Why not just make all bags from whatever place apart of the tax instead of picking and choosing; there should be no exceptions for fruit, newspapers, nuts, drycleaning etc if your using a bag for anything you should be paying period.

Why were DC schools even considering to open tomorrow when they didn't know if wmata was going to be operating thats was just stupid, many junior high/middle and highschools are not in neighborhoods and you would have to catch a bus to get to them.

Circulator should not be free regardless of the weather or how many people are using it

by kk on Feb 8, 2010 10:12 am • link • report

Careful, if you criticize the bag tax, you'll be accused of "whining".

by Eric F. on Feb 8, 2010 10:31 am • link • report

Any idea how much Metro loses on these days when they only have underground service (with 24-30 minute headways)? I tried to do a quick and dirty calculation, though I'd love it if people with better numbers here would chime in.

Wikipedia lists a daily ridership of 801,000. That's from Q1 2009, so let's knock it down to 700,000 to account for the recession getting worse and declining ridership after the accident. It's probably a low estimate, but that's okay for these purposes.

Then let's figure that on such a day, people average $2/ride when you combine peak and off-peak fares from throughout the system. Again, it may be a low-ball. But that would mean that Metro would bring in about $1.4 million/average weekday.

But with schools, the federal government, and many workplaces closed, most of those folks would stay home. If we figure that 200,000 go into work, that cuts revenues to $400,000 today--a loss of $1 million. And the average fare is probably a bit lower, since most stations far outside the city (which cost the most to commute in from) are above-ground and thus closed.

We could figure in a bit less wear-and-tear on the trains, maybe...but that's probably by far overwhelmed by the impact of snow on the trains. And there wouldn't be savings on wages--I suspect that they have all hands on deck digging out cars and tracks.

Any thoughts on this? Anyone have the actual numbers?

by mistergoat on Feb 8, 2010 11:03 am • link • report

A recent Washington Post poll (see question 29) shows that slightly more DC residents oppose the bag tax than support it. (49% vs. 46%-- 5% no opinion)

Interestingly, the Post found that 75% of white Washingtonians support it while 65% of black Washingtonians oppose it. Perhaps the tax should only apply in Ward Three!

by Eric F. on Feb 8, 2010 11:03 am • link • report

75% of white Washingtonians support it while 65% of black Washingtonians oppose it

Similar to marriage equality.

by Marian Berry on Feb 8, 2010 11:52 am • link • report

I wonder how long until people start blaming MPC for the snowstorm...

by MPC on Feb 8, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report

The bag tax continues to be idiotic. If you read the fine print of the proposed regulations, DDOE is considering a hardship exemption. Which makes sense since some stores that are collecting the bag tax were never intended to be caught within the law's requirements. For example, Macy's and Politics & Prose charge the tax, even though the only food products either sells is Godiva chocolate and mints, respectively.

Anyone watch the (I think) VW commercial with the Green Police arresting people for various eco-non-friendly violations? My guess is that the pointy heads in Ward 3, at DDOE, and probably on this blog would support such a concept since, after all, it's for the environment.

by Fritz on Feb 8, 2010 12:34 pm • link • report

@mistergoat -

I was wondering the same thing. But considering that they didn't run buses at all, might they have saved money? After all, the cost-recovery for buses is lower than it is for trains, and Metro Access is out. Anyone have any idea?

by JTS on Feb 8, 2010 12:35 pm • link • report

Fritz, indeed. I think it gave Mery Cheh some ideas.

http://www.hulu.com/adzone/watch#50032734

by ah on Feb 8, 2010 12:44 pm • link • report

@JTS:

Yeah, I was just calculating for rail--partly out of laziness, and partly because SOME bus lines are running, which makes those sort of back-of-the-envelope estimates harder. I hadn't know that cost recovery for buses was lower, but that's good to know.

Metro Access is just hard to work into this, and really, it serves a different role. It's supposed to serve a vital need for people without the mobility to take metrorail or bus--and it's no surprise that this is more expensive. And I'm okay with that.

