Metro studying Silver Line Express service

Submitted by walkallover1991 t3_ydxsw5 in washingtondc

It looks like it's just an idea at this point, but the agency appears to be contemplating running express services on the Silver Line:

https://www.wmata.com/about/calendar/events/Finance-and-Capital-Committee-October-27-2022.cfm

It's a cool idea, but I can't imagine this would result in any significant time savings. Skipping stops is great, but the hypothetical express train will still share tracks with the Orange and Silver Line from Rosslyn to East Falls Church, and any delay to one of those trains will eliminate any travel time savings.

More will be discussed about it tomorrow at their Board meeting.

211

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_itupyii wrote

[deleted]

246

aj2000gm t1_itutn5c wrote

Yeah 5 minutes savings isn’t worth what will probably be reduced service on the rest of the Silver Line. There’s really not much spare capacity in the core. For every train that goes express, the Tysons and North Arlington stations will lose some service. Not sure that’s going to be worth it. Thinking this is just to show those who have been pushing for express service to have an answer. It’s really not worth it.

72

pgm123 t1_ituull6 wrote

I know why they didn't do it, but it would have been nice to have two track for silver.

24

m00fassa t1_ity2pg9 wrote

lol do you want to add another 20 years to the project?? 😂

3

jon20001 t1_ituwbs5 wrote

Metro is OBSESSED with saving any time. We have been battling with them about closing 7th Street between Penn and Mass. Metro wants to save 1 minute off bus rides.

−7

Icy-Bookkeeper-2978 t1_itv6q7t wrote

I mean a dedicated bus lane on 7th between Penn and Mass would save more than one minute. Also, it’s about incremental changes that prioritize public transit and pedestrians over cars.

49

22304_selling t1_itv93ws wrote

Wouldn't it be DDOT that does reserved bus lanes? WMATA doesn't own any public roads.

13

jon20001 t1_itvg8ko wrote

Yes, but WMATA is the one pushing for it.

−3

trev1997 t1_itvnycp wrote

Comical that you think this is a bad thing. God forbid they try to save their riders time.

12

dadonnel t1_itur5b2 wrote

Wish they would have built the silver line with express tracks to the airport in mind from the get-go

125

plutopius t1_itv4siz wrote

Right? The two track system has been a known issue with metro. Adding a new line would've been the perfect opportunity to add additional tracks.

48

22304_selling t1_itv9a5m wrote

> known issue

What issue? The vast majority of metro systems around the world use two tracks.

>Adding a new line

On what right-of-way?

14

plutopius t1_itvet4u wrote

The issue is that when there is a problem with one train/station, the whole rail line has to stop because there's no way for functional trains to pass.

The rest of the world has nothing to do with this. I'm sure there are other train systems that have a similar problem.

The new line I am referencing is the Silver line past the Blue and Orange stops, not a right of way.

10

Cythrosi t1_itvq455 wrote

What the rest of the world does is highly relevant, because running a railroad doesn't magically change physics and logistics because a border was crossed.

Most other systems make effective use of signaling and crossovers to maximize a two track configuration to allow quick bypass of problems. They also work to provide effective line density and connections to allow people to simply pick another path to their destination. Running quad track/express systems really only becomes beneficial when you have heavy density and ridership (we have neither of those currently). The money spent on quad track/express service can often be spent providing more service in a parallel corridor which both serves more people/neighborhoods and allows relief off lines when there may be a major issue on another line.

17

plutopius t1_itvwb78 wrote

With our "all roads lines downtown" system, adding parallel lines would just cause bottleneck once they converge in the city. What you're saying with parallel lines is relevant for a grid system, which we do not have.

1

Cythrosi t1_itw80uo wrote

Not really. Look at London. Its primary focus of most its lines are to pass through the core of London. It is aided though by a massive amount of connections and interchanges that allow immense flexibility. Between the multiple lines with connections at key points, the Overground, the Elizabeth Line, DLR and a robust bus network, a problem on one line doesn't criple the network.

Adding a 4th trunk line (and more in the future even) through DC with more connections and transfer opportunities would do more to improve Metro service than express tracks ever could. Express service only really makes sense when you have the density for it. DC is not dense enough (and probably never will be) to justify the cost of adding express tracks and services on the Metro lines.

