Our region must commit to maintaining transit

Budget

Our region must commit to maintaining transit

by David Alpert • January 5, 2010 12:19 pm

The proposed WMATA cuts for the remainder of the current fiscal year threaten to throw Metro into a "death spiral."

People inside this zone are only a little bit screwed. From WMATA.

Some cuts are okay, if not ideal, like closing some mezzanines on low-ridership rail stations off-peak, and removing some bus stops which could actually improve service for most riders. However, others will seriously diminish the value of the rail system as a reliable method of transportation beyond just peak commuting.

Widening headways from 12 to 15 minutes weekdays and Saturdays, from 15 to 20 Sundays, and worst of all from 20 to 30 late nights (15 to 20 on the Red Line) could drive more people to drive, especially in the parts of the system where lines don't double up.

In the more park-and-ride sections of the system, driving is already a fairly appealing alternative, and this would make it even more appealing; in walkable areas without doubled lines, like the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor or the Green Line from Waterfront to River East, the rail system is foundational to property values and future growth.

Meanwhile, WMATA also proposes eliminating 8-car trains during the peak. The peak rush is the time where Metrorail recovers the largest proportion of its costs (around 90%), and where trains are already fullest. Before the economic crisis, Metro was talking about growing all trains to 8 cars.

This change would reduce Orange Line capacity by 9%, but rail ridership has only declined 5%, and Orange trains are still crush loaded. Platforms are often crowded to the point of becoming dangerous. Unless Metro has more data to prove that there's enough room for everyone on the trains, this change is likely to reduce ridership, likely losing the majority of the savings through lower fare collections.

The rail cuts would only save $4 million. I'm sure there are some administrative cuts to be made (WMATA has more administrative assistants than the local DOTs, for example), but probably not $4 million immediately. We can't keep taking all the costs out of the WMATA budget. Transit is a vital service that we can't simply slash when times are tough.

The Washington region would not be the thriving metropolis it is today without the Metro system and good transit in general. It was a large contributor to reversing the decline of downtown DC, Rosslyn-Ballston, and inner Montgomery County communities, and has enabled substantial economic growth without enormous and expensive new freeway construction. Our governments have to contribute to supporting this vital service, and WMATA Board members should start talking publicly about this.

In fact, according to the WMATA Compact, local jurisdictions are obligated to cover any budget shortfalls:

25. Adoption and Distribution of Budgets.
(a) ...
(b) Each budget shall indicate the amounts, if any, required from the federal government, the Government of the District of Columbia, the Washington Suburban Transit District and the component governments of the Northern Virginia Transportation District, determined in accordance with the commitments made pursuant to Article VII, Section 18 of this Title, to balance each of said budgets.
26. Payments.
Subject to such review and approval as may be required by their budgetary or other applicable processes, the federal government, the Government of the District of Columbia, the Washington Suburban Transit District, and the component governments of the Northern Virginia Transportation District shall include their respective budgets next to be adopted and appropriate or otherwise provide the amounts certified to each of them as set forth in the budgets.

If I'm reading this correctly, that means that technically, WMATA could simply fail to close the budget gap, and DC, the Washington Suburban Transit District (paid for by the State of Maryland) and the Northern Virginia Transportation District (paid for by Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax City, and Fairfax County) would have to budget money to cover it.

Of course, this won't happen, at the very least because the Governor of Maryland controls the Maryland Board members, and the Governor doesn't want to pay more for transit for an area that's not the political epicenter of the state. The other members would likely have some political obstacles with their local jurisdictions as well. But that shouldn't stop them from talking about it. The local governments officially do have an obligation to cover this.

They might not be able to come up with money mid-year, but there are ways to deal with that. WMATA could divert some of their preventative maintenance money or reserve fund balance to close the gap (and this budget proposal already includes some of that in addition to the cuts). That could impact future service, so they should push jurisdictions to pay it back in the future over a set number of years, either through cash or bus priority improvements.

There's a tacit silence right now between the Board and jurisdictional governments (partly because they're often the same people) about jurisdictions' obligations and the fact that transit benefits non-riders as well as riders by taking cars off the roads. It's time to break the silence.

66 comments — Share	— tags: service cuts, WMATA, WMATA budget, WMATA compact

WMATA Board, JCC still silent on bus priority, rider input (Dec 18, 2009)
Jurisdictions should contribute in dollars or bus priorities (Dec 3, 2009)
Board to Catoe: Cut service to balance budget (Sep 21, 2009)
Metro should start publicly discussing next year's budget now (Apr 20, 2009)
Proposed Metro service cuts take more from DC (Feb 25, 2009)

Comments

Lots of unfinished sentences and paragraphs in this post, FYI...

by NikolasM on Jan 5, 2010 12:30 pm

Sorry, I think they're fixed now.

by David Alpert on Jan 5, 2010 12:31 pm

You are absolutely right about the death spiral. It makes me sick to my stomach that we are witnessing the death of Metro as an elite and reliable system. Service is already far worse than it used to be (on Metro trains, not buses) and many people are at their breaking point with CURRENT service levels. Something like 30 minute headways will simply kill Metro's functionality for the average person. And the loss of the 2 extra cars will make the "orange crush" the orange line demolition.

