What If They Built a Station?

Rob Goodspeed brings us WMATA's least-used Metro stations. I go by the Waterfront-SEU station all the time because Sara lives across the street. The problem of underuse there is presumably influenced by the fact that the directly adjacent Waterfront Mall has been closed for a while and is currently a giant pile of rubble. In general, land use in that area has been deplorable (quintessential isolated "towers in the park" urban renewal gone wrong) but things are in the works to improve matters.

Mostly, though, I think this highlights the fact that though nobody wants to confront the construction costs it would really make a lot of sense to build some additional heavy rail tunnels through the center of the city rather than more Metro "spur" extensions. New tunnels and stations through the core would relieve crowding at the very crowded existing central city stations, and would also increase the usefulness of the currently under-utilized stations on the fringe. Yes, obviously, it's more expensive to build downtown, but it makes more sense to undertake expensive projects that meet real needs rather than to go in for cheaper projects that aren't useful.

Comments

Could you tell us the figure for the most used station? I want to put the figures in context.

Posted by David Margolies | March 27, 2008 1:30 PM

Who's Sara ?

Posted by Benjamin | March 27, 2008 1:35 PM

Georgetown didn't allow stations there before and they certainly won't allow them now.

Posted by Rob | March 27, 2008 1:35 PM

Union Station is the busiest, approx 32,500 daily users.

Posted by yoyoyo | March 27, 2008 1:37 PM

Georgetown didn't allow stations there before and they certainly won't allow them now.

Why?

Posted by Antid Oto | March 27, 2008 1:40 PM

David, the linked article has the most used station information.

Posted by Anonymous | March 27, 2008 1:42 PM

Waterfront is not used anymore because Waterside Mall is closed. When EPA was at Waterside Mall, that stop was heavily used by all EPA HQ employees. Now it is just used by the small number of apartment dwellers in the neighborhood and by people going to Arena Stage. Once the redevelopment plan for Waterside Mall takes shape (who knows when), that stop will be active again. As for others, I have no clue.

Posted by Bubba | March 27, 2008 1:46 PM

After Union Station, which does the most I believe because the MARC comes in there, there's Metro Center, L'Enfant Plaza, and Chinatown doing a ton of traffic because of the exchanges. They both could easily use added capacity. My understanding is that it is effectively impossible to add tunnel space in the center due to any number of people above ground throwing a fit.

Posted by Aaron | March 27, 2008 1:49 PM

Oh wait, I can say something about the NY Ave. stop. The ATF HQ building at the stop is not completed. When that is finished, there will be around 10k of their employees using that stop on a daily basis. Plus there are a number of commercial office buildings going up on adjacent lots and one whole building across the street from the Greyhound station is completely empty and looking for a tenant. Me thinks they are looking for a Govt. agency to lease the whole building and that they are asking for too much in rent.

Posted by Bubba | March 27, 2008 1:52 PM

My NoVa based thoughts on three:

Arlington Cemetary - This closes pretty early (at dark maybe?) I'd also imagine the ridership is mostly tourists and heavily seasonal.

Eisenhower Ave. - Probably a lot of traffic that might go there otherwise stops at King Street. Definitely PTO traffic would. The only thing I can think of that would be more easily accessed from Eisenhower is the "mall" right there, with some government offices. Maybe DOJ/ Fed. Court, but that's a stretch

Van Dorn - There's not much around Van Dorn, and the parking is terrible. I bet if they had better parking/bus service, Van Dorn would be a much more popular stop.

Posted by Alexis | March 27, 2008 1:54 PM

Digging new heavy rail tunnels just seems not to be done much these days. The only one I can think of is the Second Avenue Subway project, and that barely counts. Some combination of labor/safety/utility costs has gone up a great deal since when this was first being done. Note for future city-builders and civilizations: dig your subway tunnels early!

Posted by Nathan Williams | March 27, 2008 1:58 PM

Sara is Matt's pot dealer.

Posted by yoyoyo | March 27, 2008 2:04 PM

Amen on the Van Dorn Parking situation, Alexis. I take the shuttle to the station from my local apartment complex every morning, and I don't think I've ever seen it not filled to capacity.

