April 18, 2006
What Metro Needs: Express Train Service
Written by DCist contributor Colin Peppard
In the third installment of our ongoing feature to highlight the many things our Metro system could use, we turn to our beloved Nationals and the trains that get us to the game.
Evening baseball games and rush hour don't mix terribly well. As fans flood the District to cheer the Nats on, commuters are just trying to get home for dinner. Area highways, local roads near RFK, and even Metro all experience a significant increase in traffic before and especially after games. As we pointed out the other day, four of Metro's 10 busiest days coincide with baseball games. In an effort to bring some order to the problem, Metro has begun running what it calls the "Fastball Express." Two Orange Line trains are designated express service between Metro Center and Stadium-Armory, stopping at only L'Enfant Plaza along the way. The six skipped stops almost cut the ride in half, and avoid much of the pushing and shimmying of people getting on or off standing-room only cars.
Reactions to the service have been mixed. Many riders love the service, saying it reduces the hassle of getting to the game and smoothes out their night. Others think the idea has potential, if only they could understand the conductors garbled announcement that the train was going express to RFK. There were also some who thought it was unfair to riders not going to the game. The system's biggest obstacle is the structure of Metro itself. With only one track in each direction, express trains delay other trains on the line. As one rider said, "Patrons at the 'proposed-skipped' stations should not be passed by just to get the riders to the special events on time. It wouldn't be fair to those already in a hurry." Despite the controversy, Metro is considering running express service for other high-traffic events, and even during rush hour.
Without ridership and trip statistics from trial runs of the service, it is hard to evaluate the usefulness of this idea. So we are opting for the democratic solution and appealing to you. As a rider, a fan, or both, does express service on Metro make sense? If so, what lines would like to see run express service, and between what stations?
Picture snapped by andertho
|
I read that the express trains did not displace the regular trains, that their service was in addition to the normally scheduled trains. So if there were no express trains the number of regular trains would still be the same. They just slipped the express trains into the gaps for the regulary scheduled trains. It's more trains to service the additional game traffic.
Now whether the revenue from those game goers offset the cost of a dedicated train i leave to others, but it's misleading to say the express trains rob folks in a hurry. they'd still be waiting the same time without them.
As one of the people not going to the game, I'd rather those crowds were confined to their own train; makes for a more peaceful ride for selfish me. If it makes my ride a little longer, I'm ok with that.
Plus, those trying to get to the skipped stops will benefit by not having such a crush of people to get through when they want to get out at Potomac Ave, or wherever.
I'm still not sure on the mechanics of this. How does the express train skip ahead of the local? Does it jump over to the opposite side in the station while the local waits?
If so, I think that that is a technique Metro is really going to have to master. There really ought to be express trains that skip all the Arlington stops (i.e. local from Vienna to EFC) and then have dedicated local trains that originate in Ballston (and equivilant structures for the other lines).
The faster they can master a leap-frog express line, the more less likely the Orange Line will collapse under its own weight in ten years.
I think express trains are a great idea for the Nationals and other special events too. I don't really care how they do it, as long as it works.
What we could really use is some type of system that identifies tourists and shuttles them off to trains designed for them. If we could give daily commuters some kind of priority for riding over the casual riders it would make for better peak time rides. I'm thinking the the out bound trains on the Orange and Red Lines during afternoon rush hour would really benefit from this type of system.
Both days this week I have missed a connecting bus because of people that are unfamiliar with the system being in the way. Where are the escalator signs that we read so much about a few weeks ago?
TC
TC: How long were these people in your way? A few seconds? 30 seconds?
The real reason you missed that connection is that the "layover" is too tight. You're just looking for someone to blame for the errors in your own commuting schedule.
If a few seconds delay can really make you miss your connecting bus, you need to leave earlier, or just accept that sometimes your going to miss it.
And further, if confused tourists are the bane of your existence, I hardly think segregated trains would either decrease their confusion or increase the likelihood that you'll make your bus.
I'm all for express trains. Systems with only two tracks -- Chicago and San Francisco -- have used Express trains for years to speed people in and out of the cities and to higher volume stations. But we also need better surface transportation -- light rail, improved (low-floor, BRT) bus service, more bus only lanes (with better enforcement) and less surface parking in high use corridors -- this will give people an option other than Metrorail for commuting. Metrorail needs to be supplemental to strong surface transit options. And I am someone that drives my car to and from work in Tysons to my apartment in Petworth, but I would love to be able to use my car less because I had the options to get where I needed efficiently.
Really, the problem is one of horrendous planning. We desperately need a 4 track system.
Really, all extension of Metro (such as the Dulles Corridor and proposed BWI run)should be required to build out at 4 tracks. They can re-coup costs by losing the cushy "luxury liner" junk instead (less designy, more functional stations, etc...). Then, once the extensions have bullet capability, they should retrofit inward, using rapid bus systems to allieviate the closed stations during the retrofit.
