Station name will put NoMa on the map

It's official: The NoMa name is coming to Metro. Some are making a big deal about the "new" name, but it's just one more neighborhood name on the Metro map.

An article in today's Washington Post quotes several users of the stop soon-to-be formerly-known as New York Avenue. A few riders don't like the change because they think no one will know where the station is or what the name means.

There may be some initial confusion, but that will pass quickly.

In the debate about renaming this station, there were no easy answers.

On the one hand, the two streets in the station name, New York Avenue and Florida Avenue were less than optimal because of their length. New York Avenue is over 5 miles long and crosses countless neighborhoods. A tourist looking for the Museum of Women in the Arts at 1250 New York Avenue had better not get off at the New York Avenue station, because they'd be 1.5 miles away from it.

Another reason to shy away from the "New York Avenue" name is that the station of that name is not even the closest station to New York Avenue. A pedestrian would have to walk about 760 feet from the nearest entrance just to reach the street called New York Avenue. Both McPherson Square and Metro Center have entrances that are closer to New York Avenue (the street), and Mount Vernon Square isn't much further away.

But on the other hand, New York Avenue is a well-known street. And the neighborhood does not have well agreed-upon name. NoMa does cover that area, but the newness of the name means many are not familiar with it. So what should the station be called? What could it reasonably be called?

WMATA settled on NoMa-Gallaudet U. Will people be lost and confused with this name? Will we ever get used to this? As one person in the Post put it, many will be confused if they've "been riding Metro your whole life, and now [WMATA] changes a name."

Metro station names often lend their names to the areas where they're located. That's certainly the case with Van Ness. Elsewhere, the stations spread the names of neighborhoods that might otherwise be unknown. Because Woodley Park is on the Metro map, many have heard of it. Glover Park is no less significant on a regional scale, but fewer people know where it is since the train doesn't go there.

Some argue that NoMa is a contrived name. That's certainly the case. But it's no different than other areas in the region. One example springs to mind: Crystal City.

The area in south Arlington is now known as a major office destination. Metro's Blue and Yellow trains and both VRE lines call there. Most people know where Crystal City is, probably because they've seen it on the Metro map or heard it announced by train operators.

But in the early 1960s, Crystal City didn't really have a name. It was a warehouse district next to the railroad tracks. It was a lot like NoMa was two decades ago. But a condominium called Crystal House opened. After that, a few other buildings were built with "Crystal" in their name. Eventually, the area became known as Crystal City, and in 1977 a Metro stop with that name opened.

But let's change history. What if that station had been called "Jefferson Davis Highway" station? What if right now, the Metro Board was debating changing the name share the contrived name of the neighborhood?

Would people be arguing that the new name would confuse tourists? Would some argue that it would be better to use the name of a nearby neighborhood instead? Would others call for retaining the Jefferson Davis name simply out of momentum? Probably.

But in reality, Metro put the Crystal City name on the station. And now, virtually everyone in the region finds it acceptable and knows where it is.

In 20 years, (assuming the station name doesn't change again) NoMa will have even greater name-recognition than it does today. And no one will worry that visitors to the region will get lost because of the name. After all, for most out of towners, NoMa means as little to them as New York Avenue does.

The new station name is more accurate and more concise than the one that has graced the station since 2004. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement.

A New Look at the Metro Map (Part 2)

In Part 1 of this post, I discussed my entry in Greater Greater Washington's Metro Map Contest.

My earlier post talked about the rules of the contest and my goals for the redesign. Now, I'll discuss some of my design decisions.



Laying the Groundwork:
I chose to keep certain elements. The Potomac and Anacostia Rivers provide needed geographic context, as does the National Mall. I also retained Wyman's icons representing the Capitol, Washington Monument, Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, and the White House.

The scale of my map is similar to Wyman's. Per the contest requirements, the resolution of the map is the same as those that appear in railcars. On my map, the "square" that represents the boundary of the District of Columbia and Arlington County is the exact same size as the one on Wyman's map.

Lining Up:
Once I'd laid out the basic geography of the map, I started adding rail lines. These lines are by necessity thinner than those on Wyman's map. This is due to the addition of the Silver Line through central Washington.

As far as the lines were concerned, I tried to strike a balance between the layout of Wyman's map and actual geography. That mainly meant changes to the outer ends of the Green Line. North of Fort Totten, for instance, the Green Line is basically running east-west, though Wyman's map shows that as a 45 degree angle.

I also turned the Columbia Heights "corner" into a smoother curve. Doing that allowed the map labels to be placed more logically and gave the Mid-City subway a less severe set of curves.

Dotting the Is:
With the lines laid out, stations came next. But I struggled a bit with creating an icon.

I first tried keeping a single dot per station, as is the case with the current map. But there was no way to create an attractive dot that would work both where 3 lines ran concurrently and where a single line ran alone.

I discounted using dots of different sizes because I wanted the map to be consistent. Use of ovals and rectangles seemed too crude for the map design I sought. And using London-style hatches wouldn't work with the dual Red Line.

Stumped, I turned to Mark Ovenden's book, Transit Maps of the World. Leafing through, I hit upon Amsterdam's map as having the solution. For my map, I used what I call "linked dots" for most stations. I kept Wyman's "target" symbol for the perpendicular transfer stations.

To indicate terminal stations, I filled the station dot with the color of the service that terminates there. I hope that this calls the eye to those stations.