But I digress. Anyone else with thoughts on the cost or any possible savings from Metro's super-limited schedule? (One note is that Saturday at 3:00, they reported 27,000 rail riders--compared to a usual 300,000 on Sat.)

by mistergoat on Feb 8, 2010 12:55 pm • link • report

On Metro underground service:

Doesn't it seem crazy that, although we are blessed with a transportation system whose core can function unaffected by weather, trains were run at an annoying infrequency. Thirty minute headways? With unpredictable schedules. Almost (but not quite) useless. Certainly there was plenty of grumbling. I'd be very interested in knowing what it would have cost Metro to run trains on 10-15 minute headways. Given the attenuated lines, one or two additional trains per line would have been enough, I'd think. (Perhaps those that were parked at U-st.). And it would have generated a lot of goodwill.

Also: It's interesting to note that the "storm ravages region" coverage on TV and in the Post focused on things that don't trouble those of us in the walkable urban core: 1) power outages - District residents, with underground lines don't suffer from them; 2) snowbound cars and roads - those of us with walkable lifestyles needn't dig our cars out (my own "dig out" involved 5 mins on my front stoop and another 5 mins on the bit of sidewalk in front of my house) ; and 3) food trouble - most of us in the walkable parts of the District hardly suffered - stores and restaurants were open and accessible by foot.

For many of us the storm was hardly a hindrance. Rather the last two days have been a pleasure - we could enjoy the city without the noise of traffic on the street (or in the air for that matter - no jet noise rocking the Mall). Ironically, it was only the National Parks Service clearing of the Rock Creek Parkway to its full freeway width, piling slush and grit onto the bike/running paths we were skiing on, that cut into the transformation of DC into a winter wonderland.

by egk on Feb 8, 2010 4:01 pm • link • report

@egk

The reason headways are so long is because the trains are essentially single-tracking, as the other track is being used for dry train storage (so they don't end up buried in snow out in the railyards). They're basically running the max capacity available.

I'll be curious to see what their ridership numbers are like for today, as they were at 1/10th of their normal weekend ridership with the snow map in effect - but it was also still snowing at the time, and not nearly as many folks were working.

by Alex B. on Feb 8, 2010 4:08 pm • link • report

Just curious why metro didn't run the Q line from Forest Glen to Silver Spring. Glenmont-Forest Glen was open, but from there there was nowhere to go. If the Q was running, people could have connected in Silver Spring to the S and 70 lines that were running and went downtown. Maybe this was an oversight, or maybe not that many people would have done it anyway...

by Pat O on Feb 8, 2010 4:14 pm • link • report

@Pat O:

Just out of curiosity, why do you call that stretch the Q line? It's not a designation I've heard before (outside of the NYC subway), and I'm intrigued.

by mistergoat on Feb 8, 2010 4:30 pm • link • report

egk and Alex B.,

There is tunnel space between Fort Totten and West Hyattsville on the Green Line. By my calculations, that section of tunnel, which was closed during the storm, can hold 192 rail cars without needing to single-track the open open section of the Green Line. At the other end, there is also tunnel space between Congress Heights and Southern Avenue, a section that was also closed during the storm.

Yesterday I was unfortunate to be stuck in a crowd of frustrated customers waiting nearly 30 minutes at Columbia Heights for a south-bound train to arrive.

During those 25 minutes I was bombarded with recordings asking me "Is that your bag?...", "First time riding Metro?..." and recordings informing me that service was reduced due the weather. After 20 minutes the station manager finally announced when the next train would arrive. During the entire ordeal, there was not a single apology from Metro staff.

I work for a private company the serves 100 or so clients in the area and we would never treat our clients this way.

by Eric F. on Feb 8, 2010 4:32 pm • link • report

mistergoat: I think he means the Q buses like the Q2.

by David Alpert on Feb 8, 2010 4:38 pm • link • report

There are letters assigned to different stretches of the Metro, but they haven't gotten to Q yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro_signaling_and_operation#Station_identification

by ah on Feb 8, 2010 4:50 pm • link • report

mistergoat, ah, David,

I did mean the Q buses (that run along Georgia Ave north of Silver Spring Metro). I had no idea there were letters for Metro segments...

by Pat O on Feb 8, 2010 5:16 pm • link • report

@Pat O and David:

Thanks! I'm new here, so it's useful to know that those are the Q bus lines.

