What are the Tenleytown-AU & Friendship Heights stations? I don't see them on the list...

by Rich on Aug 24, 2009 3:11 pm • link • report

Cool post! Keep em coming

by JessMan on Aug 24, 2009 3:13 pm • link • report

Also looks like Bethesda and Medical Center are missing too. The Wikipedia pictures confirm my mental recollection that they're Arch I.

by David Alpert on Aug 24, 2009 3:17 pm • link • report

For Arch I, should the list of 1984 stations be some subset of Tenleytown, Friendship Heights, Bethesda and Medical Center? Grosvenor, White Flint and Twinbrook are surface-level stations.

by Josh B on Aug 24, 2009 3:17 pm • link • report

Tenleytown and Friendship Heights are Arch I style. I think Matt got those listed confused a little, as he's got some above-ground stations (Rockville, for example) listed under that category.

by Alex B. on Aug 24, 2009 3:18 pm • link • report

So what the logic in which stations were center platform and which were side? I assume it's either a matter of 1. presumed pedestrian traffic flow or 2. required alignment of tracks coming into the station, side platforms used where there wasn't room to spread out the tracks around an island.

by Distantantennas on Aug 24, 2009 3:18 pm • link • report

Also, it's interesting to see the different cross sections of the various stations. Some are elliptical (like the original poured concrete vaults) and some are circular (like the Arch I types on the Red Line).

by Alex B. on Aug 24, 2009 3:19 pm • link • report

Looks like the html got messed up in the final edit. Making corrections now.

Arch I:
-Woodley Park
-Cleveland Park
-Van Ness
-Tenleytown
-Friendship Heights
-Bethesda
-Medical Center

by Matt Johnson on Aug 24, 2009 3:20 pm • link • report

Yeah, all else being equal, island platforms are preferred, since you don't have to duplicate the various vertical circulation elements (elevators, escalators, stairs). In some cases, that duplication is good for higher traffic (think Farragut West). Others are an obvious case of necessary track geometry (Dupont Circle).

I think there's also something to be said for side platforms and cut-n-cover construction, as you want to minimize disruption, thus you dig the narrowest trench for the tracks as possible. That would explain the prevalence of side platform stations in Orajington and Crystal City.

by Alex B. on Aug 24, 2009 3:30 pm • link • report

@Alex B.--

What about the Dupont track geometry necessitates the side platforms? I'm interested.

by Josh B on Aug 24, 2009 3:38 pm • link • report

I just wish WMATA hadn't massacred Weese's lighting. All the stations are too dark. And the L'Enfant photo above clearly shows how visibility goes from bad to zero when a train pulls into the station and blocks half the light. And there are plants growing in the light troffers at the Tenleytown-AU station. If you've ever looked at the lights at Metro Center, for example, the bulbs are covered in filth and trash.

Aside from being unpleasant and uncomfortable, it is a hazard--someone could trip or drop something (causing a hazard to others) because the platforms are so dark.

These are not the grand halls Weese had in mind.

by ogden on Aug 24, 2009 3:41 pm • link • report

With Dupont, it's the tunneling. Dupont and Woodley Park are so deep because the Park Service wouldn't allow for a bridge over Rock Creek, thus they had to go under. This eliminated the possibility of a station in Kalorama, as well.

If you ride the Red line northbound, there's a pocket track just north of Farragut North. Then, as the tunnel drops into Dupont, both tracks share the same tunnel that was blasted out of the rock. Because they opted for one tunnel instead of two, they have side platforms there. They also opted for one tunnel because they need to stay under the Connecticut Ave ROW as they head north, and the road bends a little bit, and it's easier to 'bend' both tracks around if they're together. That was also the first portion of track located in blasted rock tunnels - I think they were still working out the kinks a little bit.

So, it's more that the tunnel requirements necessitated two tracks together, and that necessitated side platforms. Anyway, Dupont's ridership is high enough to justify it, IMO.

by Alex B. on Aug 24, 2009 3:44 pm • link • report

Track geometry, which is why Judiciary Square has side platforms ....

by coneyraven on Aug 24, 2009 3:46 pm • link • report

Wonk nerd wonk nerd wonk nerd. More more more.

