Death spiral.

If the problem with WMATA's finances is the loss of customers, then making Metro more inconvenient will do absolutely nothing to bring customers back, and will just drive more and more of us away.

The point about dampening short trips is a particularly apt one. Forget about taking Metro from Woodley Park to Dupont Circle for a meal. Forget about that noontime zip up to Gallery Place to do some shopping.

Man, if I'm an investor in parking garage construction, I'm licking my lips at these proposals.

by Matt W on Feb 23, 2010 1:51 pm  

The public/media backlash at these extreme service cuts is going to be so severe that I'm afraid they just might be underestimating the resulting drop in ridership.

Not many people are going to be willing to wait up to 30 minutes for a train home on a Saturday night, especially if there's a good chance it'll be too crowded to even board when it does finally arrive.

by Ron on Feb 23, 2010 2:05 pm  

I'm absolutely baffled that eliminating 8 car trains during rush is still even discussed. With the reductions proposed in the third "portfolio," the one time where ridership could be expected to remain relatively stable is rush hour because the system will continue to operate much as it does currently. And we can't fit everyone on the trains in the morning even with some 8 car trains.

I remember reading a while back that the reasoning for eliminating 8 car trains was because they cost more to run than 6 car trains. I would like to see someone prove to me that the cost per passenger mile of an 8 car train is more than that of a 6 car train:

3 8-car trains = 24 cars + 3 drivers
4 6-car trains = 24 cars + 4 drivers

Haven't we been told that the labor overhead is what drives costs up? Then you can't tell me that fewer 8-car trains with the same capacity of more 6-car trains is more expensive. Anyone else see this problem?

by Erik W on Feb 23, 2010 2:17 pm  

"Haven't we been told that the labor overhead is what drives costs up? Then you can't tell me that fewer 8-car trains with the same capacity of more 6-car trains is more expensive. Anyone else see this problem?"

I think the cost savings come with energy savings (apparently running 8 car trains is significantly more power-intensive) and the fact that Metro doesn't have to pay people to adjust those 8 car trains to 6 car trains at off-peak hours.

But I definitely agree with Matt W. I think the passenger lost estimates are greatly underestimated. If they adopt these proposals, Metro's board will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

by Adam L on Feb 23, 2010 2:25 pm  

If only WMATA could afford to constantly be in the red like the Federal government.

by Martin on Feb 23, 2010 2:31 pm  

Oh. And I forgot to add, it's certainly possible that Metro is not planning on run 6 car trains at a greater frequency to make up for the loss of the 8 car trains. They may just be planning to reduce capacity overall. See also: Death spiral.

by Adam L on Feb 23, 2010 2:33 pm  

@Adam I remember reading something to that effect about energy costs, but it was very speculative not particularly concrete. From a pure physics standpoint, it should take the same amount of energy to move X tons whether you do it in 3 separate loads or whether you do it in 4. I would be very curious to get the full story on this.

I also agree with you and Matt W that passenger loss estimates, particularly for the 2nd & 3rd groups, are rosy. But transit agencies have never been particularly good at ridership projections.

by Erik W on Feb 23, 2010 2:35 pm  

@Erik W:

They're talking about eliminating 8 car trains at peak hours, when trains are already running pretty much with great frequency. Therefore, the proposal is NOT to replace three 8-car trains with four 6-car trains, it is to replace those three 8-car trains with three 6-car trains.

The cost savings is due to reduced energy usage and the aforementioned ease of reconfiguring trains in the yards.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2010 2:55 pm  

WMATA's proposal to eliminate 8 car trains is simply by taking two cars off each current 8 car train to make a six car train--no increase in frequency. Its difficult to imagined the additional crowding this will cause as well as the lost ridership.

by kreeggo on Feb 23, 2010 2:57 pm  

@Alex
I realize they are not planning on replacing the capacity of lost 8-car trains with extra 6-car trains. Obviously at rush hour that is near to impossible. Their proposal is simply to cut capacity by running all 8-car trains as 6-car trains. My suggestion is to run fewer cars during peak hours altogether, but more of them as 8-car trains. That was the point of my elementary math exercise. You can run fewer trains but maintain capacity and you net a savings in labor costs.

