May 30, 2006
A Little Less Light in Metro Stations?
Metro has always been on the search for more and more money. The transit agency is invariably described as "cash-strapped" by local media outlets (this one included), and rare is a year that Metro officials don't beg the District, Maryland, and Virginia for just a little bit more to cover everything from operating costs to capital improvements.
Given that getting more money is always a fight, how can Metro seek to better spend what it has? A few months back we argued that Metro should get rid of the carpet and cushions that adorn their railcars. While they may make our rides just a little but more comfortable, they also represent an additional investment in cleaning and replacement. WMATA interim general manager Dan Tangherlini seemed to think the same thing -- Metro is currently testing a railcar without carpeting to see how riders react. And based on an article today in the Post, we think that maybe it's time that Metro start rethinking the lights that grace its Metro stations.
The lights that line the edges of the platform are one of Metro's signature features. That being said, they also represent an added cost that Metro could easily trim. According to the Post article, each platform is lined with 144 40-watt incandescent bulbs, leaving small stations with 288 of these light-bulbs. Given the number of stations in the whole system -- 86 to date -- Metro is responsible for maintaining some 25,920 light-bulbs, each of which costs $1.50 and lasts some three months. But the number of lights is surpassed only by the human effort needed to replace them when they burn out. Writes the Post:
As a result, most relamping has to be done when trains aren't running, typically between 1:30 and 4 a.m. weekdays. It might sound easy, but it takes 13 workers -- and this is no joke -- working two shifts to change all the lights in a small station. It can take them seven shifts to finish screwing in all the bulbs and tubes at larger stations, such as Metro Center, that have more than one level.The solutions? One being proposed is lights that last longer. These, though, are more expensive. Ours is to simply cut the number of lights per station in half. While the lights that line the station platforms are a neat addition to the station's architecture and feel, they serve little practical purpose. And given the costs involved in maintaining them, we think that Metro would be best served by doing away with as many as possible.
Running a transit system the size of our own is a fight to balance needs and means. Metro should be directing its money towards the problems that directly affect the ability of users to get from one place to another -- crowded railcars, track maintenance, etc. Lights, carpets, and cushions are all nice additions, but we can still ride Metro without them.
|
Solution: LED lights, sure they cost more per unit, but should last years, use less energy and are brighter.
It would've been nice if the Chinatown Metro station's lights had been on this morning. Mixing tourists and underground darkness is a bad idea.
Hell let's get rid of the trains! That would be way cheaper. Turn the whole thing into an underground walk and bikeway.
I'd like to see some figures before dismissing the longer-lasting bulbs as more expensive. They're only more expensive if a bulb costs more than all the bulbs that would have been required during its lifetime, plus the worker time that would have been required to replace them, and that seems unlikely. Three months seems like a short lifetime for a bulb, but maybe the flashing shortens the lifetime. RJ's suggestion of LEDs sounds good to me.
If a small station has 288 bulbs, then 13 workers on two 2.5-hour shifts would be more than 13 worker-minutes to replace each bulb (and that's assuming they're replacing all the bulbs, even the ones that are working). Either somebody got the numbers wrong, or there's something seriously wrong with the design of the lights (or with the workers).
iirc, the lights are necessary to maintain Metro's waiver from ADA regulations.
with all the leaks that Tangherlini is sending to the press, I smell a rat. Why lobby so hard for public approval? It's not like the Metro board is going to care? They've been running the system into the ground since the day it opened.
My favorite part of the story: removing the light covers (caked in brake dust) made things look better. But don't those light covers cover the far more expensive light from the same, corrosive, brake dust.
I also question the labor costs of changing a light bulb. It sounds more like a union problem -- my forcing all this into overtime work in the AM you can artifically jack up the price.
I have to second KCinDC's head scratching. 13 minutes to change one bulb? And that's even spreading out set up and clean up time across 288 bulbs. Why over the course of 2.5 hours can each worker only change 11 bulbs?
I also agree with RJ that LED technology would be a better choice. The article said they last 20 times longer (five years rather than 3 months), but are 70 times more expensive ($108 rather than $1.50). But if you change a $1.50 bulb every three months for five years it costs 30 bucks for the bulbs. If each time they change the bulb it takes 13 worker-minutes and they change it 20 times over five years, that's 260 minutes of labor. Figure that the average Unionized Metro work must make at least 20-25 bucks an hour (probably more), that's a minimum of 86 bucks of labor, that means we're paying at least 116 bucks for five years with the current technology.
This calculation is probably oversimplified, but it does show that it can easily make sense to switch, especially if they can negotiate a bulk discount on the new technology. Although if the new bulbs wouldn't work in the existing sockets, the calculation can be pretty much thrown out.
It's not clear that carpets are more expensive than hard floors (they may be replaced more easily than hard floors, and they are safer because they are less conducive to slips.) Surprising but true.
As for the platform lights, they warn of approaching trains and are an important safety feature. "little practical purpose"? Tell that to someone who is hearing impaired. Even those who can hear fine will rise to their feet in anticipation when they see those flashing lights.
RJ and Reid know whats up: LED lights will last forever, take a fraction of the power that standard bulbs do, won't go dim when the light housing gets all scummy and brown like at most stations, and are simpler to control and maintain-if they need maintenance at all.
