Budget
GGW debates: Cutting late-night Metro service
Yesterday, the WMATA board discussed eliminating late-night Friday and Saturday service to help close a large budget gap and provide more hours for system maintenance.
Photo by Kenoir on Flickr.
The proposal has generated more than 100 comments on our website and a rebuke from new WMATA board member Tommy Wells. Today, GGW contributors debate the merits of this proposal, from its impact on system maintenance and service industry employees to the potential for replacement bus service.
Substitute bus service
Stephen Miller: This whole debate makes me think of Boston's short-lived attempt at running "Night Owl" bus service that paralleled the MBTA subway lines until after the bars closed. Despite its popularity, the T ended up cutting Night Owl service during a budget crunch in 2005.
Eric Hallstrom: London had a night bus schedule that was infrequent and limited. It solved some transportation problems when the Tube wasn't running, but I recall that it was very confusing.
Vincent Flament: Although London's night buses are confusing at first, they actually work very well once you get used to them. Brussels, a city much more akin to Washington than London, launched night bus services in 2007. I support night buses in DC.
It will be slower than the Metro, but the area has a lot of avenues that enable buses to run quite efficiently, such as Wilson Boulevard, Georgia Avenue, Connecticut Avenue and Rhode Island Avenue. It's not convenient but it gets the job done. Although I'd hate seeing Metro night service gone, on a pure cost argument it may make sense to introduce night buses. They might discourage some from travelling, but they are better than nothing.
Michael Perkins: The trains take about an hour to travel the length of a line, and that's with no track traffic and more or less direct routing. Buses would have about half the travel speed of trains. Plus, you have to build in slack for operator breaks and recovery time.
Metrobuses cost about $130 per hour to operate, so let's do a back-of-the-napkin calculation. A Night Owl bus, operating five bi-directional routes with four buses each direction for three hours per weekend night, would cost WMATA approximately $2 million each year. Cost recovery for the Night Owl bus would be on the low end According to Metro, the cost of running the late-night rail service is $5.0 million annually. So for about $1.7 million you can have a relatively slow, low-capacity bus every half hour, or for $5.0 million you can have a relatively fast train about every 20 minutes that has a far greater capacity and runs on well-known routes more likely to attract riders.
Erik Weber: Remember that WMATA already has a shortage of bus drivers and running late night services is only likely to exacerbate that and the overtime crisis. Of course they would need fewer rail operators so perhaps some of them could get bumped back to bus operation. But a bus service that could handle the crush loads that some trains have on Friday and Saturday nights would be so expensive to run that this whole argument would become a moot point.
Also, some people simply will not ride a bus from White Flint or Dunn Loring into DC, especially if it has to detour to stop at each subsequent Metro station. While a night bus system could enhance connectivity within DC, it could never replicate the functionality of the full Metro system.
Veronica Davis: Interestingly enough, a few of us East of the River were talking about how it would be great to have a night bus system that loops from nightlife areas west of the river to areas over here. Another option would to be to have a night bus that circulates people from the Metro stations to the interior neighborhoods East of the River. Despite my utopian vision, I agree that Night Owl bus service is not a substitute for the Metro.
Catching a cab instead
Erik Weber: The only people who win in this situation are the taxi drivers.
Cavan Wilk: It might be cheap to take a cab from Dupont to Court House. However, it's over $30 to take a cab to Silver Spring. It's $50 to take a cab to Wheaton. A taxi is not how most of us get home You only take a cab if you miss the last Metro train. Now, in addition to the cost, try to find a DC cab that will take you outside the L'Enfant City, much less to Fort Totten, Friendship Heights, Takoma Park, or Silver Spring Veronica Davis: You think it's hard getting a cab to Maryland? I've had cabs tell me they don't go East of the River. I now have the passenger Bill of Rights memorized. Nothing's quite as effective as threatening to register a complaint with DCTC! Needless to say taxis are not a viable alternative.
David Alpert: Cab drivers refusing to drive you? You're telling me!
Impact on businesses and nightlife
Eric Fidler: I can imagine DC's bar and club owners will be fuming and rightly so. Convincing suburbanites to take a bus into DC for nightlife will be a tough sell for all the same reasons that choice riders dislike buses during daylight hours. I'm sure some might be willing, but good luck.
DC has a lot to lose from this proposal since it is more dependent on transit and many nightlife businesses rely on customers who arrive by transit. We need to encourage more people who don't live here to come spend their money, not fewer.
