Adding places to station names creates unnecessary transfers

Transit

Adding places to station names creates unnecessary transfers

by Rob Pitingolo • September 16, 2011 10:09 am

Several neighborhoods and organizations have proposed renaming Metro stations to make a single destination easy to find. But each of these can bring the unintended consequence of making the whole system more confusing to navigate.

Photo by Mr. T in DC on Flickr.

At first glance, renaming "Navy Yard" to "Navy Yard-Ballpark" seems like a fine idea, since it is the station that most fans use to get to games.

However, many arrive by exiting at Capitol South and walking down New Jersey Avenue. In fact, for anyone coming in on the Orange or Blue lines, Capitol South is often a better place to exit the system.

Similarly, there are other destinations that people often make unnecessary transfers to reach. Adding "Ballpark" to the Navy Yard station name may seem harmless at first, but what it does is to announce that it is the one and only station to get to the ballpark.

Metro's out-of-scale map means that riders are especially susceptible to sloppily-named stations. People don't realize, for example, how close Dupont Circle is to Farragut West, or how close Metro Center is to Gallery Place, so they often wind up making unnecessary transfers. How many tourists have transferred to a Blue or Orange Line train so that they could use the "Smithsonian" station, when numerous other stations would have gotten them to the National Mall?

Kurt Raschke notes that in New York City, there are five subway stations called "23rd Street" rather than the neighborhoods that contain them. There's a good reason for this. These stations are very close together, so if you're traveling anywhere in the vicinity of 23rd Street, you might as well take whatever subway line you're closest to, exit at the respective 23rd Street station, and walk to your final destination.

If, on the other hand, each of those five stations were named after a unique neighborhood, someone traveling to Chelsea might think they need to make an unnecessary transfer so they can eventually arrive at the "Chelsea" station, even though the "Flatiron District" station and the "Gramercy Park" stations might get them there with less hassle.

My own house is about a quarter mile from the U Street station, and a little more than half a mile from the Dupont Circle station. Depending on where I'm going, it might make more sense to walk a greater distance, and get on a Red line train, rather than the shorter distance to Green or Yellow.

Anyone who's familiar with the Metro system knows these little tricks, but someone who's not might naively take a less convenient route. It might be because the out-of-scale map makes it difficult for them to conceptualize where they are, or, in light of station naming, because they don't realize there is more than a single station that will get them where they need to go. And isn't it those people who these new station names are supposed to help?

Cross-posted at Extraordinary Observations.

24 comments

Tags: Metro, station names, WMATA

"Navy Yard-W" is worst of new station name proposals (Sep 14, 2011)
WMATA considering policies for shorter station names (May 23, 2011)
Metro aiming to start "Yellow and Orange Line service increase" in June 2012, without new color (Mar 7, 2011)
Metro will shorten station names using subtitles (Jul 7, 2011)
Get station names back to short and sweet (May 7, 2010)

Rob Pitingolo moved to the DC area in mid-2010 and currently resides on Capitol Hill. He also writes about issues of urbanism, economics, transportation and politics at his blog, Extraordinary Observations.

Comments
Add a comment »

You are right about the station names. All stations should be analyzed for such possible inadertant misunderstandings. While we're on the topic of Metro map improvements - the WMATA map design survey asks for input about which parking symbol should be used to indicate "parking" on the map. Seems like bike parking should be indicated - not just car parking - even just to note somewhere that bike parking is available at all stations (if that's the case). It would be good to indicate car share and bike share locations, too. What do you think?

by J J Madden on Sep 16, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

"However, many arrive (to Nationals Park) by exiting at Capitol South and walking down New Jersey Avenue. In fact, for anyone coming in on the Orange or Blue lines, Capitol South is often a better place to exit the system."

According to Google Maps, the distance to walk from the "West" entrance of the Navy Yard station to the Center Field gates (Half and 'N' St SE) is 0.1 miles. However, walking from Capitol South to the same point is 0.9 miles. While some folks might be comfortable with the extra 0.8 miles difference, I believe that in most cases, regardless of line color, it's easier to get to the ballpark from the Navy Yard Station vs. Capitol South.

Otherwise, agreed on all other points.

by JPJ on Sep 16, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

I see your point, and I agree that when naming stations, it should be kept in mind. But I think we should also consider that while you don't want to say Navy Yard is the only way to get to the ballpark, I don't think the solution is to withhold from people the information that it is by far the closest station to the ballpark.

