@MATT So this represents about $3.0 m in rail cuts and $1.0 m from bus. Capitalizing $22 m preventative maintenance parts sucks that money permanently from the capital program. Using the insurance recovery of $6.0 takes another $6.0 from the capital program. Therefore the remaining $8.0 million will come from staff reductions. The Agency needs to take a close careful look at the amount of money being drained from the capital budget by expensive IT consultants that will eventually need to be absorbed into operations. The authority should recognize that accepting credit/debit payments is more costly than taking cash or other forms of electronic payment.

by Interested on Dec 18, 2009 8:19 am • link • report

I'm sorry, but if Metro will have 15-minute daytime headways, it's not a real urban rail system. It should be called a commuter rail system from here on out.

by Phil on Dec 18, 2009 8:22 am • link • report

Moves like these will further decline ridership and thereby revenues as well. I suppose they believe ridership is more sensitive to price increases than reduced headways. That's not the case for me. I'm not going to take transit non-rush hour to someplace like Columbia Heights if it's going to take 2x or more the time. Knowing that I could easily spend 10-20 minutes waiting on platforms for trains even on the trips that don't require transfers is completely unappealing.

This makes my Vancouver Skytrain envy grow even larger. The Skytrain has no human driver. Considering labor is the greatest costs of the typical transit move that was ingenious design on their part. When I visited in September they were able to run trains every 6 minutes even at 11pm at night presumably because of their low operation costs. This will never happen with Metro because of our 1960s infrastructure but I still envy it nonetheless.

by Paul S on Dec 18, 2009 8:51 am • link • report

Interesting that they don't mention closing Judiciary Jew-dish-oo-ary Square on the weekends. Next to one gets on or off trains there, and yet it remains open, a needless stop on weekends.

by Edward Hoover on Dec 18, 2009 9:01 am • link • report

I will not be considering Metro for weekend trips.

Those headways are too long. I am not going to risk waiting 20+ minutes waiting on a platform - especially when there is a chance it could happen twice if I need to switch lines.

While they'll save in some operating costs they've lost my revenue.

by Rob on Dec 18, 2009 9:12 am • link • report

yep, agreed. The $3 million they save from rail cuts is going to smaller than than the lost of revenue. We're talking about 350 million + riders a year, no? That is about a penny a rider.

by charlie on Dec 18, 2009 9:18 am • link • report

Please tell me that the public will be given some input in these decisions as they had been last year. Why does it seem that we're the only ones with such draconian, inconvenient cuts; even New York's seem more sane.

Stuff like this makes my union hate grow even more. They made sense 50 years ago, now they're just a noose on efficient business.

by Jason on Dec 18, 2009 9:18 am • link • report

Wait, I'm confused. I thought Metro was the poster child for high ridership. What are the factors leading to lower ridership?

In SF, we're dealing with similar service cuts on MUNI and BART combined with fare hikes. The cuts are making it even more difficult and inconvenient to take public transit, especially on weekends. After 15 years without a car I'm reluctant to admit that I'm driving again simply because it's easier than dealing with public transit.

Most of Metro's proposed cuts do not address future budget shortfalls. If anything, ridership will decline even further which in turn will stifle future expansion of the system. For example, why push a streetcar system if the core system is losing money? Ask BART that question regarding their proposed Oakland Airport people mover debacle or MUNI's Central Subway money pit.

by sf4fun66 on Dec 18, 2009 9:29 am • link • report

@sf4fun66

Metro's ridership has declined for a couple of reasons. Following the Ft. Totten crash, ridership declined. It's hard to say how much of that was due to a lack of confidence in Metro and how much was due to the decreased levels of service. As Chris Zimmerman noted, you'd have to survey riders (and ex-riders, really) to determine exactly why they stopped.

It's also undeniable that the economy is affecting ridership. Unemployed folks don't commute to work, for example.

Similarly, Metro hasn't been hit with a large gas price spike or some other external macro factor to drive ridership. Though gas and oil prices have slowly crept back up, there hasn't been that kind of external forcing.