Anything else is a band-aid on a gaping gunshot would. The system will collapse eventually.
Express trains are going to be kinda implausable without NY-style inside tracks...and I'm sure people would love to put up with 20 years of construction and fare hikes to add 2 tracks to every metro line...
If minh's assertion is true, that leads us to the question: why isn't the Orange line saturated at rush hour? Now, it could be that the Orange line as a whole is saturated due to the Rosslyn tunnel and these expresses are wedged into the Orange line east of the tunnel. I post on another forum and there is a guy there who has crazy knowledge of WMATA operations. I've asked him what he thinks of the express service and the logistics of it and am awaiting a response.
I don't think building extensions at 4 tracks is an efficient use of funds. You're just going to create bottlenecks where the old and new sections meet. Furthermore, system expansions will typically have lower ridership than the downtown core, reducing the need for 4 tracks in those areas. The costs for building at 4 tracks will not be recouped. We're talking about a lot of money. Sure, it's just an additional two tracks, but thats another 14' of ROW that you have to obtain, and all your structures have to be larger so that means more steel, more concrete, more labor, more design. $$$$$. I don't think the current system can be realistically expanded to 4 tracks. You'd have to rebuild literally everything.
Express trains can work with just two tracks. However, if the stations are too close and the headways are too close (I believe this is the case for Metro at rush hour but am not 100% sure), then you will just create delays at the expense of local riders.
Four tracks would be nice, but not really feasible in a lot of places. The next best thing would be a third track that can be set up to function in an inbound direction during morning rush and outbound for the PM rush. (New Yorkers are familiar with this setup on the #7 line, which go to Manhattan on the third track in the morning and to Queens in the afternoon.) Of course, with the D.C. setup, express trains would have to stop somewhere downtown (Metro Center, Gallery Place, L'Enfant Plaza) to prevent trains from colliding into each other.
anon - you're right that bottlenecks would occur where old (non-express) tracks meet with the new, but there are ways around that, too. To wit, there could be an express train that is express from Dulles airport to West Falls Church, at which point it becomes a local. Or, you could just turn around the express train and have it go back to Dulles. Or what have you. (The former option seems more plausible to me.)
Reid - the express trains don't skip any local trains. They occur in the gaps. The way it works is that at the times when the express trains run (and it's not during rush hour, as the original post mentions) -- i.e., noonish -- there are 12-minute gaps between trains, maybe longer, like there usually is. The express trains - which go from Metro Center to L'Enfant to Stadium - can squeeze that trip with those three stops into that 12-minute (or whatever it is) span. So it doesn't have to do any skipping.
Anon, I agree that it is not efficient to make 4 track lines out to Dulles. I also agree that there is no way we're going to get 4 tracks retrofitted on to our current system. But I still think an express system could be designed to separate cores stations from distant stations. For the Orange Line, that would mean an "express" train stops at all stops between Vienna (and eventually Dulles) and some station like EFC or Ballston, then it goes express to Metro center. Then another train would start at a place like Ballston and stay local the whole way (maybe turning around earlier, like at Stadium).
If the headway problem makes this impossible, maybe there are ways to run fewer (longer) trains. I would think someone on the local line (i.e. Courthouse) would rather have to wait an extra minute for a less full train than to have to let two trains pass because they're too full of riders who've gotten on at every stop since Vienna.
Then again, maybe that completely asinine single track between Rosslyn and Foggy Bottom makes this whole thing impossible. If they want to do any major expansion, it ought to be there.
Thanks for the clarification Ed.
Is it possible for them to skip? They'd probably have to slow down so much to switch tracks and go through the station that maybe it's not worth it (plus it would require the opposite train to be coordinated, which may be impossible to keep in synch, especially during rush hour and the whole butterfly effect).
Ed - correct, there are things that can be done to mitigate the bottlenecking. The question really is if it's worth the money. My guess is no. However, it would certainly be convenient for travel to/from the airport...
It's a shame they couldn't look to London as a way to build new track. By building under the existing structure you are able to lay additional track for new lines. Metro is said to be so deep this isn't feasable, but I suspect it's that it would cause a great amount of service interruption.
The deepest metro system belongs to Kim Jong Il, but everything is much cheaper to build with slave labour.
Reid,
The problem is not really in the amount of time at any particular point on the commute. It is the amount of total time lost. Gawkers taking pictures in the doors of the trains for 20 seconds can add as much as a half an hour to the total trip time depending on how other events are sequenced.
Yes, I could leave earlier if my job would allow that. It does not. No, most days it does not bother me to miss a bus and have to wait for the next one. The number of occurances seems to go up in relation to the number of tourists on the train.