That part of town is going downhill anyway. I didn't mind it a couple years ago when I was just starting out, but now that I'm climbing the ol' GS ladder, I'm thinking of moving to Arlington with the rest of the kids.

Posted by Chris | March 27, 2008 2:10 PM

Once again, a JPEG that ought to be a GIF.

There are different graphics formats for a reason, people!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 27, 2008 2:13 PM

Antid Oto - they didn't want the crowd (you guess what that means) that would have come with the metro. I also think they felt it would change the atmosphere.

I see that Potomac is on that list. It is a bit weird. I live 1/2 way between it and Easter Market but I use Eastern Market as habit. However, the Jenkins Row project is finished (and it is huge) and the Harris Teeter is within a month or so of opening so that will up ridership some. Also, there are several smaller condo/multi-unit projects that are just finishing or will be relatively soon, so that station should improve.

I agree that NY Avenue will increase. It is a new station and the ATF project as well as others that seem to be in the works will likely improve that one as well. They wouldn't have put that in-fill station there if they didn't think the ridership wouldn't demand it.

Also, is it fair to compare the big hubs Union Station (with Amtrak, VRE, MAC, and food court), L'enfant Plaza, Rosslyn, Gallery Place and Metro Center to the purely residential stops like Potomac, the solely tourist ones with alternate hours like Arlington, and the commuter ones like those out on the end of the lines? Sort of like comparing apples to oranges.

Posted by ET | March 27, 2008 2:21 PM

Forest Glen is located near the Beltway, but it's not easily accessible from the Beltway, it doesn't have much parking, it's poorly served by Metrobus, and even pedestrian traffic seems to have a hard time getting to the station. Commuters from points North tend to use Glenmont or Greenbelt. Bus riders tend to end up at Silver Spring.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | March 27, 2008 2:23 PM

they didn't want the crowd (you guess what that means) that would have come with the metro. I also think they felt it would change the atmosphere.

Sorry, my question was unclear. I know why they opposed it in the past. Why do you think they would still oppose it now?

Posted by Antid Oto | March 27, 2008 2:27 PM

What jumps out of this list is that these are stations in low-income areas. The only exception among the ones I know anything about (aside from the one where the only residents have zero income, being dead) is Virginia Square. That one surprises me some -- the fact that it is quite close to its neighbors, as Metro stations go, may have something to do with it.

Presumably ridership is low at the stations in poor black neighborhoods because there is very little development there, and bus service feeds other stations on those lines, so all the traffic is people who live within walking distance, going back and forth to work. I don't see that anything can or should be done about it. The system has an obligation to serve these people.

Posted by roac | March 27, 2008 2:30 PM

BTW, UDC is coupled with Van Ness, so isn't involved with Mt. Vernon square, so that's a flaw with the chart.

Posted by Max | March 27, 2008 2:42 PM

That part of town is going downhill anyway. I didn't mind it a couple years ago when I was just starting out, but now that I'm climbing the ol' GS ladder, I'm thinking of moving to Arlington with the rest of the kids.

Are you talking about the part immediately around the Van Dorn St. metro station, or the whole west end of Alexandria, or Eisenhower Ave. or what? I left long enough ago that a lot of that stuff wasn't even there yet, so I'm kind of amazed to hear it's already in decline. What's the nature of the decline?

Posted by BP Beckley | March 27, 2008 3:06 PM

I think this highlights the fact that though nobody wants to confront the construction costs it would really make a lot of sense to build some additional heavy rail tunnels through the center of the city rather than more Metro "spur" extensions. New tunnels and stations through the core would relieve crowding at the very crowded existing central city stations, and would also increase the usefulness of the currently under-utilized stations on the fringe.

This makes no sense whatsoever. What part of the core is not being sufficiently served right now? There is no place in downtown DC that is not easily walkable from some Metro station or another.

And while the volumes handled by the core stations are much larger than the fringe stations, it's not like they're overloaded. Metro Center was built to handle a heck of a lot more traffic than Virginia Square. I've commuted daily through Metro Center, and used to go to L'Enfant, and neither has ever struck me as overcrowded. I've never had to let a train pass by at either station for being overcrowded.