All of that data gives Metro enough data to say that ridership was down a little bit for the year prior to the dip that followed the crash.

by Alex B. on Dec 18, 2009 9:43 am • link • report

Metro needs to do something drastic to get the attention of those jurisdictions who have denied them the funds they need to prevent such service cuts. I'm sure it's entirely infeasible, but I'll bet that shutting down all suburban stations on the weekends in the name of cutting costs would get the attention of Richmond and Annapolis.

by Ron on Dec 18, 2009 9:44 am • link • report

Some of the proposed cuts make sense like closing some entrances early and on weekends. Bus stop spacing also makes sense although I think WMATA is undervaluing the benefit. Re-aligning bus service if its done similar to the 28 and Q2 lines also makes sense where better service is provided for lower cost.

The rail cuts are tough, but that's where the real savings are. It's difficult to imagine the impact of all 6-car trains during rush hour. WMATA believes that re-configuring the Red Line to run all 6 car trains to Shady Grove during rush hour (no Grosevenor cutbacks) will take care of the load and provide more realistic service than the current headways which aren't met anyway, but I don't see how that helps on the Orange Line.

It may make sense to accelerate the ability to handle all eight car trains and slightly widen headways during rush hour to save money (same capacity--fewer trains). This would also help with the Blue/Orange tunnel delays at Rosslyn as well as the stops/starts caused by the uneven distribution of trains during manual operation.

What's troubling is that these reductions were not on the WMATA board agenda and do not meet the criteria for public hearing. The special board meeting to consider this issue January 7 would not normally have a public comment period either. I think this is a mistake and there should be a venue for transit riders and advocates to weight in.

by kreeggo on Dec 18, 2009 9:46 am • link • report

30-minute headways are insane. I think it would be better to close the system earlier (anyone have data on ridership by hour?)

by PeakVT on Dec 18, 2009 9:55 am • link • report

@Jason:
These cuts are not subject to public hearing requirements. These adjustments are considered to be "minor service reductions." Even the Board doesn't get a say in the bus cuts. They do have to vote for the Metro reductions. Since public comment is not taken, the best way to influence the decision will be to contact the representative from your jurisdiction on the Metro board.

But remember this: Metro has to buy things from other people, electricity from PEPCO and Dominion Power, for instance. Those companies prefer to be paid for the service they provide. If Metro has no money, they can't pay.

Metro needs more money to operate the service it has been operating. Since DC, MD, and VA are responsible for funding the system, I recommend you write your elected representatives and encourage them to find some way to get more money to transit.

by Matt Johnson on Dec 18, 2009 10:11 am • link • report

Wow. Seems like some really harsh reductions in service, particularly in the first two bullets, for minimal savings. Increasing wait times from 12 to 15 minutes, 15 to 20, and 20 to 30 minutes? To only save $2million? Seems like a terrible lack of foresight that could lead to even greater decrease in riders.

by Brian S on Dec 18, 2009 10:23 am • link • report

It is a fallacy you can stop a $150,000,000 budget shortage with $35,000 and $90,000 items. That's 000 too little.

by Jasper on Dec 18, 2009 10:23 am • link • report

I'll still keep on using the metro on weekends but will always check Wmata's website for Next Train like I do for buses.

by Mony on Dec 18, 2009 10:27 am • link • report

The numbers look especially small because they are scheduled to go into effect in March for a fiscal year that ends June 30. The total cuts amount to only $4 million for FY 10 but total about $17 million for FY 11 if carried over.

by kreeggo on Dec 18, 2009 10:27 am • link • report

@kreeggo; that is actually useful and I should have looked at the PDF. $17 million in saving is impressive. Most of it is moving to six car trains and length the weekday headways.

