ANC 6D in Southwest/Near Southeast wants to change the names of Navy Yard and Waterfront (http://www.jdland.com/dc/index.cfm?id=3325)
The proposed new names: "Capitol Riverfront-Navy Yard/Ballpark" for Navy Yard and "Waterfront-SEU/Arena Stage" for Waterfront. Somehow they didn't get the memo that Southeastern University folded over a year ago and should be removed from the name if anything.
IMO, adding "Capital Waterfront" to Navy Yard would be like adding "NoMa" to New York Ave or changing the Farraguts to "Golden Triangle". Marketing names for areas don't belong on stations, even if it's a bit more honest than the name at hand since the Navy Yard is a ways even from the New Jersey Ave exit.
Adding Ballpark to Navy Yard or somehow making it clear that Stadium-Armory refers to RFK may not be the worst of ideas. Adding Arena Stage to Waterfront isn't the worst of ideas either, but other theaters seem to get by without their names attached to stations.
SEU should be dropped if Waterfront's name is changed.
Do we really need both a Waterfront and Capitol Riverfront?
"Navy Yard/Ballpark" seems sound enough of an idea, since it sees a lot of use for baseball games. Adding "Capital Riverfront" to it seems a bit... much.
"Waterfront-SEU/Arena Stage" seems a bit like overkill. If they are to change the name there, they should just change it back to "Waterfront".
Most operators seem to call it Navy Yard/Nationals Ballpark, at least before games. I don't ride down that way at any other time really, so I don't know if everyone is doing it all the time.
Maybe it is also time to rename Gallery Place to what nearly every Red Line operator calls it: Gallery Place-Chinatown/Verizon Center. Does anyone know if Morgan Boulevard gets mention of FedEx Field?
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on September 20, 2010, 12:33:04 PM
Most operators seem to call it Navy Yard/Nationals Ballpark, at least before games. I don't ride down that way at any other time really, so I don't know if everyone is doing it all the time.
Maybe it is also time to rename Gallery Place to what nearly every Red Line operator calls it: Gallery Place-Chinatown/Verizon Center. Does anyone know if Morgan Boulevard gets mention of FedEx Field?
I think Morgan Boulevard gets mention of FedEx Field when games are happening, otherwise no.
There are some problems about putting a building where naming rights have been purchased into a transit station's name.
1: What if a naming rights holder is bought out by someone? Or can't keep up the deal? Or other things happen? Who pays to change all the signs, maps, etc. etc. Imagine if Muni's 4th & King/Caltrain was named Pacific Bell Park instead, it'd have had to have changed its name twice in less than 5 years time due to buyouts!
2: What if the naming rights holder wants an agency to pay for the privilege of their name being on the station? Citi did this to the MTA in New York with Willets Point after CitiField replaced Shea Stadium, MTA walked away.
I think a good thing WMATA should do is look at selling naming rights to some stations, often for companies relevant to the stop. Verizon could buy rights to Gallery Place (and knock Chinablock out at the same time), FedEx to Morgan Blvd, Discovery Communications to Silver Spring, GEICO to Friendship Heights, Target to Columbia Heights, etc. If done more like the failed "State-Citizens Bank" experiment in Boston and less the AT&T replacing Pattison deal in Philly, it could work well.
Oooooh, I would hate to see a corporation get its hands on naming rights for WMATA stations. No good could come of that, and I have a feeling that WMATA would get screwed in the end on it. I'd rather see WMATA exploit advertising potential to a greater degree than offer up naming rights to a station.
My recollection is that when the deal on the SF ballpark was made (and subsequently updated for the buyouts), the new sponsor or the team had to chip in for changing signs around the area of the ballpark. Perhaps a similar deal could get made here.
Renaming Stadium-Armory to be RFK Stadium-Armory or Navy Yard to Navy Yard/Ballpark or Navy Yard/Nationals Park isn't a huge deal IMO. The bigger issues are for things like FedEx Field and Verizon Center which have corporate names, yet are noteworthy destinations that should probably be indicated on the map.
Quote from: SchuminWeb on September 20, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
Oooooh, I would hate to see a corporation get its hands on naming rights for WMATA stations. No good could come of that, and I have a feeling that WMATA would get screwed in the end on it. I'd rather see WMATA exploit advertising potential to a greater degree than offer up naming rights to a station.
But think of all the tie-ins that could lead to reduced fares!