Erik Weber: There is a serious issue at stake with a loss of economic vitality for late-night businesses as well as lost tax revenue for jurisdictions with late-night economies. Though DC has the most to lose, all three jurisdictions have transit-oriented late-night districts: for example, Bethesda, Silver Spring, and the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor.
Topher Mathews: I suspect the vast majority of bar-goers will end up taking cabs instead of Metro. It's not cheap to take a cab back to the suburbs, but it's better if you're splitting the cost with a group. Plus, it's a lot faster than the bus or train.
Bottom line: people won't stay home and hurt late-night businesses. There are other arguments to be made for keeping the service.
Impact on service industry employees
Craig Simpson: Don't neglect the many service workers of those restaurants and bars as well as building cleaning workers who depend on late night service for access to jobs.
WMATA Board Chair Peter Benjamin has also suggested cutting existing late night bus service, which would affect the ability of those making bus/rail transfers to get to their destinations.
Matt Johnson: Service industry employees are an important reason to be concerned about this proposed cut. I'd hate to see mobility cut back, especially for those who need it most.
It wouldn't be the end of the world to cut back the late-night closing times by an hour, but I certainly oppose any move to completely eliminate the late closing on Fridays and Saturdays.
Impact on track maintenance
Michael Perkins: I would be against the night service cuts, except for the fact that Metro has also said that this would improve the ability to perform maintenance. It seems like Metro is barely holding its own on this front. Providing more maintenance time would be a good thing.
Eric Fidler: It's important first to vet the premise that closing early is necessary in order to provide needed upgrades. It might in fact be necessary, but given this is the same agency that takes months to repair escalators, I prefer to trust but verify.
Matt Johnson: Metro already has far more downtime than its peers. Only Baltimore's Metro is closed more. Cleveland, Atlanta, and San Francisco's BART all have significantly less night downtime, and these systems survive.
Now, it's true that Metro is open 3 hours later on Fridays and Saturdays, but it also opens 2 hours later on the following days. In fact, I think that a later closing throughout the week would be helpful.
During the week, Metro begins to shut down earlier than any other heavy rail system in the nation. At 11:24 pm, the last train leaves Branch Avenue. Compare this to Atlanta. During the week, the last northbound train leaves the Airport at 1:00 am. It makes it downtown at around 1:20 and doesn't reach the other end of the line until 1:43. When I lived in Atlanta, I never once worried about missing the last train like I do here.
What else should we shut down?
Eric Fidler: While we're at it, what other transportation infrastructure should we close at midnight? The 14th Street Bridge, maybe? I-66?
Eric Hallstrom: I find this argument to be the least persuasive of all. The cost differential between running Metro and keeping a road open are so massive that there is no comparison. Even if you could demonstrate that there are some comparable cost savings over time, there is no comparable short term cost savings, which is the exact reason Metro is thinking about cutting service.
Matt Johnson: Metro's budget shortfall is a concern. Something has got to give. Eliminating late-night weekend service is a bitter pill but it would certainly be preferable to reducing mid-day headways, or eliminating the Yellow Line to Fort Totten.
Stephen Miller lived in the District from 2008 to 2011 and is now a student at Pratt Institute's city and regional planning masters program. 
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
There's no reason to charge reduced fare at those times, is there? I'd probably pay 6$ to get to Bethesda from Dupont circle by subway, especially if I was slightly inebriated...
Unless of course, there are a lot of people working night shifts who will be adversely impacted.
by Andy on Feb 11, 2011 10:47 am • link • report
Another option: Why don't they just hike the fares after 10 p.m. everynight? $5 minimum to ride Metro or something with yet fewer trains? I don't know the budget differentials, so maybe that won't help, but I'd be curious if premium late night fares could make the difference.
by katmere on Feb 11, 2011 10:48 am • link • report
by katmere on Feb 11, 2011 10:50 am • link • report
Don't forget that some of these issues were already discussed yesterday: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9202/
by Matt Johnson on Feb 11, 2011 10:52 am • link • report
by jimble on Feb 11, 2011 10:58 am • link • report
1. Start charging peak fares earlier in the evening... say, 10pm?
2. Close down the ten least-used off-peak "downtown" stations at midnight. My guesses?: Federal Triangle, Smithsonian, Archives, Federal Center SW, Capitol South, Waterfront, Arlington Cemetery, Pentagon, Judiciary Square, Mt. Vernon Square
3. Eliminate late-night Yellow Line service to Fort Totten (though, one would presume that this might requiring keeping Mt. Vernon Square station open).