@ah:
Thanks for that excellent geek-out fodder about the signaling! Very cool.

by mistergoat on Feb 8, 2010 6:20 pm • link • report

Today was a chance for Metro to shine and show how they could help residents of the DC area during a weather emergency. Of course Metro failed to take advantage of this opportunity. I don't think anyone really expects WMATA to step up any more. We've just gotten used to bad attitudes and poor service without apology or any explanation beyond the lamest of excuses.

Several years ago I would have been irate that above ground service was shut down because Metro never invested in snow and ice removal equipment. I've gotten past that and didn't even make too much noise of the benefits that would be gained by installing deicing equipment on the yellow line bridge or on the blue line between the Pentagon and Rossalyn. WMATA has worn me down so the unreasonable no longer bothers me.

So why did my trip this morning from Woodley Park to Clarendon take more than an hour? Why did I have to wait about 30 minutes for each of my 2 trains? It wasn't caused by a lack of passengers. Each train was packed.

Were this morning's delays really caused by single tracking because Metro decided to store trains in the tunnels? At first I thought this was someone's idea of a joke but after some thought, it sounds like a perfect WMATA startegy. Why not inconvenience your riders just so your employees don't have to work hard clearing snow off of trains? That sounds like the WMATA way.

On this morning's commute I had to ask the "Station Manager" a question. I knocked on the kiosk window and realized that he was SLEEPING ON THE JOB! WTF? With so many people unemployed this guy thinks his job is secure enough to sleep at work? This can only be because that attitude is reinforced by the actions of the highest levels of WMATA management. Real leaders would make an example of employees sleeping on the job or managers who decide it's OK to delay operations after a snow storm so cars can stay in tunnels.

It's a shame no one in Metro's leadership has sufficient pride in their organization to implement the changes necessary to give us a quality transit system.

by G on Feb 8, 2010 7:34 pm • link • report

G, it was noted during the previous big snowstorm that storing the trains out in the open with the snow could (and I believe did for some of them) incur electrical and other damage to the cars. So it makes sense for Metro to store some of them underground during these huge snowfalls so as to not have to do corrective maintenance (which also costs $) on them.

by Froggie on Feb 8, 2010 7:47 pm • link • report

Mistergoat-if you follow the footnoted link in the wikipedia page it takes you to some guy's website that's even more geeked out with full diagrams/schematics of the Metro, including with the Silver line extension, all segments, crossovers, pocket tracks, and service yards. And he does it in the various stages of metro's growth in recent years.

by ah on Feb 8, 2010 8:19 pm • link • report

And Froggie, it was noted that metro claims that the cars will suck in snow, but other transit agencies have a $5 filter in the train intake area to stop this from happening.

Closing Saturday was excusable. Offering limited service on Sunday was also not a problem, as it's just a Sunday. But Monday? Trains act like plows. Metro service should have been 100% by Monday, or at least 85%. It's inexcusable that silver spring doesnt have metro service.

by J on Feb 8, 2010 8:45 pm • link • report

@Eric F.

They can't just put cars in any old tunnel, they need to also be able to get the crews operating those trains out.

WMATA will open some above ground stations tomorrow, but they can't open them all thanks to drifting snow. They note that they have snow drifts of 3 to 6 feet in some places. No third rail heaters in the world or snowproof subway cars can just deal with that.

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=4294

by Alex B. on Feb 8, 2010 9:07 pm • link • report

Chain the trains together as a "supertrain" in Greenbelt and pull the train toward Fort Totten, stopping just before the station platform. Then the operator at the front of the supertrain can walk 10 or 20 feet to the Fort Totten platform while the tens of cars are stored behind him in the unused tunnel.

(This may require a different locomotive due to the weight.)

Furthermore, to prioritize the convenience of a few train operators to thousands of rail customers is precisely what is wrong with WMATA.

by Eric F. on Feb 8, 2010 9:22 pm • link • report

Well, I think it has more to do with feasibility and safety more than anything else - it's not for the sake of convenience, that's for sure.

I'm not saying WMATA can't do better, but they're doing it the way they've planned it for a reason.

by Alex B. on Feb 8, 2010 9:30 pm • link • report

Is it possible that Metro hasn't reconsidered their underground strategy in since the surge in transit-oriented growth in the District in the last decade?