6

plutopius t1_itwc41k wrote

>DC is not dense enough (and probably never will be) to justify the cost of adding express tracks and services on the Metro lines.

Overall I agree with this. There no need for express in the city. But an express to the airport could've been done with better planning. After-the fact is useless.

Also, much of London Underground uses 4-tracks, which kinda derails (pun intended) what you're saying.

1

classicalL t1_itx86am wrote

Of course a 4 track everywhere system is better.

The question is do you want a 4 track system with half as many stops or a 2 track system with twice as much length?

It isn't quite linear scaling in cost, but you still need to physically make all the stations and platforms bigger, lay twice as much track, have twice as many signals and so on. You nominally get half as many stops and distance in your budget.

Generally the observation is that a dense network of 2 track systems is best. A good example of this is basically London. Nothing is quad tracked, but if a segment goes down you can go around it. They just built an ultra-modern cross London train (Crossrail/Elizabeth Line) it is 2 tracks.

For the WMATA system the step to add that is the "separated blue line" proposal. The system would benefit from a 2nd east-west main line though the city. Ideally touching all the lines. This allows transfers to get around a broken train or other issue in the core. It doesn't help you in the tails of the system, but they have less riders anyway.

Interlining is something that the WMATA system does a lot of that is unusual which increases the dependencies between them. In a separate blue line system Green basically has 2 southern branches (yellow) and 1 northern. Orange has two east and west branches (silver). Blue is on its own. Red is on its own.

10

MFoy t1_itvkifu wrote

That would have required additional planning and massive funding going back to when the entire system was built. The biggest bottleneck in the entire Metro system is the tunnel under the Potomac that shares the orange, silver, and blue lines. It doesn't matter how many stops the silver line train skips if it still has to slow down behind the trains in front of it the second it is past Falls Church.

12

fireshighway t1_itv8d5f wrote

That would have required additional planning and foresight from an agency that does neither of those things well.

6

22304_selling t1_itv9c4x wrote

MWAA, not WAMTA, is building the Silver Line...

10

fireshighway t1_itvp1hw wrote

That's cool! Who will be managing the trains and tracks once it's done?

0

22304_selling t1_itvpvz1 wrote

Not the agency that built the line.

9

fireshighway t1_itvq8yf wrote

So people just build things for WMATA and they have to use them with no say in the process?

−2

22304_selling t1_itvsbz4 wrote

It's probably fair to assume that from the time that the Federal Government was building the airport and the access road in the 1960s, and reserved the median of the access road for future mass transit use, that everyone had a fairly good idea about what travel times out there would be.

You're talking about a right-of-way wide enough for two tracks, for a system that has only operated two-track lines. And as noted, skip-stop service doesn't really save that much time, and is probably not worth the operational hassle.

8

22304_selling t1_itv1y5g wrote

If anything, credit should be given to the planners of Dulles Airport back in the 1950s and 1960s for reserving the median right-of-way in the Dulles Toll Road, for a future rapid transit system to the airport that none of them would themselves live to see.

Their prescience even allows for this discussion. I think most metropolitan areas haven't had the same opportunity to build rapid transit to major facilities.

100

CrownStarr t1_itvukp3 wrote

Seriously, that blew my mind when I first learned about it. Imagine our infrastructure being built with that kind of future-proofing today.

27

SandBoxJohn t1_itxjtso wrote

It should also be noted that the land procured for the easement for the Dulles Access Road was made wide enough to not only build a future rail line but also to build the Toll Road.

4

22304_selling t1_ituqjkt wrote

They're probably anticipating people complaining over the length of travel from downtown DC to Dulles, and inevitably asking "Why can't you run express service?" (notwithstanding the fact that nearly all metro/subway systems on earth run standard local service - every train stops at every station on a given route).

By doing this analysis, they have a ready-to-go answer as to why it's not feasible.

51

celj1234 t1_itv3v31 wrote

Going to be easier to cab or Uber unless traffic is shitty but the airport toll road makes that less of a concern

−13

Obvious-Design8030 t1_itv507c wrote

It's always going to be easier, but last time I went to Dulles it was $70 for an Uber.