Raise fares, slash back office staff, or cut unused bus routes. Killing your golden goose is just the icing on the cake for the Catoe/Graham administration at Metro. We should be hopping mad, but we aren't. Now is the time- before it's too late.

by SG on Jan 5, 2010 12:40 pm

The jurisdictions themselves are hurting because of the recession...I don't see how you can even think of requiring more money from them, obligations or not. If they can earmark more money, great...but to expect them to when they're hurting themselves is shameful.

Using maintenance money to cover the gap, especially given the huge maintenance needs on the system, is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Nevermind that it further adds to the potential for a major system breakdown....which would further exacerbate your "death spiral". That option should be off-the-table as well.

by Froggie on Jan 5, 2010 12:41 pm

@ Froggie: Are VDOT, MDOT and DDOT not filling potholes because of the economic crisis? Why can they pay for that and not for metro? Is the ICC slowed down? Did the Alexandria Beltway project stop? Then why is there no funding for metro?

by Jasper on Jan 5, 2010 12:50 pm

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see how eliminating 8 car trains saves that much money. There is only one person driving the train, so if it's got 6 cars or 8 cars, why should it matter? Is the extra electricity required to run a longer train that much of an expense or am I missing something?

Along those same lines, if cutting two cars from a train really does save that much money, why not run 4 car trains late at night instead of 6 car trains? While the service is important, those trains are never full to begin with except when they take people home from a special event at the Verizon Center, FedEx Field, etc and Metro usually anticipates those events and runs extra cars anyway.

by Teo on Jan 5, 2010 1:03 pm

I think they should raise fares, maybe make the minimum $2 or something like that, but I wouldn't cut service to the extent that we'd have 30 minute headways at night. That's ridiculous.

And I don't think we should be slowing down construction of the ICC or on the Beltway either. These kinds of infrastructure improvements are important; obviously transit is important but we need upgrades of all kinds and certain road projects are worth our while.

There are certainly areas we can cut to make up some losses, but I think raising prices would make the biggest dent and I don't think ridership would fall too much.

by Vik on Jan 5, 2010 1:21 pm

I should add that I think a fare increase could dictate the choices of outer commuters more than people close-in so maybe just a modest increase for long trips. I think breaking the $5 dollar mark could do some psychological damage.

by Vik on Jan 5, 2010 1:24 pm

Real leadership would go back to Congress, the District, Annapolis and Richmond and demand more money.

Fire Catoe.

DC's service will be worse the Baltimore...and this is the Capitol of this country? That's not leadership.

by Redline SOS on Jan 5, 2010 1:28 pm

No fare increases until each Metro Board member swears upon penalty of perjury and death that he or she regularly takes Metro bus and rail.

by Fritz on Jan 5, 2010 1:30 pm

@Teo:
The electricity cost to run an 8-car train is 33% more than to run a 6-car train. The electricity cost to run a 6-car train is 50% more than running a 4-car train. The electricity cost to run a 4-car train is *double* the cost to run a 2-car train. Similarly, the electricitiy needed to run an 8-car train is four times the cost of running a 2-car train and twice that of running a 4-car train.

On the 4-car versus 6-car issue, if WMATA was running 6-car trains during rush hours and 4-car trains otherwise, they would need staff and time to break the 6-car trains down at the ends and beginnings of the peaks. That would probably cost more.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 5, 2010 1:31 pm

@Teo:
I thought it had something to do with arranging 8-car trains and having to detach them and reattach them into 6-car trains for off peak/maintenance. Still doesn't make a ton of sense, but explains a bit more than you'd first think.

by kidincredible on Jan 5, 2010 1:31 pm

Can't WMATA generate revenue by allowing (non-food) retail inside the stations? Would also ease the pain on riders of the wider headways. See my comment on Michael Perkins' post a few minutes ago.

by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 5, 2010 1:38 pm

Catoe is having a lunchtime chat on Friday - it would be good if as many of us as possible relay our feelings to him in question form now before the queue fills up and he doesn't have time to answer all the questions.

by Matt Glazewski on Jan 5, 2010 1:50 pm

Ward 1 Guy, that's not too bad of an idea to have a Metro souvenir stand but in the end, the money to be made there would not be anywhere near the ballpark estimate to close the budget gap. I doubt it would even be in the same order of magnitude. (link to definition of order of magnitude in this context)

by Cavan on Jan 5, 2010 2:02 pm

I think this is an instance where Maryland and Virginia really need to step it up and fill in the gap. As it is, D.C.'s neighboring jurisdictions are getting away with a steal. Metro claims a service area of 3.5 million. According to Metro's budget, the $130 million in local Metrorail (only) subsidies are divided as follows:

DC: 33.3%
MD: 38.2%
VA: 28.5%

Anybody notice anything strange about these numbers? How about that the smallest jurisdiction (D.C.) is paying a third of the Metorail's cost. That's unfathomable. Now, I understand that Metro has been a boon to the city and without it we probably would not have the viable downtown (even though the feds and non-profits don't pay property taxes) and the burgeoning renaissance in our neighborhoods that we have today. And it's exactly for that reason that D.C. quietly pays its share each year, and has opted-in to most (if not all?) voluntary debt-servicing programs to help Metro maintain the system.