Why is running 8 cars trains so expensive?

by charlie on Dec 18, 2009 10:32 am • link • report

@Jasper: Exactly. They are proposing fairly drastic cuts in service to achieve minimal savings. Many of those changes I could deal with, but reducing the train times by 25%-50% is too much. Outside of rush hour, this would probably reduce Metro to "that thing I ride when I'm drunk and don't want to pay for a taxi", instead of my primary mode of transportation. What kind of fare increase would they need to make up the $2million they think those slow trains would save them, maybe $0.10?

by Brian S on Dec 18, 2009 10:41 am • link • report

@ kreeggo: Even $4,000,000 is still two orders of magnitude too low.

by Jasper on Dec 18, 2009 10:41 am • link • report

Agree with Paul. This only further reduces ridership which further decreases revenue.

Here's an idea. Pull down the parking garages at Shady Grove and similar stations and build high rise condo/apartments and urban town centers. Purchase the strip mall across the street and build that into parking structures, high rises, retail and condos.

Build your ridership by building cities that surround your stations.

Your empty garages and no retail rental at those locations is where you are draining revenue on maintenance and operation because of poor leadership.

by Jared Hautamaki on Dec 18, 2009 10:44 am • link • report

@charlie: There's a couple components that add to cost and some that offset.

Additional cost: maintenance of additional cars, labor costs to cut out cars after am rush hour and add back in before pm rush hour and then cut back out again after pm rush hour. This process is cheaper than running all eight car all the time. There is also an additional power cost.

Savings: If you run 8 car trains and reduce the number of trains (operators)and widen headways slightly during rush hour, you would potentially have more savings than you incur in cost.

The move to all six car trains might make some sense with the reconfiguration of the Red Line but even the WMATA proposal counts on crowding reducing ridership by 1%.

I would look at a different solution for the Orange Line and I'm not convinced their proposal for the Red Line really works.

For myself, I'm just not sure of the effect of moving all 8 car trains on WMATA's current power system (even if the total number of cars is the same or less) but I think WMATA should examine this as a way to continue service levels at a reduced cost.

by kreeggo on Dec 18, 2009 10:47 am • link • report

@charlie:
Running an 8-car train uses 30% more energy than running a 6-car train and double the energy of running a 4-car train.

by Matt Johnson on Dec 18, 2009 10:47 am • link • report

30 minutes in the evening on weekends? There is actualy a decent amount of ridership in the evening on the weekends and many stations.

All this is going to do is put more drunk drivers on the road as they chose to drive rather then take metro to the bars.

by Matt R on Dec 18, 2009 10:49 am • link • report

Instead of service cuts, has anyone ever mentioned the idea of "performance-based" rates? With this recent decision, WMATA is essentially assuming that its riders believe saving money is more important than saving time. Why not let riders choose for themselves?

Say, for instance, I pay a 50cent higher fare if Metro can get me between point A and point B within a certain amount of time. Naturally, this span of time would be "pro-rated" based on distance. Users of paper passes would be required to pay that fare, but those with a SmarTrip have an option of avoiding that fare increase (yet another way for WMATA to encourage use of the SmartTrip). Those who would rather save money than time could let one train pass by. But you can be sure that would be a pretty small group of people.

Thoughts?

by SDJ on Dec 18, 2009 10:56 am • link • report

I would prefer more frequent 6-car trains to less-frequent 8-car trains. I've never seen a benefit to having the occasional 8-car train (but on the red and orange lines, all trains should be 8 cars).

I agree that these cuts are really going to hurt ridership (and thus revenue). It doesn't seem that has been taken into account. Taking the Metro on weekends is already inconvenient, but I do it as a matter of principle. That is going to be increasingly difficult if we start seeing 20-30 minute headways.

@Edward: I second your idea to close "Judishuary Square" on weekends. It would save money and speed up trains a bit. Usage is light on weekdays and nonexistent on weekends, and the area is just a short walk from Chinatown.

by Matthias on Dec 18, 2009 10:57 am • link • report

I think running the trains on 30 minute schedules _could_ be a good thing if they are 30 minutes by the clock. Meaning 1:00pm, 1:30pm, etc. If WMATA could actually run a train system on schedule that would be a huge leap forward.

