the Purple Line.

Incumbent Anna Sol Gutierrez and challengers Vanessa Atterbeary and Dana Beyer are running in support of the light rail Purple Line along the alignment selected by the county and state. A strong vote for them, like for Berliner in Council District 2, would send a clear message that voters want to put this vital regional project ahead of local neighborhood obstruction.

Cavan discussed the Purple Line, Smart Growth in Wheaton, budget processes, and more with Ms. Gutierrez, Ms. Beyer and Ms. Atterbeary earlier this summer.

The other two incumbents are Al Carr and Jeff Waldstreicher. Mr. Carr has been a friend to the environment, cycling and transit with the exception of his Purple Line stance. He introduced bills for the bag fee and reforming "accident" language. While we hate to focus exclusively on single issues (and haven't in other races, like Mr. Frick in District 16), the Purple Line is the key place the state government will influence the future of this area in the immediate term, and having a supportive local delegation is important.

Senator Rich Madeleno has not been good on the Purple Line, but has been good on transit funding from the state in general, and is likely to be a key player in advocacy for transportation funding. He's also unopposed.

The controversy over the Purple Line in District 18 is nowhere to be found in District 20 (Silver Spring, Takoma Park, White Oak), where the sitting delegation absolutely supports the Purple Line and is otherwise terrific on practically every single issue.

Senator Jamie Raskin and Delegates Sheila Hixson, Tom Hucker and Heather Mizeur deserve a speedy return to Annapolis. Among many other things, Mr. Raskin was the Senate introducer of the bag fee and Ms. Hixson organized the I-270 transit alternative letter.

District 14 (Burtonsville, Brookeville, Damascus) is one of the more rural districts in the county, with no Metro stations. However, the Intercounty Connector will run through the district's southeastern portion.

Delegate Karen Montgomery deserves to win in her challenge against incumbent Senator Rona Kramer. Ms. Kramer supported the ICC, while Ms. Montgomery opposed it. Ms. Kramer's family includes developers who build sprawling strip malls, and on policy her actions align with theirs. Outside of GGW issues, Ms. Kramer has also taken some very unusual stands for her party, like opposing a progressive income tax.

For Delegate, we support incumbent Anne Kaiser and open-seat candidates Eric Luedke and Craig Zucker. Luedke is even a blogger, having written periodically for Maryland Politics Watch.

District 15 (Poolesville, Barnesville, Clarksburg) is the other rural district. There are no Metro stations and a relatively low proportion of transit use, though MARC's Brunswick line has many stations in this district.

Senator Rob Garagiola and Delegates Kathleen Dumais and Brian Feldman have been reliable supporters of transit funding including Metro and MARC, though in many cases also road construction as well. Mr. Garagiola authored the bill creating a commission to find a new source of transportation funding which Maryland desperately needs.

Aruna Miller and Lara Wibeto are the leading candidates for the third open seat. Ms. Miller is a transportation engineer for Montgomery County DOT, and some who've tangled with them on road design issues have some complaints about working with her. Otherwise, there does not seem to be a strong difference in their answers on the ACT questionnaire.

District 17 (Garrett Park, Rockville, Gaithersburg) has a high-profile contest between incumbent Senator Jennie Forehand and challenger Cheryl Kagan. Advocates on most issues, including on transit and smart growth, have been hard pressed to find any substantive difference between the two. Forehand spoke up strongly for highway widening during the 270 battle, but Kagan isn't really any better.

The delegate seats are all uncontested. James Gilchrist deserves special kudos for periodically taking the bus from Rockville to Annapolis to attend legislative sessions. Kumar Barve was one of two delegates not to sign the "Fair Share for Metro" letter, and signed the pro-highway 270 letter but not the pro-transit alternative.

District 19 (Glenmont, Aspen Hill, some of Olney) is a fairly static part of the County's middle, almost entirely built out with single family suburban homes (including my in-laws') and not changing very much very quickly for better or worse, except for the ICC running through the middle.