However, the economic benefits that Metrorail has brought to Maryland and Virginia are just as extreme. For the last 20 years, Metro has allowed nearly 400k people to easily commute to their jobs in D.C. from Maryland and Virginia, creating a stable tax base in those states that is probably the envy of any every other state in the country. In addition, as David says, the rail system has increased the economic viability of near-in suburbs served by Metrorail stations from Wilson Boulevard to Silver Spring.

However, it is probably not against all reasonable sense that the surrounding jurisdictions who account for 82% of residents in the service area but only a third of Metrorail's subsidy could be asked to pick up a little more slack. I know that tax bases, even around here, are eroding as people lose jobs and as property values plummet. However, there is still one area this year in which states are making money: municipal bonds. Both Maryland and Virginia have maintained their AAA ratings and are expected to see their bond revenue increase this year (forecasters expect a 5% jump in 2010 bond sales). Maryland and Virginia could and should use some of that extra bond revenue to help maintain Metro. The extra revenue could easily help pay for station and track repairs, new rail cars, and perhaps even provide some debt-servicing relief to WMATA, which would in turn free up some of Metro's operating funds. There was even some talk about Metro raiding the capital budget to help pay for some operating expenses, which other derided as short-sighted given the system's massive capital needs. However, if that extra capital revenue can be replaced by higher capital subsidies from the states, then it may be worth another look.

by Adam L on Jan 5, 2010 2:03 pm

As a regular Orange line commuter, the elimination of 8 car trains could be the breaking point for me. The trains are still very crowded, particularly before 7 pm.

If I can't reliably get on a train on the days I'm lucky enough to leave work before 7 (at Foggy Bottom), and face a wait of up to 15 minutes when I'm not, I really might have to consider getting a car.

I'm willing to pay more for my ride (particularly since I'm paying for my metro rides with untaxed dollars), but understand that not everyone can bear a fare increase easily.

by Patrick on Jan 5, 2010 2:11 pm

@Patrick, I'm totally with you on that one. I changed my work schedule so that I go home at the beginning of rush hour to make sure I get a seat on the Orange line. There's only so much Orange Sardine Train I can take.

by Matt Glazewski on Jan 5, 2010 2:15 pm

@Adam L: Metrorail subsidy sharing formula is based on a three-part formula, with each third of the subsidy allocated by number of stations, ridership, and density-weighted population. Since DC is at or near the top of all of these categories, it is fair that their share is so high. Changing this formula would be a political non-starter, as any jurisdiction harmed by the change would vote against it and per the compact all jurisdictions must have at least one vote in favor for something to be approved by the Board.

DC opted in to debt servicing programs because their credit rating was in the toilet. The local VA jurisdictions had good credit so they borrowed money themselves and contributed cash instead of agreeing to service debt.

Another word for "bond revenue" is "borrowing". And yes, states are borrowing a lot this year. It's a recession.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 5, 2010 2:21 pm

Somebody need to get Obama involved in this. Metro is too big to fail. A few billion from the Feds would do nicely.

by Lou on Jan 5, 2010 2:21 pm

@ Adam:

The funding formula metro uses is based on population, ridership and number of stations within each jurisdiction, each weighted by one third. This link explains it: http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/subsidy_allocation.pdf

It's probably as a good a balance between the jurisdictions as can be easily negotiated.

by A P on Jan 5, 2010 2:28 pm

@Lou: we already got $1.5B over 10 years in authorized dedicated capital money, as well as FTA formula grants, and over $200M in federal stimulus dollars. How much more do we need?

This isn't a poor region of the country. We have some of the richest counties in Virginia and Maryland. I'm not sure about DC but I would be surprised if they were significantly below the national median income.

It's time for this region to recognize WMATA's importance and fund it at an appropriate level. We can't wait for the feds to bail us out.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 5, 2010 2:32 pm

I'm getting a network server error message from the WMATA chat page.

"A communication error occurred: "Operation timed out"
The Web Server may be down, too busy, or experiencing other problems preventing it from responding to requests. You may wish to try again at a later time."

The f'n web site fails too?!

I want John Catoe's resignation and I want it NOW!

by Redline SOS on Jan 5, 2010 2:41 pm

For those of you that are advocating moving to 4 car trains on the weekend have you forgotten what happened the last time metro tried this? It was only a couple of years ago and the trains ended up packed like it was rush hour. The combination of the shorter headways and the shorter trains was a disaster. There were so many complaints that this attempt to save money disappeared rather quickly. I realize it will save money but this is not the way to do it!

by Craig on Jan 5, 2010 2:42 pm

@MP and AP

Believe me, I'm aware of how the Metrorail subsidy is formulated and I'm not exactly advocating to change it. In an ideal world I would eliminate the entire subsidy system and provide WMATA with dedicated funding, but I recognize that's a pipe dream.