Crossing the Ts:
With lines and stations drawn, it came time for labels. For this task, only one font would do: Helvetica.

Aside from the fact that I'm a huge Helvetica fan, it's the font used throughout the system in signage. It's even the font used in the Metro logo.

With that decision made, the question of placement arose. I was determined to eliminate the text/line overlap that proliferates on the current map. That meant, in some cases, making changes to lines. But it also meant rethinking the way station names are handled.

To counter the "name sprawl" of station monikers, I broke up the longer names into a primary name and a subtitle. This makes it a lot easier to fit names onto the map. Ideally, though, Metro would just shorten the names.

End of the Line:
In order to better accentuate terminal stations, I bolded those station names. I also colored in the "dot" representing the station.

For stations where trains turn short frequently, I decided to go a step further. At those locations, I actually pulled a "spur" off of the mainline. Michael Sypolt (@TransitGuru) told me it reminded him of a train pulling into a pocket track, which is what happens at these locations. I did this to accentuate that some trains stop and go no further.

Doubling Up:
Because the Red Line is operationally two lines, I chose to show it that way.

This allowed me to easily show that off-peak, Silver Spring - Grosvenor trains are extended to Shady Grove. It also would hint that frequencies are higher, though that is not clear from the map alone. And it further accentuates the terminal problem.

Connecting the Dots:
One of the last elements I added to the map were "connection" icons.

I chose to use a standard type of icon to show connections to Amtrak, MARC, and VRE. Those services are shown using a colored circle with an A, M, or V as appropriate. They're "chained" together and to the station where the connection can be made.

This seems to be superior to the current practice of putting the Amtrak, MARC, and VRE logos right on the map haphazardly.

I replaced the generic hatchback that Wyman designed with the universal "P"-in-blue-circle to indicate stations with parking.

To show airport connections, I used an airplane in a yellow circle, with the airport code below. I put that next to a bus or train as appropriate to indicate the connection. In the legend, these connections are further described.

I'd appreciate your feedback on the map. In the future, I hope to continue to build upon it and improve it.

A New Look at the Metro Map (Part 1)

Back in March, I had the idea to have a map contest to redesign the Metro map, which WMATA is doing for a variety of reasons.

David Alpert, Eric Fidler, and I put together the contest, and we got a bunch of great entries. This week, Greater Greater Washington is announcing the winners of the contest (part 1, part 2).

As I mentioned last week, I also entered the contest. I had a lot of fun rethinking the map, and I thought I'd discuss some of my design decisions. My entry, Map L, is below:



Remaking something that has been iconic for over 3 decades is a daunting task. But Lance Wyman's 1976 map is in need of replacement. In Part 2, I'll discuss some of the design decisions I made. First, though, I need to discuss the rules of the contest and my goals for the map.

Contest Requirements:
While the goal of the contest was really to generate some "blank slate" looks at the Metro map, it wasn't a complete start-from-scratch contest. The contest imposed several design constraints:

1. The basic line colors must remain the same.
2. The Silver Line Phase I & II should be shown as a future line.
3. Maps should show the Franconia - Greenbelt peak hour service (starts Spring 2012).
4. Maps should show the West Falls Church - Largo peak hour service (starts Spring 2012).
5. Stations must retain their current (full) names.
6. An out-of-system between the Farragut stations should be shown.
7. The map should be designed to fit in a Metro map case.

My Goals:
I'm fond of Lance Wyman's iconic map. I think it's probably one of the most recognized subway maps in the world, and it has stood the test of time well. At the same time, Metro has outgrown the original map, and experience shows that it falls short in some places.

Don't fix what ain't broke:
Some of the map works well. I wanted to flesh out the parts of the map that I liked most and keep them. Those elements include the basic geography and the landmark icons created by Wyman.

Terminal vistas:
I've pointed out before that Metro's map does nothing to call attention to terminal stations, and that can create problems.

The Red Line is particularly egregious in this regard. For the majority of the day, for instance, every other Red Line train terminates at Silver Spring, 3 stops before the eastern end of the line at Glenmont. Someone on the platform at Dupont Circle who wants to travel to Union Station can take any train from the eastbound platform.

But signs tell riders that trains on that platform go to Glenmont. So when the Silver Spring train shows up, out-of-towners frequently pass on boarding, because they don't know it's headed to the right place. Sometimes they consult the map quickly to decide, but Silver Spring's name is in the same font weight, size, and color as every other station name.

So, off the bat, dealing with terminals better was a primary goal.

Name sprawl/and length-plus suffixes/that are too long:
Fitting Metro's station names onto signs is hard enough, now that WMATA feels the need to add any landmark and/or neighborhood remotely close to a station to the name.

I've also always been irritated that station names overlap rail lines. But with their length, what can be done?

I had some ideas in this regard, and cleaning up station names became another big goal.

Iconography and universality:
Universality is an important aspect of mapping. I feel that Wyman's map lacks that in iconography. From the "boxy Volvo" to the disparate logos indicating transfers to commuter and Amtrak trains, things just seem haphazard.

I also wanted to think of a better way to indicate airport connections. Metro's map uses a bus icon to indicate a plane connection, which just seems odd. It also fails to show a connection to BWI Airport via MARC/Amtrak from New Carrollton and Union Station.