Delegate Roger Manno is trying to take the Senate seat from Mike Lennett. On transportation, both have been good, but Mr. Manno does more legwork to make things happen. Advocates say when they visit Annapolis, Lennett might be on their side, but Mr. Manno greets them and asks how he can help. Mr. Manno was the one to circulate the Metro funding letter on the floor. On that basis, Mr. Manno deserves a vote.

Among the delegates, incumbent Ben Kramer is similar to his sister Rona Kramer, including being very pro-road. Advoactes who've talked with the various candidates had good impressions of Sam Arora and Jay Hutchins on style and substance. Mr. Hutchins had excellent answers on the ACT questionnaire, and we like Mr. Arora's issues page. Disclosure: Mr. Arora and I have mutual friends.

District 39 (Montgomery Village, North Potomac, Darnestown) is the suburban area around the City of Gaithersburg, shaped as it is because state law requires district boundaries to respect incorporated city boundaries. It includes the Great Seneca Science Corridor (formerly Gaithersburg West), but the state legislature had little involvement with this issue. If built, the Corridor Cities Transitway will travel through a significant part of this district's western half.

Saqib Ali is trying to unseat incumbent Seantor Nancy King. Most of the differences are stylistic, especially Mr. Ali's much younger age and perceived greater vigor. But advocates who work with the legislature also say Mr. Ali does more grandstanding than actual legislating, and his bills don't advance because he doesn't work them hard enough. His vigor could be more Twitter-based than actual achievement-oriented.

However, Mr. Ali was willing to take a clear stand against widening I-270. He actually publicly renounced the pro-widening letter he himself signed, saying he hadn't seen the 270 part, which was below the pro-Corridor Cities Transitway section of the letter. Maybe it would have been better if he'd read the letter first, but we applaud this action.

Incumbents Charles Barkley and Kirill Reznik have reliably supported transit issues including Metro funding, the Purple Line, and the CCT, including transit alternatives over widening I-270. They deserve reelection. The most viable candidates vying to succeed Mr. Ali are Shane Robinson and Bob Hydorn, whose positions on these issues differ little.

6 comments

For Montgomery County Council (Aug 31, 2010)
Montgomery, Prince George's officials endorse Fair Share (Apr 5, 2010)
ACT creates Montgomery County transit vision (Feb 16, 2010)
ACT produces District 4 scorecard (Apr 15, 2009)
Who's our candidate for Montgomery District 4? (Mar 4, 2009)

Communication problems accompany Circulator changes

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:33:00 EDT

by Erik W.

Yesterday, the "Blue Bus" between Rosslyn, Georgetown, and Dupont became the District's newest Circulator line. DDOT also decided to make some routing changes to existing lines at the same time. Unfortunately, there has been little communication of these changes.

New Circulator stop flag at L & 24th Streets.

With the new service running along M Street in Georgetown, DDOT decided to reroute the westbound Georgetown-Union Station buses along lower K Street to Wisconsin Avenue, which is actually the alignment from the original Circulator proposal.

Eastbound buses keep the same route along M Street and Pennsylvania. Westbound service is discontinued at 3 stops, while another two would no longer have service heading north on Wisconsin, only west to Rosslyn. This is no "small system change," as DDOT refers to it (scroll to the bottom below the route map).

DDOT has been negotiating this takeover for nearly a year. Yet when it came to implementation on Sunday, the department seemed anything but ready. As of Saturday, there was no communication at the stops or in the buses about the new service changes. Some places in Georgetown had signs noting the switch of the Blue Bus to a Circulator Route, but lacked any notice about changes in the other route.

Furthermore, DDOT had plenty of time to solicit input on the new route and changes to Georgetown-Union Station route that would result. But they didn't. What happened and why has there been such a lack of communication from a government agency that has generally done a stellar job reaching out to the public?

Last week there was a brief outreach campaign centered around various websites and blogs notifying riders that the Blue Bus would become a Circulator. Some of these articles included the Georgetown-Union Station route changes as a footnote, while others failed to mention it altogether. The DDOT press release falls into the former category.