The same cannot be said for various (far less busy) stations that feed into the core. During morning commuter hours crowding is a problem for trains inbound from the fringe. Every station is loading people onto the trains, no one is getting off. That's where you have capacity issues, not in the core. There are also vast swaths of territory in the exterior that are not served at all by the Metro system. It seems like the ideal thing, if there were to be further expansion, would be add a couple more full lines, running from the periphery all the way to the existing core stations.

Posted by J.B. | March 27, 2008 3:09 PM

Alexis - "Arlington Cemetary - This closes pretty early (at dark maybe?) I'd also imagine the ridership is mostly tourists and heavily seasonal."

The graph also says it's for "weekday" riders. I'd imagine that Arlington Cemetary would be busier on the weekends.

Posted by Tel | March 27, 2008 3:10 PM

Antid Oto:
Sorry, my question was unclear. I know why they opposed it in the past. Why do you think they would still oppose it now?

Because they're still rich and want to keep as many people as possible out of their neighborhood.

Nathan Williams:
Some combination of labor/safety/utility costs has gone up a great deal since when this was first being done. Note for future city-builders and civilizations: dig your subway tunnels early!

The downtown tunnels were all dug in the late 60s and early 70s -- not really THAT long ago, compared to the New York system, for instance. I think massive quantities of federal dollars were made available for that project, and perhaps that's not possible any more. Also, by the time they built the tunnels, the old downtown area that they were building through was pretty much dying, so perhaps there weren't as many complaints as there would be today. But they built right smack down Connecticut Ave., and it still happened.

As far as little used stations, well, I'm an old enough fogey to remember when Pentagon City and Ballston were, like, nowhere. These things change, especially with the kind of growth the DC area continues to have.

Posted by BP Beckley | March 27, 2008 3:20 PM

J.B. - What part of the core is not being sufficiently served right now? There is no place in downtown DC that is not easily walkable from some Metro station or another.

Well, we all know about Georgetown. Also, it's hard to get to Adams-Morgan or Columbia Heights unless you find the infrequently travelling buses.

Note, I haven't lived in DC since 2005.

Posted by nbt | March 27, 2008 3:23 PM

What part of the core is not being sufficiently served right now? There is no place in downtown DC that is not easily walkable from some Metro station or another.
Well, we all know about Georgetown. Also, it's hard to get to Adams-Morgan or Columbia Heights unless you find the infrequently travelling buses.

Add east end of H St to that. Some urban planner suggested a brown line that would run down to Eastern Market and other points south, including the new Nats stadium.

RE: Virginia Square. I just experienced the crunch of the Orange Line coming back from Dulles after a redeye. I got on at West Falls Church at 7:30 a.m. and it was already standing room only on the train. I imagine the Virginia Square people might feel it's not worth it to try to squeeze on to the train at that point.

Posted by lou | March 27, 2008 3:35 PM

I'm only ever at Metro Center and Huntington. I just wish they'd do something more in the suburbs, and have more lines going into DC. I live 3 miles from King Street or from Vandorn, and Northern VA has little to no sidewalks so I can't walk (I tried riding my bike to the Metro station at King Street, and got hit by a car on my first day. That was two days after Christmas 2006, and I haven't been brave enough to try again.) I end up damned if I do, or damned if I don't, as to get into DC I have to DRIVE to the damn Metro station at Huntington and park. Can't bike into work from VA, so I'm stuck 6 miles from my office, and having a massive commute (an hour or more from apartment to office).

Posted by skalite | March 27, 2008 3:42 PM

Because they're still rich and want to keep as many people as possible out of their neighborhood.

I guess I'd just say that given the gentrification of the rest of the city in the last 25 years, that's probably not as powerful an objection as it once was, and on the other hand, I bet there are plenty of people who live in Georgetown who would like Metro service.

Posted by Antid Oto | March 27, 2008 3:45 PM

Re: Eisenhower Ave.:

I think I can characterize the types of people who might use this station on one hand:

1) People who work at the Patent Office but live within walking distance of Huntington.