With those ideas in mind, I set out to makeover the Metro map. It was a lot harder than I thought it would be, but I had a lot of fun doing it. I'll discuss that effort in part 2.

(Re)Mapping Metro

I have a passion for mapping. And as a result, my first instinct when I heard that Washington's Metro would be redesigning their iconic 1976 map was to make my own attempt at a redesign.

The next thought I had, though, was even better. Why not hold a contest to generate a bunch of entries? So I approached David Alpert at Greater Greater Washington about putting one together. And with his help, along with that of Eric Fidler, we built an interface and put together a jury.

I, of course, put together a map. And I hope it wins, but I'll understand if it doesn't. There is a lot of great competition in the contest. I'm glad so many talented mapmakers chose to enter.

But the voting is in your hands! You have until 11:59 tomorrow to vote for the entries you think are best.

There are 17 entries, and you can vote for as many or as few as you like. You rank them, and GGW will use instant runoff voting to determine the winner. The jury will also be selecting a winner.

GGW will announce the winner next week (and I'll reveal which map is mine at that time, as well).

I hope you will all go vote in the contest.

Collage at top by David Alpert (cc).

Disagreeing With Yourself

Last week, Greater Greater Washington published a post that I coauthored with Michael Perkins exploring the idea of a zone-based fare system for the Washington Metro.


And since it's publication, I've found myself in an interesting predicament: defending an idea with which I disagree.

Neither Michael or I think that the changeover from graduated fares to a zone-based system is feasible or ideal, but in the past, many GGW commenters had called for just that.

But how do you argue in a concrete way against something that doesn't exist?

Michael and I decided to create a hypothetical fare-zone system for Metro to show people how such a system could work. We decided that if any of this were to be taken seriously, certain criteria would need to be met.

For starters, a zone system couldn't result in a net loss of revenue for Metro. So we made every effort to make our proposal revenue neutral for the agency. In order to do that, we had to get data on fare payment methods from Metro (we already had point-to-point ridership data).

Additionally, we couldn't raise fares above Metro's current fare cap (which is $5.45). We also tried to keep lower-end fares as low as possible in order to encourage equity.

Michael built a mathematical model to measure the revenue implications of different alternatives. Together we worked out where the zone breaks would be, mainly basing it on the existing "composite distance", but sometimes shifting stations where it made logical sense.

After we came up with an alternative we thought was feasible, I created a map.

We then composed a post discussing the advantages and drawbacks of a zone fare system, coming down in the end against it. Rehashing our thoughts on the matter, though, is not the point of this post.

The real impetus is the comment thread that came after our post. Michael and I found ourselves being forced to defend our zone system more than discuss it on the merits. The difficult part is that neither of us support it.

I had hoped that the discussion would have centered on things like equity, complexity, and readability. But more often than not, it seemed like people were just arguing about where the boundaries should be located, how many zones there should be, and what we should charge for it.

After a few hours of defending the zone system I helped design, I got a little short with the commenters, resulting in accusations that our analysis was essentially designed to fail, which was not the case.

From "movement":

So let's take an idea we think is a bad idea, then present an idiotic implementation which proves that it is a bad idea. Come on. You're not even trying!

For those of you following along at home, "movement's" proposal is to make the fare zone boundaries (1) DC, (2) Inside the Beltway, and (3) Everywhere else. Which of course would mean a trip from Shady Grove to Grosvenor would end up costing less than a trip from Silver Spring one stop to Takoma. (And a 2-stop trip from Forest Glen to Takoma would be even more expensive).

At any rate, I was disappointed at the conversation that resulted from this thought experiment. Not all the replies were bad, in fact, some were quite insightful. But by and large, I feel like most people completely missed the point. For example (from Brian Cloverdale):

Let's fix something that isn't broke.

Thanks so much fellows. You've just increased my fares astronomically while no doubt savings bundles for yourself.

When should I pay $2.75 to go from Eastern Market to Dupont Circle and the same $2.75 to go from Eastern Market to Capitol South??????????????

Exactly. Brian hits upon why both Michael and I think zones are inferior to graduated fare systems. But he clearly thinks we're making a serious attempt to change it to zones, instead of trying to inform our argument about why not to change to zones.

In the end, while I enjoyed working on the post, I'm not sure that our post (or the fare zone model) moved the conversation forward. And that's a bit of a disappointment.

Photo Friday: Skylit

Photo Friday is a series showcasing a favorite photo of mine. Enjoy!


Sunset behind the College Park
Metro station, enhanced by HDR.

My photostream

Metro's terminal-based wayfinding confusing for visitors

For out-of-towners, navigating the Metro system can be a daunting task. Metro could make directions easier and improve wayfinding in the system by providing more information about train directions on signs.

The system's use of colored lines and destination station to identify train direction works fairly well for Metro, especially given the structure of the system, but it can be confusing to see one train going to Glenmont and another to Grosvenor when neither mean much to a visitor.

Where some trains don't go all the way to the terminal, like on the Red Line, the multiple terminals are even more confusing, especially when two Red Line terminals are two-word names starting with 'S' and the others one word starting with 'G', but one of each is on either end of the line. Other lines downtown also have two terminals in each direction since two colors share a track.

What could Metro do? Other transit systems approach this problem in several ways.

Read More-->

The 7000 series: Not your father's railcar

Metro will soon place an order for a new series of railcars. The new cars, the 7000 series, will be quite different from Metro's current fleet of cars.