However, from what I can tell, that formula only covers operating subsidies, not the capital budget. It is on that end that I think Maryland and Virginia could squeak out a bit more to save cuts to service that will disproportionately affect their jurisdictions. And Michael, I'm now happy to say that D.C. has had a AAA bond rating for the last several years... so maybe we can do away with the bond servicing? ;-)

Further, did the board already approve a fare hike? Has either Catoe or the Board seriously proposed eliminating or at least changing the "reduced" fare hours? On late nights and weekends, I think charging peak fares would be perfectly acceptable. For example, I know when I lived in College Park I would gladly pay $4.50 to get home late at night in comparison to a $30 cab ride.

by Adam L on Jan 5, 2010 2:48 pm

Even a year ago, if I were to generalize about Metro, I'd say that while WMATA has its problems, Metrorail is generally quite good, but that Metrobus has some deep problems. These days, however, I'm not so sure about Metrorail. It seems more and more common, in the past year, when no track maintenance is going on, for there to be waits for trains that far exceed whatever the schedule says, both during rush hour and off-peak. Whether deliberate or the result of an accumulation of small failures, it seems like there is already a scaling-back of service.

by thm on Jan 5, 2010 2:57 pm

The headways being longer than it would take to drive is my breaking point. Think about it: I live in Old Town, work on Capitol Hill and often stay at work late, or in the neighborhood for various reasons (social, professional, academic).

After 7pm, that's a 15-20 minute drive. In theory, on Metro that could be a 30 minute wait for the Red Line, (starting at Union Station), a few minutes to Gallery Place, then a 30 minute wait for the Yellow Line and then 20 minutes to King Street....about 1 hr 25 minutes. More than 4 times the highest driving estimate.

by Catherine on Jan 5, 2010 3:04 pm

@Catherine

I totally get what you're saying, and I think a lot of people would be forced into the same position. However, not every employer gets to pave over half of Capitol Hill for staff parking. ;-)

by Adam L on Jan 5, 2010 3:30 pm

@ Michael Perkins
"I'm not sure about DC but I would be surprised if they were significantly below the national median income."

It's above. Significantly above, depending on your idea of what's significant. 12th highest nationally. Now, compared to many of the surrounding Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions, the median income looks a relatively low, but I think a lot of us have a very skewed perspective on just how extraordinarily wealthy this whole area is.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-_box_head_nbr=R1901&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-format=US-30&-CONTEXT=grt

by Catherine on Jan 5, 2010 3:33 pm

@ Adam,

I'm not nearly important enough to get a parking pass on the Hill, and most of our parking is underground or on closed-to-traffic streets anyway. When I drive (usually to get to a doctor's appointment after work or something), I park at Union Station or any of the other sort-of-close garages. The true end result would be my driving on the days I only *have* to stay late (twice a month maybe), and take my eating, drinking, ballet-taking and other assorted money-spending ways back to Old Town with me, on-peak :).

by Catherine on Jan 5, 2010 3:41 pm

The presentation proposes to "eliminate 8 car trains" during peak service - I personally haven't seen an 8-car train since the big Red Line collision.

by Glenn on Jan 5, 2010 3:42 pm

The language in the Compact only provides that the particular governments will request the funds in their budgets, it doesn't actually require them to cough up cash (in the case of the Feds and DC, making a promise for an unlimited amount of actual cash in advance of appropriations would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act). So it's nice feel good language, and it does have some moral weight, but it doesn't provide any assurances that the localities will actually fund anything. Also, given the way Federal and DC budgeting go, those two entities would have to know about a possible shortfall a good year and a half to two years beforehand in order to get it into the proper budget request.

by Moose on Jan 5, 2010 4:18 pm

Looking at the the Metro PPT link the problem looks to be problems with Metro Budgeting. They took the 2008-2009 numbers of rail passengers and revenue(a record year)and add 5%.
If the budget by just adding 5% to every line they will have a shortfall in years with less revenue. To archive Metro budget it would mean records passengers year after year. Budgeting this way means that there is no reasons for departments to keep cost down.

by Will on Jan 5, 2010 4:38 pm

@Craig - yes, crowded 4 car trains would be a pain. But would you rather wait 20 minutes for a crowded 4 car train so you could get moving, or wait 30 minutes for a crowded 6 car train?

by Matt Glazewski on Jan 5, 2010 4:51 pm

I understand the costs involved with putting together a 6 car train from a 4 car train and that they don't just snap together like lego bricks even though I don't know exactly how complicated the coupling really is. From what I've seen, it looks like they are put together with the central coupler and perhaps a plug or two for the electricity?

Anyway, I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to take those late night 4 car trains and put them into 8 car trains for the morning rush? Or maybe take three of the 4 car trains and split them into two 6 car trains? I realize this is probably a little silly to think about especially since 4 car trains aren't even on the table. However, the fact remains that the trains were designed to be modular for a reason. It seems like it's currently much harder to take a 6 car train and turn it into an 8 car train than it is to take 4 car trains and turn them into 8 car trains or 6 car trains, at least based on my limited understanding of this.

by Teo on Jan 5, 2010 5:28 pm

One thing I find striking is WMATA's prediction that the elimination of eight-car trains at rush hour would only save $672,000 in FY 2010. Is this really worth the crowding, the negativity toward the Metro, and the lost customers that would likely result??

by Matt on Jan 5, 2010 10:35 pm

When I first moved to DC I fell in love with the clean and efficient metro system that allowed me to get rid of one of my family's two cars. I have since become disenchanted. The evening ride from Foggy Bottom to Ballston has become unbearable and I fear that a decrease in metro's service will reduce the value of property close to the metro.