My argument is that rush hour is the time when we can least afford any capacity cuts. I hate cuts anytime of day, but if a few more people drive or take cabs at 2am Fri-Sat, the roads can handle it. The regional transportation infrastructure is not however at all equipped to absorb a reduction of peak capacity on Metro.

by Erik W on Feb 23, 2010 3:08 pm  

What is Metro's revenue from fines for eating, drinking, spitting, loud music? My observation is that they probably don't issue a lot of citations, but if they did, what kind of revenue would that be? Over time, it chould result in cleaner, cheaper-to-maintain stations and cars.

by Lisa on Feb 23, 2010 3:53 pm  

@Lisa . WMATA does not receive any revenue from citations issued. I believe that these revenues are payable to the jurisdiction in which the citation is issued.

by Interested on Feb 23, 2010 4:32 pm  

Closing earlier on Friday and Saturday nights will be a disaster. DC is a pretty popular place to go out on the weekends and without the metro there will either be a drop in business or an increase in traffic on the roads. This could also be the case with 30 minute headway's.

This would basically put more drunk drivers on the road which is the last thing we need.

To be honest metro should just go in the red, that way the government has no choice but to take them over. Let the government try and do a better job.

by Matt R on Feb 23, 2010 4:33 pm  

@Erik W

The calculations about increased energy consumption were a little confusing to me as well. Essentially, because you are running 8 car trains instead of 6 car trains, you're using 33% more energy (because you're running 33% more cars - 8 vs 6). This doesn't seem right, as you are not running 8 cars independently of each other, but rather in a cluster. The discussion was then about whether the aerodynamic advantages of having the cars draft each other outweighed the disadvantages of having a longer object move through the tunnels (increased drag on the sides of the train). I don't remember if we ever came up with a conclusion about that point.

MBTA runs "Big Red" cars on their Red line, which are basically normal cars stripped of most of their seats. Some seats remain, so old/pregnant/handicapped people can use them, but the rest of the train is standing room only. Apart from the whole "cattle-car" imagery this might cause, I wonder if converting some of the rush-hour 6 car trains to that setup would alleviate the congestion that removing the 8 car trains would bring about. On the other hand, those cars would be pretty useless during the rest of the day...

by Teo on Feb 23, 2010 5:04 pm  

There might be some aerodynamic benefits, but 8 car trains definitely use more energy than 6 car trains do. Today's rail cars are heavier than the first generation cars, and have stronger traction motors as well - WMATA has had to do substation upgrades at certain points to ensure that sustained 8-car operation is possible.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2010 5:23 pm  

You make good points but as evident by the staggering hole that Metro has, it is easy to see that more fare hikes will be done in the immediate future

by Aloy on Feb 23, 2010 6:53 pm  

Craig, not to nitpick, but your savings ratios are misleading. You should be calculating the savings to loss ratio using the gross savings, not the subsidy savings. In the first scenario, Metro will save $20 for every $1 lost (a total outcome of $19 saved aka the subsidy savings); in the second scenario, Metro saves $4 for every $1 lost; and in the last scenario, Metro saves $3.25 per $1 lost. I don't disagree with your points, the first basket of cuts is clearly the most efficient, but in the interest of having the most solid argument against the more severe cuts, I wanted to point that out.

by Erik W on Feb 23, 2010 9:55 pm  

WMATA could shave a couple of million in utility costs with no effect on operations by turning off the lights in the tunnels 24/7, or at least reduce tunnel lighting by 75% (they are wired to allow that by the way) They could also turn off the lights in the stations when the system is closed or at least by 75%. The same could be done with the outdoor lighting around surface stations. Ancillary area lighting should also be turn off 24/7 except when areas are occupied. Fare collection equipment, gates and vendors, should be powered down when system is closed.

by Sand Box John on Feb 24, 2010 12:01 am  

See ya, Metro. It was nice using you while you ran, but effectively killing the Yellow Line effectively kills my patronage...

by Froggie on Feb 24, 2010 9:18 am  

Sand Box John, can they really turn off the lighting in the tunnels? All of the emergency egress instructions tell you to exit on the side with the lights...