Today when DDOT tweeted a reminder about the new route but failed to put a "." in front of @DCCirculator, meaning only followers of DDOTDC who also follow DCCirculator will have seen the tweet. In fairness to DDOT, Twitter doesn't make this behavior very discoverable and many people aren't aware of it.

Screenshot of DCCirculator.com last night.

Meanwhile, there is no indication of the route changes on the actual Circulator website. DDOT added the new Rosslyn-Georgetown-Dupont route to DCCirculator.com under the individual route list, but as of this writing, the system map had neither any of the Georgetown-Union Station route changes nor the new route marked on it. The last post under "Latest News" is for a June 28th service change. The Circulator mobile site has neither the new route nor the new changes on the other routes.

DDOT posted new Circulator stop flags along M and L streets for the Dupont Circle-Georgetown segment of the new route, yet didn't remove the stop flags from the three stops on Pennsylvania where there would no longer be any Circulator service. As of Monday evening, this was the only notice at Penn and 24th that the Circulator no longer stopped there:

Photo by author

Can't see it? It's the small piece of paper taped to the front of the schedule holder. From the sidewalk, it practically unnoticeable despite its bright pink color. To read it you actually have to step into the street. Even if you do read it, it doesn't offer any advice about a rider's alternatives.

Now that you've told me my bus stop is no longer served, the next thing you should tell me is my next best option. Tell riders that they can take a 32, 34 or 36 — but make sure to notify them it will cost $0.50 more — or tell them they can walk to 22nd and Pennsylvania to catch the Wisconsin-bound route.

At an agency that has so meticulously groomed its branding and communication styles, where are the official fliers, the planned outreach? For all we know even, these pink papers were printed by a fellow rider who was frustrated by the lack of communication. What happened?

56 comments

The Circulator was my idea (Aug 24, 2010)
Circulator could fill Shuttle-Bug's role for Southwest (Aug 9, 2010)
Circulator/Metro map version 2 (Apr 4, 2009)
Circulator thrombosis (Mar 16, 2009)
Jim Graham's northern Circulator (Sep 11, 2008)

For Montgomery County Council

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:36:00 EDT

by David Alpert

I've found the Montgomery County Council frustrating. On important issues around growth, development and transportation, many councilmembers don't take much of a stand and vote in unanimous or near-unanimous numbers even on controversial and vital issues.

Many seem to prefer finding a consensus where they can vote unanimously or nearly-unanimously, regardless of the merits of that consensus. The I-270 battle was a good case in point, where advocates' opposition to SHA's plan got the Council to postpone a vote, then meet for a work session to agree on a compromise, which passed unanimously. As a result, most members avoided ever having to really stick up for or against something.

The County Council needs a strong advocate for Smart Growth and sustainable transportation issues. That would likely be Hans Riemer, if he is successful in his bid for one of the four at-large seats. Hans is a longtime Smart Growth proponent and an active member of ACT. He set out clear and excellent positions in his interview with Cavan.

The four incumbents are all definitely superior to the rest of the challengers besides Riemer. Those incumbents each have their pros and cons.

Marc Elrich has been a strong proponent of a Bus Rapid Transit network, pushing the idea tirelessly and making it a signature issue. However, he's also the strongest defender of traffic-based tests that in effect hinder walkable development.

Nancy Floreen pushed through the White Flint plan, one of Montgomery's biggest opportunities for meaningful transit-oriented development, and opposes the traffic-based tests that Elrich likes. On the other hand, she also opposes most rules that would limit development in rural areas far from transit. She generally advocates building in the county and is less discerning about what or where.

George Leventhal has been a leader in the fight for the Purple Line, and for transit in general in the county. Yet he also strongly supported widening I-270, and basically favors any transportation project of any kind in any location. Duchy Trachtenberg has been good on the environment and transit issues as well and not a road booster, but hasn't shown as much leadership on growth and transportation issues generally.

I'd recommend Montgomery residents (like my in-laws) vote for Mr. Riemer and decide among the other candidates based on the other issues, like schools, budgets, labor relations and many more. If you're not sure of some of the candidates, it's also fine to vote for only two or three. Leaving a blank or two on the ballot makes the votes you do cast count even more, as the top four total vote-getters win the seats.