My guess is that there are many more underground station-underground station trips now then there were in, say 1996 (pre Green line, pre Verizon center, etc.).

by egk on Feb 9, 2010 10:51 am • link • report

Thanks Froggie,
Do you have a link to the prior post about tunnel storage being necessary to prevent damage to cars?

All I could find were old WMATA press releases that seem to identify underground storage only as a strategy to speed restoration of service. The only mention of damage by snow was from above ground operations in snow, something they supposedly were addressing by 'hardening' 438 cars. Anyone know how many of these 'hardened' cars Metro has now?

While you could argue that this underground storage plan benefits riders, I'd counter that we didn't get the restoration schedule promised in the news release. This was the reason I call this a decision made for the convenience of Metro. The underground storage of cars was supposed to be a trade-off: a temporary inconvenience for riders so Metro could focus more on track clearing operations and less on car clearing. What we ended up with is rider inconvenience without the corresponding benefit promised. Did we see full restoration in 48 hours?

The press releases are classic WMATA, they talk about improvements but years later there's no follow up or accountability to ensure these plans were put in place or that these critical issues are being monitored on an ongoing basis.

"Underground-only operations ...and support Metro underground rail car storage needs and a rapid return to normal service once the snow begins to melt. Under this plan, Metro will be able to store approximately 300 rail cars underground. Only 50 cars would be used to run the underground service every 30 minutes. While at the same time, Metro could concentrate on snow removal along the above ground portion of the rail system. Immediately following a snow storm of eight or more inches, Metro projects capacity levels to be at 50 percent of peak requirements. Within 48 hours, Metrorail could return to normal service."

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=3236

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=3239

by G on Feb 9, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report

I'm confused. Why would Metro buy cars that get damaged just from sitting out in the snow? It's hard to imagine such a car would even be salable in most of the world but if these papier mache rail cars really do exist and that's what WMATA bought, wouldn't they realize the need to build train sheds over their rail yards?

by Confused on Feb 9, 2010 1:30 pm • link • report

@Confused

Metro has been operating for how many days now out of its total history? And how many of those days have been so impacted by snow and ice that they have to shut down outdoor operations?

What percentage is that?

by Alex B. on Feb 9, 2010 1:34 pm • link • report

Eric may have something there (though of course using a 'supertrain' as a plow can't fix this amount of snow).

Is using 12-car or 16-car trains with only the first 8 accessible to passengers practical in an emergency? If the turnbacks are long enough, that could accomplish both storage and double-tracking for underground portions. With careful monitoring (a driver at each end), if you were in a crowded single-track situation 16-car trains could even allow you to increase capacity to tolerable levels without using the second track.

Electrically & control-wise (wouldn't want doors to open onto the track), is it possible/practical?

by Squalish on Feb 9, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report

@G

Metro's delays in restoring full service in this storm, to my knowledge, are not due to conditions of rail cars, but track conditions instead. 30 inches is a lot of snow, and expecting them to restore service as fast as they did in December when they had 2/3rds of the snow totals is unrealistic. Metro has said they had snow drifts of 3-6 feet on some outdoor tracks. The thing about snow drifts is that they re-appear once you clear the snow away, so long as there is snow to be blown around and the wind patterns are similar.

by Alex B. on Feb 9, 2010 1:39 pm • link • report

Squalish, the system probably can't run 12-car trains because of extra electricity capacity needed for each train. My "supertrain" idea is a method for pulling cars from Greenbelt and storing them in unused tunnels at the ends of the abbreviated lines (east of Fort Totten and south of Congress Heights). That way, you only need personnel at one end of each supertrain obviating the need for operators to jump between sandwiched trains after they are parked in the tunnels.

For some reason, WMATA thought U Street would be a smart place to store trains, thus degrading service in Ward 1 and throughout the line.

by Eric F. on Feb 9, 2010 1:46 pm • link • report

@Eric F.

It doesn't really matter where the trains are stored - if you store them underground on a segment of track that's still in service, you will need to singletrack and that will affect the max frequencies on the entire line. Where exactly the trains are stored is largely irrelevant. That's why the service frequencies at U St (with storage) are the same as they are at, say, Gallery Place (where both tracks are in use).