As far as other energy efficiencies go, those seem like no-brainers. I wasn't aware that they kept the stations illuminated at night (assuming they're not doing maintenance).

by Alex B. on Feb 24, 2010 9:33 am  

If you powered off the fare collection equipment at night then you'd have to pay someone to stick around longer at night to properly power it down. That's not as bad as turning it on though. Each piece of equipment has to aquire communications with the main computer in the kiosk and to computers downtown.
You'd have to pay someone to come in early, power up the system and make sure everything began communicating before patrons could enter the system. Then if something went wrong people would complain.

by Kaleel on Feb 24, 2010 10:42 am  

Are metro's operating costs way out of line compared to other subway systems worldwide? I realize cross comparisons are likely difficult at best, but I would imagine this is understood by those that follow such things, and it seems a basic test as to whether metro's budget needs to be cut, or more funding needs to be found.

If its unreasonably more expensive given its ridership, why arent they identifying why, and working on those items? Or are they intractable?

If its not unreasonably more expensive, then metro should do whats reasonable (at most tier 1), and then just shut down completely every 5th day, or as often as necessary, to close the budget gap. If this is troublesome to the local jurisdictions, employers, or population, then maybe they'll pressure the politicians to find some cash. Or perhaps they'll prefer to simply kill metro entirely and spend 100x as much to convert all major inbound roads to 8 lane expressways and associated gargantuan parking garages, and thereby solve all transit problems.

by D3 on Feb 24, 2010 1:07 pm  

I'm intrigued by D3's idea of shutting down the system every 5th day. No one would have the stones to actually do it, so it would never happen, but I think you wouldn't need more than one or two shutdowns during rush hour to wake the jurisdictions up...

by Jake on Feb 24, 2010 1:58 pm  

@Jake,
Last year, Atlanta's MARTA faced a major budget crisis. They did not have enough money to run the system (rail and bus) on one weekday. They said they were going to stop all Friday bus and rail service.

The Atlanta Regional Commission was able to use stimulus funds to avert that crisis. It's unclear what will happen in the coming fiscal year.

by Matt Johnson on Feb 24, 2010 2:17 pm  

@Jake: I don't know, they limited service on Friday after Snowpocalypse sure made a lot of people mad. Now imagine cramming all 800,000 daily trips onto the roads. I bet people would be screaming mercy before evening crush.

by Erik W on Feb 24, 2010 2:19 pm  

@Matt: It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. However, our Metro is much more vital to the functionality of our region than Atlanta's MARTA. I think they'd find some way to cough up the money, rather than tapping stimulus funds as a 'stop-gap.'

@Erik: I agree. I don't think it would take much time at all to convince people of the vitality of Metro to our region. Heck, look at how much of a mess MD's roads were in the days after the crash with just a portion of the red line closed. Imagine the chaos if the entire system were shut down for a day.

by Jake on Feb 24, 2010 2:29 pm  

Would it cost a lot more to run a two-car train every 15 minutes instead of a six-car train every 30 minutes?

by mary on Feb 24, 2010 2:52 pm  

I'd like to see board members to to busy rush hours stations on the red, orange and blue lines and explain the public in person why the 8-car trains are gone.

Furthermore, if metro is truly gonna work on a 30 minute headway, they'd better introduce a fail-safe schedule. Like every other train system in the world.

