Why not express?

HokieNav wrote:Funny, you think that the WMATA management has any level of control over the funding that they're given.

No, I don't believe I've ever said that. The board, being political, may not have "control" either but they do have influence, if they were held to any sort of account.

HokieNav wrote:It's just easier to say "THEY'RE ALL INCOMPETENT!!!".

Do please provide some evidence to the contrary.

HokieNav wrote:I haven't kept count or anything, but out of seeing 20 train operators a week (2 trains twice daily for 5 days), I'd say that 3 or 4 of them have train handling skills that are really subpar. Certainly less than 25%.

OK, let's be generous and say 20%. What private-sector business would allow 20% of their employees to routinely do something visibly obnoxious and annoying to the paying customers? Every business has some lemons, of course, but 20% is an awful lot.

Of course, you will now say, well, they're unionized, there's not much you can do. And that puts us back in the realm of political incompetence.

Basically, you appear to be saying, Metro is pretty much as good as it can be under the circumstances so suck it up. I am saying - just like with the original topic of this thread, which was "Why not express?" and led to a discussion of what exactly would need to be done to provide expresses - we need to identify the failings, and then it will be clearly apparent what needs to be changed to fix them. And by whom.

HokieNav wrote:Being a Red Line rider, I'm well familiar with the reasons for the crash, thanks.

Really? We'll have to take a poll of Red Line riders instead of asking the NTSB to investigate, since riders are the experts.

HokieNav wrote:I haven't kept count or anything, but out of seeing 20 train operators a week (2 trains twice daily for 5 days), I'd say that 3 or 4 of them have train handling skills that are really subpar. Certainly less than 25%.

That is about as scientific as a website poll on a political blog. Isn't "3 or 4 out of 20" operators being subpar a bad thing? Look at the number of trips per day ... do you really want up to 20% being operated subpar?

It only takes one subpar operator to destroy several cars in an accident. It only takes one subpar mechanic to ruin a train detection/signaling system. It only takes one subpar manager telling the people they are in charge of that par is good enough and 20% subpar is fine to make the system itself subpar.

Accepting subpar is just part of the broken culture at WMATA. A culture that you have apparently bought in to and support. Subpar isn't good (except in golf).

krtaylor wrote:

HokieNav wrote:Funny, you think that the WMATA management has any level of control over the funding that they're given.

No, I don't believe I've ever said that. The board, being political, may not have "control" either but they do have influence, if they were held to any sort of account.

I say "control", you say "influence" - the board has neither.

HokieNav wrote:It's just easier to say "THEY'RE ALL INCOMPETENT!!!".

Do please provide some evidence to the contrary.

I have repeatedly, but your blind hatred of all things WMATA cause you to miss them.

Basically, you appear to be saying, Metro is pretty much as good as it can be under the circumstances so suck it up.

No, I'm saying WMATA is as good as it can me under the circumstances. Let's take a look at the reasons for their shortcomings and what we can realistically do to fix them. Pie in the sky express tracks fall outside the realm of realism, so I proposed a suggestion that can decrease trip times without spending capital funds. Absolute statements about they're all corrupt and incompetent (you've yet to provide a single example of corruption) do absolutely nothing but demonstrate that you've got a fundamental lack of understanding of why things are the way that they are (which is the first step towards solving problems). Much like your initial misunderstanding of skip stop that I tried to explain over and over, your lack of reading comprehension is hindering your ability to read and understand what I'm trying to say.

justalurker66 wrote:

HokieNav wrote:Being a Red Line rider, I'm well familiar with the reasons for the crash, thanks.

Really? We'll have to take a poll of Red Line riders instead of asking the NTSB to investigate, since riders are the experts.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that the NTSB shouldn't investigate. I said what I did because I've got a deep personal reason for knowing the reasons for the wreck and have done all the reading available on the topic.

HokieNav wrote:I haven't kept count or anything, but out of seeing 20 train operators a week (2 trains twice daily for 5 days), I'd say that 3 or 4 of them have train handling skills that are really subpar. Certainly less than 25%.

That is about as scientific as a website poll on a political blog. Isn't "3 or 4 out of 20" operators being subpar a bad thing? Look at the number of trips per day ... do you really want up to 20% being operated subpar?