4. Shut down entrances at stations that remain open. For example, it's 3 blocks between U Street Station's 10th street entrance and Shaw's 7th Street entrance. Close one or the other.
5. Close down suburban "park-and-ride" stations after midnight. Thinking is this: If people are driving to/from Metro stations to use late-night service, it makes less of a difference to drive to Addison Road instead of Morgan Blvd, or Rockville instead of Twinbrook.
6. Potentially eliminate Blue Line service, by running every other east-bound Orange Line train to New Carrollton and Largo. Run every other Yellow Line train to Huntington and Franconia.
Any combination of these changes, while potentially complicated, would save Metro time and money while keeping late-night service viable for many who use it. There have to be other options that a binary choice between having total service and none at all.
by Adam L on Feb 11, 2011 10:59 am • link • report
I don't think closing suburban park-and-ride stations is a good idea. In some cases, buses still call at those stations. Closing them early would mean rerouting and extending some bus lines.
Besides, not everyone who takes Metro at night drives to those stations. I live in Greenbelt and take the bus. But once bus service has ended, I still have the taxi option. But taking taxi from, say, Prince George's Plaza rather than Greenbelt would be exorbitantly more expensive.
I also sometimes bike. The bike ride from Greenbelt station isn't too bad. But biking from the other stations across a suburban wasteland of 6-lane arterials and ill-lit streets is much less pleasant. This is exacerbated by the fact that bike trails inside parks in Montgomery* and Prince George's counties close at dark.
*The Capital Crescent Trail remains open until 10p. It's the only exception.
by Matt Johnson on Feb 11, 2011 11:06 am • link • report
2. More targeted adjustments to the service, as discussed in this and the previous entry, could help WMATA save money, while not unduly impacting the ability to deliver this service. Of course, it would be good to have more detailed data about the usage patterns to guide this kind of analysis.
3. As others suggested, in the past have suggested theoretically that fares could be adjusted higher during different times of the evening or weekend, such as late night weekend service, to pay for the service or for more frequent service, because the opportunity cost of waiting for a train can be high. I'd rather pay a couple more dollars than wait.
4. However, I have to say that there is a big difference between theory and practice. The new fare structure is #$%^&*( high, and detrimental to promoting transit vs. automobile use.
In a conversation with CM Wells a few months ago, we discussed this and he made the point that ideally, the jurisdictions would provide more money, which could be used to support fare prices, and limit the high increases we have.
But as we know, this won't happen any time soon, given the economic crisis faced by all of the local jurisdictions--e.g. MoCo cut the library budget by more than 25%; DC is looking to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from its budget, etc.
5. As an aside, I used to not favor the yellow line extension, but I have to say I was lucky on Wednesday night, having gone to see someone speak and then taking the Yellow Line from King Street to Fort Totten, with a quick transfer to the Red Line to Takoma.
When the subway works the way it is supposed to, like it did for me Wednesday night, it's really great.
by Richard Layman on Feb 11, 2011 11:11 am • link • report
They're only possible options. I know that closing down suburban stations is probably one of the more far-fetched scenarios, but if the choice for late-night riders is to either get you closest to where you need to go, or shut down entirely, people may think about it differently. In addition, I imagine that stations at the end of the lines (like Greenbelt) would remain open.
by Adam L on Feb 11, 2011 11:13 am • link • report
For instance:
Management decided to replace the interlocking at Medical Center (A10) due to excessive corrosion. Unfortunately they did the retrofit (at a cost of $millions) before stopping any of the leaks and now the new tracks and equipment are badly corroded after just a few years.
http://washington-dc-metro.com/2011/02/08/help-wanted/
by Dizzy on Feb 11, 2011 11:21 am • link • report
Wow. Color me surprised. (Also, I might have overestimated the cost per hour per entrance.) I'm in for the entrance closings! Dear Metro Center, you're only open one place after 10pm.
by David on Feb 11, 2011 11:39 am • link • report
Add that to closing some additional stations entirely for late night, (Federal Triangle, maybe Judiciary Square, Smithsonian, Fed Center SW and some of the others mentioned), and moving the closing time to 2:00 a.m., and this could actually generate a significant amount of savings, toward the $72 million shortfall.
by Jacques on Feb 11, 2011 11:45 am • link • report
by JES on Feb 11, 2011 11:57 am • link • report
I live in the burbs, while I do not go into the city as much as I used to there was a time where I would go almost once a month. If there had not been metro service I would have stopped going period.