I do not understand how metro continues to suffer financially. Are they independently audited? There must be an incredible amount of waste.

by Cody on Jan 5, 2010 11:22 pm

@Cody:

It's my impression that they're overpaid. If I remember correctly, they just asked for a raise and got a substantial one, as well. I don't know of any company that would give raises to employees when the company is on the verge of collapse. There is also a lot of wasted electricity in the form of inefficient lighting and escalators that (when they do run) run constantly instead of slowing down when not in use (there are holes at the bottom of each set to install motion detectors that would accelerate the escalator once someone got on, but they're not being used).

I actually wonder whether buying and installing the motion detection system would be worth the savings in electricity and maintenance on the escalators.

A wild idea (even less likely to happen than my 4 car train idea from before) would be to use the ventilation shafts just outside the stations to "funnel" natural light into the station via mirrors (like this system but on a larger scale: http://www.myhomeenergysolutions.com/skylights-sun-tunnels.html) to allow the dimming of lights and thus cut down on electricity costs during the day.

I also wonder how efficient the trains are. Do they use regenerative braking, for example? I doubt it, but that's not something that can be changed as easily or inexpensively as adding motion sensors to escalators the next time it breaks and you need to take it apart to fix it.

by Teo on Jan 5, 2010 11:41 pm

The Metro Riders Advisory Council meets tomorrow (Wed) http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/riders_advisory_council/. I strongly recommend people attend to address cocerns regarding the cuts being considered.

If you look at the proposed budget metro will save $672,000 by getting rid of rush hour 8 car trains but plans to lose 1% ridership. This seems improbable with a reduction in capacity of 7%.

Don't let metro force more people to the roads, go to Wednesday's meeting and let your voice be heard.

by Cody on Jan 5, 2010 11:41 pm

I know I'm not going to earn any brownie points for saying this, but as a taxpayer, if I had a say in where taxpayer bailout funds should go, they should go to help alleviate some of the financial burdens of the transit agencies to tide them over until the economy recovers. But here's what I really don't get. With all the development that has been created along the the entire Metro network, how about some of the beneficiaries of this development success pay some of that forward? It is my understanding, that if not for the Metro system, the likelihood of some or most of that development coming to fruition, would have been less likely, maybe even far less likely. Anyway, barring the "pay-it-forward" bit, is there such a thing as "transit agency/developer strategic alliances?" Maybe this could be a way of encouraging private investment to help defray some of the costs, especially since Metro appears to be such a valuable and beneficial service if not asset.

As it relates, here is quote from RAIL Magazine (a Community Transportation Association of America publication), edition 19 from the article "Defined by Distinctiveness: Washington Metro" http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/rail/rail19/Washington_Metro.pdf

"In the early 1990s, planners and county business development teams worked directly with investors to coordinate large development projects in the area. Approval was granted for a series of high-rise condominium and apartment buildings to take advantage of the region's strong real estate market. Meanwhile, substantial commercial developments brought mixed-use retail and residential activity at locations such as Clarendon Station between the Clarendon and Court House Metro stops, and Ballston Common, adjacent to the Virginia Square and Ballston stations. With that, the race to grab a piece of the Orange Line corridor real estate action was on."

"Between 1979 and today, the five stations have spurred more than $9 billion in development, including 22.5 million square feet of office space and 3 million square feet of retail activity. Most significantly, while the corridor represents 7.6 percent of the county's land area, it produces more than 32 percent of its property taxes. Equally as important, Arlington County boasts the lowest real estate tax rates in the region."

"Today, the Orange Line route in Arlington County is cited as a preeminent case study in transit and rail-oriented development. But the mindset that spurred its prosperity has found similar utility in other communities and corridors throughout the Metro system." ("Defined by Distinctiveness: Washington Metro," by Rich Sampson, RAIL magazine, edition 19, Fall 2007, pp. 24 & 25.)

by Alan Kandel on Jan 6, 2010 1:37 am

@Teo:
The electricity cost to run an 8-car train is 33% more than to run a 6-car train. The electricity cost to run a 6-car train is 50% more than running a 4-car train. The electricity cost to run a 4-car train is *double* the cost to run a 2-car train. Similarly, the electricitiy needed to run an 8-car train is four times the cost of running a 2-car train and twice that of running a 4-car train.
On the 4-car versus 6-car issue, if WMATA was running 6-car trains during rush hours and 4-car trains otherwise, they would need staff and time to break the 6-car trains down at the ends and beginnings of the peaks. That would probably cost more.

There are significant aerodynamic effects at Metrorail speeds that are not increased by the 7-8th cars. There is every reason to believe that 3 8-car trains consume a considerably lower amount of energy than 4 6-car trains, in other words.

by Squalish on Jan 6, 2010 2:01 am

@Squalish: Most of the time, Metro is operating below 30-40MPH, where rolling and other friction dominate for wheeled vehicles. Aerodynamic friction is an airstream velocity squared function, so it's most significant at the highest speeds.