Just sayin': Great article.

by Jasper on Aug 24, 2009 3:52 pm • link • report

I remember reading a lot of this in Zach Schrag's Great Society Subway. Not sure if your information came from there, but in any case, for people interested in this summary, I recommend that thoroughly researched book, which provides volumes more.

by Joey on Aug 24, 2009 4:03 pm • link • report

I meant . . . "if some of your information came from there". Schrag's book doesn't go into quite as much detail on various architecture as you interestingly have here, but his book provides some very fascinating history on how the waffle design came to be.

by Joey on Aug 24, 2009 4:06 pm • link • report

Alex, the cut and cover stations are more elliptical while the deep bored ones are more circular. For example, Farragut North is the most elliptical (although even more since it was built when there were plans to turn K St. into a trench highway) and it's cut-and-cover. Since the shallow cut and cover stations were excavated there was real time and cost savings to digging shallower holes making more elliptical vaults. Columbia Heights is another example.

On the other hand, Forest Glen (the deepest) and Wheaton (the second deepest) had to be bored. Therefore the tunnels and stations would be more circular.

by Cavan on Aug 24, 2009 4:29 pm • link • report

Cavan, there are plenty of deep stations that are still elliptical in section. Dupont Circle is one that comes to mind, but it's also a vestige of the older, poured concrete design.

So, the circular stations are indeed the deeper ones, but the deeper ones aren't always circular.

by Alex B. on Aug 24, 2009 4:42 pm • link • report

As for platforms, I don't exactly recall where I read it, but original plans called for almost exclusively island platforms. That's because it's much harder to draw graffiti on the walls if the walls are on the other side of the tracks. Side-platform stations found a way to reduce graffiti as well, but it's just more obvious with island platforms.

by Tim on Aug 24, 2009 4:43 pm • link • report

@Alex: Remember, DuPont is a special case. It's not deep because of topography. It's deep because it had to go under the old streetcar station. It doesn't really fit the pattern for that reason. It's the only deep station that's in sandy/silt coastal plain soil rather than in rocky soil. Remember that in that part of DC, Rock Creek is the fall line. The L'Enfant city was planned where it is because it is relatively flat and easy to build on. In contrast, the Woodley Park and north are on the other side of the fall line. They had to be bored because of the rockier soils and due to having to go so far under the park.

by Cavan on Aug 24, 2009 4:51 pm • link • report

Yeah, but it's still not a hard and fast rule. Mt. Vernon Square is more circular in its arch. Two stations built at the same time with similar methods (Columbia Heights and Petworth) are also different - Columbia Heights is elliptical while Petworth is circular.

Anyway, it's always curious to catch on to the small differences in a system that was designed with uniform elements in mind.

by Alex B. on Aug 24, 2009 5:09 pm • link • report

Whle the stations are interesting from an architechtural perspective, I have always felt that many stations fail on the basic functions.

-Lighting has been discussed,
-HVAC is inconsistent, not surprsing given the large open spaces,
-Accoustics are terrible, again due to design issues,
-Signage is terrible, but improving, esp at Gallery Place,
-There are no good places for ads, which should have been part of the revenue stream from day 1,
-No provisions for vending, which I think will eventually come to the system and will have to rely on carts or something temporary,
-Over-reliance on escalators, rather then wide stairs (which could have been accommodated due to the open space design)
-Minimal places to sit, which is tough given that late night trains can have headways of 20 minutes

by metronic on Aug 24, 2009 6:01 pm • link • report

I haven't ever noticed the stations in this way before. I figured they made the best decisions they could with their limited technology back then. The stations and wmata seem so half-assed I always figured the people that built it had no idea what they were doing.

I prefer the island platforms, they are much easier to get on either train you need. Having to cross over to another platform seems needlessly aggravating.

Now wait. what? There was some kind of lighting plan? I just thought the stations were intended to be dank, sullen, depressing pits of humid anguish.
I have noticed at Bethesda that plants are growing in the gratings on the far side of the trains. I always thought that was pretty and they should bring more plants into the stations.

by James on Aug 24, 2009 9:37 pm • link • report

@metronic

-lighting is indeed on the dark side, but the key principle was to have all the main lighting be indirect. I'd argue that most of the lighting issues are due to poor maintenance and replacement of fixtures.
-HVAC is indeed inconsistent. It also exists, which is far more than most subway systems can say.
-Acoustics are bad, but again, this was a minor priority when compared against the goals of maximum space and visibility.
-Advertising isn't easy - this was a conscious choice on the part of the designers.