37

UnoStronzo t1_itva3wv wrote

I live 5 min from IAD (driving) and paid $18 for my airport Uber ride a couple of weeks ago.

14

Cythrosi t1_itvqlfu wrote

Yeah, flew back into Dulles last night from a trip and it was $23 to go what would have been one stop if the Silver Line expansion was running and it would have cost me only a few bucks instead.

8

celj1234 t1_itv8nyd wrote

Damn. Just looked right now it $45. I normally drive if going out to Dulles so didn’t realize it could get as high as 70

0

keegman907 t1_itvcuuk wrote

I live in Old Town Alexandria and my most expensive trip to date was $113.

9

Torn8oz t1_itv66te wrote

Well, it's a $50 Uber vs probably a ~$5 metro ride (or $2 on the weekends), so I know I'd be willing to spend a little extra time on the metro to save that money

20

celj1234 t1_itv8gw1 wrote

Time is money and also if it’s a work trip that’s getting expensed anyways.

−2

Cythrosi t1_itvqw3m wrote

Depends on your company's expense policies. Mine would definitely make me justify why I needed the $50 Uber over the $5 Metro fare outside of scheduling reasons.

13

celj1234 t1_itw4pys wrote

No doubt. Deff different for all situations

0

22304_selling t1_itv8dvw wrote

Enjoy your $60 rides in a Toyota camry

1

celj1234 t1_itv9czj wrote

I drive when I have to fly to outta that airport

−6

trev1997 t1_iturfn7 wrote

It's a low ridership, low revenue option that will be operationally expensive. It's not going to be implemented. It's just one of many options that was presented.

What we might see in the future is return of Red Line turn-backs at Silver Spring and Grovesnor, Yellow Line turn-back at Mt. Vernon, and increased Orange line service.

39

ohoneup t1_itv3xit wrote

> Yellow Line turn-back at Mt. Vernon

Ugh, absolutely not. All region core line stations on that branch (Shaw-Fort Totten) deserve 4-5min headways. The turn back was stupid when I moved here and it will be stupid if re-implemented.

15

trev1997 t1_itv57l4 wrote

The plan has 6 minute headways on the Green line.

5

Momskitchen2 t1_itwzkpu wrote

They're not far off from it now I ride the green line daily and it's been 8 minutes between trains almost every day. Cutting two minutes off that can't be that much of an issue.

1

walkallover1991 OP t1_itusem4 wrote

>It's just one of many options that was presented.

Clearly I am aware of that because I got it from the same slide as all of the other concepts...

One thing that confused me about that slide was a chart (p. 71) about all of the service concepts, with one entitled "Red Line Frequency Investment" that's says it's under additional analysis. It doesn't seem to be related to the turn-backs at Silver Spring/Grovesnor (as those are on the chart as well), so I wonder what that could be. Return to ATO on the Red Line only?

5

trev1997 t1_itutwde wrote

Yeah, of course, I was more saying that for anyone who wasn't looking at the presentation.

I think it is probably ATO. Clarke has mentioned he is looking into that.

9

walkallover1991 OP t1_itv8r3k wrote

I also wonder if it could be CBTC. "Investment" to me = money spent on something new and some sort of new process/system.

I'm not sure if I would classify as going back to the old ATO system as an "investment" given that it would just involve seeking approvals from the WMSC, training/re-training operators on ATO, etc.

In a tweet, Clarke said "Our team is working on getting 🚇 back to operating on ATO as it’s safer. Top transit systems in the 🌏 run some level of ATO. We are also working on CBTC & we will analyze platform screen doors for full modernization."

WMATA already has an office (IIRC) that deals with the transition to CBTC, and the VP of said office (Tiffani Jenkins, Vice President Signaling System Renewal Program (SSRP)) just gave a presentation at a conference that dealt with CBTC last month.

I could see the agency installing CBTC on the Red Line first, before producing to other lines throughout the system.

5

MFoy t1_itvksl9 wrote

The only way to get increased orange line service at this point is to cut either blue or silver line service.

1

trev1997 t1_itvnm59 wrote

Current full service has them running 18 trains through the tunnel per hour. They can run up to 24, so there's room for more.