One notable difference with the cars is that they will be quad-sets. They will still be married pairs, like WMATA's current rolling stock, but instead of having a cab at each end of the pair, a cab will only be present at one end.

A second married pair facing the opposite direction will give the set of four a cab at each end. By eliminating cabs in half the cars, this configuration will give the cars more passenger capacity. A control panel will be located at the other end of each pair to facilitate movement in yards.

Read More-->

Image from WMATA

Prince George's residents speak out against bus cuts

Crossposted at Greater Greater Washington

Riders filled the Prince George's County WMATA budget hearing on Monday despite a suburban and relatively transit-inaccessible location, and made heart-wrenching please to retain their vital lifelines, bus service.

At least 100 riders attended and over 40 people gave testimony. Board Member Elizabeth Hewlett and General Manager John Catoe were both present to listen to the riders.

Many of the commenters called on elected officials to pitch Maryland's contribution in. Many audience members wore "O'Malley: Stop Bus Cuts" pins created by the Transit Riders United of Greenbelt, and said that if bus service is cut, they won't vote for O'Malley again.

Almost all of the speakers were strongly opposed to any cuts in bus service. Two blind Greenbelt residents, Laura and Shawn O'Neil, testified about the hardships cuts would bring them. Currently, they have two buses which serve both Greenbelt Metro and New Carrollton Metro. Under Metro's proposal, they will lose their service to New Carrollton, where one of them works, on both routes. His only option will be to switch from fixed route service to paratransit, at a cost of approximately $19,000 per year to Metro.

I overheard a Metro planner speaking with Ms. O'Neil in the audience prior to the hearing. Instead of offering her alternatives or even attempting to understand her condition, he blithely told her that she could find a way to cope with the changes. He completely blew off her concerns that transferring between buses in a strange place with poor pedestrian accommodations would be difficult for a blind person, and left her in tears. With representatives like this, it's no wonder the community doesn't have a lot of faith that WMATA actually listens to customers.

One speaker asked the WMATA panel if they ever wondered if paratransit (MetroAccess) costs were so high in Prince George's because the fixed route service was so abysmal. That comment got quite a few nods through the room.

A few citizens came forward to speak out against the elimination of the R3 bus, which serves the National Archives facility in Adelphi. Some riders in the area will be left without service at all times, others would lose service on weekends and off-peak. They spoke of the importance of continuing to have good access for visitors, researchers, and employees at the National Archives, and also of the general importance that transit plays in keeping livable communities accessible.

Other riders spoke out against fare increases. Some talked of the hardship of the additional cost of their commute, others were opposed to giving more money to an agency in which they have little faith. Some spoke of the waste they think exists in the agency, while others criticized what they characterized as the overpayment of workers and lack of oversight of Metro.

The meeting was at times boisterous, with applause and the occasional 'amen' from those in the audience. It was at all times civil. Most speakers stayed within the 3 minutes alloted for testimony.

Metro provided a shuttle from New Carrollton station to the hearing, which ran continuously during the proceedings. Additionally, the city of Greenbelt organized a bus to take residents to the hearing.

However, citizens who didn't know about the shuttles, might have been discouraged by the lack of regular service by the hearing site. Only one bus route, the F13, serves the church where the meeting was held, but the last return trip to New Carrollton passes by the church at 6:35 — 25 minutes before the hearing started.

Additionally, as several commenters at the hearing noted, even with shuttle service back to New Carrollton, the lack of decent bus service would make it difficult or impossible to return to their homes. One blind citizen criticized Metro for the location of the hearing, saying that they should be "ashamed" that there were no hearings held in southern Prince George's.

In fact, of the 6 budget hearings held in the region, the only one south of Route 50 is the one in Southeast Washington. The same commenter said that cross-county bus service was a "joke" and that was why the hearing didn't have even more citizens there to testify.

Many Greenbelters turned out, which is to be expected since Metro has proposed restructuring all bus service in the city, including the elimination of one route (the R3), the truncation of another (the C2), and the restructuring of the R12 and T16/17. And while no official notice has been given, some feel that Metro's restructuring makes it more likely that Prince George's County Transit will discontinue at least one route, the 15.

Many of the Greenbelters were members of Transit Riders United, which for over 6 months has been working with Metro and Prince George's County planners to improve bus service in Greenbelt. In December, members tell me, they were informed that Metro had a proposal, but couldn't release it until it was okayed by Prince George's. The plan was finally released late last week, less than a week before the hearing, and with little time to consider the implications or find alternatives.

After the meeting, I spoke with one WMATA representative, who was surprised that there were not more positive comments, especially about some of the changes in the Greenbelt area. I told him that with only three minutes each, most citizens were bound to focus first on the changes most harmful to them, and then if there was time left over, they would get around to positive comments.

Above photo by thisisbossi on Flickr

Note: Commenting has been disabled. Please continue the conversation at Greater Greater Washington.

Metro Offering Reduced Rail Service

UPDATE: Metro has announced that the Red Line will operate full service on Tuesday. Trains will operate every 20 minutes on each line.

Because the of the storm, Metro is still recovering. On Tuesday, February 9, trains will not operate over all segments of the Red and Blue lines. Full service is expected on the Orange, Yellow, and Green Lines.

On all lines, trains will operate every 30 20 minutes.

