Silver Line / Blue Line problems

@MCL1981

Thank you for getting it ! !

I don't see the premise of mismanagement as being the roadblock to achieving the goal of higher TPH. The roadblock is rolling stock in sufficient numbers. I also don't think the Blue line will be as screwed as you think will be as higher TPH will be spread across all of the lines running between Rosslyn and D&G Junction.

More train per hour means more rolling stock, more employees to operate and maintain them, more traction power capacity to propel them, the entire track and signal system up to good condition, and the ability to keep it that way. None of which can happen with piss poor management and a LOT of money.

MCL1981 wrote:More trains would REDUCE platform crowding. I'm going to use fake number for discussion purposes. 10,000 people are trying to go from Shady Grove to Metro center over the course of an hour.
.......
More trains per hour doesn't increase the number passengers per hour. But it does spread the same number of passengers out evenly over time, reducing the crush loading and and stampedes. You have a steady and manageable flow of 300-400 people moving smoothly through the system.

One limit on the pp/hour rate is the train capacity. You can add trains to mitigate that.

Another limit is the capacity of the platforms and the faregates; really faregates & corridors & escalators & stairs etc. Spacing trains more frequently may reduce the people queuing on the platform, but it also reduces the recovery time between. [When I exit at Metro Center at rush hour, I move to the wall and WAIT for the train to depart...]

The sole reason to spend megabuck$ & add trains is: to move more people. My point is: adding trains is not a 100% win; you still have to consider the other constraints.

The crush of people at the escalators and gates is in waves. A train pulls up, dumps 600 people, who all bumrush the exit at once. Then the next train shows up 3-5 minutes later, after the stampede has subsided. Moving the same amount of people, but spread out more evenly over time, makes it a steady flow of people rather than a stampede every 4 minutes. I think the escalators and gates can handle that much better. There are some stations that are a disaster no matter what, such as Union. That place needs to be a platform on each side, with escalators in both directions on both ends. But even there, a steady flow is still better than a stampede.

Now, if WMATA fixed their mismanagement, fixed their maintenance problems, fixed their safety problems, fixed their crime problems, and increased capacity (more rolling stock, more trains per hour), I believe ridership would definitely increase. It's pretty well established that ridership has been declining because of those problems. So fixing the problems will undoubtedly increase ridership. The region continues to grow, which will also increase ridership regardless. So WMATA needs get their act in gear.

Sand Box John wrote:
According to WMATAs own numbers not including Dulles Yard the storage capacity is 1316 with Dulles yard the number jumps to 1520. Storage capacity is not an issue however the balance of the storage capacity is. Alexandria, Shady Grove and Glenmont are negative in excess storage capacity.

I ride past this yard almost daily, and have a question. Does Metro own the land to the east of the yard, which was most recently used for staging during the reconstruction of 495/Telegraph? If so, could it be configured to nearly double the size of the yard?

"JDC"
I ride past this yard almost daily, and have a question. Does Metro own the land to the east of the yard, which was most recently used for staging during the reconstruction of 495/Telegraph?

I have no idea.

If so, could it be configured to nearly double the size of the yard?

Looks to me like the Facility Maintenance Center and associated tracks could be moved to that property and that area could be used for a little over a dozen tracks the could hold 8 cars each.

MCL1981 wrote: Then the next train shows up 3-5 minutes later, after the stampede has subsided.

You're making my point for me.

Let's take the extreme case. Suppose headway was 30 seconds; the exiting passengers from Train N are still crossing the platform when N+1 arrives. The embarking passengers compete for space with those still leaving, and meet N+1's disembarking crowd.

Make the headway 60 seconds, 90... 3600... One factor, the queue of waiting embarking passenger goes up; while the other factor [dynamic movement] improves. It's a double-edge sword, like everything else in life....

What is the best headway [from this aspect]? That is what the engineers who analyze people movement [I can't recall the term..] would have to conclude. (Amusement parks hire these folks...)

Steady, manageable, and acceptable stream of people vs crushing stampede. The former works much better, and it's designed for it.

"farecard"

You're making my point for me.

Let's take the extreme case. Suppose headway was 30 seconds; the exiting passengers from Train N are still crossing the platform when N+1 arrives. The embarking passengers compete for space with those still leaving, and meet N+1's disembarking crowd.

Make the headway 60 seconds, 90... 3600... One factor, the queue of waiting embarking passenger goes up; while the other factor [dynamic movement] improves. It's a double-edge sword, like everything else in life....

I don't by that argument because it assumes a train at 100 second headways will be discharging and boarding the same amount passengers as a train at 200 second headways.

What is the best headway [from this aspect]? That is what the engineers who analyze people movement [I can't recall the term..] would have to conclude. (Amusement parks hire these folks...)

This is one of the reasons why the WMATAs twin platform design is better then the island platform design. Passengers entering the station do not have to cross the path of passengers exiting the station from the entrance passageway to the platform.

I could never figure out why Judiciary Square has dual platforms, which have about 4 people milling around on them. Yet Union has a single center platform with 5 million people trying to kill each other to get upstairs.

Answer for WUS: cheaper, less real estate needed, and it was built at the lowest point for Amtrak ridership and prior to MARC/VRE. Answer for Judiciary: higher anticipated loadings, more real estate available. I don't have my notes here, but there are strong reasons for either design in mass transit design. (But yes, Union Station needs a substantial rebuild, possibly to the Rosslyn/Pentagon model with upper and lower platforms and many escalators.)

As for Sand Box John's earlier point, most stations have three escalators - but one is often out of service all day and the second is counterflow. Has Metro considered higher-speed elevators to attract people toting tons of crap, not just for ADA compliance? That'd help a fair bit with escalator crowding.

I see. I expect there is no hope of the union station stop getting modified for dual platforms in my lifetime.

Sand Box John wrote: I don't by that argument because it assumes a train at 100 second headways will be discharging and boarding the same amount passengers as a train at 200 second headways..

Again, the sole economic reason to shorten headways is to up the throughput. If that is not the goal, fergetabout...

Sand Box John wrote: This is one of the reasons why the WMATAs twin platform design is better then the island platform design. Passengers entering the station do not have to cross the path of passengers exiting the station from the entrance passageway to the platform.

The better design is MARTA where at their "Metro Center" there are 3 platforms. Doors open on both sides and passengers exit onto the center platform while other enter from the outside.
But that is $$$$. Ditto a dual platform up - dual platform downstairs design. Count the escalators and elevators needed.

"farecard"
Again, the sole economic reason to shorten headways is to up the throughput. If that is not the goal, fergetabout...

With shorter headways you get both higher throughput and less crowding. Shorter headways is a hell of a lot cheaper then building new routes and stations in the downtown core.

Sand Box John: I'd love to see that. Even if they're limited-distance trains (such as Mt. Vernon - RR Nat Airport) the more throughput in the City Center, the better.