One solution would be to have the stadium represented by an icon on the map, that way people could make their own decisions. This would be particularly helpful for the zoo, which is equidistant from Cleveland Park and Woodley Park. But there is only so far we can go with this route before the map becomes too cluttered.

by TM on Sep 16, 2011 10:32 am • link • report

Renaming game!

I propose the following:

A list with all current station names, with next to it empty fields in which GGWers can suggest their names. On top of that, one comment box in which users can explain their vision on naming, if they have one.

After the round of submissions, the GGW edit team selects a small number of people with good visions and presents them in short articles as with the maps.

Then, there is a voting around. Users could select from all submitted, or follow the entire set from one of the visionaries. Voting three choices per station. Results are tallied according with instant run-off.

GGW coders: start your coding engines!

by Jasper on Sep 16, 2011 10:43 am • link • report

But how many tourists know that the National Zoo is located in Woodley Park?

by maxtheaxejd on Sep 16, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

In the GGW naming survey - please include the future Silver Line stations - at least those in Phase I (Tysons-> Reston)!!!

by J J Madden on Sep 16, 2011 11:14 am • link • report

I think you are just wrong on this. Yes there are multiple ways to get the ballpark, but the Navy Yard station is the closest one and by far, thus adding ballpark would be correct.

For something like the White House, which is relatively close to a number of stations, I think it make sense nto to have teh WHite House in any of the station names for the reasons you listed (though if there was a a station less than a block away like Navy Yard is from the ball park I would have no trouble calling this station white house)

by nathaniel on Sep 16, 2011 11:16 am • link • report

If the point of the "W" (God help us) is to serve as shorthand for "Hey, if you want to go to the baseball game...use this station as it's the closest" then Navy Yard and Navy Yard alone should get the addition, not something that's in a different neighborhood.

Cap South is a mile away from the stadium. Navy Yard is a block. You could walk to any point in DC from any metro stop but a mile is a little redonkulous.

by Michael on Sep 16, 2011 11:23 am • link • report

The only way I can see Cap South being a preferred exit to Nats games it to people coming in from the eastern end of the blue/orange, as a way to avoid the extra stations and the crush of transfers/crowded green line trains at l'enfant. In fact, if I lived on the eastern end of the O/B lines, I would consider getting off at cap south and walking, especially if it is a nice day.

by Mark P. on Sep 16, 2011 11:39 am • link • report

I think I have to disagree. The naming convention is to get people to the closest stop to their destination (not necessarily the shortest trip). Take the Farragut West/Dupont Circle example. It might be that it's actually faster to get off at Farragut West and walk to DuPont, but you wouldn't call Farragut West "Dupont" (nor would you add that name to the station). It's great that you eventually learn these things as you learn the system, but for beginners (who are likely looking for the shortest walk anyway) it would just serve as confusion. For instance, for the population that don't know where they are going to see a Nats game (for whom the "Ballpark" designation is helpful), I have to think none of them would be willing to attempt to navigate from Capitol South to Natstown in hopes of shaving off a (maybe) few minutes.

by Steven Yates on Sep 16, 2011 11:55 am • link • report

Looked at a NYC transit map lately? Checked their station names?

Outside the Manhattan grid, I see as names or parts of names, City Hall, Boro Hall (in Brooklyn) Prospect Park, Flushing, Brighton Beach, NYC Aquarium, etc.

WITHIN the grid, I see Times Square, Columbus Circle, Penn Station, Port Authority, Grand Central, etc.

In New York they have decided that a few extra transfers is better than tourists (and other infrequent riders) being completely lost. I think the same applies here.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Sep 16, 2011 12:00 pm • link • report

This seems pretty far-fetched. The logical extension of your argument is to not have any neighborhood or point of interest name in any transit station, and just use street coordinates. I mean, anytime you're in central DC and you're willing to walk a mile, you could walk to just about anywhere from multiple Metro stations. So you could get rid of "Union Station" and just call it "First and Massachusetts NE" because people on Orange/Blue could walk a mile from Capitol South. Get rid of "Convention Center" because people can walk from Gallery Place.