"Kaiser Permanente" Medical Center
"Dupont Paint" Circle
Gallery Place "P.F. Changs" Chinatown
"Western" Union Station
Silver "Poland" Spring "Water"
East Falls Church"'s Fried Chicken"
Court "Waffle" House
Eastern "Boston" Market
Landover "Downs Racetrack and Slots"
"Chase - J.P." Morgan Boulevard
Columbia "Sports Products" Heights
"Swarovski" Crystal City
"Burger" King Street
OK, I'll stop now. Besides, someone has probably already used some of these dumb jokes.
Quote from: SchuminWeb on September 20, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
Oooooh, I would hate to see a corporation get its hands on naming rights for WMATA stations. No good could come of that, and I have a feeling that WMATA would get screwed in the end on it. I'd rather see WMATA exploit advertising potential to a greater degree than offer up naming rights to a station.
Meh, so far so good up here: http://www.septa.org/maps/transit/bsl.html (check out what used to be "Pattison" at the bottom of the screen). It's nice of WMATA to incorporate as much info as possible into station names, but they go a bit too far and most people don't say the entire station name when referring to a station that refers to 4 different landmarks.
btconet:
Some of your suggestions remind me of what my father thought he saw when he rode through Prince George's Plaza. He thought it said, "Prince George's Pizza", which led me to make this:
(http://www.schuminweb.com/images/journal/2008/prince-georges-pizza.jpg)
(http://www.schuminweb.com/schumin-web/journal/permalink.php?id=960 (http://www.schuminweb.com/schumin-web/journal/permalink.php?id=960))
Mom and I were amused, to say the least.
Quote from: Tritransit Area on September 20, 2010, 08:47:54 PM
Quote from: SchuminWeb on September 20, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
Oooooh, I would hate to see a corporation get its hands on naming rights for WMATA stations. No good could come of that, and I have a feeling that WMATA would get screwed in the end on it. I'd rather see WMATA exploit advertising potential to a greater degree than offer up naming rights to a station.
Meh, so far so good up here: http://www.septa.org/maps/transit/bsl.html (check out what used to be "Pattison" at the bottom of the screen). It's nice of WMATA to incorporate as much info as possible into station names, but they go a bit too far and most people don't say the entire station name when referring to a station that refers to 4 different landmarks.
It is ironic, but when Jackson Graham was GM, I think he insisted all the station names be a maximum number of letters total, depending on if it was a one word or two word name.
AT&T is a pathetic name for a station, it doesn't say anything about where it actually is. Do the destination signs on the trains still say PATTISON or are those changed too?
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on September 21, 2010, 04:10:09 AM
Quote from: Tritransit Area on September 20, 2010, 08:47:54 PM
Quote from: SchuminWeb on September 20, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
Oooooh, I would hate to see a corporation get its hands on naming rights for WMATA stations. No good could come of that, and I have a feeling that WMATA would get screwed in the end on it. I'd rather see WMATA exploit advertising potential to a greater degree than offer up naming rights to a station.
Meh, so far so good up here: http://www.septa.org/maps/transit/bsl.html (check out what used to be "Pattison" at the bottom of the screen). It's nice of WMATA to incorporate as much info as possible into station names, but they go a bit too far and most people don't say the entire station name when referring to a station that refers to 4 different landmarks.
It is ironic, but when Jackson Graham was GM, I think he insisted all the station names be a maximum number of letters total, depending on if it was a one word or two word name.
AT&T is a pathetic name for a station, it doesn't say anything about where it actually is. Do the destination signs on the trains still say PATTISON or are those changed too?
I agree the AT&T is a bad name for the station. The train signs are being changed over to "AT&T" as well. At least it's the last stop on the line, and on most maps it also has "Sports and Entertainment Complex" by the AT&T logo.
Quote from: Tritransit Area on September 21, 2010, 09:07:32 PM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on September 21, 2010, 04:10:09 AM
Quote from: Tritransit Area on September 20, 2010, 08:47:54 PM
Quote from: SchuminWeb on September 20, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
Oooooh, I would hate to see a corporation get its hands on naming rights for WMATA stations. No good could come of that, and I have a feeling that WMATA would get screwed in the end on it. I'd rather see WMATA exploit advertising potential to a greater degree than offer up naming rights to a station.
Meh, so far so good up here: http://www.septa.org/maps/transit/bsl.html (check out what used to be "Pattison" at the bottom of the screen). It's nice of WMATA to incorporate as much info as possible into station names, but they go a bit too far and most people don't say the entire station name when referring to a station that refers to 4 different landmarks.