It only takes one subpar operator to destroy several cars in an accident. It only takes one subpar mechanic to ruin a train detection/signaling system. It only takes one subpar manager telling the people they are in charge of that par is good enough and 20% subpar is fine to make the system itself subpar.

Accepting subpar is just part of the broken culture at WMATA. A culture that you have apparently bought in to and support. Subpar isn't good (except in golf).

I never said I was accepting of the subpar operators - I was providing some measure of rebuttal to the widespread nature of the rough stops that krtaylor knows are a problem from reading about it in the Washington Post.

Ok guys, let's stop the bickering and the "putting words in one's mouth" fightings. And let's stick to WMATA as well. Thanks

On the question of "Why not express?" ...
We're obviously past the design phase where extra tracks could be added. We've discussed what it would take to add extra crossovers to allow trains to pass other trains. Is the ability to pass express enough?

Is it a given that express is needed? What are the problems? Full trains stopping to let a couple more people on annoying those on the longer journey? Are there enough "lesser used" stations that customers would not be annoyed by every train that goes by express?

Since track based schemes seem to be out due to construction costs other schemes are the only option (if any form express is done at all).

We've discussed A/B service ... it can be confusing and one has to identify stations properly and decide which can be skipped. A/B could speed up the journey (as long as you don't end up parking trains at signals waiting for the train ahead instead of at platforms serving customers) but it also doubles the headways for the stations skipped.

How about a scheme where the trains stop stopping when "full"? If the trains are fulling up at outlying stations have a train serve a group of outlying stations then run express to downtown while another train starts at the first station skipped. There is no use in stopping if no one can get on and no one wants to get off.

Personally I'd like to see WMATA operate smoothly before trying to confuse their systems and customers with odd ideas. Any time a train passes a station instead of stopping a stopping train should come as quickly as possible to avoid customer frustration. The limit comes down to just how close together trains can be operated without increasing the danger smacking them together. WMATA had a bad year. Let's see if they can have a good year before mixing things up.

krtaylor wrote:

HokieNav wrote:It's just easier to say "THEY'RE ALL INCOMPETENT!!!".

Do please provide some evidence to the contrary.

Not to prolong the back and forth, but blanket statements such as this are almost always incorrect (positive or negative). I'm curious to know why you ride Metro and put your life at such a high risk if it's so grossly incompotent from top to bottom. A lot of your rationale (stickers in stations and "ghost" trains) are minor nitpicks at best--things which many people in the DC Area are actually prone to turn into big deals (but you're not from here).

Anyway, Metro has and will always have problems just like any other agency. As I said before, most of Metro's problems right now are financial and managerial (and have partially been rectified) which more or less don't directly impact quality of service. Obviously the 891,240 persons who rode last Friday (second # highest in Metro history) don't think these problems are major deterrents, and would disagree with the system being labeled as "incompotent."


Oh btw, the "ghost trains" on the LED displays you mentioned are hardly a problem since they always have some sort of clue telling you that it's not a real train such as having dashes where the arrival time should be, displaying "Train" instead of the color, and having a weird number of cars (2 or 4). They have them all the time in College Park, especially in the offpeak, since it was the next to last station. From my experience this isn't really an annoyance to anyone. Plus, the system was designed by Alston, not Metro. If it's a problem you can visit the mobile website since it never has these "ghost trains."

justalurker66 wrote:We're obviously past the design phase where extra tracks could be added.

Absolutely 100% true.

justalurker66 wrote:We've discussed what it would take to add extra crossovers to allow trains to pass other trains.

Which I think we have found to be within the realm of fiscal possibility, given that far more than that amount is spent on other capital investments and upgrades. Won't happen tomorrow though, that's for sure.

justalurker66 wrote:Is the ability to pass express enough?

What's the definition of "enough"? A full four-track express system would be far superior, but it ain't gonna happen. I think my extra-crossover scheme gives the maximum bang for the minimum buck and also falls within the realm of the fiscally feasible, so in that sense it's "enough" by definition given that we can't reasonably hope for anything better.

justalurker66 wrote:Is it a given that express is needed? What are the problems? Full trains stopping to let a couple more people on annoying those on the longer journey? Are there enough "lesser used" stations that customers would not be annoyed by every train that goes by express?

