Metro by the numbers, part 2
Yesterday, I compared Metro to other heavy rail systems on ridership and fares. Those are just a few of the ways to compare Metro to other heavy rail systems around the country.
Service Span: There's probably not a person under 30 in Washington who hasn't complained about the lack of super-late service on the Metro. I've certainly been there. But Metro runs a pretty standard operation as far as evenings are concerned.
Except for the 3 round-the-clock systems in the US and Chicago's pair of 24-hour lines, America's metros close between midnight and 1 am. But Metro does have one leg up on the others. In this region, the subway runs later on Fridays and Saturdays. That's very uncommon in the States, and luckily, Metro has no plans to end that service extension.
But Metro is the first (or was when I did the analysis in December) system to start to close each evening (except Fridays and Saturdays). The last train of the day leaves Branch Avenue for Greenbelt at 11:24 pm as the day's first last train. Downtown, last trains leave Metro Center at 12:06 am after a 2 minute dwell period on the platform.
Deaths in crashes (since 1970): Metro has been in the national spotlight over the past year because of several mishaps coming in the shadow of the fatal crash of June 22, 2009. In that crash, 8 passengers were killed. It was only the second time when Metro passengers were killed in a rail crash. In
December Jaunuary 1982, 3 people were killed in a derailment near Smithsonian Station.
Ryan McNeely, in his post critical of the Metro, incorrectly says that the other three top agencies have not had any fatalities since 1990. In fact, 7 passengers were killed in 2 separate New York City Subway incidents since 1990. But, by and large, America's heavy rail operators have good safety records. Going back to 1970, I could only find
3 4 heavy rail operators that had seen passenger fatalities as a result of rail accidents: Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington.
3 4, Chicago leads the pack with 13 passenger fatalities since 1970. The most recent crash killed 11 when a train fell from the loop onto the streets below on February 4, 1977.
Washington and New York are tied, each with 11 passenger fatalities since 1970. The most recent passenger fatalities in the New York Subway system occurred on August 28, 1991 near Union Square. The drunk motorman went through an interlocking with a speed limit of 10 mph at over 40 mph, and the resulting crash killed 5.
Authors note: this post originally neglected to mention a 1990 accident in Philadelphia. In March 1990, a crash west of 30th Street Station on SEPTA's Market-Frankford Line killed 4. Like the Smithsonian derailment, the crash occurred because of a split switch. The front truck (wheelset) of the 4th car went straight, while the rear truck took the crossover. It was caused when a traction motor on the 3rd car fell from its mount and was dragged along the trackway, damaging the switch.
In this category, I would say that Metro comes in last place.
System Size: We can measure several attributes to see how large a rail system is. This may give us a hint about how much of the region can be reached by heavy rail.
First, let's look at directional route miles. This metric tells us how many miles of track each system has in each direction. Once again, New York comes in first. But Metro takes second place, as it has done in several categories. In this case, Metro has 211.8 directional route miles.
Another measure is number of stations. Washington is in third place in this category with 86 stations. New York's 468 and Chicago's 144 certainly dwarf Metro, but 86 is nothing to sneeze at, either.
One more variable to consider about system size is the number of vehicles used in maximum service. This is the count of railcars used during rush hour. It is a great way to determine how much service a transit agency is running during the peak. In this case, Washington comes in 3rd. New York and Chicago again take first and second places.
Annual vehicle revenue miles and annual vehicle revenue hours can also indicate how much service an agency provides. In these cases, Washington's Metro comes in second and third places, respectively. New York wins both categories outright.
Service Quality: Unfortunately, I have not been able to unearth any national data on customer satisfaction, but we can perhaps make use of a few alternative measures.
One thing that customers value is a quick trip. In March, I discussed the average scheduled speed of all of America's heavy rail lines. The aptly named PATCO Speedline in the Philadelphia area is in the lead, with an average scheduled speed of 34.1 mph. It is followed by BART and the Baltimore Metro. Washington's transit system comes in 4th, with an average scheduled speed of 29.5 mph.
And because newer cars are probably more reliable and perhaps more comfortable, the average fleet age could indicate the quality of service as well. In this category, BART wins, with an average fleet age of 9.7 years. At 18.6 years, WMATA comes in 5th place. But these numbers are from 2007. Metro has received some new railcars since then, which would lower the number.
Efficiency & Effectiveness: Another aspect to consider is how efficient each system is in terms of the cost to operate versus the service provided. In both operating cost per revenue mile and operating cost per revenue hour, Metro comes in at 8th place. But it fares better when passengers are considered. In terms of operating cost per passenger mile and operating cost per unlinked trip, Metro comes in 5th and 6th places, respectively.
Just as important as efficiency, though, is effectiveness. The transit database provides some helpful measures in that regard. Unlinked trips per vehicle revenue mile and unlinked trips per vehicle revenue hour show the relationship between ridership and the service that is being provided. In the first category, Metro comes in 6th, in the second category, Metro comes in 5th. New York and Los Angeles take the first two slots in both categories, although not in the same order in both.
Overall, Metro scores very well in comparison to other agencies. Of course, it all depends on what you measure. There are certainly other factors out there that could be considered.
And no matter what a transit agency does, it is going to get criticism. Much of it is deserved. But as far as Metro is concerned, it does a decent job of getting people where they need to go. Sure, there are hiccups sometimes, but it could be worse—
- Where is Falls Church, exactly?
- In defense of "political theater" for Metro
- Is new housing, most of it for low-income residents, worth giving up an acre of park space?
- Are public spaces really public when not everybody can use them?
- National links: There are downsides to letting the Rust Belt shrink
- Events: Should I-66 get toll lanes inside the Beltway?
- Should a "historic gas station" keep new housing units from going up in Dupont?