It would also be good for those train arrival signs inside stations to be outside the stations. I've never understood why I have to enter a station, losing cell signal coverage and many minutes at the deeper stations, to just see I have to wait 25 minutes for the next train. If I knew that at street level then I could go do something and come back after 15 minutes.

by James on Dec 18, 2009 11:00 am • link • report

@James:
0:30 minutes at which stations?

A train that departs Dupont Circle at 12:00, 12:30, 1:00, and 1:30 would arrive at Farragut North at 12:01, 12:31, 1:01, 1:31 or so. Unless you expect it to wait 30 minutes in the tunnel between the stations.

by Matt Johnson on Dec 18, 2009 11:03 am • link • report

@James
I think not putting the train times out on a big sign by the top of the escalator is a good thing. As a disabled person, I find safety to be a primary concern. Imagine if they had a sign like that at the top of the Dupont escalator. All it takes is one person running down the escalator to hit another person to trip and fall. At that height, you can sure it would be fatal.

I already feel insecure during transfers @ L'Enfant when people are pushing to get through...and that's not right. Why should I have to go out of my way to guarantee my safety from transit bullies?

by SDJ on Dec 18, 2009 11:06 am • link • report

If "Jewdishuary" Square gets closed on weekends, can we also nominate some others for closure? I'd like to nominate Virginia Square, Waterfront, and Federal Center SW based on closeness to other stations, Forest Glen due to really low ridership, and Morgan Boulevard outside of Redskins gamedays for the same reason. Anyone agree or disagree?

by Jason on Dec 18, 2009 11:07 am • link • report

This can't be solved just with fare increases. The budget gap is $175MM next year - if you want to cover that with fare increases you're talking over $.50 per metro ride and that's not even counting the fact that you will lose riders if you do that.

Service cuts are just going to make people stop riding too - people who need to leave work late will consider driving instead of waiting 30 minutes for a train. It's happened at other agencies across the country that have had to cut service.

Politicians need to stop telling their constituents that we can continuously cut taxes and still pay for government services by getting rid of "inefficiencies." People gawk at the high taxes paid in Europe but at least they get something for their tax dollars, unlike in the good ol' US of A where we get tax cuts and stripped-down regulations that benefit the top 5% so that the gap between rich and poor can grow larger every year, watered-down health care reform that will had a big fat check to wasteful insurance companies, etc etc.

by MLD on Dec 18, 2009 11:07 am • link • report

Even at 15 minutes I'm discouraged from taking Metro on the weekends -- ESPECIALLY if I have to change trains. 20 minutes is a death knell.

by Elizabeth @ the Natural Capital on Dec 18, 2009 11:12 am • link • report

Dear Steve. We'd rather you bought a car.

Love, Metro.

by Steve Davis on Dec 18, 2009 11:17 am • link • report

@ kreeggo; thanks. And matt johnson's point about power is helpful too.

I have given up on the orange line. Too crowded. Blue bus is cheaper for me and overall a better experience. However, I have a short commute. (Rosslyn to West End). I do wonder how they model how many people they will lose on the orange line.

by charlie on Dec 18, 2009 11:22 am • link • report

@ Matt Johnson

30 minutes on the clock at key stations, wherever they happen to fall. My point was actually running trains on a predictable schedule, so if I knew that trains at Clarendon always ran at 1:17 and 1:47 +/- 2 minutes then I could plan my trips with confidence. If it's just a random 30 minute moving window when the train may or may not show up, forget it. I'd hitch a ride with a serial killer before waiting for that mess.

@ SDJ

I can understand what you mean, and your safety is important. I think people would have to learn that if they saw a train listed as 2 minutes away there is no way they are going to make it down those stairs in time, running or not.

@ Jason

I agree, I think closing some stations would be ok, or bypassing them to speed up travel. This should just be rolled into skip-stop schedules.