I'll need to check my fluids textbook but I believe that long bodies in fluids streams suffer from increased drag if you make them longer. I think it has to do with the fact that the turbulent boundary layer is fully developed for a long body.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 6, 2010 7:19 am

@Michael P - As far as I can recollect from my fluids education, I concur with your response.

by Matt Glazewski on Jan 6, 2010 7:58 am

@Squalish:
My numbers regarding energy consuption come from WMATA. I assume they know what they're talking about, but I don't have a degree in Electrical or Aerospace Engineering, so I can't verify.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 6, 2010 9:27 am

Why does every commenter on this page start their reply with an "@"? How superfluous!

by @? on Jan 6, 2010 9:36 am

@@:
Netiquette.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/@#Computing_and_Internet

by Matt Johnson on Jan 6, 2010 9:44 am

WMATA is making the right decision by moving to reduce the FY 10 budget shortfall. Unfortunately most of the actions being taken simply shift or defer operating costs. The agency under John Catoe has become a place where only about a dozen people make any decisions. The agency needs to make an across the board reduction of staff of 5%, hold wages at current levels, and increase healthcare contributions. The agency also needs to reduce the spending on high cost IT staff which have increased dramatically under the current IT director.

by Interested on Jan 6, 2010 9:45 am

didn't NYC make their system better by generally giving a damn? you know, clean up the cars and stations, improve service and safety. that whole if you build it they will come mentality.

a variety of factors go into people's decision making as evidenced by the comments here. in my opinion, metro should make as many improvements as possible that have little cost impact. put a broom in the station managers hands. has anyone ever seen these folks do anything but tell customers that their fare cards aren't working? like any business in a recession, they ought to seek ways to do more with less. govts also should pony up to keep the system running. a $20M shot in the arm would go a long way, and that wouldn't be anything if half comes from the Fed, and the metro jurisdictions throw in the rest. in a recession, when business can't spend, the govt must.

outside of that, pawn the streetcars until we might be able to use them?

by dano on Jan 6, 2010 10:08 am

If WMATA really wanted to reduce costs, they should turn off devices that consuming power when they close the gates.

Turn off the power to the faregate and vendors after closing.

Have the lighting in the all of wallways, restrooms and service room in the ancillary areas of the stations controlled by motion detectors.

Reduce station lighting to 25% when stations are closed.

All tunnel lighting should be reduced to 25% at all times, only time 100% lights in the tunnels would be on is when track walker are present or when maintenance is being done.

by Sand Box John on Jan 6, 2010 11:12 am

@Matt Johnson

The numbers regarding the electricity use of trains are pretty basic and don't seem to take into account increased friction or reduced friction. I mean, a 6 car train will use 50% more electricity than a 4 car train because it has 50% more cars (50% of 4 is 2, and 2+4=6). Similarly, an 8 car train has 33% more cars than a 6 car train so it would use 33% more electricity.

I think this logic is flawed because of the aforementioned fluid dynamics issues (which I'm sure you know more about than I do) but I'm not sure whether the electricity use is overstated or understated. Drafting definitely reduces drag and since only the first car has to deal with breaking through the air, it would seem that having 1 car behind the first car or 5 cars behind the first car shouldn't increase drag too much. On the other hand, drafting on a race track or a highway is different to drafting in a tunnel, so I don't know what the effects are for that.

by Teo on Jan 6, 2010 11:12 am

@Teo: Two bodies following each other in a flow stream see a reduction in drag due to the drafting effect, but additional bodies are not "free" of drag. As the length of the body goes up, the drag will increase too.

I'm not convinced that pressure drag or skin friction drag are that significant for metrorail trains except on the 59mph segments.

Maybe some other engineer out there knows the figures? Based on the drag coefficient for a "6-car passenger train" in Munson, Young, Okiishi, I calculate that the drag on a Metrorail train at 60mph is about 1900 lbf, or about 300 horsepower. That's about the power output of two out of four motors for one car. I don't have a figure for weight of a car, but I bet the power requirements are more based on being able to accelerate a large mass and push it up a hill rather than overcome drag.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 6, 2010 11:41 am

I grew up in the Metro area, but I know live elsewhere. I remember 4 car trains pulling up on weekends to packed stations like the Smithsonian it was a nightmare. Notwithstanding, when on a packed train, not all of them have strap hangers (WMATA trains NEED more strap hangers!!!) .

Also I have written to WMATA in the past, in Japan, train platforms are clealy marked, for example if a 8 car train comes into the station, it will clealy show EXACTLY where the 8 car train will stop and where the doors will open, if a 16 car train comes into the station there are alternate marks showing where the 16 car train will stop and the doors will open.

I remember for MetroRail you would never know where the train would stop in the platform. You would have people waiting at one end, then people waiting at the other end, and the train stops in the middle, or it will stop at the far end , or it will stop at the other far end, causing people to rush about the platform (in regards to 4 car train operation). I wrote to WMATA if they simply mark the platform with some signs (4 car train stops here, 6 car train doors are here, 8 car train doors are here) it would make things a lot more orderly in boarding and unboarding.