Again, what's the definition of "needed"? Obviously it's not strictly speaking needed, since we don't have expresses now and people use Metro to overload. It would seem to me that expresses would be a relatively inexpensive way to a) add much-needed extra capacity, and b) decrease travel times thus improving the customer experience.

justalurker66 wrote:How about a scheme where the trains stop stopping when "full"? If the trains are fulling up at outlying stations have a train serve a group of outlying stations then run express to downtown while another train starts at the first station skipped. There is no use in stopping if no one can get on and no one wants to get off.

True, but the trouble is, you have no way to know that nobody wants to get off. At least with busses, you can push the bar and let the driver know you want out.

realtype wrote:I'm curious to know why you ride Metro and put your life at such a high risk if it's so grossly incompetent from top to bottom. A lot of your rationale (stickers in stations and "ghost" trains) are minor nitpicks at best--things which many people in the DC Area are actually prone to turn into big deals (but you're not from here).

I don't believe I've said I consider my life to be at high risk. I do consider them to be grievously incompetent, but not so much so as to outweigh the risk of death on the highway by incompetent drivers. I don't ride Metro every day, never claimed to. I disagree that the stickers are a minor nitpick; in fact they're symptomatic, because they caused a major jam which could have been entirely avoided by the most elementary and relatively inexpensive means of wholly replacing the out-of-date price charts. Minor negligence, major consequence = incompetence. And I've already addressed the question of my whereabouts: I do in fact live within Metro service range.

realtype wrote:Obviously the 891,240 persons who rode last Friday (second # highest in Metro history) don't think these problems are major deterrents, and would disagree with the system being labeled as "incompetent."

I bet you're wrong here. Just because they rode Metro doesn't mean they don't think it is incompetent, just slightly less inconvenient than the next-worst option. I do not claim to be a professional pollster, however, I would imagine that WaPo has some insights on this, and they are constantly writing about crises in rider confidence.

realtype wrote:If it's a problem you can visit the mobile website since it never has these "ghost trains."

Then why don't they just feed the trackside displays off of whatever system feeds the mobile website? I don't have a fancy iPhone so I've never used the mobile website; I didn't know it was that reliable. If so that makes the underlying incompetence even worse, since the problem HAS been solved elsewhere but the solution not extended to what most people see and use.

To return to the subject of WMATA as requested: Is there, in fact, anything that can be done to improve the management on a permanent basis? It sounds like some of you have at least a little confidence that the recent sackings will prove beneficial.

krtaylor wrote:

justalurker66 wrote:Is the ability to pass express enough?

What's the definition of "enough"? A full four-track express system would be far superior, but it ain't gonna happen.

Without a definition it is hard to say what to do ... why do people who want expresses want expresses? Would a solution that involved adding crossovers on the current two track system improve system performance enough that the need of those wanting expresses is met? (That is the definition of enough.)

krtaylor wrote:Again, what's the definition of "needed"? Obviously it's not strictly speaking needed, since we don't have expresses now and people use Metro to overload. It would seem to me that expresses would be a relatively inexpensive way to a) add much-needed extra capacity, and b) decrease travel times thus improving the customer experience.

Again I defer to those advocating expresses. Why do they want them? What problem are they solving? It seems to me the problem being solved is allowing people from outlying stations to get downtown with less stops. Will the trip actually be faster? Will the ability to pass actually add the capacity or decrease travel times or will you find trains stopped at signals instead of platforms?

Since each WMATA line is basically a two track line perhaps one should look at how other two track lines benefit from the ability to pass and run express. It takes a fair amount of coordination to organize trains in both directions on one track. WMATA gets to do it occasionally because of breakdowns. With expresses you could run one track as the "fast track" and move "locals" over to the opposing track between stations (new crossovers required) and back before an opposing train arrives. Pocket tracks that could hold a train outside of a station would be helpful in giving it a place to wait out of the way of other services.

krtaylor wrote:

justalurker66 wrote:How about a scheme where the trains stop stopping when "full"? If the trains are fulling up at outlying stations have a train serve a group of outlying stations then run express to downtown while another train starts at the first station skipped. There is no use in stopping if no one can get on and no one wants to get off.