@ Elizabeth

I'm the same way. I avoid the metro on the weekends becuase the schedule is so ridiculous. There's no way I'm going to wait 20 minutes for one train and then 20 minutes again for another train to reach my destination.

by James on Dec 18, 2009 11:30 am • link • report

"I'm the same way. I avoid the metro on the weekends becuase the schedule is so ridiculous. There's no way I'm going to wait 20 minutes for one train and then 20 minutes again for another train to reach my destination."

Exactly. Metro is no longer a system intended for residents. It is a commuter rail service and a tourist people mover. I live 2 blocks from the Woodley Park metro and ever since the last service cuts my default weekend transport option has been driving or possibly the Circulator if I'm going out to U Street/Columbia Heights/Adams Morgan.

It really says something when a bus service provides a superior quality experience with shorter headways than the local "metro" does.

by Phil on Dec 18, 2009 11:44 am • link • report

Any guesses about how removing some bus stops saves $261,000? Less gas? Elimination of trips? Shelter maintenance? I'm all for removing bus stops; I just wonder how it saves you $261,000.

by Omari on Dec 18, 2009 11:47 am • link • report

I live in the city without a car, which means that I'm currently helping to reduce the giant traffic mess in this city, not to mention global warming. Reducing Metro service will force me and others like me to get a car. That's not good for anyone.

by Jennifer on Dec 18, 2009 11:49 am • link • report

@Omari: If the buses have to slow down and speed up for stops, they're losing time on the schedule. If you speed up a bus enough by eliminating stops, you can turn them around at the endpoints more frequently and to keep the same headway (time between buses) while running fewer buses.

Imagine if the buses only traveled 5mph on average (this is close to the worst buses in San Francisco). To have a bus every 12 minutes, they would have to be about one mile apart, and for a five-mile line, you'd have to operate five buses in each direction plus a couple extra for recovery time* and breaks, so 12 buses total. If the buses speed up to 6mph on average, now they can be spaced at 1.2 miles, which means you can serve the line with about one fewer bus.

If you got the buses to travel at 20mph on average by dedicating a lane, now you can serve the same line with only four buses. Not only that, but the passengers get there a lot faster, and people are attracted to the line because it's become competitive with cars.

*the amount of time built into a schedule to allow the bus to leave on-time for the next run

by Michael Perkins on Dec 18, 2009 11:59 am • link • report

@Omari:

I actually think WMATA is severely underestimating the savings from stop spacing. The savings come not from less boardings but from savings in deceleration, the 2-5 seconds it takes to open and 2-5 seconds it takes to close the door and then acceleration to resume speed. You also will make more green lights.

It would be much better if done in conjunction with other bus priority measures like bus lanes, signal priority and queue jumper lanes but by itself it should produce time savings in the 10% range. This doesn't always translate directly into 10% savings because the total time savings has to remove a bus from a line in order to save money but I still think WMATA is underestimating the effect.

Once again, the $260,549 figure is for part of FY 10 that ends June 30. The full FY 11 savings would be $1,042,000 according to WMATA. I think you could save between $250-350,000 on 16th street lines alone with bus stop spacings and an additional $150-250,000 if a rush hour bus lane was added from Spring Road to U Street. This is from applying FTA savings factors for bus lanes and stop spacing to 16th Street running times s-1,s-2,s-4, s-9. The time savings alone for riders would be signficant.

by kreeggo on Dec 18, 2009 12:00 pm • link • report

I think one disadvantage of Metro's inter-jurisdictional nature is that they can't close outlying stations late at night. There's really no reason to have weekend late-night service past Bethesda, Arlington, and Silver Spring. It might make sense to close some of these stations at 10PM on weekdays, as well.

by Phil on Dec 18, 2009 12:20 pm • link • report

Jewdishuary... Jason was that really needed. It pretty much discredits your whole arguement.

by Matt R on Dec 18, 2009 12:23 pm • link • report

How does it discredit him? Metro operators mis-pronounce station names all the time. It's one of the quirks of the system - WEE-unn, jooDISHoowary, Elephant Plaza, etc.

by Alex B. on Dec 18, 2009 12:27 pm • link • report

@Michael, kreggo--thanks. I wouldn't have guessed that speeding things up 1 mph would let you eliminate an entire bus on a route.