Anyway, I'd greatly suggest reading Zachary Schrag's book, which Joey linked to above. It covers all of those issues and the decisions behind them. They're not design flaws (for the most part), but rather conscious decisions. Given the whole history Mr. Schrag put together, they make a great deal of sense when put in context.

As far as basic functions go, I think you're approaching this from too technical of a perspective. I think the stations excel at the basics - they're easy to understand and navigate because they have clean lines of sight from platform to mezzanine to exit. You can visualize vertical circulation easily. They're passively safe - the openness allows for no blank corners or dead ends.

Again, I'd highly recommend Schrag's book. He has an extensive chapter on station and system design/architecture, and the long negotiation between Harry Weese and the Commission for Fine Arts.

by Alex B. on Aug 25, 2009 12:13 am • link • report

In have never read such an error filled description of the architectural variations of the design of the stations in subway on the metrorail system in my years of researching and writing about WMATA.

Much of the narration is lifted from the description written by Wayne Whitehorne at world.nycsubway.org.

All of the "Waffle" designed stations, more correctly described as coffered arch vault, with the exception of one are cast in place concrete. The exception being Dupont Circle. I will get to Dupont Circle in a minute. The basic design twin or island platform station coffered arch vault consists of 22 coffers from one side of the arch to the other. The coffers in the coffered arch vault are 100" X 50". All station utilizing the 22 coffers design have 3 radius curves in the arch. The largest radius is in the curve in the 8 coffers in the crown of the vault. The tightest radius curve is in 4 or 5 coffers on the side of the arch from the invert upwards.

Metro Center and L'Enfant Plaza have more then 22 coffers in their vaults. Metro Center has 24 coffers, L'Enfant Plaza has 26. The station train room in Metro Center both upper and lower levels have wider platforms then do typical stations,

The upper level in L'Enfant Plaza has 26 coffers because it is wider then Metro Center. The reason why the transept in L'Enfant Plaza is not symmetrical like the transept Metro Center is because the arch vault in the D Route Blue Orange line part of the station from the mezzanine up utilizes typical station width and arch vault dimension.

Gallery Place Both upper and lower levels utilize typical station vault dimension. The width at the mezzanine level in the E, F Route Green Yellow part of the station is wider then the B Route Red line part of the station at the same level, however the radius in 12 coffers in the crown of the vault are the same in both part of the station making the transept symmetrical.

The concrete pours in the cast in place station were done in 6 coffer segments from one end of the station to the other. The first pour was from invert to the top of the 4th coffer, typical 22 coffer station, or 5th coffer upper levels Metro Center and L'Enfant Plaza. Both sides were poured simultaneously. The sides of lower levels of Metro Center, Gallery Place and L'Enfant Plaza were poured to the equivalent 5th coffer in the upper level, 4th coffer in Gallery Place, in 2 pours. First pour lower level invert to the reveal between coffers nearest to the upper level invert, second pour reveal between coffers nearest to the upper level invert to the equivalent 5th coffer in the upper level, 4th in Gallery Place. The crown of the arch was poured in 6 coffer segments after full length of the first and or second pours were cured. Reusable forms were utilizes and were either mechanically or hydraulically retracted after the concrete cured. Most of the reusable forms were used in multiple stations. The transept in the 3 transfer stations were poured in a single pour. (I was present when the transept at L'Enfant Plaza was poured. It was done on a weekend and took 18 hours to complete.)

Dupont Circle like its cousins to north is composed of 4 precast concrete segments, 2 segments in the crown and 1 segment on each side. In all of the station that utilize precast concrete arch vaults the vaults are not structural.

Construction photo of Dupont Circle

Arch I. What I like to call, 4 coffered arch vault are described above. The coffer dimension is 100" by roughly 22', The smaller version, the so called Arch III is utilized in the Forest Glen and Weaton stations. A variation of the smaller version is also utilized in the west half of the of the lower level of Fort Totten.