People are not going to take cabs, or ride busses. Its just not going to happen. Night life and thus income for the city will be effected.
by Matt R on Feb 11, 2011 11:58 am • link • report
by DC John on Feb 11, 2011 11:58 am • link • report
9 or 9:30 would be rather late I would think. There are plenty of people who get to the metro early to spend a day in the city. This is the nations capital, we do get a lot of tourists.
Though we should look at the data before we make that decision. How many people use the metro between 7 and 9 on the weekends?
by Matt R on Feb 11, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
by David C on Feb 11, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report
Unfortunately, few people in this debate have mentioned the important, long-term negative impact that cuts in late-night train service are likely to have for economic growth and development in the DC area.
For those who have been in the area for 20+ years, it is pretty clear the huge role Metro has played in fostering the development of vibrant, 24-hr districts where visitors, workers and residents can rely on transit and live increasingly car-free lives (think U Street, Rosslyn-Ballston, Silver Spring, Chinatown-Penn Quarter, many sections of Alexandria, Downtown and North Bethesda, future plans for Tysons Corner, just to name a few). The addition of late night service starting around 2000 has no doubt had huge impact on the ability of these areas to thrive. It is these areas that increasingly define our region.
The point is that even if you don't use the Metro on a regular basis to catch that very last train at 2:30am, the fact that the late train is even a viable option is arguably what causes so many people to take Metro on their way out the door at 9pm... or to choose to live without a car in the first place. Having the option and flexibility to take a train at most hours of the day when businesses are open and the city is "up and running" is what makes living near Metro, buying an apartment near metro (or building an apartment building near Metro), so attractive. This is truly what increasingly sets us apart from cities like Atlanta, or LA, or Miami, etc.
To the GGW staff writers and everyone else: This debate should not just be about bar owners and nightclub revelers. Safely and efficiently transporting the drunken bar crowd (and service workers) may be reason enough to keep the later service, but we also must consider our region's ability to continue as the nation's leader in smart growth, transit-oriented development and living car-free.
We may need to step up to the plate and urge our leaders (at Metro and our elected representatives) not to take such a short-sighted and narrow view on things. An earlier close for Metro would be devastating to so much of the progress we have already made and is a real threat to the future of the DC region.
by dcforlife on Feb 11, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report
This is what they do in other cities. I really don't know why WMATA couldn't do this. You just need to put huge signs in the stations that will close early.
by Phil on Feb 11, 2011 12:18 pm • link • report
If maintenance has work they want/need to do, then shut down a portion of the system for the nights they need to do it. Figure out how to shift your train operations so that if you need to shut down a certain segment you don't need to use the yard on that segment.
But this stuff about an extra 45 days worth of maintenance sounds bogus. Do you have 45 days of maintenance you want to schedule? Do you have the money to do it?
But hey, if we had properly funded this thing from the beginning we wouldn't have these problems.
by MLD on Feb 11, 2011 12:22 pm • link • report
Nightowl Bus? Hmmm, and how many of you are going to take the 32 bus from G'town to Capitol Hill or the X2 from downtown towards
Benning Roadthe revitalized H street?@Veronica! Oh how I heart you.
*singing* Oh how I heart you. Yes you are the best. And you live in
ghettoHillcrest. I like the way you write. Much better than I type. I wrote these dumb lines. Just to say one more time. Oh how I heart you. Heart you I do!by HogWash on Feb 11, 2011 12:27 pm • link • report
As an aside, if DC truly feels that late-night service benefits their local economy, perhaps they should increase their jurisdictional contribution in order to keep that late night service.
by Froggie on Feb 11, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report
Can anybody express the value of the lives and limbs loss due to extra drunk drivers when metro closes early?
If metro wants more money, they need to put the squeeze on federal employees. Just run the late trains, and take out trains at rush hour. People will complain and more money will become available.
Metro does not cost money. Metro saves money in road wear and tear, lives and limbs not crashed, and metro generates extra (tax) income for the bar scene near metro.
Oh, and yes, there are people who ride metro to a park-and-ride station. For instance people who park-and-ride to work on Friday, and then stay and party after work. I would not easily dismiss those people.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2011 12:32 pm • link • report
1. WMATA too PR-incompetent to be able to inform people of what is closed
2. WMATA feels riders too stupid to understand what is open/not open
3. Unions decrying "unfair" practice of employees on certain lines being able to work while others are not.
None of these are legit excuses.
by MLD on Feb 11, 2011 12:33 pm • link • report
Only if they turn the trains around at the DC line. But if MD and VA patrons are using those trains, then it benefits their citizenry as well, and they should contribute to it too.
by David C on Feb 11, 2011 12:34 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Feb 11, 2011 12:40 pm • link • report
If anything, closing at 12:45 and reopening at 6:30 could be a good compromise.
by Jason on Feb 11, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report
DC still had an active and packed bar scene for the drinkers to enjoy and the roads weren't strewn with the countless bodies of all the drunks.