TC
"The number of occurances seems to go up in relation to the number of tourists on the train."
Or could it be that the more tourists that are around the more likely you are to place the blame for the occurence of a random event on them rather than accept the fact that a million tiny events beyond your or their control caused you to miss the bus?
Reid,
Get a clue.
on the EL in philly (a line that doesn't have a third -express- track) at rush hour they have "A" and "B" trains. once they get through the downtown stops the trains only stop at alternating stations. if metro were to run more trains, this would alleviate overcrowding of trains and you don't have the problem of how to fit "express" trains in between the "local" trains.
so for example: after dupont circle on the red line an "A" train would stop at woodley then van ness then friendship and and a "B" train would stop at cleveland park, tenley and bethesda and so on. perhaps making stations like bethesda both an "A/B" stop because they have more riders.
maybe this doesn't make any sense, but it seems to work in philly. i wouldn't mind waiting an extra minute for a less crowded train with less stops.
and if someone's argument is that this would be too confusing, my response: if the people in philly can learn how to do this then (one could hope) they people here could.
.j
Right now Metro has several pocket tracks designed in the middle of the two tracks. Wouldn't it be nice it they extended these pocket tracks to create a third viable track in between the two existing tracks. Granted there would be issues with trains switching onto and off of the pocket tracks to go through the two track stations, but I'm sure with proper training and regulating of speed limits, an express train could leave a station, pop onto a 3rd track, speed up, and pass a slightly-slower going local train on the main track, and then leap-frog ahead of it to pass through the next station before the local train arrives. it's similar to a third track, yet works in with the existing design of the system. I agree with the in/out bound assesment listed earlier, have inbound trains from the east and south stop at L'Enfant Plaza, and trains from the west and north (from bethesda) stop at Metro Center, and trains from the north (from silver spring) stop at Gallery Place/Chinatown. And for outbound, reverse the set-up. Right now a jam up of one train can cause delays on the whole line because of a lack of a third track to leap-frog around problems.
Reid -
Seriously, what is your problem? I have ridden metro for 10 years and the influx of tourists does absolutely impact my commute. They stop in the middle of crowded platforms to figure out where to go causing people to miss trains at stations like Gallery Place and Metro Center. The stand on the esclator and often stop when they get off, blocking other commuters. They often are in larger groups or have strollers taking up more space on trains, space utilized by regular commuters during the off season.
Not everyone has the luxury of leaving 10 minutes earlier and even if they do, there is no guarantee that will make a difference.
Thanks "J" for explaining better what I was trying to say. The same sort of alternating service works in Chicago and San Francisco as well. Chicago on its multiple systems and San Francisco too have trains that only run back and forth between closer in stations during rush hour and don't go all the way to the ends. Depending on the time of the day, the map changes. Short trains also bring people in from the suburbs where they change to express trains. It requires a lot more thought and, of course, at least with SF, the trains don't come nearly as frequently as the do in DC. And people here already complain they don't come often enough.
I am simply trying to point out that a million different things contribute to whether you just miss a train or whether you just catch a train. To the point that for all intents and purposes it's a random event. To blame tourists is just a way to focus your aggravation on a single tangible cause, i.e. a scapegoat. It's illogical.
Have you ever blamed the elevator at work that took 30 seconds instead of 10 seconds? Have you ever blamed the co-worker that asked you one more question on your way out? Do you blame the cross-walk light that you just missed?
Somehow those events don't stand as the sole cause for you to miss your train. It's just the tourist who stands in your way for 5 seconds that caused you to miss the train.
I'm not saying that they don't contribute to you missing your train, I'm just saying they're no more culpable than slow elevator or a chatty coworker.
Hmmm, all this talk about extra tracks and trains that hop in front of each other is a bit pie-in-the-sky. About 24 trains an hour can run on a single track in one direction with fixed block signals. The new Jubilee line in London was designed to have moving block to enable 36 trains an hour (scrapped in the end, to save money). I don't think that trains run at this frequency on any line in DC, and they certainly don't run on the orange line like this. The Red might be 24/hour in the rush hour. But, on systems where lines join and split (like all the lines but red in DC) it is well known (for half a century or more) that delays and problems are generated and propagate rapidly through the whole connected system, unless traffic density is lowwww. Shared routes are to be avoided. Timetabling these interdigitated through trains is a nightmare. This is the problem, I think. My solution for the Orange Line? Imagine this. The blue line ceases to run west beyond stadium armory and stops eastbound at Rosslyn. You could have 24 orange line trains per hour right out to Vienna. And they could all be 8 coach. The service Stadium to Largo could also be higher density than currently. Alex would suffer slightly, but there is the yellow line. All it takes is two upgraded stations with some extra tracks in them. Much cheaper, and ten times more reliable, and a better service for everyone than expresses and extra tracks.