True, but the trouble is, you have no way to know that nobody wants to get off. At least with busses, you can push the bar and let the driver know you want out.

Not quite what I was thinking. I was thinking mathmatically not on the fly each run. Look at the boardings for each time range. Set up a plan where the first train serves the first four stations every day then runs express to downtown. The next train serves the next four station the runs express to downtown. These trains would clearly be labeled expresses with passengers understanding that they are not expected to get off until downtown. No "on demand" stopping. One would have to have the occasional local that made all stops. You might only be able to do one round of expresses per hour ... the trains are going to stack up downtown where all stops are made. (It doesn't have to be the four stations per train ... look at the traffic needs.)

Of course it still boils down to IF expresses are needed. Why do those want them want them?

krtaylor wrote:I bet you're wrong here. Just because they rode Metro doesn't mean they don't think it is incompetent, just slightly less inconvenient than the next-worst option. I do not claim to be a professional pollster, however, I would imagine that WaPo has some insights on this, and they are constantly writing about crises in rider confidence.

Don't bet too much on that, they actually just did a poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 0040403413

As you parse through the results, you'll see that the rider opinion is pretty overwhelmingly positive - you're in the minority in your opinion according to professional pollsters.

HokieNav wrote:Don't bet too much on that, they actually just did a poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 0040403413

As you parse through the results, you'll see that the rider opinion is pretty overwhelmingly positive - you're in the minority in your opinion according to professional pollsters.

The analysis of the poll was posted earlier in the thread ...
An interesting poll, where 65% of respondents drive alone to work and only 13% take Metro. As pointed out in the earlier analysis, while the net positive feeling about Metrorail among both users and non-users has dropped 5-6%, the positives are sinking from excellent to good. So this poll demonstrates an overall decrease in positive feelings about the Metrorail service.

And 29% of non-riders list safety as a reason why they don't ride. Yeah, not rider opinion - but I suppose scaring people off is one way to relieve overcrowding. All respondents asked specifically about WMATA's response to Metrorail incidents 49% approved of WMATA's handling ... with 39% "somewhat" approving.

Scan down to question 25 and you will see the Red line as being reported as most problematic with Blue, Green and Yellow barely on the chart. Apparently some of your fellow riders are seeing problems.

justalurker66 wrote:It seems to me the problem being solved is allowing people from outlying stations to get downtown with less stops. Will the trip actually be faster? Will the ability to pass actually add the capacity or decrease travel times or will you find trains stopped at signals instead of platforms?

Yes, that is the problem I'd like to see expresses solve. In theory, the trip should certainly be faster. In practice, you have a point - is WMATA capable of running properly to a schedule such that the "meets" work out correctly and the expresses sail by? I really don't know. If the trains were computer-controlled as they were designed to be, it certainly ought to work; I suppose being manually operated as they are now, probably not. Perhaps getting the computer-controls working again is a necessary prerequisite.

justalurker66 wrote:Set up a plan where the first train serves the first four stations every day then runs express to downtown. The next train serves the next four station the runs express to downtown. These trains would clearly be labeled expresses with passengers understanding that they are not expected to get off until downtown. No "on demand" stopping. One would have to have the occasional local that made all stops. You might only be able to do one round of expresses per hour ... the trains are going to stack up downtown where all stops are made.

I think the trouble with this plan is that the expresses would eventually catch up with preceding locals, and with no way to pass them, they'd be stuck. Hence my crossover-runaround idea, but that does require a certain amount of capital investment.

krtaylor wrote:

justalurker66 wrote:Set up a plan where the first train serves the first four stations every day then runs express to downtown. The next train serves the next four station the runs express to downtown. These trains would clearly be labeled expresses with passengers understanding that they are not expected to get off until downtown. No "on demand" stopping. One would have to have the occasional local that made all stops. You might only be able to do one round of expresses per hour ... the trains are going to stack up downtown where all stops are made.