If you guessed it, the next place I went to after the Metro area was Tokyo, the railway, public transit useage here is AMAZING, they run trains to the exact second, sometimes with 1-2 minute headways during the heavy rush. They can run express trains with only two tracks using a system of trains over taking other trains at local stations (as a common explaination for not having express trains is WMATA is only two tracks, it is completely possible to have express trains on WMATA with a little innovation).

by tokyorailway on Jan 6, 2010 11:36 pm

@tokyorailway

I've always wondered about why there are no markers for where the train doors should open. After the June accident, they have all the trains stop at the front of the platform and I have a feeling it will remain that way. Perhaps markings on the tile (different color tile, different texture tile, paint over tiles?) where the doors should open would expedite the boarding on/off process.

In my experience, people kind of figured out where to wait for the door to open having gotten on and off at the same station multiple times, but what about blind people? In cases where people use guide dogs, the dogs seem to know to head for the door, but someone with only a stick must rub against the side of the train until they find an opening. Perhaps the textured tile that I suggested above would aid blind people in finding the door openings better.

Similarly, if trains continue to stop at the end of the platform, blind people could know that regardless of whether it's a 6 car train or an 8 car train (or 4, if it comes to that) they can depend on being able to get on a train by waiting at the end of the platform.

by Teo on Jan 7, 2010 1:23 am

People who ride the system everyday will know it, but for people who ride the system every once and a while or for tourists visiting, they aren't sure where it will stop, it would make things more user friendly (if that is what Metro is aiming for) to mark clearly where the trains will stop and where the doors will be.

In Tokyo there are signs that mark it on the platform (written in multiple languages) sample photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/my_soul_insurance2004/3046978025/
For blind people there are tiles specifically designed for blind people to follow.

by tokyorailway on Jan 7, 2010 10:46 am

@ Teo

Speaking of the blind; how are they supposed to know what trains are which for where more than one line operates on the same track green/yellow, yellow/blue, blue/orange

Trains should be announced when they are coming not just that monitor which can not help all people.

If you are blind or deaf you will have problems with the system and WMATA is being inconsiderate to them.

Announcing some stuff via vocal announcements does not help the deaf as visual announcements do not help the blind; all things should be announced via the monitors and a vocal announcement

How is a blind person supposed to know where the edge is.

Why not install glass doors which some systems have would help the blind and would stop making it easy for people to commit suicide via jumping in the tracks.

If a train changes destination during the route which red and orange line trains seem to do alot how are the deaf and blind supposed to know.

by kk on Jan 7, 2010 12:28 pm

@kk

I think installing glass doors would be prohibitively expensive and would also cause problems for things such as track maintenance or if a train breaks down in a station and is not lined up with the doors.

The platform has the textured tile before you reach the edge and the blinking lights, so hopefully the blind are able to detect that when they step on it. However, you are right that trains don't always announce the line and direction when entering a station. I remember reading something about plans for automated announcements to replace the driver announcements, so that might resolve that issue, with the train announcing the direction and color of the line as it enters a station and then again just before the doors open, for example.

by Teo on Jan 7, 2010 12:34 pm

@ Teo

How does blinking lights effect the blind ?

If you are blind you wont see the lights period, im talking about fully blind not sight impaired

What does a textured tile do?

A textured tile does not universally mean end of platform/sidewalk etc for the blind, its something that blind people whom have used transit in some cities have become accustomed to. Not all places have them and to people who are not use to them they would mean nothing to them.

Trains never announce the line until they pull off.

If you are waiting at a platform you will hear nothing except for the train pulling up; they announce things as the doors are closing which would be too late for a blind person to react. All announcements should be done once the first car leaves the tunnel and enters the station.

by kk on Jan 7, 2010 1:02 pm

Also forgot before you say anything about braille

All blind do not know and can not read braille

by kk on Jan 7, 2010 1:04 pm

@kk: you can only do so much to help people. at some point you have to learn to help yourself. i am referring mostly to not reading braille here.

another problem with glass is that trains are manually stopped and it would be difficult to guide them to line up perfectly without that. the glass cost would be huge to do at all stations, not to mention getting the doors to open.

we all must deal with risk and inconvenience. while metro should do its best to accommodate the handicapped, its already cash strapped. and how hard is it for a blind person to say 'little help, what train is that?' plus metro access makes it so they don't even have to board a train if their disabilities are that severe.

i don't mean to be insensitive, but practical. what about people who simply can't read? or cant read english? should there constant announcements? or maybe metro should provide interpreters at every platform?

as someone with one of the most common disabilities(arthritis), i have learned to adapt and appreciate the little things like lever door knobs and crash bars as both are easier to use with bad hands/wrists. but it would be ridiculous to ask the world to install automatic openers on all doors that i might encounter. i feel like you're going beyond what's necessary and advocating a nanny state.

by dano on Jan 7, 2010 1:18 pm

@kk

Clearly, the blinking lights are meant for people that can see. I was simply mentioning them in order to use them as a reference for where the tiles are located. The tiles also have nothing to do with braille as the tiles are meant to be felt with your feet or guide stick. I thought that was pretty clear in my previous post, but I guess not.

