While I am not apposed to every 15 minutes on the weekend, I would rather not see it at all but I know something needs to be don. It iss the long term that worries me. What about next year when metro is another 100 million short. Does it become 18 minutes, and then 20 minutes the year after?

by Matt R on Jan 5, 2010 11:34 am • link • report

mperkins; perhaps a small correction. According to WMATA, the weekend headway cuts would save 4 million a year, and the weekday headways would save about 5, so a total of 9 million. Your 2 million figure is based on a partial fiscal year.

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PossibleRailServiceReductionsFY10.pdf

Funny, but I can't help but think that CUTTING off-peak fares might bring in more revenue. I'd be glad to deal with Metro and 20 minute wait for trains if the ride was only a quarter.

Or drop Metro Access altogether....

by charlie on Jan 5, 2010 11:39 am • link • report

If the Metro were able to tell you exactly when the train leaves each station, and provide some kind of easy-to-use mobile service that helps you to arrive at the station 3-5 minutes before that, then a decrease in "headway" would be greatly mitigated. This could be a net efficiency and service gain for everyone.

by Alan on Jan 5, 2010 11:59 am • link • report

On Saturdays the Boston Red Line runs every 7 minutes in the most heavily used portion (Cambridge, Somerville and downtown Boston) because that line has two branches that merge.

by Frank G on Jan 5, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report

I lived in Chicago and can say that while the schedule puts the wait times at every 6-10 minutes, the reality was nothing like that. I often waited twenty minutes or more for a ride, and worse yet there was no indication of how long it would be to the next train. This comparison also ignores the quality and cleanliness of the trains and platforms. Metro is, in my opinion, vastly better on all counts. Yes it costs more, but you pay for what you get.

I really really hope they can keep the same train frequency, but I understand they have to do something. Still, I'm one of those crazy hippies that would prefer to see a fraction of a cent tax on gasoline in the district to cover the costs, with the possible added benefits of increased rail ridership and reduced road congestion/pollution.

by T on Jan 5, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report

20 minute's between trains in the core I can see, but add the 30 minute waits for outside of downtown. Assuming you arrive at a downtown red line a minute after the train leaves, this gives you a 19 minute wait. Then you have to transfer at Ft. Totten to the green line, again missing by a minute or two. You've just added ~48 minutes to a ~15 minute metro ride.

Another consideration, 30 minute waits at an outdoor transfer station (i.e. Ft. Totten), in January's 20 degree nights, is not motivating to ride the train when compared with a warm drive. This might not be so bad if Metro could figure out how to schedule transfer station lines to minimize the waits between lines, but I've lost any hope of that ever occurring.

by Scott on Jan 5, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

Based on the chart that charlie links to above, it appears Metro is estimating a 1% drop in ridership due to the longer headways, but I think that estimate is way too low. Has Metro done any research to see how riders view an increase in headways versus an increase in off-peak fares? Alot of the riders I see in the evenings (red and green lines) look like office workers or tourists who I suspect would rather pay a little more for a swift-er ride home. I realize that not everyone has the means to easily pay that "little more," but the alternative of lengthy wait times and overcrowded trains doesn't sound very humane either - can you imagine the chaos at major transfer stations when the trains only come once every 30 minutes?

by grumpy on Jan 5, 2010 12:39 pm • link • report

Is there anything in the data saying how much a change to 4-car trains during lesser-used periods would save? For example, outside of Verizon Center games, the Yellow Line could easily go to 4-car trains during the weekend...

by Froggie on Jan 5, 2010 12:45 pm • link • report

@Mattr: Trains are usually added in integer trains per hour, so in increasing frequency, planners typically choose from 60, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, 8-9, 7-8, 6-7, 6, 5-6, or 5 minute headways, etc. Each level costs about the same increment because you're adding one train per hour each time. So the next cut from 15 minutes would be 20 minutes between trains. As you can see, it gets increasingly expensive to improve headways beyond 8 minutes since each incremenet gets smaller.

Next year's deficit is about $170M. I expect these service cuts to form a baseline for any cuts proposed next year.

@Charlie: Thank you for the correction, I forgot about this part. The cuts are worth more if they're spread out over the whole year.

I doubt cutting off-peak fares would spur such an increase in ridership that revenue would increase. If this is anything like the supply-side "Laffer Curve", I think we're firmly to the left of the peak revenue point. It's more likely that people avoid transit during off-peak because it's inconvenient than because it's too expensive. The comments we've seen here have been that people would be willing to pay more for better service, not that they'd ride more if the prices were lower.

