 |
| Photo courtesy of washington.bizjournals.com |
- Union Station
- Metro Center
- Chinatown/Gallery Place
- Farragut North
- Farragut West
Tweet
Showing posts with label Metro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Metro. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Union Station Named DC's Busiest Metro Station
Tweet
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Metrobus Improvements--Limited Service Buses
 |
| Photo, courtesy of VisitingDC.com |
Recently, Greater Greater Washington's Malcolm Kenton reported that WMATA was adding a new bus line to supplement the 90's series buses. The 90-series buses run from Southeast to Northwest, and as Metro-Venture comments, despite serving U Street, Eastern Market and Adam's Morgan (all popular nightlife destinations) the ridership on the 90-series is more local, lower-income commuters than those seeking nightlife destinations (here's looking at you, Circulator).
The newly proposed bus, the 99 bus line, will have a limited stop-service much like the S9 16th street line. I think this is a great development, especially because limited-stop service lines are a boon to longer-range commuters.
However, this article did get me thinking back to an article I read on Human Transit, about justifying increased fares during peak hours. The post specifically cites the inefficiency caused by routing buses and metro cars back to the initiation of the line (since most riders are coming from the suburbs into the city center).
 |
| Photo courtesy of theburgerboy.com |
Does the inefficiency really have to exist? What's keeping metro from sending a full service bus from the suburbs into the city center, and then making the bus a "limited stop" express bus when it finishes the loop from city center back into the suburbs? Obviously we wouldn't want to replace all return routes with express buses. People do reverse commute, afterall. But wouldn't this alteration speed the buses return to the high-demand area, and increase the frequency of buses going where people want to go?
A few possible obstacles I see to implementing.....
- Bus exteriors Express buses are a different exterior color and have a general design different than many of the other regular-series buses. If I understand WMATA's intentions, the differentiation is to make it clearer that the express bus is has fewer stops and is more expensive than the regular-series. But, is this really necessary? Couldn't the older buses be programmed to flash "42-Express" for example, or an abbreviated "42E?"
- Programming the revised cost into the fare machine. Express buses cost more than regular buses--over twice as much, actually. As you may recall, WMATA already had quite a bit of trouble re-programming the fares when it implemented the peak-of-the-peak fare rates...adding additional fares would likely also be problematic. But if increased efficiency meant increased ridership, wouldn't this cost be justifiable?
- Cost of disseminating information about the changes. Can't really get around this one...if you change a public transportation route, then you need to adequately inform people (although, some might comment that the Circulator was less than clear about its recent changes)
Friday, September 24, 2010
Is It Fair to Increase Peak-Time Metro Charges?
When WMATA recently rolled out their "peak-of-the-peak" fare increases, metro riders were universally outraged. According to Metro Board Chair Peter Benjamin, these increases would help close Metro's $189M budget deficit without the Transit Authority having to reduce or cut service. Personally, I agree with this Greater Greater Washington post, that sometimes service cuts are necessary and useful for culling superfluous bus lines, and would have preferred to see WMATA at least consider making some route and schedule alterations.
But this posting from Human Transit brings up an interesting point that I had not considered...peak-usage fare increases may be justifiable if the operational costs during these peak hours are significantly higher than non-peak hours. In other words, a universal flat fare would result in the non-peak users essentially subsidizing those who use metro during the peak hours. Raising fares only during peak hours means that only those people using the metro during those more expensive times pay for the increased operational costs. As Human Transit argues, we may consider this result positive from a social justice standpoint...people travelling to work at 8:30 in the morning are more likely to be salaried, higher income earners while the mid-day ridership more likely consists of lower-wage hourly workers. On average, yes you will see these wage discrepancies, but it's not a universal truth...what about people with hourly jobs requiring them to be in at 9am? While I don't entirely agree with this rationale, it is still an interesting point to consider.
So what exactly makes peak-operation hours so much more expensive? Well, as Human Transit explains, the driver unions don't do Metro any favors here--train and bus operators must be paid for a minimum number of hours work, even though they're not normally needed for the full shift. So immediately, there's an inefficiency. Of course, the more train cars and buses in operation, the more maintenance is needed. And another point I'd never considered, it's extremely cost inefficient to drive buses and trains back on the reverse route, considering most commuter traffic is flowing in one direction--towards the center of the city.
The Transport Politic offers a different opinion on peak-of-the-peak surcharges, which tends to echo my initial reaction to the fare increase. To summarize...DC's metro system is essentially a commuter rail system. It was designed that way...like spokes to a hub. The city center is where jobs are, so of course metro should be aware of this traffic pattern and price it's offerings accordingly so that it can operate as needed when increased demand necessitates it. Specifically, Transportation Politic asks, "Why penalize the people who are using the system in exactly the way that the system was designed to work?"
It's a contentious issue, for sure...I for one plan on skipping metro altogether and taking the bus.
 |
| Photo courtesy of WMATA.com |
But this posting from Human Transit brings up an interesting point that I had not considered...peak-usage fare increases may be justifiable if the operational costs during these peak hours are significantly higher than non-peak hours. In other words, a universal flat fare would result in the non-peak users essentially subsidizing those who use metro during the peak hours. Raising fares only during peak hours means that only those people using the metro during those more expensive times pay for the increased operational costs. As Human Transit argues, we may consider this result positive from a social justice standpoint...people travelling to work at 8:30 in the morning are more likely to be salaried, higher income earners while the mid-day ridership more likely consists of lower-wage hourly workers. On average, yes you will see these wage discrepancies, but it's not a universal truth...what about people with hourly jobs requiring them to be in at 9am? While I don't entirely agree with this rationale, it is still an interesting point to consider.