2) District Court for E.D.Va traffic

3) DoD employees at Hoffman Center

4) maybe moviegoers at the Hoffman theaters but I've never seen them

5) the ten, maybe twenty, people who live in the Meridian-managed properties next to the station but don't work at the Patent Office

there we go!

Posted by whiskey | March 27, 2008 3:49 PM

I tend to suspect that most current residents of Georgetown curse the residents who, thirty years ago, nixed the creation of a Georgetown metro stop.

On the other hand, I suspect that whatever remnant of NIMBYs there are in Georgetown are probably going to be more organized and more vocal than the majority who wants a metro stop.

Posted by John | March 27, 2008 4:07 PM

The DC metro was built explicitly as a mover of commuters from the burbs to downtown. A NY-style subway, which is the primary mode of transportation for urban residents, was never contemplated. Matt is transferring assumptions arising from his NY upbringing to a very different city.

Posted by Bloix | March 27, 2008 4:17 PM

A couple of thoughts. First, downtown doesn't necessarily mean most heavily trafficked -- I note that Mt. Vernon, despite the presence of the Convention Center, made the bottom 20. A couple of other stations -- like Capitol South, Archives, and Federal Triangle -- are part of the "urban core" but didn't make the top 20.

Second, anyone else note what's missing from the top 20? The artist formerly known as Washington National Airport station. I find that the most surprising single fact on the list. It makes me rethink my support for extending the orange line to Dulles. If folks are not using the existing system to get to DCA (something that I do regularly and enjoy), what makes us think they'll do it for Dulles?

Finally, when you look at the "most trafficked" list, it's a useful exercise to filter out stations where some or all of their traffic is a result of transfers (whether it be between lines or from other forms of transportation such as Union Station). If you apply that filter (and accept the notion that a good chunk of the traffic at the two Farragut stations is actually mae up of transfers between the red and orange/blue lines), then your top five "non-transfer" stations" are

1. Dupont Circle
2. Foggy Bottom-GWU
3. McPherson Square
4. Pentagon City
5. Silver Spring

What I find interesting is that #4 and 5 on this list are not part of the urban core and thus would not be helped by Matt's proposal. In fact, beyond the top five "non-transfer" stations, most of the rest of the 20 most trafficked non-transfer stations on the list are in fact outside the core (Shady Grove, Crystal City, Vienna, Ballston, etc. etc.).

I'm not disagreeing with Matt's point that the system would benefit significantly from greater investment (and new lines) in the urban core. I'm only suggesting not all the facts agree with his argument.

Posted by Charlie | March 27, 2008 4:27 PM

The Georgetown Metro thing is a myth. They couldn't tunnel under the river there for technical reasons, and during the initial phases of development, and during the early planning stages Georgetown wasn't nearly the built-up tourist destination it is now.

Posted by mark | March 27, 2008 4:31 PM

Bloix is right - two different systems built at different times for different reasons ... I don't know why newcomer youngsters to DC like Matt insist they intuitively "know" what's wrong and needs fixing in the city without any idea of the history or backstory - it would be precociously cute if not so annoying. Also, many of the stops were deliberately built in then-rundown areas (Clarendon a prime example) in order to spur future (10-20 years out) development. Things change, low service areas might soon see major development because of the station, etc. And for someone to seriously recommend ripping apart a newly revitalized downtown (thus destroying the new businesses like what happened with the Green Line), just to save 5 minutes walk to Adams Morgan, is simply silly.

Posted by nick | March 27, 2008 4:34 PM

Virginia Square is no man's land in my opinion stuck between Clarendon and Ballston. I'm intrigued by the the street cars on H Street that will come on-line eventually. If it works maybe a street car line down Columbia Pike will happen.

Posted by Ben | March 27, 2008 4:38 PM

A few points:

First of all, I believe that in his book The Great Society Subway, Zach Schrag apparently refutes the notion that Georgetowners intentionally kept Metro out for fear of crowds; instead, it was due to technical difficulties due to tunnel placement (it would have had to be really deep to get under the river or some such thing).

Second, having an additional tunnel through downtown would help the stations west of the city like Rosslyn etc., because it would add redundancy. No longer would a breakdown in the single tunnel under the Potomac screw up the whole system. It would also enable much higher frequency of trains in those stations during the evening rush.