Arch II What I like to call, 6 coffered arch vault are cast in place, with the exception of one, are constructed in the same basic way as their 22 coffer cousins. The coffer dimension is 100" by roughly 15' The one exception being Columbia Heights. Columbia Heights has a 6 segment precast concrete arch vault similar to the 22 coffered arch vault in Dupont Circle. Unlike Dupont Circle, seen in the photo linked above, the arch was not assembled in a rock cavern but was assembled in a concrete cavern composed of 2 slurry walls with an arch cap on top.

Rosslyn and Pentagon utilize a 22 coffer design that is similar to vaults in typical stations. The forms that were used to pour Rosslyn were also use to pour Pentagon. Rosslyn is the only station built in a rock cavern that has a cast in place coffered arch vault. Like the precast concrete versions, the arch vault is not structural.

The 100" coffer width is common to all arch vaults. There are 72 100" wide coffers over the full length of the 600' long platform. The platform granite edge segments are as long as the coffers are wide, 100".

All of the station in subway on both the Orange and Blue lines are of the 22 coffer arch vault type design. All of the station in subway that utilize the 4 coffer arch vault type design are on the Red line with the exception of lower level in Fort Totten. All of the station in subway that utilize the 6 coffer arch vault type design are on the E and F Routes of the Green and Yellow lines. Virginia is the only jurisdiction in the WMATA compact where all the stations in subway are of the 22 coffer arch vault type design. However that will unfortunately change with the opening of the station at Dulles Airport.

---

Distantantennas:

Twin platform stations = cut and cover tunneling beyond one or both ends of the station.

Alex B:

The overall width of a typical island platform station is the same as a twin platform station.

Other point you made are addressed above.

Josh B, Alex B:

The contractor that excavated the approach tunnels for Dupont Circle station was given the option to excavated two 1 track tubes or one 2 track tunnel. The contractor that excavated the tunnels west of the Rock Creek Park was given the same option The cut and cover tunnel under Rock Creek is just up stream of the bridge that leads back to the stables adjacent to the Taft Bridge. The Red line tunnel passes under the second building on the west side of Ashmead Place north of the intersection at Connecticut Avenue.

ogden:

Lighting was more then adequate before the first trains rolled into the stations. The problem is WMATA does not keep the stations and light fixture reflectors clean like they were when they first opened.

metronic:

Acoustics were tested during construction. The amount of acoustical treatment put in the station gives them nearly concert hall acoustics.

The original plan called for escalators every foot of the way.

by Sand Box John on Aug 25, 2009 3:05 am • link • report

"Acoustics were tested during construction. The amount of acoustical treatment put in the station gives them nearly concert hall acoustics."

This directly contradicts everything Metro has ever said about accoustics in the stations. One of the common complaints about Metro is the inability to hear or understand station announcements. Metro has tried several different sound systems over the years, and still there are sections of many stations where announcements can not be heard at all. Metro has always said that the design of the stations make audio communication difficult.

From my perspective as a rider, I can tell you that the accoustics inside the stations are terrible.

"The original plan called for escalators every foot of the way."

This will surely go down as one of the worst decisions made in the design process. Maintaining a network of hundreds of escalators, many of which are outdoors is simply too expensive and labor intensive for a transit agency to take on.

The lack of proper steps next to most escalators means that when an escalator is not working, you are forced to walk up or down the escalator, which is more difficult due to the different step heights.

Broken escalators, which should be expected given the sheer number that Metro has to maintain, look bad for the system and are a source of many complaints.

For the deeper stations, escalators were probably the only choice, but to have so many, including escalators at newer above ground stations (like College Park for example) is a case of adherence to design principles over function and cost-effectiveness.

by metronic on Aug 25, 2009 10:54 am • link • report

Escalators are a necessity for anything with more than just a flight or two of stairs.

Escalators themselves are always prone to breakdowns simply because they're complicated machines with lots of moving parts. Maintenance is some of it, but a lot of it just comes with the territory. Given the depth of most Metro stations, there's not a whole lot of choice.

by Alex B. on Aug 25, 2009 12:19 pm • link • report

@Sand Box John, I admit I had always assumed differently as well. If the 22-coffer vault could be implemented both with precast pieces or as cast-in-place sections, why did WMATA switch to the other (imho, less impressive) design? Does the newer cast-in-place design use less concrete or take less time to produce?