So what exactly makes peak-operation hours so much more expensive? Well, as Human Transit explains, the driver unions don't do Metro any favors here--train and bus operators must be paid for a minimum number of hours work, even though they're not normally needed for the full shift. So immediately, there's an inefficiency. Of course, the more train cars and buses in operation, the more maintenance is needed. And another point I'd never considered, it's extremely cost inefficient to drive buses and trains back on the reverse route, considering most commuter traffic is flowing in one direction--towards the center of the city.
The Transport Politic offers a different opinion on peak-of-the-peak surcharges, which tends to echo my initial reaction to the fare increase. To summarize...DC's metro system is essentially a commuter rail system. It was designed that way...like spokes to a hub. The city center is where jobs are, so of course metro should be aware of this traffic pattern and price it's offerings accordingly so that it can operate as needed when increased demand necessitates it. Specifically, Transportation Politic asks, "Why penalize the people who are using the system in exactly the way that the system was designed to work?"
It's a contentious issue, for sure...I for one plan on skipping metro altogether and taking the bus.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Silver Line Construction to Commence this Fall
The Washington Post reports that the newest DC-metro area metro line, the Silver Line, will begin construction of Phase 1 this fall. The two-phased project (outlined above) is scheduled for completion in 2016.
According to WaPo's breaking news blog Phase 1 of project will link the existing East Falls Church Metro station to Tyson's Corner, terminating at Wiehle Avenue in Reston, Va. Phase 2 will pick up where the Phase 1 construction left off in Reston, working it's way out to Dulles Airport over the subsequent 3 years. Phase 2, clocking in at an estimated $3.83 billion, is considerably more expensive than Phase 1 ($2.76 billion). Part of this increased cost is associated with building a two-mile tunnel and underground station to service the Dulles Airport. A breakdown of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 costs is listed on the second page of this press release from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, as published by the Washington Post.
Dan Malouff, of Beyond DC, argues against the multi-billion dollar second phase of the Silver Line's construction. While Phase 1, he argues, will help tame the jungle of office buildings and haphazard development that is Tysons, he posits that Phase 2 will primarily consist of park-and-ride stations that do little to mitigate the area's transportation nightmare. Malouff argues for a less expensive, more extensive network of streetcars, possibly paired with a rapid bus transit line to Dulles.
While I agree with Malouff that park-and-ride stations can be problematic, especially from an aesthetic standpoint, I have to think that his concerns will predominantly fall on deaf ears. While a streetcar system would be more easily used by intermediate travellers, I have to think that the current Silver Line plan (like all of WMATA's lines) is planned to accomodate suburban residents travelling long distances to downtown-DC jobs (hence, the spoke and hub shape of DC's metro system). Dulles has also thrown clout and money behind getting the line extended all the way out to the airport, so I seriously doubt they'd settle for a bus stop instead (rapid transit or not).
He's not wrong, of course. The extended DC metro area would be greatly served by an intricate infrastructure of public transportation. However, I think for now, we're going to have to wait for the post-Silver Line realization that this new metro line, while beneficial, is not the area's public transportation panacea.
 |
| Photo courtesy of Washingtonpost.com, Breaking News Blog |
The Washington Post reports that the newest DC-metro area metro line, the Silver Line, will begin construction of Phase 1 this fall. The two-phased project (outlined above) is scheduled for completion in 2016.
According to WaPo's breaking news blog Phase 1 of project will link the existing East Falls Church Metro station to Tyson's Corner, terminating at Wiehle Avenue in Reston, Va. Phase 2 will pick up where the Phase 1 construction left off in Reston, working it's way out to Dulles Airport over the subsequent 3 years. Phase 2, clocking in at an estimated $3.83 billion, is considerably more expensive than Phase 1 ($2.76 billion). Part of this increased cost is associated with building a two-mile tunnel and underground station to service the Dulles Airport. A breakdown of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 costs is listed on the second page of this press release from the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, as published by the Washington Post.
Dan Malouff, of Beyond DC, argues against the multi-billion dollar second phase of the Silver Line's construction. While Phase 1, he argues, will help tame the jungle of office buildings and haphazard development that is Tysons, he posits that Phase 2 will primarily consist of park-and-ride stations that do little to mitigate the area's transportation nightmare. Malouff argues for a less expensive, more extensive network of streetcars, possibly paired with a rapid bus transit line to Dulles.
While I agree with Malouff that park-and-ride stations can be problematic, especially from an aesthetic standpoint, I have to think that his concerns will predominantly fall on deaf ears. While a streetcar system would be more easily used by intermediate travellers, I have to think that the current Silver Line plan (like all of WMATA's lines) is planned to accomodate suburban residents travelling long distances to downtown-DC jobs (hence, the spoke and hub shape of DC's metro system). Dulles has also thrown clout and money behind getting the line extended all the way out to the airport, so I seriously doubt they'd settle for a bus stop instead (rapid transit or not).
He's not wrong, of course. The extended DC metro area would be greatly served by an intricate infrastructure of public transportation. However, I think for now, we're going to have to wait for the post-Silver Line realization that this new metro line, while beneficial, is not the area's public transportation panacea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)