And yes, not everyone knows that the purpose of the tile is to serve as a warning not to approach any closer. However, their use in this application is pretty much global (I have seen them used on American, European and Asian train platforms, European and Asian metros that I have been on, as well as at pedestrian crossings where the sidewalk is sloped to meet the road for handicap access) so hopefully someone that is blind will have learned about it just as they learned how to use their stick to walk around. Secondly, if a person is planning on taking the Metro, I would hope that they will not just simply enter a station and hope to find their way around but will determine which station they need to get to and which line to take to get there in order to reach their final destination. A blind person will likely do the same (if not more often than people with sight) and will learn about the platform markings at that point.

I do agree that the trains do not announce when they enter (or at all, on occasion). That is why I was saying that switching to an automated announcement system would be better, as it would no longer depend on the train operator to mumble an announcement when they see fit but would rather provide a uniform announcing system that everyone can depend on.

by Teo on Jan 7, 2010 1:18 pm

Catching the tail end of this, but here are some thoughts:

1) Please read http://greatergreaterwashington.org/author.cgi?username=michaelp (Michael Perkins blog) -- Is the DC area really going to let our service become that slow (bottom third of all US transit) when it has the second highest ridership?

2) Metro is notoriously inefficient. Studies have been done, but no serious changes have been made. (Does anyone know more about this? Please share!)

3) Metro must be careful about increasing the prices - outer suburbs are already at the tipping point of whether it makes sense to ride Metro or not - don't force that tipping point. Personally (and I think many would agree), increasing the times that peak charges are charged would be favored over reduced frequencies. Heck, I'd pay peak charges almost anytime if my wait times were significantly cut.

4) Has anyone looked at or asked how other cities provide the levels of service they do with the funding they bring in and how they compare to DC? That would be a study (or even a conference call?) that would be well worth the cost.

5) Cost savings measures should be implemented in terms of energy use - its only logical and would be worth the investment costs. (see Teo - Jan. 5th and Sand Box John -Jan. 6th) The government is moving that way, any cost-conscious american homeowner already does these things, private companies are already doing that, Metro can too.

6) Metro salaries should be re-examined. (see Interested - Jan. 6th and Teo - Jan. 5th) Dare you to take a look at WMATA's salaries for different positions - they are definitely more than decent salaries. At a time when no one else is getting pay raises, why is Metro?

7) Cutting 8-car trains is not worth the savings it will generate (see above for numbers). It's not worth the risk of hurting Metro's ridership and image.

8) Although it would mean some packed cars, I would rather have 4-car trains in very off-peak hours than to have to wait longer.

9) Just throwing it out there (crazy idea) - what about a taxing district or infrastructure tax for new and existing developments that make money off of being close to Metro? I guess that doesn't work, though, since roads aren't treated the same way.

by Laura on Jan 7, 2010 8:48 pm

I will be 65 in September 2010. I mention this because I will be eligible for senior citizen fares then. I could be paying half fare and yet I'm not poor. I know that many senior and disabled people of adequate means view discounts as an essential entitlement, but we as a community should ask if these discounts really makes sense. I don't know how much Metro loses by giving these discounts, but every bit could help.

by Richard R on Jan 8, 2010 5:06 am

@Richard R: The Federal government in 49USC5307 d.1.D requires recipients of the urbanized area formula grant (of which WMATA received about $388M in total federal formula grants, of which the urbanized area grant is a very large portion) to offer off-peak trips to seniors and disabled at half of the peak price.

No requirement for half-fares during peak, and no requirement that it be half of the off-peak fare. With the exception that it looks like the discount fare is offered during peak times (that's not required by the grant program), it looks like WMATA is following the rule.

In short, discounts for seniors is required by the feds, or WMATA loses a bunch of money.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 8, 2010 6:46 am

Why not follow the lead of New York City? For additional revenue, they allow vendors on the platforms and in the station mezzanines. They also have two retail stores which sell MTA artwork, t-shirts, souvenirs, etc. Why can't Metro do something along these lines? Yes, I realize the MTA's 468-station system and control over most of the city's bridges and tunnels make it tower over Metro in terms of revenue and resources... But I still have to wonder why Metro can't at least utilize a good idea when the see it.

by Josh on Jan 8, 2010 11:07 am

Josh,

Vending is not going to bring in much revenue, and it would have to be weighed against increased costs for cleaning, trash, etc.

Leaving the money aside for the moment, adding retail would certainly take significant time to implement and would not be of any use in closing a gap in the current fiscal year, and likely wouldn't do much for the next one, either.

by Alex B. on Jan 8, 2010 11:10 am

I am particularly concerned about the proposal to reduce service between 6 and 6:30 AM. From my experience, this is sensible for the blue and orange lines, which are under capacity then. But I ride the Red Line from Glenmont during that period, and it is always very overcrowded. When it gets downtown, often people on the platform can not get on. The overcrowding also causes door problems, so there are frequent overloads. The Red Line is seriously over capacity during this time period, and frequency needs to be increased not decreased. They are driving people from the system due to not having room for all who want to use the Metro.

by Bill Samuel on Jan 11, 2010 9:22 am