Posted by Dan Miller | March 27, 2008 4:42 PM

BTW, UDC is coupled with Van Ness, so isn't involved with Mt. Vernon square, so that's a flaw with the chart.

Posted by Max | March 27, 2008 2:42 PM

Uh no, it is not a flaw. While it is now called "Mt Vernon Sq 7th St-Convention Center", it used to be called "Mt Vernon Sq-UDC". UDC used to occupy a building down there somewhere. I guess Max hasn't been in DC long enough. Check the WaPo if you don't believe me.

As for this.

The Georgetown Metro thing is a myth. They couldn't tunnel under the river there for technical reasons, and during the initial phases of development, and during the early planning stages Georgetown wasn't nearly the built-up tourist destination it is now.

Posted by mark | March 27, 2008 4:31 PM
I think there were a number of reasons including the ones you mentioned. There was however also community resistance to such a large scale construction project (the thing about not wanting the poor and unwashed easy access is likely the myth part). And at the time, Georgetown was much more the home neighborhood of DC's power elite than it is now. Nowadays, all the big shot Republicans live in McLean and all the big shot Dems live in Bethesda or Spring Valley and everyone that doesn't want to commute lives on the Hill. I really don't know who lives in Georgetown except the holdover Georgetown set like Sally Quinn.

Posted by Bubba | March 27, 2008 4:57 PM

They couldn't tunnel under the river there for technical reasons,

I'm suspicious of this, but would have to research more to call 'shenanigans.'

But from a cursory back-of-the-envelope engineering point of view,

1) the Virginia end would start in pretty much the same place as the existing blue/orange tunnel under TR island.
2) A crossing coincident with Key bridge would actually be shorter than the existing blue/orange line tunnel.
3) key bridge/whitehurst freeway would be precluded by the much of sort of geology/geography that would preclude a subway tunnel.
4) The fall line (where the geology/geography of the potomac river overtly changes) I think is about another 1/4 mile upriver, i.e. where the visible rocks are upstream of key bridge.

But counterpoint:
The C&O canal starts in approximately the same place as the existing tunnel, so perhaps there was an engineering limitation.

But either way, adjusting orange line to go through G-Town after its crossing or adjusting the red line to go through there vice its current route strikes me as entirely political decision

Posted by Kolohe | March 27, 2008 6:55 PM

Kolohe, maybe you should follow the link Dan Miller posted to The Great Society Subway. You can use the Amazon search feature to look for "Georgetown." If consider the topography of Georgetown then the explanation should make perfect sense.

Posted by mark | March 27, 2008 7:32 PM

It's also impossible to get by train to all the neighborhoods around American University ... i.e. where the poor/black people live.

Someone upthread mentioned the yellow/blue line stop at DCA airport. That is actually amazing, and way more convenient than the subway rides to other airports that I'm familiar with (JFK, ORD, BOS) In Toronto, there is no train to the airport; you have to take an annoying bus.

Posted by nbt | March 27, 2008 9:54 PM

Someone upthread mentioned the yellow/blue line stop at DCA airport. That is actually amazing, and way more convenient than the subway rides to other airports

Well, it is now. After they built the Metro stop they basically then moved the airport next to it, at the cost of I forget how many billion dollars. When the Metro station first opened it was a long way from the terminal.

Posted by Herschel | March 28, 2008 9:46 AM

Yes, obviously, it's more expensive to build downtown, but it makes more sense to undertake expensive projects that meet real needs rather than to go in for cheaper projects that aren't useful.

Well, it "makes more sense" in some impersonal, Platonic ideal city. And it makes more sense if you've found a genie's magic lamp or you're some benevolent dictator who doesn't care about approval ratings until people start rioting.

In most situations, though, the status quo is no one's fault and no one's to blame if it's inconvenient, whereas the elected politician or appointed bureaucrat who makes a serious effort to push for a multimillion-dollar construction project that will tie up traffic for months is at high risk of being out of a job. I'm not an expert and I'm sure there are ways around this, but Washington, D.C. seems especially unsuited to many of them.

Posted by Cyrus | March 28, 2008 11:52 AM