Two district seats are also contested, which happen to be the two that had Montgomery's greatest development debates in the last few years. District 1 includes Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Potomac, and has significant numbers of residents who oppose the Purple Line and/or White Flint. Roger Berliner, the incumbent, has championed both projects a good future for his area despite the short-term political risk. Meanwhile, his challenger, Ilaya Hopkins, has chosen to throw her lot in with the antis. Mr. Berliner should be reelected to prove that anti sentiment doesn't drive Montgomery politics.

In District 2, the suburban and rural northern part of the County, former Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson is the best choice for the open seat. He's been a strong proponent of Smart Growth on the Planning Board, and was largely responsible for the Agricultural Reserve, the large belt of (mostly) protected land at the County's edge, much of which is in that district. His support for the sprawl development at Gaithersburg West was more of a disappointment, but his multi-decade track record warrants your vote.

The other district members, Phil Andrews, Nancy Navarro, and Valerie Ervin, do not have primary challengers.

17 comments

For state legislature in Montgomery County (Sep 1, 2010)
Hans Riemer discusses White Flint, Wheaton, and eastern Montgomery County (Apr 30, 2010)
Floreen: Rockville works fine without LOS rule (Jan 21, 2010)
ACT produces District 4 scorecard (Apr 15, 2009)
MoCoCo picks developer over transit-oriented activist (Jun 26, 2008)

Reconfigure L'Enfant escalators for an easier transfer

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:13:00 EDT

by Matt Johnson

The southern mezzanine at L'Enfant Plaza is only used for transferring passengers. But its current configuration is inefficient. Metro could easily solve this problem by reversing two escalators.

Photo by author.

L'Enfant Plaza is one of the busiest stations in the system. It's the only Metro stop with 4 rail lines. Many passengers transfer each day between the Blue, Orange, Green, and Yellow Lines.

The station is plus-shaped. On the upper level, the Green and Yellow Lines run in a north-south direction. The platforms are on either side of the tracks. The lower level holds the Blue and Orange Lines. They share a center platform between the tracks, which run east-west.

Exits are located at the east, west, and northern ends of the station. The eastern and western exits are located on the same level as the Green and Yellow Lines. The northern exit is above the Green and Yellow tracks.

A map at L'Enfant Plaza. North is to the right.
Photo by the author.

At the extreme south end of the station there is another mezzanine. But it does not have an exit. It's main purpose is to enable people to transfer between northbound Green or Yellow trains to southbound trains on the opposite line. It also enables patrons headed for the exit on the opposite side of the Green/Yellow tracks to cross them without transiting the lower level Blue/Orange platform.

But it is currently set up inefficiently.

Typical mezzanine arrangement. Graphic by author.

On mezzanines for underground side-platform stations, the escalators furthest from the faregates typically run up (away from the platform) while escalators closest to the faregates go down (toward the platform). If there are three pairs of escalators or if the configuration of the mezzanine is different, this setup can vary.

But the main reason for this design is so that riders entering the station can go directly down to the platform, while riders exiting trains encounter the up escalator first (unless they exit from one of the cars under the mezzanine). Because of this design, Metro typically arranges its side platform stations so that patrons enter and exit on whichever side of the station manager's kiosk their platform is.

This contrasts with center platform stations, where passengers usually enter and exit to the right of the kiosk (from their point of view). Although this also can vary.

Note: elevator placement varies widely because they were added to the design of the earlier stations after construction was underway.

But this is not an issue with L'Enfant's southern mezzanine. Since there's no exit, patrons don't need to be channeled to the faregates. The current setup, on the other hand, forces riders transferring between platforms to crisscross the mezzanine and cross paths with patrons moving in the opposite direction. It's an illogical, confusing setup which adds an obstacle to changing trains.

L'Enfant southern mezzanine. Graphic by author.

It would be far simpler to pair the up escalator with a down escalator in the same position on the opposite platform. This would shorten the distance patrons have to walk through the mezzanine.