Oh, and I think it's an outrage that while there was plenty of money for "cash for clunkers", bank bailouts, and middle-class housing subsidies, but now there is nothing left for transit. Metro will have to cut payroll, as will other agencies such as MTA. If cash for clunkers is an economic stimulus issue, so is this. More federal money for transit.

by Omari on Dec 18, 2009 12:27 pm • link • report

In stead of bickering over the details of this abject plan, can we please focus on the big questions:

How is it that a well-used transit system is systematically underfunded?

How is it that a well-used system thinks that significant service cuts will benefit its budget problem?

If you shut down metro, it won't cost a single dollar.

by Jasper on Dec 18, 2009 12:28 pm • link • report

If you shut down metro, it won't cost a single dollar.

@jasper, is that really true? Metro still has to pay pensions and retiree health for the workers that have already retired.

by Michael Perkins on Dec 18, 2009 12:33 pm • link • report

@Jasper, Michael:
Not to mention debt service on capital bonds floated to build the system and purchase railcars.

by Matt Johnson on Dec 18, 2009 12:38 pm • link • report

@ M&M: Ever heard about sarcasm?

by Jasper on Dec 18, 2009 1:39 pm • link • report

@J: No.

by Michael Perkins on Dec 18, 2009 2:10 pm • link • report

I haven't heard of it either. Couldn't find it in the dictionary.

by Matt Johnson on Dec 18, 2009 2:11 pm • link • report

@ Jasper: I agree that the long range issues must be brought to the forefront. For years the system finances have been cobbled together and service cuts and additions are made often without rational planning.

There have been several studies that have documented the value added to the local economy by the investment in the Metro system. One study in Virginia estimated a 12.4 percent return for the state for every dollar invested in WMATA.

However, as has been noted by many including myself, there is no systematic way to re-capture the value and put it back into operating, maintaining and expanding the system.

Proposals for a single, region-wide tax die on the vine as each jurisdiction calculates whether it will be a winner or loser.

In addition, the federal government, with 40% of the peak hour riders, should contribute to operating funds (even though I acknowledge the contribution made through transit benefits to employees).

Perhaps the addition of federal WMATA board members being selected now by GSA as a step toward federal operating funds and a financial agreement for both operating and capital modeled after the "Metro Matters" agreement that takes into account current needs, inflation and growth factors might be a solution.

by kreeggo on Dec 18, 2009 2:15 pm • link • report

I think not putting the train times out on a big sign by the top of the escalator is a good thing. As a disabled person, I find safety to be a primary concern. Imagine if they had a sign like that at the top of the Dupont escalator. All it takes is one person running down the escalator to hit another person to trip and fall.

As a disabled person, didn't they build the elevators for you? Use them.

by ADA on Dec 18, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report

@Matt: You know, the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary either. Look it up.

by Michael Perkins on Dec 18, 2009 2:24 pm • link • report

30-minute headway?

Is there any subway system, in any other world city, that operates this way? Because I can't think of a single one.

I've used over a dozen other subway systems. And the only city where I've *ever* waited even 20 minutes for a subway is right here in DC.

by Vince K on Dec 18, 2009 3:43 pm • link • report

BART. After 11pm, on Weekends (two trains), so two hours per week.

If this is approved, we'll have 30 minute headways closer to 15 hours per week.

by Michael Perkins on Dec 18, 2009 3:54 pm • link • report

Running one extra train-hour costs $100,000. (that's one more train each line, each direction, for one hour, for one day per week).

So upgrading 30-minute service to 20-minute costs about $100K for each hour you do it. If there are 15 hours a week of 30-minute service, it would cost about $1.5M to "fix" this problem (less any increse in fare revenue).

Of the rail system proposals, I think I would lobby for this cut to be eliminated first. 30 minutes is far too long between heavy rail system trains.