And the whole drunk driver thing is a strawman. It's not my responsibility to make up for the planned poor decisions of other people. You want to go out and get plastered, fine...but make plans accordingly. Why "I" should pay millions of dollars a year so a relative handful of metro riders can pass out on a train home is beyond me.
In the end, no one is really grasping the fundamental issue.
Metro is out of money and they either need more money or to reduce service to make up for it.
That is it. All of these ancillary complaints are irrelevant to the issue at hand. You can wax poetic about how DC's transportation system will never resemble (fill in preferred European counterpart here), but it simply doesn't matter.
The only decision to make is what mixture of more money and less service you want. Period.
by freely on Feb 11, 2011 12:47 pm • link • report
Really, you pay millions of dollars a year? You must be loaded. The fact is you pay pennies a year so that drunk drivers don't kill you, a loved one, a neighbor or a co-worker.
It's not my responsibility to make up for the planned poor decisions of other people.
Maybe not, but it is the responsibility of the government to reduce structural defects like making in only possible to travel to/from a bar by car.
Metro is out of money and they either need more money or to reduce service to make up for it. The only decision to make is what mixture of more money and less service you want. Period.
This may be true, but it isn't what they said. They said they need money AND more time to do track work. So even if we come up with more money (which I prefer), we still don't have a solution.
Would you care to rescind your "Period"?
by David C on Feb 11, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report
On the one hand, many in this forum gripe about MetroRails various
well-known operational problems. Sadly, few here seem willing to accept that a reliable passenger rail system of any kind does require substantial ongoing and regular maintenance.
Sigh.
by anonymous coward on Feb 11, 2011 1:08 pm • link • report
by Ted on Feb 11, 2011 1:22 pm • link • report
I hate to nitpick, and to go on tangents. But "North Bethesda," aka zip code 20852, is most definitely not home to car-free living. Maybe in thirty years, when White Flint is a community of its own and we have light rail/BRT on 355. But at the moment it's full of strip malls and office parks and the like, despite having three Metro stations.
by EJ on Feb 11, 2011 1:23 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2011 1:29 pm • link • report
1. Yes, me as a regional tax payer who directly funds metro, the additional cost to me and my regional neighbors (i.e. not someone from Utah)is millions. Metro's budget shortfalls DIRECTLY affect me as a District resident and frequent metro user in the form of poorer service and higher fares. So yes, "me".
2. There is no structural defect about not being able to get home from a bar at 3:00am. You can get in your car and drive home, or find a cab, arrange a ride with friends, use cabi. There are tons of choices and as an adult of legal age it is your responsibilty to make one, not mine to make it for you. Your choice to get too intoxicated to drive or cab is not the foundation of a governmental structural defect, but rather a poor personal choice. DC survived just peachy-keen prior to 1999 when there was no late service. Why is now, 12 years and 28,000 additional DC resident later so different? Was I wrong, were the DC Metro roads filled with 2 or 3 times the carnage from people driving drunk? No.
Considering the scorched earth offensive you and many others who frequent this blog give Metro for it's maintenance problems, I am surprised that you were caught unawares that metro needs to spend more time and money on maintenance. Why is this a surprise to you?
More money or less service. Period.
by freely on Feb 11, 2011 1:36 pm • link • report
Regular, Peak (commuting hours), Night (10PM-3AM)
#2 Close stations/entrances - so many stations see such little traffic, I am sure it would be a money saver to shut them down at 12. Shade in circles on the Metro Map to signify which stations close early, no expensive signage necessary.
#3 Close portions of the track for maintenance when needed - I think many people would be willing to accommodate a couple weekends a year where they shut down portions of the track for maintenance (we already do) as opposed to getting rid of the entire late-night service.
by cmc on Feb 11, 2011 1:46 pm • link • report
Some people question whether Metro is correct in stating they need the extra time. It's reasonable to ask why they need the extra time, what they would do with it and why other similar systems are able to get their work done with less downtime. I think if Metro made a convincing case that they need that time, few would argue with that. But, as of yet, they have not made a convincing case. Everyone acknowledges that Metro has to do track work.
by David C on Feb 11, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report
Er, you do realize you answered your own question right?