Catoe's replacement will face major hurdles

Crossposted at Greater Greater Washington

John Catoe shocked Washington yesterday with the announcement of his resignation. Perhaps none were as surprised as the region's transit bloggers, many of whom had had a candid discussion with Metro's now-outgoing GM the evening before.

The announcement has been met with both cheer and sadness. Many have called for Mr. Catoe to resign since shortly after the June 22 Metro crash which killed 9 on the Red Line. Citing problems such as increasingly unreliable service, crowded trains and platforms, and proposals for major service cuts, detractors have called for the 'Queen of Hearts solution'. But if anyone expects Metro's problems to be solved with the sudden absence of Mr. Catoe, they're sorely mistaken. Metro still faces what may be the most difficult crisis of its existence, and at this point, we can't yet see the light at the end of the tunnel.

At the forefront of the crisis is the economic recession gripping the country. It, not Mr. Catoe, is responsible for the budget woes. Barring a windfall donation of funds from the jurisdictions, Metro just doesn't have the money to cover the budget. It is likely that a combination of fare increases and service cuts will be used to plug the hole. But the $40 million gap for this fiscal year is a fraction of the budget hole we'll see next year, according to projections. And it looks like Metro will have an interim or brand new manager to shepherd the system through the next budget process.

Of course, the rail system isn't getting any younger. Each day that passes means that older parts of the fleet are more likely to break down, and the only solution is to order new railcars. According to Mr. Catoe, Metro hopes to let a contract to replace the 1000 series trainsets this spring. But the process of building over 300 railcars will take several years, so relief will not be quick in coming on that front. It remains to be seen whether the search for a new general manager will delay Board action on that front.

Metro is also in the midst of rebuilding the Red Line, coming up with fixes for the Automatic Train Control system, and an NTSB investigation. Management changes and potential staff cuts are going to hurt the agency's ability to deal as effectively with some issues. This seems like a particularly rough time for Metro to be without clear leadership.

Yet Mr. Catoe demonstrated considerable political adroitness with his decision to resign. Whether fairly so or not, blame for many of Metro's problems had been laid on his shoulders, and he had become a distraction to the Board, the staff, and the region. His departure might help enable the region move forward, but it does not ease the severity of the crisis or the urgency with which WMATA must respond.

The Board will soon begin searching for Mr. Catoe's replacement. It won't be an easy search. Whoever the Board decides to hire will need to be ready to face these problems head on, and they have to be prepared to take the fall for the agency when the next crisis happens.

Commenting has been disabled. Please continue the discussion on this same post at Greater Greater Washington.

Metro Alert: Red Line Disruptions over the Weekend

This is a reminder that due to major track rehabilitation on the Red Line this weekend, Red Line riders may face significant delays. There will be no rail service between Medical Center and White Flint from 10PM tonight until opening Tuesday, January 19. The Grosvenor station will be closed to trains during this period.

Free shuttles will operate every 6-8 minutes during the day and every 15 minutes after 9:30PM. They will run between White Flint, Grosvenor, and Medical Center throughout the period of disruption.

Riders needing to transit the work zone should add 40 minutes to their travel times.

Make sure to check out Metro's information page for more details.

Metro's Blogger Roundtable a Success

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending a blogger roundtable with the General Manager of Metro, John Catoe. Mr. Catoe's conference room was filled with the transit bloggers of the region, and the discussion we had with the GM was candid and frank.

The meeting covered all the hotbutton issues, from the budget crisis to the aftermath of the June 22 Accident. Some of the bloggers were very upfront about their experience with what they see as rapidly deteriorating service, and Mr. Catoe understands their frustrations. Riders, he says, approach him frequently with complaints as he rides the system.

But his vision is one of a bright future for Metro. He knows it will be a hard road ahead for the transit agency. But that is not a deterrent for him. He is working to bring the agency back to where it should be.

You can read more of my reflections in a post I coauthored at Greater Greater Washington with fellow GGWer Michael Perkins.

Also make sure to check out We Love DC's article on the meeting; their writeup is superb.

Metro brightens mezzanine at Judiciary Sq

On November 24, Metro announced that they were testing new lighting at Judiciary Square's F Street Entrance. These new lights are designed to brighten the mezzanine, which has long been very dim. If the test is successful, the format will likely be expanded to other stations.

Metro's original brutalist vaults were intended by their designer, Harry Weese, to be blank and to be lit entirely by indirect lighting. However, over the years, accoutrement has been added to the vaults, from station signs to security cameras. In most stations, supplemental lighting was added in mezzanines, which tend to be in perpetual shadow.

Fourth Street Entrance


F Street Entrance

The new test lighting strikes a medium between the extremes. It adds lots of light to the mezzanines, while still providing light to the vault. At the same time, the fixtures' design limits the encroachment of the light supports on the vault.

All pictures in this post were taken by the author

Comments have been disabled. Please comment on this same post at Greater Greater Washington.

What's the Most Crowded Part of Metro?

With an updated model of rider flows thanks to better data from WMATA, we can better understand crowding on Metrorail. Last week, We Love DC analyzed Metro crowding. They argued that Red Line riders have it worst because the Red Line carries 48% more riders than the Orange Line. However, the overall number of riders on the line as a whole is not enough to accurately measure congestion.

The proportion of commuters in each direction matters as well. For instance, if we have two equivalent lines, each with the same ridership, and 90% of Line A's AM peak trips are inbound while only 60% of Line B's are, Line A will be more congested. It would still be more congested even if Line B had 10% more riders.