I think the trouble with this plan is that the expresses would eventually catch up with preceding locals, and with no way to pass them, they'd be stuck. Hence my crossover-runaround idea, but that does require a certain amount of capital investment.

One could leave enough headway between the local and the first express that the express would catch the local as it was leaving the first downtown stop. Calculate how much time the express saves by not stopping at the stations being skipped and wait that long before starting the run. The second express starts at the first skipped station (either deadheading to get there or terminating at that station at the end of an outbound run). If all works out they should get to the first downtown station as the train before them leaves. You make even allow the second express to stop at the first eight stations ... catching only the passengers who just missed the first express at the first four stations where the first express just left (dwell times would be at a minimum for the second express). A local would run after the last express ... then wait for the headway to build and start another express cycle.

The trouble is all you are really doing is bunching up trains. How close can trains run? If they are already near their minimum headway then bunching to create expresses isn't possible. A constant headway with all trains making all stops may be quicker than waiting for an express run to start. With my express plan platforms could get crowded at a busy outlying station. But once the train comes the passengers know that they are only (at most) four stops away from downtown. Because of the wait time on the platform they may not get there faster, but their time on the train should be reduced.

A bit of smoke and mirrors? Probably. You're trading waiting on a platform for less time on the train. As long as that time was spent in motion (and not held by signals because of a train that is caught before downtown) it would probably be more acceptable by the passengers. One would have to do some polling to figure out what the preference was.

justalurker66 wrote:

HokieNav wrote:Don't bet too much on that, they actually just did a poll:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 0040403413

As you parse through the results, you'll see that the rider opinion is pretty overwhelmingly positive - you're in the minority in your opinion according to professional pollsters.

The analysis of the poll was posted earlier in the thread ...

I don't know what thread you're reading, but it hasn't come up in this one...

An interesting poll, where 65% of respondents drive alone to work and only 13% take Metro. As pointed out in the earlier analysis, while the net positive feeling about Metrorail among both users and non-users has dropped 5-6%, the positives are sinking from excellent to good. So this poll demonstrates an overall decrease in positive feelings about the Metrorail service.

While true, overall feelings about the system are still overwhelmingly positive, which wouldn't be the case if everyone viewed it as corrupt and mismanaged as krtaylor does.

And 29% of non-riders list safety as a reason why they don't ride. Yeah, not rider opinion - but I suppose scaring people off is one way to relieve overcrowding.

Sure, and that's 9th on the list of why people don't ride. If people were that concerned about safety it wouldn't be dead last on the list.

All respondents asked specifically about WMATA's response to Metrorail incidents 49% approved of WMATA's handling ... with 39% "somewhat" approving.

49% approve, 35% disapprove - could they be better? Sure. Do people think that the management is as incompetent and corrupt as krtaylor? Absolutely not. He'd be in the 18% "strongly disapprove" minority.

Scan down to question 25 and you will see the Red line as being reported as most problematic with Blue, Green and Yellow barely on the chart. Apparently some of your fellow riders are seeing problems.

I never claimed that there were no problems - I'd agree that the red line has the most problems, it's the oldest in the system.

justalurker66 wrote:One could leave enough headway between the local and the first express that the express would catch the local as it was leaving the first downtown stop. Calculate how much time the express saves by not stopping at the stations being skipped and wait that long before starting the run. The second express starts at the first skipped station (either deadheading to get there or terminating at that station at the end of an outbound run). If all works out they should get to the first downtown station as the train before them leaves. You make even allow the second express to stop at the first eight stations ... catching only the passengers who just missed the first express at the first four stations where the first express just left (dwell times would be at a minimum for the second express). A local would run after the last express ... then wait for the headway to build and start another express cycle.

All that is is skip stop writ large - it'd be interesting to work out the timing required to do that and see how it compares to A/B service and the current service for every station down the line.

justalurker66 wrote:The trouble is all you are really doing is bunching up trains. How close can trains run? If they are already near their minimum headway then bunching to create expresses isn't possible.

I believe that the Orange Line runs at or pretty close to minimum headways, at least past Rosslyn. So there's no room to bunch. Dunno about the Red Line, maybe there's more room to work with there.