Again, they use those tracks for a number of reasons - they need to get train operators out, they need to be able to easily access those trains again after the storm breaks, and they'd like to be able to mobilize them quickly. The exact locations for storage probably depends on where the crossovers are, how long the track segments are, etc.

by Alex B. on Feb 9, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

I like the idea of the bag fee, but if it's really designed for food stores (and not all retail), I think it needs to have a common-sense exemption for stores with tiny food sales.

Maybe it should apply across the board to all retail establishments, but if it's written to only cover those with food, it's going to stupidly include Urban Outfitters (which might sell 10 tins of mints a day) while exempting its neighbor (which might not sell any mints).

If food makes up less than 1% of a store's sales, and we really only want the bag fee to only apply to food-selling establishments, then those insignificant-food-selling stores should be exempt.

by Joey on Feb 9, 2010 2:04 pm • link • report

It does matter where the trains are stored as storing trains in a supposedly operational part of the line (U St) is more disruptive than storing them in a closed section of tunnel (e.g. just beyond Fort Totten and just beyond Congress Heights). Service would still be closed for the above ground sections, but the open sections could provide decent service.

by Eric F. on Feb 9, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report

Eric, my point is that they cannot store all the trains they need in non snow operations tunnels and still get their employees out.

They're talking about storing some 300 rail cars underground. That's a lot. It means single tracking will have to happen on some parts of the system.

I don't think your suggestion of a supertrain would be realistic or feasible, and storing them in inaccessible tunnels doesn't sound like a great idea either, given Metro's safety record. I'm sure that's something they don't want to have to deal with, and I'm not convinced that doing it would actually improve the conditions for riders all that much.

by Alex B. on Feb 9, 2010 2:33 pm • link • report

above ground service was shut down because Metro never invested in snow and ice removal equipment

Am I the only one who remembers that the USDOT specifically gave Metro funds to purchace snow and ice removal equipment AND third-rail heaters many years ago so that this wouldn't happen? What happened?

by Vicente Fox on Feb 9, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report

@Vicente Fox

I believe that was portable "heating tape," and they are using it at key locations - notably some of the rail yards and outdoor switches, etc.

Again, that's not going to do anything when you have 3-6 foot snow drifts.

by Alex B. on Feb 9, 2010 3:23 pm • link • report

Alex - If you store the cars attached to the end of operational trains, you don't need to singletrack. I ask again - is that approach possible/practical?

by Squalish on Feb 9, 2010 5:08 pm • link • report

Squalish, I don't think so. For one, hauling all those empty cars around would increase electricity costs a lot, plus labor you'd need to make sure people don't get in those cars. Two, the system was never designed for trains that long - the signal blocks aren't long enough for 16 car trains to operate safely, I would assume.

by Alex B. on Feb 9, 2010 5:54 pm • link • report

Alex,
While your response doesn't help my confusion one bit, you do raise another excellent point.

Where does WMATA publish those numbers? It would seem like an organization serious about satisfying customers and proud of their success doing so would track their performance against a wide variety of metrics well beyond snow closures and would publish those numbers for all to see. I haven't seen anything like that and I guess you haven't either since you don't know the percentage.

Sorry to upset the WMATA apologists in the audience but without those numbers published I can only guess (based on Metro's past actions) that their goal for days of above ground operation missed because of snow would be somewhere between "who cares" and "whatever we can get away with".

Personally, I care less about shutting down above ground operations then about their attitude that they're doing all they can. For years the consistent response I've seen from WMATA to any problem is lip service. They placate the media and public with promises to do this or that or to implement changes then wait for everything to blow over. How many more people have to die before this arrogance is no longer tolerated?

by Confused on Feb 9, 2010 7:55 pm • link • report

Confused,

No, I do not know the exact percentage. I do know that this is the first time the system has been forced to close due to snow since the 02-03 winter. The Capital Weather Gang noted that we get a ton of snow in DC every 7 years or so - so even if we hit our closures so far (5 days with underground only service), that means the system was limited to underground operations 0.19% of the time (5 days of und. serv / (7 yr x 365 days)).

Let's also remember that this winter is about to set an all time snowfall record for DC - and if it doesn't it'll sure come close.

by Alex B. on Feb 9, 2010 8:28 pm • link • report