After that I would probably go after some of the 20 minute headways. The biggest loss in my opinion is the loss of 12-minute headways during mid-day during the week. That one is expensive to fix, at around $3M.

by Michael Perkins on Dec 18, 2009 4:04 pm • link • report

30 minute headways on weekends? Give me a break...and the keys to my car, I'm driving.

by hillmonster on Dec 18, 2009 5:03 pm • link • report

PATH has 30 minute headways during late night service. But, two major differences:

1. PATH runs 24 hours per day and;

2. There is no "free" option to get from NJ to NYC. Even if you drive, you are still stuck with a bridge or tunnel toll.

In DC, where its "free" to drive anywhere, and where parking often readily available on weekends, 30 minute headways make driving a much better option.

PATCO in Philly-South Jersey runs headways of as much as 45 minutes overnight, but that really is more of a commuter rail system then a subway. It also runs 24-7.

by hillmonster on Dec 18, 2009 5:08 pm • link • report

On average I spend $600 a year commuting on the Orange Line, and maybe another $450 a year making personal trips (mostly late night). With these cutbacks taking the train wonÂ’t make sense anymore. The Orange Line is often packed as it is; taking two cars off every other train isnÂ’t going to help that situation at all. WerenÂ’t we talking about running 8 cars on all trains to ease congestion just a few months ago?

30 minute headways are completely unacceptable, particularly with MetroÂ’s on time record. Even with 15 minute headways on the trains, IÂ’ve often had to wait 30+ minutes to transfer at Metro Center when Trip Planner claimed it would only be a 5 minute wait.

How many other riders will speak with their wallets like me and leave Metro in worse shape than it is now? Because of the number of riders, the amounts of money weÂ’re talking about arenÂ’t that big of a deal. Raise the fares by a quarter and be done with it.

by James on Dec 18, 2009 6:04 pm • link • report

@SDJ, should we turn off NextTrain in the name of safety too? IÂ’ve often seen people run into Ballston Station because they donÂ’t have any idea when the next train is arriving. Just because some people are rude and selfish doesnÂ’t mean that itÂ’s a good idea for Metro to continue to inconvenience its customers. I have to agree with James (the other James); the signs should be at track level and outside the station. It makes little sense to have signs on the mezzanines.

@Phil, have you ever been on the last Orange Line train arriving at Vienna on a Saturday night? ItÂ’s often more packed then, than during the tails of rush hour.

by James on Dec 18, 2009 6:21 pm • link • report

"@Phil, have you ever been on the last Orange Line train arriving at Vienna on a Saturday night? It’s often more packed then, than during the tails of rush hour."

News to me, but I imagine all of these revelers are headed to their cars to drive home. In which case they can park closer in, at WFC perhaps. If they have a designated driver, s/he will be sober either way.

by Phil on Dec 18, 2009 7:22 pm • link • report

Some of those station closure's are stupid as hell and don't take into part things such as buses which serve them.

Navy Yard (east), How about rerouting the circular than so it stops by the metro entrance that is always open

Shaw (south) more metrobuses stop there than the south entrance, How about closing the northern entrance when Howard is out.

Stadium-Armory (north), Isn't the north entrance to stadium Armory where all the buses stop plus by the armory, the stadium and eastern so everyone getting off a bus will have to walk half way to the cemetery.

Unless they plan to reroute some buses that one damn sure wont fly with everyone, the only reason I can see them doing that is because of the elevator because every other reason would be a bunch of bulls**t

With metro and there entrances they need some better designs
some of them could have been built where there is only one entrance but two paths to it such as new york ave the whole station is connected is their a reason why they couldn't have just stuck the entrance in the middle opening on to the sidewalk infront of it.

@ ADA

Thats if the elevator is convenient which most of them are not due to designs of the stations and forgetting to think about disabled people during the building process. Most elevators are at the entrances which get no traffic or are just inconvenient due being in the middle of nowhere compared to the rest of the station.

