I'm not sure there would be any cost savings from running bus instead of rail. I'm no expert, but I'd expect that the main cost is labor. For rail, that's one operator per trainset. The rail operators probably make slightly more than bus operators, but then the added cost of diesel fuel (or CNG/LNG) would offset the minor labor cost savings.

My understanding is that the operational cost of rail (electricity and labor) is lower than that for bus (diesel and labor), notiwthstanding the higher capital costs.

by JB on Jun 1, 2010 2:33 pm  

As a Reston resident, I found the planning that actually needs work is not on the part of Metro, but on the part of the Fairfax Connector. Normally, the 505 runs from Reston to West Falls Church, from where one then takes the Orange Line to DC. With the service disruption, coming home from DC I took the shuttle from East Falls Church to West Falls Church, expecting to take the 505 back to Reston from there, only to discover that the 505 has now been routed to East Falls Church (once back there I noticed signs saying so, but they had not been obvious, and no public service announcements from the Metro staff). Moreover, the schedule for the 505 had been rejiggered in such a way that it took not just 5 minutes, but at least 15 minutes longer to get back to Reston (the bus just sat at the Reston East Park and Ride for about 10 minutes before continuing on to Reston Town Center). Overall poor coordination between Metro and Fairfax Connector.

Having actually been on the shuttles between East and West Falls Church, I would have to say that having multiple shuttles to 3 different locations would have been confusing as heck (not much space in the East Falls Church bus lot; need to fill up buses and pull out to allow empty buses to pull in; need for staff to direct passengers in hordes emerging from the Metro exit).

by rock_n_rent on Jun 1, 2010 2:40 pm  

@JB: You have to think of those costs in relation to the number of passengers. If you run buses, chances are they most, if not all, buses would be full. But with trains (each one being 6 cars, since they don't run 4-car trains anymore), they'd be pretty empty, since it's a holiday weekend and people would probably be avoiding the Metro anyway because of the construction.

by Tim on Jun 1, 2010 2:40 pm  

Yeah, definitely cool that they wrote back with a real explanation.

As far as the cost comparison. I disagree with JB that there would be no cost savings. He/she seems to be minimizing the cost to run the trains. Wouldn't you also have costs involved in getting the trains out there in the morning (or do they spend the night at WFC?)? Putting the trainsets together? Additional dispatcher work?

On the other hand, I think that the traffic issues on 66 mean that the shuttle-only system would have to be substantially larger than just one. (Just one?!? I'd love to know how that worked. I am just imagining long waits at each station, overly crowded shuttle, etc.) You'd need 4 or 5 at least, I think. At which point it might overwhelm the savings from shutting down the trains.

So if cost is most important, then they're probably doing the right thing. But in terms of making for a more satisfying customer experience, I think the multiple direct shuttles would be better. (unless you got lucky and got off a train and right onto a shuttle that was leaving right then...)

by Josh S on Jun 1, 2010 2:44 pm  

Very good that you got a response from WMATA. As far as costs go, wouldn't they be losing money this weekend (and the next two in June) from people who aren't riding the train because of the lack of service between those two stations? Seeing as how even a semi-full train is going to generate quite a bit more revenue than a packed bus or buses, they're probably losing money either way.

My guess is that most people opted for cars instead.

by Emilyhaha on Jun 1, 2010 3:15 pm  

@Tim

Actually, being a holiday weekend, the rest of the system saw healthy levels of ridership. I suspect they added a few more trains in, as the Red Line was operating with 5-minute headways for most of the weekend, and seemed to have more people on the trains than usual.

by andrew on Jun 1, 2010 4:49 pm  

The Fairfax Connector's shifts in their schedule were initially to allow for the use of a detour via Westmoreland Street and Rte.123 (which will be used as I understand over the next two weekends). As such, the time in the schedule between East Falls and Reston on the 505 (or Herndon-Monroe on the 950) was to account for the longer route.

During the next two weekends I-66 will be down to one lane which will make DCbound travel a nightmare with three lanes of EB 66 and two lanes of EB Rte.267 going down to one EB lane at the merge.

by Transport. on Jun 1, 2010 9:50 pm  

Glad you got a response from them, Steve. At least one can hope they look into various options for times when a line/station has to be closed. I somewhat disagree with the worry about travel time on 66. Even if traffic is quite backed up, it would still seem faster to have one vehicle taking passengers directly to their destination, rather than having that vehicle get off 66, go to a station, deboard the bus, have passengers walk to the train, wait for the train to be ready to depart, finally depart, and then get to the next station down the line.

by rextrex on Jun 2, 2010 12:14 am  

I noticed that during the weekend work on the orange line that all trains bound for E Falls Church were labeled "SPECIAL" on the destination signs. I know that it has to be manually entered in, but since this is going on for the next two weekends, it should be implemented immediately. When pulling into the stations, the trains do not even say "ORANGE" on the LED signs at the front and back of the consists. The PIDS board just says "-- Train" as opposed to "OR E FallsCh." The operators, as we know, are inconsistently heard on the train speakers - and if that is all people have to know the train is going to E Falls Church, then that is not good enough.

by Matt Glazewski on Jun 2, 2010 8:02 am  

I'm the person who commented on the original post, as a neighbor of the Dunn Loring station. We did use metro to go into DC on Sunday, and, like many people, we opted to drive to EFC and metro from there. The problem was that eveyone else had the same idea, so the EFC parking lot was full (this was at 1:15 p.m. on Sunday). We circled the lot along with many other cars, then decided to drive to Ballston instead and parked for $1 in the mall garage.

While I appreciate the response from Mr. Hughes, I'm baffled that they don't understand a)how many of us still want to ride metro despite the construction; and b)that we are absolutely unwilling to use their current shuttle system between EFC-WFC. I wish you could have seen the parade of cars coming out of EFC parking lot, probably a high percentage of whom went out of their way to drive to the EFC metro station because it would allow them to skip using the shuttles.

I do believe that shutting down the Vienna-WFC portion of the train system would represent significant cost savings, enough to compensate for the shuttle busses that we're asking to run between those stations and EFC. This seems to me like more of the "this is how we've always done it" thinking that is driving metro into serious financial, safety and public relations problems. This would have been a nice opportunity for metro to try something different BECAUSE THE CUSTOMERS ARE ASKING FOR IT. We are saying we don't like the current solution and have offered cost-effective alternatives. Please, Mr. Hughes, reconsider your strategy and listen to metro's loyal customers.

by PS on Jun 2, 2010 9:46 am