4

checkmategaytheists t1_itwm2kw wrote

Dream case scenario is they reconfigure the maps so that only two lines go through the Rosslyn tunnel and two lines go over the (currently only yellow line) bridge

2

MFoy t1_itwm86c wrote

The long term goal has always been shifting the blue line crossing north after Rosalyn and sending it through Georgetown. The money is the issue.

6

Docile_Doggo t1_itxcdhz wrote

It’s gonna be a long, expensive, pain in the ass. But it really needs to happen sooner or later.

2

throwaway-0111 t1_itv6a7c wrote

I just want doors to open and close quickly like the NYC subway. Sometimes it takes 1-2 minutes just to get out at a station when you’re trapped by doors thay won’t open or a train thay can’t decide where it’s stopping

17

justaprimer t1_ity8aul wrote

The 7000 series is particularly guilty of this -- those doors take forever to open compared to the other cars!

1

PM_ME_ICE_PICS t1_itv6fk0 wrote

I remember there was a small but vocal group pushing for the silver line to have three tracks (to enable 24hr service), but they were hushed by others who pointed out the whole line could already be cancelled due to projected construction costs.

10

ohoneup t1_itv4f72 wrote

Express service really would be the following: East Falls Church -> Wiehle-Reston East -> Dulles -> Ashburn. You would need to skip all of the tysons branch off to save any justifiable time.

8

RetardedChimpanzee t1_itvlw14 wrote

You could spend millions on new tracks that continues to follow 267, instead of going through Tysons, but it would be a complete waste. It would take hundreds of millions and a decade to save a couple minutes.

They really should have left room for additional tracks in the 267 corridor, else this is a pointless discussion.

5

jtb073 t1_itvakf9 wrote

Interesting idea, not really worth it imo. One seat trip to downtown DC with low headways is more valuable than 5 minutes of travel reductions.

6

Safe_Historian8560 t1_itvlh1u wrote

If it can’t pass other trains, how would it save any time?

6

sprint113 t1_itwcfiz wrote

It would catch up to the train in front of it. So if headway are every 10 min, you could at most save 10 min of travel time. Throw in an orange line and headway reduce to 5min to Rosslyn, so 5min savings.

4

ghostella t1_itvh4x0 wrote

Wait, you mean people will be disappointed to find that it takes 60-90 minutes to go from DC to Dulles?

5

Illin-ithid t1_itw3f6e wrote

Excuse me, with these coming changes it will only take between 54 and 84 minutes.

6

ColonialTransitFan95 t1_itwrjs8 wrote

The two track setup is gonna hold back any express running. It’s like an express bus that gets stuck in traffic.

5

thirsteefish t1_itwgxs5 wrote

The inherent problem with Metro is that it's a compromise of rapid transit subway and commuter rail. You can't overcome exurban sprawl (which is inherently far from walkable urban centers by design) by shaving off a few stops.

Ashburn-upon-Dulles is best served by commuter rail, which, short of a third Metro track, could probably be returned over the old line from Leesburg that could also pickup other communities currently off Metro.

4

uncheckablefilms t1_ituuehv wrote

It brings back up the question why the f*ck they didn’t implement a four track system out there (or throughout the system for that manner). How shortsighted.

3

oxtailplanning t1_ituvt5h wrote

Many places don't do 4 track systems. Also it wasn't worth the upfront cost for a system that was lucky to be built at all.

Not for nothing, DC doesn't really have the station density to warrant express tracks. For example here is Paris's metro over the DC area (note Paris is also entirely 2 tracks.)

Here is a more in-depth explanation of the 2 vs 4 track system

Edit: Grammar

31

metrazol t1_ituzjcc wrote

That map of Paris stations makes feel uncomfortable, strange feelings deep in my soul. Port Towns Metro when?

5

Gitopia t1_itv5jjk wrote

Yes even more metro stations in floodplains.

0

metrazol t1_itvaex2 wrote

They can have drains or uh... Floaties for everybody?

1

DeepSeaDweller t1_itwdlaz wrote

This should be at the top of the thread.

4

oxtailplanning t1_itxmkbu wrote

Zachary Schrag's book on Metro was really eye opening and made you appreciate so many of the decisions we live with today. Answers questions like: Why didn't the entrances have canopies, what station did locals get wiped off the map (not Georgetown), why didn't Tysons originally get a line, and so many more. Great book, fascinating read.