I have been with people whom are disabled and using the elevators and trying to go somewhere is a b***h, hard to transfer to buses because the stops may be somewhere the elevator is not Friendship Hgts, Bethesda, Medical Center, Stadium Armory all have elevators that are not convenient and were just put there either after the stations were already designed in a way that is not handicap friendly (New York Ave with the elevators in the middle causing disabled/elderly to move all the way to the center while they should have been built at each end or cause they had to by law (Gallery Place).

by kk on Dec 18, 2009 9:42 pm • link • report

20 to 30 minute headways?

That's not dependable transit, that's a tourist shuttle.

From my experience, DC already has the worst off peak headways in this country. I can't believe they want to make it worse.

by J on Dec 18, 2009 9:52 pm • link • report

Re: Arrival displays

I've often wished for an outdoor arrival display. It would be a great help for those of us who can't check the next train on our phones. For the sake of safety, trains would no longer be shown once they are too close for a passenger to make it in time to the platform safely. Stations with long escalators from the mezzanine (such as Wheaton and Rosslyn) remove trains from the display once they are 2-3 minutes out to avoid encouraging passengers to barrel down the escalators.

Then again, I'd rather WMATA spend money on improving service than on new displays.

by Matthias on Dec 18, 2009 10:29 pm • link • report

@Phil, most of the crowds that I see on the last train are either walking home or taking a cab. There is a lot of housing in walking distance of Vienna, and some pretty close to Dunn-Loring. I live about a mile from the station, so I end up taking a cab. It's a much different game if I had to take a cab from Ballston one that would prevent me from using Metro at all. You might as well just close the Orange Line outside of Arlington during rush hour and just encourage people to drive on I-66 to Ballston.

Tranist is not just here to serve tourists and commuters. It is here to help us all get where we need to go, when we need to go there.

by James on Dec 18, 2009 11:30 pm • link • report

@kk:
Most metro stations only have elevators at one entrance. That entrance can never be closed when the station is open. So even if more buses serve the southern side of Shaw, the elevator is on the north mezzanine, so it has to be the one to remain open if one is to be closed.

by Matt Johnson on Dec 18, 2009 11:57 pm • link • report

@ Matt Johnson

I understand that but metro needs to learn to put the elevators in the more used places from the get go instead of doing a half assed job.

Those stations should have been built with the elevators in mind first regardless of anything or they should have just placed the bus stops at the entrances with elevators.

by kk on Dec 19, 2009 8:56 am • link • report

Sad... I'd prefer to pay a slight fare increase for better service. They should ask clients first. How can you provide a service without knowing the needs of your clients?

by Werner on Dec 21, 2009 12:34 pm • link • report

@Phil -

The other problem with your suggestion is it assumes there is parking available at the close in stations. Which is not the case. On the Orange Line for example, the closest in station with any decent amount of parking is West Falls Church. If all stations outside of Arlington were shut down, then I'd simply drive into DC (or more likely, not bother going into DC - another unintended consequence of these service cuts?). If I'm going to have to fight for / pay for parking in Ballston, I might as well fight for / pay for it in DC and skip Metro altogether.

I generally agree with others here. 30 minute waits are flat unacceptable. Metro has long skated a thin line between "commuter train" and "genuine transit system." These changes, if approved, will put it firmly in the former category.

If these go through, in my view, the Silver Line may end up Metro's last hurrah. I think these cuts will eliminate the vast majority of off-peak riders, which will in turn cause further cuts, and cause a cascade ultimately resulting in more severe under-funding and marginalization of Metro. The end result will be that this area will finally be on the inexorable path toward LA's transit system - roads, roads, roads.

by Jim on Jan 4, 2010 3:29 pm • link • report

For those people leaving comments on which stations to close, lets hope WMATA is a little smarter than you. Waterfront Station serves a residential area (as opposed to Judiciary Square). For residents living south of the station it would easily take 30 minutes to walk to the next closest station. Then throw in a gimp leg or a hangover, it could take close to an hour. Bad call!

by NC2DC on Jan 11, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report