I'm also with Reid and KCinDC's confusion as to why it takes so freaking long to change lightbulbs in metro stations-I mean seriously; that's kind of sad unless there's some really overly complicated mechanics and housing involved with these lights, and if that's the case, that needs to go.
In all honesty, Metro has the ability to cut costs in unnecessary places, but I'm concerned as to why they won't. Of any successful agency that runs on a shoestring budget (and I'll give Metro credit for providing consistent service where credit is due) they should know that throwing more money at an agency doesn't necessarily make it more efficient. I'm concerned that Metro's campaign for dedicated funding from the jurisdictions that it serves (which I agree with wholeheartedly) will simultaneously stifle its efforts to cut back and make cost-cutting improvements for the long term.
Charlie - If they don't do it in the AM, it means single-tracking during the day. Not feasible for many areas of the system.
I'm also not sure about the quoted price of LED lights in the article. $105 is awfully high when you can get 25w-equivalents for $20 without a bulk discount. I would imagine the additional cost comes from the electronics necessary to support 120VAC and the two operation modes, but $80/bulb still sounds high to me..
You actually have this story backwards:
DC Metro stations are generally too dark, and Metro is looking into brighter lights, according to
The Post
I couldn't agree more with the well-reasoned demands for LEDs here; I'll just add a few more points:
1. LEDs are much more vibration-resistant than anything based on having a thin filament in there; considering the nature of a Metro station, and the location of those platform lights in particular, I bet that alone would give the LEDs even *more* advantage than they usually have.
2. They also would handle *flashing* better than filament-based bulbs. (flashing on and off for their whole lifetime being a somewhat brutal way to treat anything incandescent.)
3. LEDs are getting substantially cheaper every year. I don't see energy getting cheaper every year for, say, the next 20.
As for the crazy average amount of time to change the lights, on the one hand its probably as excessive as you might expect, but on the other I bet some of it has to do with having to take lots and lots of safety precautions associated with putting a worker *on the track*, because those platform trackside lights don't look to be accessible from the top.
Hmm, looking at the article it appears that the changing time is for 288 flashing bulbs plus 300 fluorescent tubes, so that's a bit more reasonable (maybe 6 worker-minutes per light). But do they really replace all the lights, whether they're out or not, and is that truly the best way to go? It seems to me that light lifetimes are extremely variable, and while one bulb might blow out after a month or two, a seemingly identical one might last a year if given a chance. And surely the fluorescent lights last longer than three months.
Out of curiosity, what's this about an ADA waiver? How is Metro not in compliance with ADA?
Er, I got me a LED flashlight that cost a whole lot less than $105 or $20, and that is at least as bright as a 40W bulb. There's no way these guys could have to pay that much for LEDs. My estimate is they could, if they negotiated properly, get LEDs to serve the same function for as little as twice the price of an incandescent bulb. And if, as you say, they take 13 minutes each to replace, then clearly the main cost of these bulbs isn't the bulb itself. Even if those labor data are exaggerated by a factor of two or three, LEDs would still pay for themselves in a matter of months, and continue paying back for years. It all makes you want to ask… “Why on Earth hasn’t Metro already switched to LEDs?!”
This is the perfect application for LEDs. Any of you who have been paying attention have noticed that Metro has already started using LEDs to light the staircases at the new New York Ave. station.
But do they really replace all the lights, whether they're out or not, and is that truly the best way to go?
This is fairly typical practice for large lighting installations and is more cost-efficient than changing the bulbs one by one as they go out - for a station with hundreds of fixtures, if they don't change them all at once they'll be out there every week. I would imagine that the fluorescent tubes are on a different schedule than the platform lights, though.
Ron - ADA requires a tactile edge ("bumpy domes") at the edge of the platform. With the smooth granite, Metro does not meet this requirement. Because ADA was designed to work with existing facilities as much as possible, a facility can get a waiver for "equivalent measures". As the agency of authority, the Federal Transit Administration decided that the granite edge and platform light system was functionally equivalent to a tactile edge. Part of the waiver agreement was that Metro had to make the platform lights brighter.
See http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm95/brlm9507.htm#2 for some press releases from when this happened in 95.
Riiight. Because if you make the light brighter, the blind folks who would otherwise be using the tactile edge will see it!
(Eesh. (Not doubting Politburo. Just ridiculous (lack of) accomodation.))
I'm all for keeping the lights dim in the Metro. It's often the only relaxing part of my workday.
How about getting rid of the warning lights altogether?
MB - Tactile edge is not just for fully blind people.
rd - Read again.
Wha wha what?? Since when is there too much light in a Metro station? I can't see a frickin thing down there, let alone barely read a book without my trusty miners' hat.
If that is true... ALL that money and ALL those bulbs, and it's still dark like that?
DCist MUST have gotten the story backwards like the above commenter said.
Metro stations are too DARK. I am amazed that no one on the Metro board realizes what a safety concern that should be.
If any subway station in NYC wss as dark as any of them here, Arnold Diaz from Shame on You would have his camera in the face of the MTA chairman demanding an explanation.