4

DeepSeaDweller t1_itxo1tv wrote

You're the second person to bring it to my attention on here in less than 24 hours, sounds like I might have to look into it. Anything in there about the disaster that is only having three trunk lines running through the city?

1

oxtailplanning t1_itxoplt wrote

Yep. A WHOLE lot about that. Like a lot a lot. Let's just say it was a fight to even get the green line built.

This book makes you appreciate statehood even more with all the ways congress held DC hostage. It will also make you mourn the loss of Kennedy even more, the only true presidential friend of the Metro.

2

GauchoBearBulldog t1_itv48jy wrote

Rather than four tracks for the entire line, could the express function be accomplished with the existing or additional pocket tracks or passing loops as suggested in the ggwash comments?

2

oxtailplanning t1_itv9g0b wrote

Maybe, but you really have to ask if that would be worth the extra money. And besides, for long distances, metro is already faster than almost any other form of transit, so is it really worth saving the 5 - 10 min? As demonstrated by OP, it wouldn't increase ridership, it would not greatly reduce the need for single tracking, and it would come at the expense of other improvements.

Frequency improvements would do more to reduce travel time way more than express lines. And as GGWASH points out, additional lines would do more to alleviate the pain of single tracking more than extra tracks.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't be good things, but with limited resources, is it the best bang for your buck?

8

jumperalex t1_itvv0m0 wrote

> for long distances, metro is already faster than almost any other form of transit

I hear you for a lot of situations, especially anything that compares to I66 travel. But for the airport, with the free airport lanes, I probably have to disagree.

Of course parking isn't cheap nor is a Taxi/Lyft.

But going with the theme that more lines would be better, I would REALLY like to see a line from Springfield to Dulles with stops along the way. Or if not Dulles, probably makes more sense to go Springfield to Tyson to bypass the core for anyone coming from points south. I'm not sure if hitting E Falls Church would be better (a hub) or worse (over crowding).

Or basically, a beltway line I guess [shrug]

3

oxtailplanning t1_itw3khr wrote

I would make the argument that Springfield to dulles would make more sense as a VRE spur, but I agree with the sentiment.

The next, most likely metro line is the blue line loop.

3

jumperalex t1_itwh1o2 wrote

Sure I'd buy that. Literally :)

And OMG Blue Line Loop would be AMAZEBALLS ... if it existed for the last 8 years of my life because I don't plan on needing to go where it goes by the time it would happen :( but still a great looking idea. The places that would connect need it SO SO bad.

1

oxtailplanning t1_itxnq0x wrote

If I were king of the world I would have it go a little farther north after hitting Georgetown to connect it to Adams Morgan , plus I would have it go a touch farther east aftr Union station in order to get something in Trinidad and then come down and hit Capitol Hill.

2

jumperalex t1_iu2foqe wrote

You've got my vote! And I don't even live in DC. But I would LOVE a way to get there faster, cheaper, and more regularly so I can stop using Lyft.

1

alatennaub t1_itx0ocp wrote

The RER in Paris absolutely has express trains and has density closer to that of DC.

The problem is that the DC Metro can't decide if it wants to be RER or Métro (or S/U-Bahn for those more familiar with Germany).

That said, express trains don't require 4 tracks. If you go to Madrid, most of Cercanías (their RER/S-Bahn system) generally has 2 tracks, but will break into 3 tracks at many stations to enable an express train to jump a local train at certain stations. Their Metro, though, like Paris, is exclusively 2 track.

2

oxtailplanning t1_itxm2k0 wrote

Agreed, Metro is both a commuter rail and an intra-city metro.

It's definitely not as big and far reaching as RER (1/3 the milage and stations), so that comparison is also not perfect. Metro lines aren't covering as much ground as RER, and don't have the density of a real metro system, so I still think the point stands that "express" tracks don't really bring a lot to the table.

To briefly compare to NYC: The entire red line is 27 stations (31 miles), while the A train local in NYC is 40 stops (also 31 miles). The A train express is 18 stops, but it's also a bit shorter, roughly 20 miles. So by that measure, the redline is more or less an "express" train with that density of stations per mile.

edit: conciseness.