It is ironic, but when Jackson Graham was GM, I think he insisted all the station names be a maximum number of letters total, depending on if it was a one word or two word name.
AT&T is a pathetic name for a station, it doesn't say anything about where it actually is. Do the destination signs on the trains still say PATTISON or are those changed too?
I agree the AT&T is a bad name for the station. The train signs are being changed over to "AT&T" as well. At least it's the last stop on the line, and on most maps it also has "Sports and Entertainment Complex" by the AT&T logo.
How are they changing the signs when the signs themselves use near-obsolete technology. I love the quirky old-school signs on the BSS cars, but I wonder why SEPTA didn't change them to LED's or even LCD's when they had their midlife rehab?
If it was "Pattison/AT&T", it'd be a much bigger compromise and it'd be easier to fix if the deal ever goes south.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on September 21, 2010, 10:11:32 PM
How are they changing the signs when the signs themselves use near-obsolete technology. I love the quirky old-school signs on the BSS cars, but I wonder why SEPTA didn't change them to LED's or even LCD's when they had their midlife rehab?
If it was "Pattison/AT&T", it'd be a much bigger compromise and it'd be easier to fix if the deal ever goes south.
Isn't it just simply a couple of lamps behind a silkscreened piece of glass?
I've never been any big fan of expensive electronic signs for rolling stock that only visits literally a handful of destinations, but...
given SEPTA's retrofits of Norristown and Girard cars, I wouldn't be shocked to see them actually waste the money for LEDs.
Has SEPTA ever refurbished the BSS cars? I know they are reaching almost 30 years and could due for a good facelift.
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on September 22, 2010, 08:17:40 AM
Has SEPTA ever refurbished the BSS cars? I know they are reaching almost 30 years and could due for a good facelift.
They replaced the door chimes with that "doors closing" announcement and at least one car (666 I think) had its orange panels removed exposing the stainless steal underneath. Given that SEPTA usually drags their heels in retiring anything until they absolutely must, it might be a good time for a facelift since those cars could see 50 years easily.
It's funny to see the contrast between "retire the Rohr's yesterday!!" in DC vs. Philly having tolerated the following since SEPTA came into being.
- The original early 1930's vintage Norristown Brill cars lasting until the early 90's.
- The original BSS cars from the mid 1920's (and the mid 1930's followup) being run until the early 80's, falling apart so much in their last years that the BSS could barely operate.
- The old 30's vintage Reading Bluebirds on Regional Rail also made it into the early 90's too, this before the Silverliners got their very long lives that last to today.
- Tolerating the non-AC'd, sealed window MFL Almond Joy's until the turn of the century, long after similar non-AC'd cars elsewhere were retired.
- The old surface line PCC fleet being quite decrepit for many years leading to their demise to the point of being unsafe.
- SEPTA's love of wanting to buy secondhand cars to replace the above before buying new. Remember the CTA 6000's on Route 100, or how the MBTA 01100's nearly went onto the BSS?
- Not SEPTA, but PATCO's want to rebuild rather than buy new. Budd cars were well built, but in 20 years will people want to ride a 60-year old PATCO car even refurbished?
Has any other agency been that hard to part with anything before? Reading about the BSS decline 30 years ago made the Rohrs seem a lot more quaint.
I think the big difference here is that the NTSB has pretty much called the Rohr cars rolling coffins after a few collisions where the Rohrs failed catastrophically. One car way up in the air telescoped over another is pretty much the signature of WMATA collisions.
Quote from: SchuminWeb on September 22, 2010, 09:21:20 AM
I think the big difference here is that the NTSB has pretty much called the Rohr cars rolling coffins after a few collisions where the Rohrs failed catastrophically. One car way up in the air telescoped over another is pretty much the signature of WMATA collisions.
Which is what WMATA got for going for a company that was a rail fly-by-night rather than giving their business to prop up a dying Pullman-Standard or a then-somewhat-healthy Budd. Heck, if the "Nam-is-ending-lets-keep-contractors-busy" factor was at play, Boeing'd have been a better move (judged off of the CTA 2400's, not the LRV's).
And I wonder how BART has been immune from any problems with their Rohrs...
Quote from: btconet on September 22, 2010, 08:15:16 AM
Quote from: Scrabbleship on September 21, 2010, 10:11:32 PM
How are they changing the signs when the signs themselves use near-obsolete technology. I love the quirky old-school signs on the BSS cars, but I wonder why SEPTA didn't change them to LED's or even LCD's when they had their midlife rehab?