America should be ashamed that it can not maintain a decent transit system in it's nation's capital. London can (have you seen the improvement on the tube in the last decade?). Mexico City and Brasilia can (and they have the same shitty federal city nonsense ongoing). Tokyo can (and that's a wayyyy bigger city). Hell, even Brussels can (and they have more government layers than anywhere else in the world).

This can not be considered a serious city without a serious transit system.

by Jasper on Feb 24, 2010 3:20 pm  

According to the testimony I read, two car trains have operational problems.

They could end up at a place on the tracks where neither the front nor the back can get power. Then they'd be stuck. Thus, Metro doesn't operate two car trains any more.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 24, 2010 5:26 pm  

Let me attempt to play devil's advocate for a moment on the yellow line being reduced to a King St/Huntington shuttle on nights and weekends. I currently go to a handful of events at the Verizon center starting my trips at Huntington. As most of these events end between 9-9:45 PM, I'll assume Metro will not be providing any service over the yellow line for my return trips (I've yet to see what Metro's time line for "night" is, and if they are willing/able to make adjustments for events at night or on the weekend) Assuming you can believe their own trip planner times, I punched in the following, with surprising results. I entered a "leaving after time" of 9:30 PM, which is typical in my experience. I wanted to see how much faster the yellow line direct to Huntington would be Vs transferring twice, Red to blue, and blue to yellow. According to metro, the first yellow after 9:30 is at 9:47, arriving at Huntington at 10:10 PM. Then I entered in the double transfer trip to Huntington via Metro Center. It comes out that I would wind up catching the same yellow line train I would have caught form Gallery Place at King street and arrive at Huntington at 10:10 PM, for a net loss of 0 minutes. Now, some counterpoints to my unscientific experiment. 1. When I went back and entered leaving after times before 9:30, there was a net loss because the Yellow arrived much closer to the time I entered, and the preceding Red line comes much to early to be caught in most of my cases, so if I'm done before 9:30 (which I sometimes am) then I would loose about 13 minutes. 2. with the 30 minute headway's added in, the whole time savings are most likely shot. 3. After Capitals and some Wizards games the Red lime platforms at Gallery Place are compilable to Rush hour. I've been to several events with a group of people (coming for Vienna) and we were always separated trying to squeeze onto a full Red line train as we departed to go home. Fewer trains and an influx of yellow line refugees will only make the problem exponentially worse, so much so that I'm afraid someone will get hurt, not that Metro cares about rider safety that much. This would also make Metro Center more of a zoo the it is already after a Verizon event. Perhaps the sports teams that have people using the yellow line in mass, the Wizards, Capitals and Nationals could chip in to have the yellow line run before and after their games and other events at Verizon or Nationals park?

by Mike on Feb 27, 2010 2:19 am  

@Mike: Nice analysis. As a side note, whenever I'm leaving the verizon center, I just walk the 4 blocks to metro center instead of trying to cram onto the red line with everyone else (I have to head towards Vienna). If metro does wind up killing the yellow line after hours, I recommend walking to metro center to catch the blue line. Oftentimes, you'll make it to the platform before the red line train even comes in, and you'll be able to position yourself near where the doors will be before the massive hoards come down from the red line.

by JS on Feb 27, 2010 12:54 pm  

Alex B:
25% of the tunnel and station lights are connected to an uninterrupted power supply. So turning off 75% of the lights would still comply with the emergency egress instructions.

The wiring plans I have of various stations do not show any remote control functionality for controlling tunnel and station lighting. This could be added at little cost. By adding remote control functionality to tunnel lighting, Operation Control Center Supervisors could bring the lights up to 100% in the event that it is needed.

Kaleel:
You will note I used the phrase 'powered down' when referring to reducing the power consumption from the fare collection equipment. I did not mean turning off the power. I would hazard a guess most of the hardware could easily programmed to go into sleep mode using the internal clock.

by Sand Box John on Feb 28, 2010 12:39 pm