It's akin to saying (in a discussion about bike lanes), We didn't have them in 1999, so why is now, 12 yrs and 28k additional DC residents later, so different.
Demand mabye?
by HogWash on Feb 11, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report
by Fritz on Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm • link • report
New York charges $2.25 (or it did the last time I checked) per trip. Yes more people ride but its a much larger system.
What are we doing wrong
by Matt R on Feb 11, 2011 2:22 pm • link • report
by Tina on Feb 11, 2011 2:25 pm • link • report
Obsessive Cognitive Disonance was actually the name of my college rock band. We played mostly accoustic disco. But otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, me as a regional tax payer who directly funds metro
I'm sorry but YOU do not pay millions. DC-area tax-payers, as well as tax-payers nationally, and users of the system pay millions. But your personal contribution is quite small, and the portion of that which pays for late-night service is smaller. To say otherwise is totally hyperbolic. It does affect you, but not to the degree you state.
Was I wrong, were the DC Metro roads filled with 2 or 3 times the carnage from people driving drunk?
Drunk driving deaths in DC in 1999: 41
Drunk driving deaths in DC in 2009: 29
That's a 30% drop. So not 2 or 3 times, but certainly more.
Your choice to get too intoxicated to drive or cab is not the foundation of a governmental structural defect, but rather a poor personal choice.
It's actually both. If we know that closing metro early will lead to more drunk driving and thus more drunk driving deaths, then we know that that government decisions can push people to kill and die. So it isn't really ALL a personal choice. Government actions can influence the choices people make. Do we want to influence them to make good decisions, or do we want to influence them to make bad ones? I vote for good. And before you say "Government shouldn't be making these kinds of decisions" I'll say that every decision government makes has these kinds of ramifications, so the only way government can avoid it is to not make decisions at all. Maybe you think the implications should not be a part of the calculus, but if so, you're being hopelessly naive.
DC survived just peachy-keen prior to 1999 when there was no late service. Why is now, 12 years and 28,000 additional DC resident later so different?
I got by just fine when there was no vacine for chicken pox, no internet, no cell phones etc...but now life is better. Life is better with late night Metro service, something that is made self-evident by the fact that it is used. People vote with their feet, and many of them vote for Metro service. For them life is better with late night Metro.
Considering the scorched earth offensive you and many others who frequent this blog give Metro for it's maintenance problems
Find me one place where I've criticised Metro for it's maintenance problems.
More money or less service. Period.
Uh, again, no. Even with more money, Metro says they need more time. So it isn't just about money. Are you even paying attention. Question Mark. It seems like you aren't reading. Exclamation point.
You're wrong. Period.
by David C on Feb 11, 2011 2:26 pm • link • report
Instead of doing the every/other thing for folks going to Largo or Franconia, we could put a 4-car "shuttle train" at Braddock Road and Stadium/Armory, where customers traveling to either would have to transfer. I'm pretty sure you'd be able to line things up so that a cross-platform transfer gets made each time with room to spare.
Also, when you're closing extra entrances, you get to do things like turning off the escalators to cut down on power consumption and wear/tear. (In fact, we should probably already be doing this in places where there are more escalators than necessary during off-peak hours)
I'm a bit disappointed to see so many people claiming "I pay taxes, and don't use the metro late at night, therefore you drunk bastards don't need it either."
Similarly, before we make any decision, I'd like to see a proper and detailed analysis of what it actually costs to run these late-night services on a per-passenger basis as compared to regular daytime service, and peak rush-hour service. If I had to guess, the peak rush hour commuters are the ones getting a hell of a steal. Apart from closing some stations earlier, I don't see any realistic way of responsibly cutting late-night service.
(Also, Veronica: There already is a late-night bus service that goes from Adams Morgan, down U St and Florida Ave, down 8th St N/SE, and over the 11th St Bridge into Anacostia and Congress Heights)
by andrew on Feb 11, 2011 2:47 pm • link • report
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2011 2:49 pm • link • report
True, MD and VA patrons may be benefitting. But it's DC's tax coffers that benefit moreso.
by Froggie on Feb 11, 2011 3:05 pm • link • report
I assume that you're talking about the 92 bus. I've never gone from Adams Morgan but have caught it all the way from U Street to Congress Heights. I'm Mr. Train, Mr. Bus, and Mr. Walk and even I have to look out the corner of my eye when riding the 92. There's usually no shortage of drunks on it and that's during the daytime.