Of course, on average, a person making two trips each day would walk the same distance — a shorter trip at one end of the day and a longer trip at the other end.

But it would make the mezzanine easier to navigate and give it a more logical layout.

76 comments

A split-level Dulles Metro stop would be best (Aug 26, 2010)
Mapping Metro's escalators (Aug 20, 2010)
Expanded mezzanine planned for Union Station Metro (Jul 29, 2010)
A cheaper route to Metro core capacity? (Jun 29, 2009)
Tweaked Rosslyn station on Metro 2030 map (Apr 28, 2008)

Who runs the Circulator

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:45:00 EDT

by Erik W.

The City Paper asks Vince Gray if he'd turn over a future streetcar system to WMATA to run. He fairly rightly answers that he'd hesitate to put a DC-specific transit system under the control of a regional entity. (David Alpert)

Comment

The inglorious path back to Metro glory: Maintenance

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:31:00 EDT

by Ken Archer

For all the complaints about MetroRail, from outages to safety concerns, it's easy to forget that MetroRail was until recently considered by many to be the best subway system in the country. For those of us who rode the subway in the 1990s, this is not a distant memory.

Bus Maintenance circa 1954

So what happened? The MetroRail system got old. Much of MetroRail was built between 1970 and 1990. For a generation, we didn't have to worry about broken escalators and elevators, doors that wouldn't close and tracks that malfunctioned. Everything just worked because it was new.

The solution, according to WMATA's Capital Needs Inventory, is to replace all of the aging infrastructure that is at the end of its useful life. Hence the sizeable capital budget from WMATA.

The $11 billion in capital needs are driven by a number of factors, including the age and condition of Metro's assets. The 30-year old Metrorail system requires many life cycle replacement costs for the first time, including the replacement of nearly one-third of the rail car fleet. Similarly, Metrobuses need to be replaced and rehabilitated on a regular schedule.

The obstacle, we are told, is a lack of dedicated funding to finance this massive replacement. But is "useful life"-based replacement really the solution? Is it the best practice in maintenance today? Let's look a little closer at maintenance that is based on the "useful life" of infrastructure.

Scheduled Maintenance: The first step in the evolution of any organization's maintenance strategy is from reactive to proactive maintenance. The advantages of this step are obvious (fewer breakdowns, longer service life) and the easiest way to implement proactive maintenance is with a schedule. All transit agencies have implemented proactive, scheduled maintenance programs, for which we are fortunate as firms in many industries have not.

However, scheduled maintenance has one fundamental weakness: because maintenance is based on a calendar and not the objective condition of an asset, it is almost always either too late and a breakdown has already occurred, or it is way too early and thus wasteful. The breakdowns, of course, only increase reactive maintenance expenses, thus undermining the attempt to be proactive and stealing funds from proactive maintenance efforts.

The FTA is even complaining that manufacturers are building vehicles whose maximum useful life is based on agency expectations. While this weakness can be partially addressed by scheduling maintenance based on usage and not a calendar (just like a car's 3,000 mile maintenance intervals), any scheduled maintenance strategy inevitably creates a false costs vs quality trade-off. This is because the only way to improve reliability through scheduled maintenance is to increase its frequency, which further increases wasteful maintenance costs.

Much of the nation's built environment was built in the same generation as MetroRail, and our daily lives have become increasingly dependent on this infrastructure. Maintenance of aging infrastructure is thus not just a MetroRail challenge but one of the leading challenges facing the country. Scheduled maintenance could bankrupt our country while still leaving it with an unreliable infrastructure. Fortunately, maintenance best practices have developed that provide a blueprint to a smarter, leaner and more reliable built infrastructure.

Reliability-Centered Maintenance: Reliability-Centered Maintenance initiates maintenance activities when monitors or tests indicate that an asset's condition is likely to lead to breakdown. For example, vibration or temperature, two of the most common leading indicators of breakdowns, are easily monitored with remote sensors. Because the condition of an asset, instead of a schedule, determines when maintenance is initiated, this approach is called condition-based or reliability-centered maintenance.