Regarding MetroAccess, some amount of complementary paratransit service is mandated by federal law, and there's nothing WMATA can do about providing that level of service. There are some adjustments WMATA could make to bring the level of service down to what's mandated.

@Alan: While that would help you figure out when to leave your home (or destination for your return trip) it does not shorten trips involving a transfer, and it doesn't help if the longer headways make it necessary to take an earlier train if you must be somewhere by a certain time.

There is a link that I use on my iPod that links to a each station, telling you what the PIDS board says at that moment. I use it to tell if we have to rush to catch the next train or if there's time to spare. Those links are available on each station page.

@Frank G: Thanks for the correction, I couldn't figure out why the red line ran so infrequently when everything else looked fine. So it's every 7 minues from Alewife to Ashmont and also every 7 minutes from Alewife to Braintree? That makes more sense.

@T: I also support a gas tax for transit. Thanks for your feedback on Chicago, without having been to these cities recently it's hard to tell from their schedules that they're not meeting them.

@Scott: The long wait times, especially for transfers, will cause a lot of "choice riders" to choose driving instead.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 5, 2010 12:50 pm • link • report

@Froggie: Until either the NTSB investigation is released and Metro can safely go back to ATO or when Metro can train its operators to reliably stop at the little market that says "4" or "6", cutting to 4-car trains is not an option. 4 car trains + stopping at the front of the platform would be a MASSIVE disaster at stations where the only entrance/exit is at a far end of the platform (White Flint, Takoma, DCA, Columbia Heights, Fort Totten lower, the transfer point at Gallery Place).

This combination is why Metro ran all 6-car trains on Christmas and New Year's this year when in the past it was 4 cars.

by Jason on Jan 5, 2010 12:53 pm • link • report

@Froggie: I'm not sure switching from 6-car to 4-car trains would actually save that much, because I'm pretty sure you have to use labor to build and take apart the trains. With the default train now 6-car, switching to 4-car adds some labor but it would save some on propulsion and maintenance. It probably would save money on net.

Switching from 8-car to 6-car during rush hour, on the other hand, saves the propulsion power, the maintenance, and the labor to build up and take apart the 8-car trains every day. Unless they just put the 8-car trains in storage during off-peak?

by Michael Perkins on Jan 5, 2010 12:53 pm • link • report

@mperkins; I suspect WMATA's numbers underestimate the loss in revenue that will occur with longer headways.

And I disagree about the price cuts. On the georgetown blue bus, I've seem an increased ridership since they moved to $1 fare. Granted it is easier because you don't need quarters, but there has been an uptick. Metro is running empty trains during the day and could easily generate some additional revenue by cutting fares.

by charlie on Jan 5, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report

@Jason,
Actually, that won't be a problem under WMATA's proposal. Currently, they are proposing the elimination of *all* 8-car trains. If there aren't any 8-car trains, then doors opening in the tunnel won't be a problem any more. As long as WMATA is operating no 8-car trains, all trains could safely stop at the 6-car marker.

by Matt Johnson on Jan 5, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report

@Charlie: what you're saying is that transit fares have a greater than 1 price elasticity of demand. That by cutting fares 10% demand for transit rises more than 10%.

I'm saying that's not the case. The highest estimate I've seen for transit demand elasticity is about 0.7, meaning that if you cut prices 10% you get a 7% increase in ridership. It's an increase, but not enough to balance the loss of fares. More typical estimates are 0.3 for short run and 0.6 for long run elasticity. See http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm#_Toc161022586

Metro could generate ridership by cutting fares, but they'd be paying less so the revenue would almost certainly decrease.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 5, 2010 1:09 pm • link • report

I live 4 minutes from the metro, yet I just bought a car. I work hard during the week and when I want to go out on the weekends I can't justify waiting and waiting for trains. I have been car free in DC for 3 years but enough is enough.

2010 started out with a bad commute home, with the red line fubar'ed at Metro Center around 6:30 (back tracked two stations to get on.)

by Pattrick J on Jan 5, 2010 1:11 pm • link • report

If you save money by increasing headways, you need to spend a little to make the wait more bearable, whether it is better real-time information outside the station on next arrivals or more comfort in the stations while waiting.

For example, Boston's long waits are made more bearable by the vendors in the stations. Buying a donut, coffee, and paper makes the wait easier. A full blown bookstore or DC library branch would be a great way to pass the time. How about a flower shop.