But, that wouldn't address V's issue because EOTR, the 92 only serves Ward 8. Veronica is in Ward 7.
by HogWash on Feb 11, 2011 3:05 pm • link • report
MD and VA patrons are benefiting, or else why are they riding? This isn't a one-way transaction. DC and MD residents get something in return for their investment - namely better access to DC and what it has to offer. So why should they get to free ride?
If what you want is to make this more of a user fee, that's been suggested - raise the price of Metro at night. Bars and restaurants in DC will find themselves less competitive, and will drop their prices accordingly. Which will work as a tax on both the users of Metro and the bars and restaurants that rely on them. But the idea that DC should pay for MD and VA residents to travel into our city and spend their money is ridiculous. Even Vegas doesn't do that anymore. If you don't like it, enjoy your evening at Carpool.
by David C on Feb 11, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report
This comment seems to ignore the multiple times, in both this thread and the previous thread on the same issue, that people have mentioned the economic boon the Metro has given many different parts of town. I can't believe this is being said again, but -- do you honestly think that revitalized neighborhoods like U St and Adams Morgan would have had such a great resurgence had it not been for the late-night Metro serving those areas? Whole swaths of city have been re-energized by DC nightlife, and that investment spreads into daytime use/quality of life as well. As David C pointed out, life was FINE in 1999. But life in 2011, with late-night Metro service bringing people to and from newly-revitalized neighborhoods that are safer, more attractive, and bring more income into our city, is far better.
by alison on Feb 11, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report
The point is that 95% of the people shouldn't have to (massively) subsidize the 5% who want to get their drink on past midnight. Pay for the cab. And if there aren't enough cabs, let's talk proposals to ensure that they are plentiful.
by joe bloggs on Feb 11, 2011 4:56 pm • link • report
Actually, your numbers *understate* the case. The region grew approximately 15% between 2000 and 2009. If we forgive the one year discrepency, that's
1 Drunk Driving death per 116,980 citizens in 1999.
1 Drunk Driving death per 188,835 citizens in 2009.
by andrew on Feb 11, 2011 5:09 pm • link • report
by jimble on Feb 11, 2011 5:17 pm • link • report
by joe bloggs on Feb 11, 2011 5:25 pm • link • report
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1240,q,547837,mpdcNav_GID,1552,mpdcNav,|.asp
@ joe bloggs: this "prevent drunk driving" argument is really a red herring
It is not. I am appalled by the number of people that drink and drive. Apparently you are not aware of the trauma caused by DUI crashes. And aside from the kills, there's the injured people as well.
It is true that preventing drunk driving should not be the sole reason for keeping metro open. But it should be one of the reasons/side-effects. The real reason why metro should run late (and 24/7 if you ask me) is that DC is the Capital of the Free World (lending that title to Cairo for this weekend). It's an embarrassment that we can't afford to keep our transit system open at all times. Apparently, we can not afford the freedom to use transit.
by Jasper on Feb 11, 2011 5:41 pm • link • report
So this is a common rhetorical trick. When multiple justifications are given for doing something, you focus on one and show how ridiculous it is to do the thing for that one justification.
This is similar to how some people attacked the transportation part of the Stimulus bill. They would take the number of jobs created and the amount of money spent and say "We spent $2M per job, this is crazy", ignoring the fact that we also got roads or rails or whatever it was that those employed people built.
So yes, the idea of keeping the Metro open solely for the purpose of helping drunks get home so that they don't drive might seem silly. But that isn't the only justification. It also helps people who work late - like all the busboys and waitresses who will still be cleaning up after last call. It helps people who will stay out past midnight even if drinking were stopped at midnight. It helps to reduce parking in neighborhoods (I think people in Georgetown can tell you all about this). It reduces driving in general, which is good for the environment. I could go on...
I guess my point is you have to do a full cost-benefit analysis, to see if it is worth subsidizing.
Since we all benefit from better public safety, greater mobility, cleaner air it is not unreasonable that we should be willing to subsidize metro even when we won't use it.