Another factor that must be considered is the spreading of trips along the line. Not every rider starts at a suburban terminal and rides to downtown. Some start at suburban terminals and ride to suburban office centers, while others start in urban neighborhoods and ride into or through downtown. The Red Line is the longest line and has more stations than the Orange Line, so more riders are to be expected.

Finally, the amount of rail service impacts congestion. The Red Line does not share trackage with any other rail line. This means that the number of trains per hour is higher on the Red Line than it is on the Orange Line, which shares tracks with the Blue Line.

With these factors in mind, let's look at rider volumes. The link with the most riders in the system, according to my analysis, is the inbound Blue/Orange shared segment between Rosslyn and Foggy Bottom, which carries 44,719 people between opening and 9:30 AM. In second place is the next link inbound, from Foggy Bottom to Farragut West, carrying 41,137 riders during that period. In third place comes the Red Line, with 31,773 trips from Dupont Circle to Farragut North. This means that the most used section of track of the Red Line carries only 70% as many riders as the busiest section of track on the Blue and Orange Lines.

But the real crux of the issue becomes clear at the Rosslyn junction point. At Rosslyn, 65% of inbound riders are on the Orange Line, but only 60% of trains are on the Orange Line. That means that passenger demand slightly outstrips the supply of railcars at that point. And the inbound track between Court House and Rosslyn is the 7th busiest in the system during the AM Peak.

Read More ->

Metro Ridership Patterns Expanded

Crossposted at Greater Greater Washington

In July, I analyzed how people travel within the Metro system, using a survey to estimate riders' choice of alternate routes.

Because the data used was for average daily travel between origin and destination stations, it was not possible to determine which stations were primarily 'commute from' stations and which were primarily 'commute to' stations. However, after my July post, WMATA offered to give me time-specific data, which allows us to look at commuting patterns. The data used for this revised analysis looks at trips taking place between system opening and 9:30AM. The dataset comes from an averaging of AM Peaks from early May 2009.

Read more ->

Note: Commenting has been disabled. Please continue the discussion at this same post on Greater Greater Washington.

Lighting Changes to Prevent Suicides?

The San Fransicso Chronicle is reporting that railway operators in Japan are installing blue LED lights at stations to deter suicides. While there is no scientific proof that the changes will stop someone bent on killing his or her self, the agencies note that blue lights do have a calming affect on people.

Of course that raises the question of Metro's recent decision to install red LED lights at the edge of platforms. Red is typically a color associated with aggression. WMATA installed the lights in an effort to encourage passengers to stay back from the platform edge.

H/T: The Transit Wire

A plethora of stops

Crossposted at Greater Greater Washington

Taking the bus in Washington often requires quite a lot of patience. With stops one some segments at every corner, buses seem to take an eternity to go only a few blocks. Removing some stops could improve travel times without negatively impacting ridership.

Closely spaced stops reduce the efficency of bus lines. If the number of riders stayed the same, a bus line with fewer stops would have similar boarding/alighting times, but would save time in accellerating, decellerating, and entering or leaving traffic. Less time would be spent at traffic signals when the bus missed the green in order to pick up passengers. Savings would also be realized in the time for the bus to accommodate the elderly or infirm using the kneeling feature or the wheelchair ramp.

Of course, on the other hand, reducing the number of stops would increase the distance that some riders have to walk to get to the stop. Would a few hundered feet worth of difference deter bus riders? Perhaps, but it would be less likley to do so if there was a net gain in time savings.

And time saved is money saved. Reducing the run time of buses means that the transit agency does not need to run as many buses to maintain the same headway. Alternatively, the same number of buses could run at a higher frequency for the same cost. There are major benefits to improving bus performance, including providing a relief valve for Metrorail.

As a former daily rider of the 50s Line along 14th Street in Northwest and Southwest DC, I am intimately familiar with the stop frequency for buses. In fact, from my stop at 14th and Shepherd, the next bus stop to the south was only about 375 feet away at Randolph Street.

In fact, for the segment of the 50s Line between the downtown split of the 52 and 54 to the Colorado Avenue Terminal, where most buses turn back, the average distance between stops is 623 feet. For reference, the length of a Metro platform is 600 feet. A railcar is 75 feet long. That means that on average, between stops, the 14th Street bus line travels, on average, barely more than the length of an 8-car train. Passengers at Gallery Place walking from the Green/Yellow level to the 9th & G Entrance walk further than that within the station.

Breaking down the 52, 53, and 54, by segment, we can note the following average distance between stops:

• Downtown Segment, 52 Southbound: 837 feet.
• Downtown Segment, 52 Northbound: 855 feet
• Downtown Segment, 54 Northbound: 784 feet
• Combined 52, 54, New York Ave to Colorado Ave Northbound: 633 feet
• Combined 52, 54, Colorado Ave to New York Ave Southbound: 611 feet
• Combined 52, 54, Colorado Ave to Takoma Station Northbound: 648 feet
• Combined 52, 54, Takoma Station to Colorado Ave Southbound: 735 feet

Interestingly enough, this shows us that the segments with the longest distances between stops are located downtown. This is where Metrorail has the shortest distance between stops. In the residential segments north of the city, bus stops are very frequent.