More amenities:
- Install public bathrooms.
- Provide a climbing structure at major transfer points for kids (have you ever waited on a platform with an antsy kid on the way to a museum?) yeah, liability issues, blah blah blah.
- Allow more buskers, also jugglers, mimes, and other quiet entertainers.
- Install video arcade games to ease the wait.
- Let riders walk underground between Gallery Place and Metro Center without exiting the turnstiles, ditto for the Farraguts.

Or you could just suck it up and run the trains more often.

by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 5, 2010 1:34 pm • link • report

@ T,

Having lived in Chicago near both the red & brown lines, I can't say that I've ever waited 20 minutes for a train except on the occasion that service stopped for some reason. During rush hour, I rarely waited more than 5 minutes to catch a red line train from State & Van Buren. And during non peak hours, the vast majority of the time spent waiting was no greater than 10 minutes. Before living near the red line, I lived on the brown line. Other than late late late night service, I can't recall the frequency being any greater than 15 minutes, and generally it was mostly consistent at 10 minute intervals.

These proposed service cuts for Metro are disappointing. When I was in town in October, I was stuck waiting much too long for a green line train at U Street on a Thursday night (around 10:30pm). I was longing to be back in Chicago where I could have hopped on the red line and nearly been home in almost the same amount of time I was stuck just waiting at U Street. The CTA may not have the cleanest trains, but I still prefer it over Metro due to its frequenices and cheaper fares. As someone who may be relocating to the DC area this summer, I hope Metro can figure out something to further avoid damaging the ability to live car-free in the District (something I did rather easily in Chicago).

by Aaron on Jan 5, 2010 1:34 pm • link • report

@ Aaron and T,

When I lived in Chicago my experience was more like T's, however I lived on the south side where El service sucked in general. Perhaps service is a little better on the north side.

by rsn on Jan 5, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report

"Long headways might even convince someone to go get or keep a car, and once a car is available, they're more likely to use it, even during rush hours. "

I'm one of those--I commented with an example of Old Town to Capitol Hill in the post above. Basically, if I stay late at work or out for dinner on the Hill, after 8pm, my car ride home is 15 or 20 minutes. Longer headways (30 minutes for off peak proposed?!) would quadrupole that. I'm in the process of selling my car and going car-free (haven't driven it since September, think I probably don't need it at all), but the idea of a post-8pm trip home from the Hill (I need to transfer, so with 30 minute headways that's up to an hour just waiting for trains, for a 25 minute train ride).

This proposal has really made me rethink the whole car thing. If this is the future of Metro (and who's to say that my Metro stop will always have off-peak service? they're apparently considering getting rid of off-peak for some stations), then I will need a car, and it's cheaper to keep the one I have than to buy a new one a year or two down the road (and it's cheaper than moving, and I'm not willing to move anyway, for those who are itching to suggest that).

by Catherine on Jan 5, 2010 3:18 pm • link • report

Baltimore runs an 8 minute headway during rush hour.

by Jed on Jan 5, 2010 3:24 pm • link • report

Sad.

by Werner on Jan 5, 2010 4:00 pm • link • report

I'm an example of what should be Metrorail's ideal rider. I don't own a car. I live close to King Street station. I work close enough to Gallery Place-Chinatown to afford a leisurely stroll to work in good weather or a quick bus hop in bad weather. However, since the Red Line incident, I've stopped using Metro for commuting.

Prior to the accident, I spent too many days sitting on trains that stop in tunnels without an explanation, trains that lurch to stops, and trains that get pulled out of commission due to broken doors and sick passengers. In short, like all of you, I've slowly watched Metrorail's service erode to the point of absurdity.

The Red Line incident cemented my decision to stop regularly using the service. Whereas before I'd empty my SmarTrip every month, now, I might refill it every quarter - and most of that is going to buses.

I'm fortunate to have VRE as a commuting alternative. I now travel to Union Station and take my leisurely stroll in the opposite direction. Their trains neither abound in tourists nor hooligans. They run reasonably on time, and unlike Metro, VRE's operators give you a straight answer as to why they're having a delay.

Now, when I have to travel about the District, I take a bus instead of Metrorail. I stay in the District less in the evenings, and I avoid going to town on weekends. Further service cuts to Metrorail don't merely jeopardize the system, they also take money from customers like myself away from DC restaurants and attractions, which I'll just as readily avoid if getting to them is a nuisance.