Also, I was always curious about this: in the bored stations, how are the coffers attached to the rock walls? Is a rebar lattice hammered several feet deep into the walls, from which the wooden forms could be hung while concrete was poured into them?

by Joey on Aug 25, 2009 6:05 pm • link • report

@Sand Box John, you get today's ad hominem broad-brush award.

The acoustics of the stations (waffles anyone?) are clearly designed to muffle the noise of the trains, or for that matter groups of people. Thus they also muffle announcements. Like a lot of Metro, I've always figured that it reflects a reaction to other subway systems, which are pretty loud.

by Davidduck on Aug 25, 2009 9:15 pm • link • report

The coffers muffle the noise? I would have thought they'd create an echo chamber (depending on the angles), and that this was the reason they included acoustic tiles in most of the coffers.

This could just be me assuming again . . .

by Joey on Aug 25, 2009 10:23 pm • link • report

metronic:

Who ever is telling you this, is blowing smoke up your butt. Every station train room has 72 speakers along the length of platform mounted in 2 rows of 36 in the crown of the vault roughly 10' on either side of the station center line. Additionally there also is number speakers in the undersides of the mezzanines. The entrance passageway also have a number speakers in their ceilings.

It takes a lot of watts to drive all of those speakers. It also requires that different groups of speakers need to be driven at different power levels because of the distance between speaker and the listener. The speakers in the crown of the vault in the open part of the station require a higher power level then do the speakers in the crown of the vault above the mezzanines. Similarly the power levels for the speakers in the undersides of the mezzanines and in the passageway also require different power levels.

When the station first opened downtown the volume of the voices heard over the public address system in the subway station were loud and clear wherever one was standing in the station, be it on the platform in the open part of the station, on the mezzanine, under the mezzanine or in one of the entrance passageways.

WMATA needs to hire a professional sound engineer to properly configure and balance the replaced amplifiers that drive the replaced speakers.

Joey:

The switch from 22 coffer to 4 and 6 coffer was done for cost savings, The amount of concrete and reinforcing steel needed to construct the 4 and 6 coffer vault is less the what is need for the equivalent 22 coffer vault.

As to the attachment of the segments in precast concrete vaults to the cavern walls. Look again at the Dupont Circle construction photo, notice the concrete buttress behind the 4th coffer near the top of the latter on the right side of the picture.

Davidduck:

It is the acoustical treatment added to the arch vault that "muffles" the sound. The 4 and 6 coffer vaults have more square footage of acoustical treatment in them then do the 22 coffer vaults. The echo decay in the stations before the acoustical treatment was installed was deafening.

by Sand Box John on Aug 25, 2009 11:28 pm • link • report

i lov metro

by himashik kapoor on Aug 26, 2009 12:04 pm • link • report

@Sand Box John,
Once again,your Metro knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

I modified the first paragraph to reflect Dupont Circle's status as a pre-cast station.

I also noted NYCSubway.org's nomenclature. I've been using the names Waffle, Arch I, etc. since I first started researching WMATA back in 2003. I did not refer to NYCSubway.org when writing this post, but I use the nomenclature from their narrative, which is how I refer to the station types.

I appreciate the details on construction and the differences within the station types. This post was not intended to describe all those differences. In fact, it was not meant to discuss any of the construction methods. It was meant to discuss the continuity of design elements within the Metro.

If it was not clear from the original post, let me clarify. The stations within any type are not identical. However, I would not put L'Enfant Plaza in a different category from Metro Center just because it has two extra rows of coffers. The basic station design fits with the other Waffle stations.

The goal of the Commission for Fine Arts was to create a continuous design throughout the subway system. This goal was not met, primarily because of practical constraints. However, even though different station types were created, the basic model holds. Underground stations have high vaulted spaces, even if the coffered ceilings are different.

by Matt Johnson on Aug 28, 2009 9:39 am • link • report

I'd love to see a diamond motif in the Dulles Airport metro station. I don't know if it's feasible, but it strikes me as the next logical progression of the general Metrorail aesthetic, given a slight twist.

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 1, 2009 10:22 am • link • report