Most of us will never visit Big Bend National Park, but I don't mind paying to keeping it open.
by David C on Feb 11, 2011 5:55 pm • link • report
by joe bloggs on Feb 11, 2011 5:59 pm • link • report
by Phil on Feb 11, 2011 6:45 pm • link • report
Run "METRO Drunk Buses" on marked routes until 3 AM (or all night) as so:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=202435105046472301511.00049c0c71aa25662c342&ll=38.911339,-77.019653&spn=0.559937,0.883026&t=h&z=10
by stevek_fairfax on Feb 11, 2011 9:50 pm • link • report
We discuss how to nip Metro here and tuck it there while O'Malley blows billions on the Intercounty Connector, aka:
The George W. Bush - Martin J. O'Malley Memorial Boondoggle.
Anyone want to guess the aggregate tolls on the ICC are forecast to equal the highway's construction cost?
by Greg on Feb 12, 2011 11:13 am • link • report
Half of your measures do nothing against DUIs. They only restrict the sale and consumption of alcohol - a legal activity.
The effect of stiffer penalties is minimal at best because the penalties are pretty stiff already. More checkpoints might help some but come with considerable cost.
You are right that nobody here is interested in your suggestions. They don't make sense.
by Jasper on Feb 12, 2011 12:07 pm • link • report
What's even more interesting is that before the 1960s, Boston used to offer 24 hour service.
In fact, take a look at this frequency chart from 1911.
http://crail.smugmug.com/photos/1152642840_3Di8Z-M.jpg
8 minute headway at 3am!
11 SECOND headways at 5pm!
How the mighty have fallen.
I'd wager that the DC streetcar system ALSO provided 24 hour service.
Is no one else profoundly disturbed that as our country gets richer, our services continue to decrease?
First we cut 24 hour service to 2am. Then we cut to midnight. Sacramento recently cut their service from 1am...to 10pm! Outrageous.
These are slippery rails we're riding on, and I honestly wouldn't be shocked to hear that a city like Miami or Buffalo will be cutting their heavy rail service to 7pm in the future. I mean, they already offer bare-bones 30 minute headways.
It's sad to see those who rely on transit bending over to find even more places to cut, while the military budget doesn't ever stop growing.
by JJJJJ on Feb 12, 2011 5:15 pm • link • report
by BP on Feb 13, 2011 7:44 pm • link • report
However, I think rising wage costs are at least somewhat at fault. Actually, not really wages per se, but more so pensions and health insurance.
I think our wages are sustainable, any sort of public pensions aren't. 401ks for 'em all like everyone else. The city of SF is on the hook for 500 million this year alone for pension contributions. UNSUSTAINABLE! And I'm a liberal!
by H Street Landlord on Feb 14, 2011 12:25 am • link • report
by David C on Feb 14, 2011 8:40 am • link • report
It's not that simple. If you raised the fare, fewer people would ride, which would mean the fare would actually need to be higher than $2.15 if you hope to recover the cost of the service.
And while I don't think $2.15 is that onerous, let's remember that we don't even ask rush hour commuters to pay for their full share of the service.
by Matt Johnson on Feb 14, 2011 8:44 am • link • report
by David C on Feb 14, 2011 8:56 am • link • report
I wonder if there were studies at the time of whether late night service helped local businesses when it was instituted, because in my case it definitely enabled later nights and probably slightly increased spending on drinks and cover charges...and I wasn't even coming in from the suburbs.
Now that I'm older there's not a chance I'll ever use the late night service, but my inner 25-year-old wants it to survive so that we can have the vibrant nightlife that people expect of cities.
by Elizabeth on Feb 14, 2011 3:04 pm • link • report
As for work hours, that a more difficult issue...
by David C on Feb 14, 2011 3:07 pm • link • report
The ICC has nothing to do with Metro so you have no point in brining up the ICC especially if you are not going to bring up the I-495 Toll Lanes in NoVa......
by traci on Feb 15, 2011 4:31 am • link • report
Feel free to point out any idiotic highway project you want, but your assertion that O'Malley's decision to blow billions on the ICC has nothing to do with Metro's decrepit state isn't grounded in fact.
O'Malley is wasting roughly $1.5 billion PAY-GO dollars on the ICC. That's $1 billion in federal funds and $445 million in General Fund and Transportation Trust Fund dollars. Directly or indirectly, that money could have been invested in transit or other uses. In fact, if O'Malley had flexed those dollars toward a rail project like the Purple Line, he could have attracted a federal matching grant. So count that $3 billion in potential transit dollars blown on one18-mile boondoggle.
Then add to that the $3.5 billion in debt, including interest, that O'Malley is blowing on the ICC.
If the same applies to the Virginia toll projects, shame on Virginia.
by Greg on Feb 15, 2011 9:07 am • link • report
Add a Comment