Of course, it is vital that bus stops be accessible to the most people, but one wonders where to draw the line. After all, people often walk some quite a good distance to get to quality transit. If buses got people to work or to the store more quickly, they would probably be willing to walk further.

A policy of increasing the distance between stops to at least two or three blocks apart would be a good place to start. Especially in walkable neighborhoods. With stops 3 blocks apart, once you reached the street on which the bus ran, you'd never be more than one block from a stop.

So far, Metro's solution to this has been to implement limited stop services like the S9 on Sixteenth Street and the 79 on Georgia Avenue. In the case of 16th Street, the S9 makes only 14 stops between Silver Spring and McPherson Square, with an average distance between stops of 2,678 feet. With fewer stops, the 16th Street Express is competitive with the rail system. According to Metro's trip planner, a trip from Silver Spring to McPherson Square takes about 27 minutes by rail and about 36 minutes with the S9.

But why should riders have to wait for a new service before trip times improve? Why not reduce the number of stops overall? Perhaps the "local" stop buses needn't have 2,600 feet between stops, but 1,000 certainly sounds like a better number.

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices suggests that the average person walks 4 feet per second. Other studies show that the elderly make around 3 feet each second when on foot. Increasing the average stop spacing on the 50s line from 623 feet to 1000 feet would increase the average distance between stops by 377 feet, which could be covered by someone walking at 3 feet per second in a little over two minutes.

Limited stop buses are certainly a positve aspect to our transit system. And I hope that WMATA is able to implement more of them. However, reducing travel times on all routes should be a priority.

In fact, WMATA is currently working on a set of bus stop optimization criteria. One of the factors is bus stop spacing. According to a report given to the Riders Advisory Council earlier this month, Metro reports that other transit systems, like Seattle's King County Metro, have found a good balance between access and efficiency at 4-5 stops per mile, which is a little over 1000 feet apart. Right now, WMATA has 63 bus routes with stop spacing exceeding 5 stops per mile.

WMATA's proposed bus stop standards would help create uniformity and ensure safe, accessible stop design across the region. It would serve as a guide for jurisdictions in the region when considering bus stops.

Commenting on this post has been disabled. Please continue the discussion on this same post at Greater Greater Washington.

WMATA and the NTSB

Crossposted at Greater Greater Washington

WMATA has had a few rough months with worker deaths and bus-pedestrian collisions, and with the June 22 Metro accident still fresh in our minds, the agency has come under fire for its safety record. Greater Greater Washington's Dave Stroup recently wrote the second installment in his "Price of Safety" series looking at WMATA's safety culture. Some of the comments there wondered about WMATA's track record in terms of NTSB recomendations.

The goal of the National Transportation Safety Board is to improve safety in our transportation system. Sometimes issues stretch beyond the agency where an accident occured. When this happens, they often issue recomendations to all the applicable agencies. A crash in Chicago in January 1976, over two months before Metro opened, resulted in a set of recomendations to WMATA (issued in August 1976, after the system had opened). WMATA and other agencies were responsible for responding to NTSB by either complying or giving reasons why they would not do so.

Since 1970, the NTSB has issued 81 recommendations to WMATA. The vast majority of the closed recommendations are considered to be acceptable responses by NTSB. The 81 recommendations are associated with 11 events, but only 7 events took place on WMATA's rail system.

Of the 81 recommendations:

• 55 (68%) are "Closed-Acceptable Action"


• 4 (5%) more are "Closed-Acceptable Alternative Action"


• 6 (7%) are "Closed-Unacceptable Action"


• 1 was superseded by a different recommendation.


• 15 (19%) are currently open

Let's take a look at the 7 events which happened on the WMATA system, totaling 73 recommendations.

Smithsonian Derailment, 1/13/1982
This accident claimed 3 lives and destroyed one railcar at the interlocking (crossover) between Smithsonian and Federal Triangle. To date, this accident resulted in the most NTSB recommendations to WMATA - 34. Of those recommendations, 30 are considered acceptably closed by the NTSB. The four that were closed unacceptably by WMATA are:

• R-82-058: Modify the overspeed control on the Metrorail cars to enforce speed commands of the Automatic Train Protection subsystem to and including zero miles per hour. author's note:WMATA's correspondence with NTSB indicates that this modification was rejected because it would make 'rescue' trains and yard moves more difficult.


• R-82-059: Change the identification numbers of interlockings and interlocking signals to eliminate possible misunderstandings which could result in a train improperly passing a restricting signal. author's note: WMATA informed NTSB that it regarded re-identifing all of the interlockings and signals in the system was infeasible. However, they did switch to using the NATO phonetic alphabet for letters.


• R-82-071: Equip each Metrorail car with an adequate number of self-contained, battery-powered emergency lights which will automatically illuminate the car interior in the event the car's auxillary and emergency power is lost. author's note: The agency chose not to implement this recommendation because it regarded the auxillary and emergency power systems in each railcar in combination with subway tunnel lighting as sufficient.


• R-82-073: Retrofit existing Metrorail cars with derailment detector devices which will apply the brakes in emergency when a car wheel leaves the rail. Require that all new cars be so equipped. author's note: According to the correspondence on record, WMATA looked at other transit systems in the United States. At that time, only BART used such technology and reported significant maintenance problems and passenger delays due to a breakdown of the derailment detectors. WMATA chose not to implement the technology.