3

alatennaub t1_itxn6ar wrote

Honestly I've felt much of the silver extension might be best spun off as its own line in recognition of the dual nature. Run it at 10 or 15 minute intervals, and then try to bring the urban core of the line to 5 or less. If you do that, you could do an airport express train that saves real time too without sacrificing too much.

1

oxtailplanning t1_itxof3u wrote

Agreed. There are going to be a lot of trains running at half empty as they return from the Virginian exurbs back to the urban core.

Perhaps Loundon County will take the approach that Arlington did and develop those stations into some real TOD town centers. Or they will take the fairfax approach with the orange line and make them shitty parking lots surrounded by highways and SFH.

My money is on the later, but hey, a man can dream.

2

Torn8oz t1_itv89vu wrote

I bet it also has something to do with the space available between the toll road that was left for them when it was built

2

metrazol t1_ituvl7y wrote

Tunneling costs? While most of the system is cut and cover, tunneling was a real weakness. Then again, all costs are ridiculous compared to other systems...

1

uncheckablefilms t1_ituyuk6 wrote

I think inside the city core it makes sense why they can’t won’t update it. But building out the silver line to the airport maybe having areas of 4 track might have made sense to allow for express service. That said, someone else responded to my comment w info about 2 track vs 4 track that looks incredibly informative. :)

4

MFoy t1_itvl1t7 wrote

It doesn't save much time to do an express lines on the above ground areas when the big bottle neck is the tunnel under the river. Without more tunnels, you can't run more trains/have an express service.

3

ParzivalPrincip t1_itvkkib wrote

Why not have a non-stop between Metro Center and Dulles?

3

classicalL t1_itx8zj3 wrote

As it says right on the graphic, all you can do is catch up to the train in front of you. That means you can "make up" as most the headway between trains. Since the headway between trains is 6 minutes in the rush hour all you can make up is 6 minutes at best. Therefore you may skip up to N stops that would save you 6 minutes. Skipping all the stops would just have you waiting at the stations with your doors closed following a train stopping at every station.

WMATA is saying that skipping 7 stations is enough to gain that 5-6 minutes.

This won't happen. If it does it will get rolled back when the savings is not even 5 minutes on average.

6

noahsilv t1_itwzj5b wrote

Would stop in Arlington too I’m sure

2

Maximum-Share-2835 t1_itvmrg9 wrote

Considering it's not uncommon for trains to get stuck behind one another already, this just seems like skipping stops (including mine, thus my bias) for an insignificant time saving

2

classicalL t1_itx792v wrote

I don't think this will be done. If they want to improve times they really need to switch back to ATC operation.

2

SandBoxJohn t1_itx85dj wrote

To do this WMATA will have to reduce Orange line service to provide a long enough time gap to skip the station between West Falls Church and Rosslyn. (Based on pre pandemic service levels.)

A better solution would be the return to automatic operation allowing shorter station dwell times, and run trains at the maximum civil speed limit between Ashburn and Ballston. All of the trackage along the Greenway, Access Road, Connector Road and I-66 has a civil speed limit of 75 MPH.

2

erodari t1_itxhvtr wrote

I'd rather see a few point-to-point express services linking Dulles to major suburban centers. Dulles-Silver Spring, Dulles-Alexandria, Dulles-Tysons, etc.

2

NoNoNext t1_itv6gn2 wrote

Most express trains in other countries just use different tracks at certain points (or run parallel depending on the system). The idea is good, but an “express” line in this case seems like it would have to be dependent on the regular lines for quick service. I could imagine a scenario where every third train makes regular stops, while the two express lines in front go to the busiest stations. That still relies on an earlier regular train not being delayed. Honestly I think express lines would make commuting for me so much easier, but unless they’re laying down more track, or tightly honing their schedules, I’m a bit skeptical.

1

MAX_cheesejr t1_itvmlt7 wrote

I think for a full run to and from Dulles and Ashburn, an express train has diminishing utility but the time savings within that express service bracket like Tysons and Ballston and close to the skipped stations might see significantly time savings. If a person lived in Ballston, they could get to Rosslyn, Tysons or Reston much more quickly and because the distance is pretty short I think they would be less likely to 'catch up' to another train.

I know that's not why they are implementing it am just making the observation who the major beneficiaries of this change would be.