But people who don't know the city well will, 9 times out of 10, want to know "what is the closest station to where I'm trying to go?" The nice thing about the current system is you don't have to buy a separate map to find out where Union Station and the Convention Center are on the grid before hopping on Metro. If you get out at the appropriate station, you're right there. People who want to walk a mile and make fewer transfers can always buy a map, see where they're going and all the stations that are nearby, and plan the route they want to take. But Metro should continue to be friendly to people who are unfamiliar with the system by noting major destinations at the closest station.

by RichardatCourthouse on Sep 16, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report

Let me get this straight: We can't put a symbol in a station name without destroying typography as we know it, but we also can't identify stations that are geographically proximate to attractions, because that might cause people who don't know where things are to congregate at certain stops and neglect stops that are farther away from their preferred destination?

It's possible to walk to the Navy Yard from the Waterfront, so that has to go, but it's also possible to walk to the Waterfront from South Capitol, so that's out. You can get to Clarendon from Courthouse or Virginia Square too.

I think the solution is to code each stop with a unique letter-number combination that makes no value judgments about relative proximity to locations or attractions which might one day be gone anyway.

by Nate on Sep 16, 2011 1:12 pm • link • report

Way to much thinking has been wasted on this topic.

Why don't we take the politically correct route and just name the stations 1,2,3...etc.

by beatbox on Sep 16, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report

And again, if you're renaming stations because people can't find their way around, you need a better map system. Diagrammatic maps can't do everything. They cannot stand alone.

by David R. on Sep 16, 2011 2:24 pm • link • report

Including bikeshare symbols & shortened names is something I'd included in my DC 2100 map... I may toss together a future version that tries to incorporate logos of major surge tourist generators just to see how it looks, among a slew of other changes I've had sitting on my To Do list.

by Bossi on Sep 16, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report

Can't we solve this by putting a bike lane somewhere?

But seriously, besides looking cluttered at times, is there actually a problem that shortening the station names is going to solve?

by Cassidy on Sep 16, 2011 2:46 pm • link • report

@Cassidy
Yes there is a problem it will solve. The maps will become less cluttered and thus easier to read and the station names will be easier to remember.

by nathaniel on Sep 16, 2011 3:19 pm • link • report

Yeah you aslo don't ride bikes in the rain or snow either so I don't think that was smart thinking Cassidy.

by steve85 on Sep 16, 2011 3:29 pm • link • report

I do too ride bikes in the rain! Lies.

(1) Reading the metro map is not hard. Sometimes it is misleading, especially for out-of-towners, because of the implied proximity (or non-proximity) of some locations. I agree with this, especially the really egregious examples where it looks like Farragut North is a mile away from the White House, when in fact it is approx 3 blocks.

(2) Station names are not hard to remember. Most people just call them by their first name. I have never actually called U Street by its full name. That would be insane. But we all know where the U Street station is.

Having said that, I don't think there is really much that will be gained by shortening the names. I think there is crucial information to be displayed on these signs and creating an arbitrary maxiumum legnth does not improve anything. In fact, by removing imformation you may actually get a negative result.

by Cassidy on Sep 16, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report

Ahhhh... the lack of understanding of distances... I like the DC metro map mostly, but when you don't have a sense of the city yet, it really, really kills you.

My freshman year of attending GW, we having all moved into the dorms a week prior, we decided to go to Dupont. We walked to the Foggy Bottom metro (even though Faragut was actually the exact same distance), went to Metro center, changed trains, and got out at Dupont... Wow were we idiots back then.

by Once Upon a Time on Sep 16, 2011 5:00 pm • link • report

@ Ocen upon a time:Wow were we idiots back then.

Were you the idiot, or was GW the idiot for letting you in?

by Jasper on Sep 17, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

The rule with stations should be to keep it simple. (Adding subscripts to maps is ok.) Bethesda, Dupont Circle, Cleveland Park -- simple, uncluttered names which are easy for visitors and regulars to recognize. Best to guard against "name creep." No one says "BaltimoreWashingtonThurgoodMouthfulInternationalAirport."

by Bob on Sep 19, 2011 9:46 am • link • report

I also disagree. If you're not a local, you would have no idea how to get to the Zoo or the baseball park.

On a related note, tourists also have a hard time getting to DCA because the conductors never call out the airport as a destination on the blue or yellow line! Tourists don't care about Franconia-Springfield and Pentagon City. They want to know where the Arlington Cemetery and airport are.

by jinushaun on Sep 28, 2011 5:24 pm • link • report