That Metrorail would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs is no surprise. I see it as part of the endemic misadministration that's been going on throughout this country's industries and governments for the last decade. Too many incompetent people at the top skimming off too much for too little real work. It's a damn shame we're all suffering as a result.

by Craig on Jan 5, 2010 8:21 pm • link • report

@mperkins; thanks for the link. I'm not an economist, and frankly I'm too smart to play one on TV. I'm sure they all have fun coming up with pricing models which have worked so well for airlines and secondary mortgage markets. Two pushbacks: the models were done in the 1980s, and for other metro areas. The DC area is different and there might be enough opportunities to create demand through lower rail pricing on weekends. I'd start taking metro on weekends for low priority trips even with 20+ minute waits if it was a quarter. As it is, much cheaper to walk.

by charlie on Jan 5, 2010 8:33 pm • link • report

@Charlie: Some models were done in late 1980s, but there are other models cited from the 1990s and 2000s. Furthermore, the models do not show a significant shift in transit price elasticity between these decades. Unless you've got something to point to that would show a significant shift in transit demand elasticity?

How is the DC area different that would cause us to be more sensitive to price with respect to transit?

Sure, you would ride even 20-minute headway service if it was $0.25 each way. But would it convince the average rider to ride seven times as much? Because that's basically cutting the fare by 85%. Some people have a limit to how many metro rides they would like to take even if they were free. The 24-hour day combined with 20-minute headways imposes a practical limit on the number of transit trips you can even take in one day.

I don't doubt that people would ride more if fares were cheaper. But the transit data we have to date, common sense and recent experience here in DC is that raising fares increases transit revenues, which indicates a elasticity less than 1.0. Cutting fares will result in ridership gains, but not enough to make up for the loss of revenue per rider. Maybe if the fares were $20 each way, but we're not there.

by Michael Perkins on Jan 5, 2010 10:25 pm • link • report

@Michael Perkins -- about Boston's Red Line, just to be clear, one train leaves every 7 minutes from Alewife. The line splits after the trains pass through downtown, so some outlying stations to the south only get service every 14 minutes. However, most customers see 7-minute headways.

by Frank G on Jan 5, 2010 11:29 pm • link • report

I'm moving in the next week to 1 block from where I work, coincidentally also 1 block from a Metro stop.
Currently I live within a 12-15 minute walk of a Metro and it should take me 40 minutes (not counting walking) with 1 train transfer to get to work. Some days it takes a whole hour, but usually just 40-45 minutes. Of course on truly hellish days it can be 2hrs.

I'm moving by choice and for convenience but:
1. being able to recover my commute dollars

2. being able to largely avoid Metro

3. being able to avoid whatever longer commute I'd be the victim of

are appealing and probably account for 20% of my decision to move.

So by personal circumstance Metro won't be getting my commuting dollars anymore. I'll still ride it off-peak to see friends in DC, but obviously I'll have to check the train arrivals and plan more so I can avoid walking to the station and then having to wait 30, 40, 50 minutes? for a train.

by James on Jan 6, 2010 9:49 am • link • report

James: Good choice. Metro is great, but there's no substitute for people living closer to work. That's the best way to reduce traffic, reduce government costs, reduce carbon footprint and everything else. I'm not sad if Metro loses fare revenue because you can walk instead.

by David Alpert on Jan 6, 2010 10:00 am • link • report

@ David Alpert

Neither am I. That's why I wanted to be clear that I wasn't writing a Metro rant or blaming them. Mostly the appeal is that I'll be able to recover 1.5hrs every day that I'm spending commuting. During the summer that will mean a longer bike ride (I could bike commute to work 10 miles 1 way but I don't like hauling clothes around in a backpack etc) or actually time to get to a gym to work out or walk around the new neighborhood and find cozy fun spots.

by James on Jan 6, 2010 10:14 am • link • report

I'm in a somewhat similar case to Catherine. I already drive to work, in no small part because it's a consistent 20-25 minutes, whereas the best case Metro scenario is just over an hour. Nevermind that I frequenty have to go to Andrews or Bolling, neither of which are easily accessible by Metro.

Aside from the last GGW party, I've typically taken Metro in when I've headed into the city to do stuff (Caps games, museums, monuments, parties, etc etc). But if Metro starts going to 30 minute headways on nights and weekends, I'm going to seriously start considering driving and paying the price for parking. This is why I'm hoping they go through ALL OTHER OPTIONS, INCLUDING a fare increase, before they start cutting Metrorail service.

by Froggie on Jan 6, 2010 11:55 am • link • report