I'm somewhat confused why they would operate express-train service where the incremental operating cost exceeds the incremental revenue.

1

dL_24 t1_itw4sw0 wrote

I live at the end of the silver line in Ashburn. Although cool that it’s out here, that is a long ass ride to Arlington/DC.

1

palermo t1_itw9j99 wrote

Perhaps running the trains more often would make more sense?

1

a_banned_user t1_itxok5p wrote

Express makes a ton of sense for the farther out stations. Like a Tysons-Reston-Dulles-Ashburn express. But it would make absolutely no sense for the more congested routes.

In theory the 2 track might work for express by potentially being able to jump around another train, but no idea if the safety commission would allow that.

1

ScottRVA t1_ity5mo6 wrote

I lived in DC for over 30 years, and rode the Metro on the first day it opened. I believe it went from Dupont to Union Stadium but could be wrong about the stations.

1

Schwarz-Adler t1_itynyy9 wrote

Its great on paper, but if its only saving 4-6 MINUTES because no passing, its not worth a single $.

1

Not_A_Hemsworth t1_itywu8p wrote

Skipping all the stops from Wiehle to Rosslyn would be awesome for me. That’d save me more than 5 min.

1

Sock_puppet09 t1_itzhwm5 wrote

Lol. Like the silver line is going to actually open.

1

tomveiltomveil t1_itv0f2j wrote

Have they studied the costs and benefits of running no trains whatsoever? Or is that just the default these days?

−1

SandBoxJohn t1_itxkc6e wrote

Every Environmental Impact Statement has a no build option as part of the study.

4

tomveiltomveil t1_itxvjzm wrote

Sorry, I was trying to make a joke about how we've been waiting a decade for the full Silver line to have any service at all. Apparently I didn't word it well.

1

toorigged2fail t1_itvp276 wrote

Weeks before opening they finally realize they should have built a 3-track system?

Lol wmata. That tracks.

−1

toorigged2fail t1_iu7tbud wrote

Downvoters, honestly please explain your POV. I legitimately don't understand what I'm missing.

1

Awkward_Dragon25 t1_itux3pg wrote

They should have made a three track from the start. Just another example of WMATA never thinking things through.

−3

godzilladc t1_itv4wvk wrote

The Silver Line was designed and constructed by Virginia through MWAA, not WMATA.

10

Awkward_Dragon25 t1_itw4byk wrote

And who had the final sign-off on the plan?

1

godzilladc t1_itw5xl8 wrote

Approval is irrelevant when you're not footing the bill. WMATA would probably have approved three tracks if Virginia wanted to build it, though the ongoing O&M costs might have been an issue.

1

SandBoxJohn t1_itxfelr wrote

A third track would have increased the costs likely resulting in the line not being built at all.

There were several changes made to the design of the project to cut costs to get the line built that resulted reduced operational flexibility and the number of trains that could be run on the line per hour.

1

LightTech91 t1_itvblzr wrote

Pretty sure the roadway medians are not wide enough for 3 tracks.

−2

Awkward_Dragon25 t1_itw4a9m wrote

Then rip out some lanes. Train tracks will do a lot more to fix congestion than more lanes on 267 and 28

3

seattleollie t1_itv3695 wrote

All lines should have expresses. Metro is behind

−8

Thendsel t1_itv51ij wrote

I believe the problem is that due to cost savings during initial development, the system was built entirely as a two-track system. My understanding is that for express trains to work, you need a third track in spots to allow for local trains to pull aside.

4

seattleollie t1_itvfwo9 wrote

In Philadelphia they have "A" and "B" trains on the Market Frankford line. Basically stops are labeled A or B during peak periods and skip stations so an A train doesn't stop at B stops. Once trains get into centre city they make all stops. Metro could set up a similar system

0

Cythrosi t1_itvrqx2 wrote

SEPTA has basically had to constantly retool what stops are skipped since the day they implemented the system and even scrapped it on one of the lines if I remember correctly. Not sure it's a system really worth emulating.

3

seattleollie t1_itvs66i wrote

Yea but it's a basic plan and alleviates the problem a bit

0

Cythrosi t1_itw862z wrote

I mean, it seems to cause more problems than it solves for SEPTA.

3