The goal of reliability-centered maintenance is to initiate the right maintenance at the right time. The result is that maintenance is less costly and more effective.

DoD Hierarchy of Maintenance Approaches

Identifying the conditions that are leading indicators of different types of breakdown is accomplished through Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). The ways in which a car or bus system or subsystem could fail, its failure modes, are identified along with the possible causes of each failure mode. Causes of failure modes that are more likely to occur or have severe consequences are then monitored using remote sensors or manual tests. FMEA is an essential step to improving both reliability and safety at Metro.

Where is Metro on the hierarchy of maintenance approaches? Metro currently practices calendar-based scheduled maintenance, and has made the decision to migrate to usage-based scheduled maintenance. While this is good, it will not enable Metro to return to its glory days at an affordable price. The prospect of migrating to reliability-centered maintenance has both good and bad news.

The Good News: Many pieces are in place for a transition to reliability-centered maintenance that would be a model for the nation's transit agencies.

First, WMATA has invested in the leading asset management software system (IBM Maximo) which supports reliability-centered maintenance. Metro is currently using Maximo to track every asset it owns (267,000 assets) so that, for example, replacement components can be identified instantly or maintenance instructions can be remotely downloaded for any component. The Safety Management System that was quickly built by WMATA IT this year enables the Safety Office to analyze failures through point-and-click identification of components in any system.

However, Maximo could also be used to associate asset conditions (e.g. temperature levels) with failure modes. When this is done, Maximo can not only enable more cost-efficient reliability-centered maintenance, it can even use the data it collects to report the maintenance or replacement costs required to support any asset availability target (e.g. 99% availability). Imagine a capital expense budget that includes this type of data-driven, performance-based justification for each line item.

Second, WMATA has equipped the majority of its buses with Automatic Vehicle Monitoring (AVM) instruments. These instruments continuously survey the bus during operation, silently collecting fault, performance, and service data from braking, electrical, engine, transmission, security, fare collection, accessibility, and climate control systems, and then automatically uploading the data nightly.

The Bad News: Despite the presence of the building blocks for implementing maintenance best practices, there seems to be no management-level leadership in maintenance best practices, perhaps the most critical discipline for the future of Metro. As a result, WMATA remains in the trap of expensive reactive maintenance caused by calendar-based maintenance schedules that are independent of the conditions of WMATA's 267,000 assets.

A case in point is the elevators and escalators, some of whose manufacturers are out-of-business requiring expensive consultants or wholesale replacement. However, we were only reliant on these manufacturers because we implemented their maintenance schedules, instead of conducting Failure Mode and Effects Analysis to develop our own internal knowledge base and condition-based maintenance system for each elevator and escalator. Now Metro has hired a consultant to "fix" the elevators and escalators in 4 stations, a short-term reactive solution that will only work until the next elevator or escalator failure in those stations requires another heroic, expensive consultant.

WMATA can do this. It's been done in the airline and defense industries, and it will eventually be done in transit. The WMATA Board should select a GM with experience in reliability-centered maintenance, preferably from the airline or defense sectors. And we should encourage WMATA to lead the way among transit agencies, none of whom have adopted these maintenance best practices, lest rail travel across the country be increasingly perceived as out-dated, dangerous and unreliable.

48 comments

Mapping Metro's escalators (Aug 20, 2010)
Metro needs calm, proactive hazard analysis (Aug 4, 2010)
Sarles focusing on "basics" of safety, reliability, finances (May 11, 2010)
Is using capital for operations saving our service or mortgaging our future? (Feb 4, 2010)
Metro responds; wanted money from Google Transit (Dec 16, 2008)

The only way is up

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:03:00 EDT

by Erik W.

The final piece of the fare hike that began nearly a month ago goes into effect this morning. A few hours in and it's already causing confusion. (WAMU)

Comment

Capitol Hill streetcars

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:03:00 EDT

by Erik W.

The Hill is Home digs up an old map of Capitol Hill street railway lines.

Comment