CSX Derailments in Takoma Park and Silver Spring, 6/19/1987, 9/5/1987, 9/17/1987
A series of right-of-way incursions due to freight railcar derailments in 1987 resulted in 3 recommendations by the NTSB. In two of the cases, freight trains derailed into the WMATA right-of-way. The third case was caused when vandals parked a backhoe on the CSX tracks. When struck, the backhoe violated WMATA's right-of-way, causing damage to a parked Metro train. Systems designed to stop trains functioned properly, but WMATA sought additional safety systems. Of the three recommendations to both CSX and WMATA, 2 were closed acceptably. A third was close with an unacceptable action by WMATA and CSX.

• R-88-015: Until permanent solutions to joint corridor occupancy are implemented and their safety effectiveness is assessed, develop and implement a plan to control the access of WMATA transit trains and CSX freight trains into the common transportation corridor where WMATA trackage lies between the two tracks of CSXT so that CSXT freight trains and WMATA transit trains do not simultaneously occupy this corridor. author's note: In this case, NTSB wanted it to be impossibe for a Metro train to be on either track between Rhode Island Avenue and Silver Spring if a CSX train was in the same stretch on either of its tracks. CSX found the proposal untenable. Therefore, the NTSB found the actions unacceptable.

Shady Grove Collision, 1/6/1996
On a snowy night in January, a Red Line train overshot the platform at Shady Grove and crashed into a parked train north of the station, killing the operator of the striking train. After the collision, the NTSB sent WMATA 20 recommendations. All but one of these recommendations are classified as "Closed-Acceptable Action." The other was superseded by a later recommendation.

Woodley Park Collision, 11/3/2004
This collision occurred when an out-of-service train rolled backwards into Woodley Park from the direction of Cleveland Park, crashing into a Red Line train servicing the platform. Luckily there were no deaths. The NTSB issued three recommendations, one of which is currently open. Another is closed with "Acceptable Action." WMATA failed to satisfy NTSB recommendations on the final recommendation.

• R-06-002: Either accelerate retirement of Rohr-built railcars, or if those railcars are not retired but instead rehabilitated, then the Rohr-built passenger railcars should incorporate a retrofit of crashworthiness collision protection that is comparable to the 6000-series railcars. author's note: As has been pointed out in the aftermath of June's crash, WMATA did not follow through on this recommendation due to lack of funding. At the time the NTSB issued its recommendation, the 1000 series (Rohr-built) cars made up almost one-third of the fleet. With no money to replace them, rail service would be forced to take major cuts.

Mount Vernon Square Derailment, 1/7/2007
In this derailment, a Green Line train derailed on the crossover immediately south of Mount Vernon Square during single-tracking. Currently, the six NTSB recommendations issued in the wake of this derailment are all still open. Two are considered to be open with "Unacceptable Action." Recommendation R-07-027 was for better lubrication practices, especially during single-tracking operations. WMATA's response to NTSB was not considered to be a strong enough action. The other recommendation which NTSB is not satisfied is being accomplished properly is their admonishment to add guard rails at all interlockings with a certain sharp-radius turn. NTSB feels that WMATA's efforts are not moving quickly enough.

Striking of wayside workers at Dupont Circle and Eisenhower Avenue
The four recommendations from these incidents are currently all regarded as "Open-Acceptable Action."

Fort Totten Collision, 6/22/2009
So far, NTSB has issued three urgent recommendations to WMATA. All are "Open-Await Response." NTSB's report on the incident will likely not be complete before summer 2010. It is very likely that more recommendations will be issued at that time.

A full list of WMATA's NTSB recommendations can be found by searching for "Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority" in the "Addressee" field at NTSB's Safety Recommendation Query page.

While these nunbers indicate that WMATA is very good at responding to NTSB criticisms, that does not necessarily indicate the presence of a "safety culture." In fact, in some cases, the sheer volume of recommendations could indicate that the agency had left quite a bit to be desired in terms of fixes. In the cases where NTSB considers WMATA's actions to be insufficient, some problem resolutions that are expensive or complex, but still important seem to have fallen by the wayside.

Of course, WMATA can only do so much with limited resources. NTSB is not responsible for locating funding for necessary fixes, and their recommendations often place a large burden on the agency. One of the unfulfilled recommendations issued by NTSB called for the retirement of the 1000-series railcars as soon as possible. But pulling almost one-third of the fleet is not something any transit agency can do without major repercussions to service and reliability. As I pointed out shortly after the June 2009 crash, the recommendations from NTSB to retire the 1000 series came in March 2006. Even if Metro had ordered railcars on the day of the recommendation, they would still be being produced. In fact, it is likely that even if cars had been ordered on the day of the Woodley Park crash in 2004, they'd still be in production.

It is clear that WMATA still needs to work on safety. And it is very likely that the accidents that have happened over the past several months will spur some improvement. Metro's record shows a good history of responding favorably to NTSB. But for a true safety culture to develop, WMATA needs to be able to anticipate potential problems and address them before accidents occur.

Note: posting has been disabled. Please make comments on this same post at Greater Greater Washington.

Express Tracks, the Historical Perspective

A while back, I wrote a post here on T29 postulating that Metro's decision to not build express trackage into the system was one of practicality not a lack of foresight and that the decision led to a realization of the vision.

Today, I've reworked that post and restarted the discussion at Greater Greater Washington. Make sure to check it out.

Note: Commenting has been disabled. Please comment at Greater Greater Washington.