If it was "Pattison/AT&T", it'd be a much bigger compromise and it'd be easier to fix if the deal ever goes south.
Isn't it just simply a couple of lamps behind a silkscreened piece of glass?
I've never been any big fan of expensive electronic signs for rolling stock that only visits literally a handful of destinations, but...
given SEPTA's retrofits of Norristown and Girard cars, I wouldn't be shocked to see them actually waste the money for LEDs.
The Norristown HSL cars kind of needed them as the "new" roll signs were fading (melting?) VERY badly...you could barely read them. Plus, the whole burned out motor fiasco was interesting. Plus, now you can do P/R messages like "Go Phillies!" Anyway, with the different types of expresses (Hughes Park and Norristown ), the Norristown Limited, the local short turns, random potential short turns (Wynnewood Road, Radnor), and the potential (dream?) of service to Valley Forge/King of Prussia, it isn't too crazy.
So far, only one PCC II has an LED sign...those are really supposed to be for the (city) Kawasakis, so I dunno how or why a PCC II ended up with one.
It would be nice for the BSL cars to have LED signs, though. It would be nice to be able to read the actual destination of the train easily. I guess it's not urgent since most people just look at the lights anyway for "line" information. If anything, I would have liked to see LED signs for those cars just for the ease in being able to read the signs and so that both endpoints of the train aren't illuminated at the same time.
Of course, the cars are 28 years old now. I'd say they are a bit old for new signs, but the K-cars are getting them...
Quote from: Scrabbleship on September 22, 2010, 02:34:12 PM
Quote from: SchuminWeb on September 22, 2010, 09:21:20 AM
I think the big difference here is that the NTSB has pretty much called the Rohr cars rolling coffins after a few collisions where the Rohrs failed catastrophically. One car way up in the air telescoped over another is pretty much the signature of WMATA collisions.
Which is what WMATA got for going for a company that was a rail fly-by-night rather than giving their business to prop up a dying Pullman-Standard or a then-somewhat-healthy Budd. Heck, if the "Nam-is-ending-lets-keep-contractors-busy" factor was at play, Boeing'd have been a better move (judged off of the CTA 2400's, not the LRV's).
And I wonder how BART has been immune from any problems with their Rohrs...
Outside of their durability issues in accidents, have there been many issues with the Rohrs?
Quote from: Scrabbleship on September 22, 2010, 08:57:45 AM
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on September 22, 2010, 08:17:40 AM
Has SEPTA ever refurbished the BSS cars? I know they are reaching almost 30 years and could due for a good facelift.
They replaced the door chimes with that "doors closing" announcement and at least one car (666 I think) had its orange panels removed exposing the stainless steal underneath. Given that SEPTA usually drags their heels in retiring anything until they absolutely must, it might be a good time for a facelift since those cars could see 50 years easily.
It's funny to see the contrast between "retire the Rohr's yesterday!!" in DC vs. Philly having tolerated the following since SEPTA came into being.
- The original early 1930's vintage Norristown Brill cars lasting until the early 90's.
- The original BSS cars from the mid 1920's (and the mid 1930's followup) being run until the early 80's, falling apart so much in their last years that the BSS could barely operate.
- The old 30's vintage Reading Bluebirds on Regional Rail also made it into the early 90's too, this before the Silverliners got their very long lives that last to today.
- Tolerating the non-AC'd, sealed window MFL Almond Joy's until the turn of the century, long after similar non-AC'd cars elsewhere were retired.
- The old surface line PCC fleet being quite decrepit for many years leading to their demise to the point of being unsafe.
- SEPTA's love of wanting to buy secondhand cars to replace the above before buying new. Remember the CTA 6000's on Route 100, or how the MBTA 01100's nearly went onto the BSS?
- Not SEPTA, but PATCO's want to rebuild rather than buy new. Budd cars were well built, but in 20 years will people want to ride a 60-year old PATCO car even refurbished?
Has any other agency been that hard to part with anything before? Reading about the BSS decline 30 years ago made the Rohrs seem a lot more quaint.
This is what happens when you have a state that hates its major cities and their transit systems, with people in the rural areas more than happy to starve the agencies and "not cater to the big cities" as things like public transit don't apply to their lifestyles...yet. SEPTA had a lot of things they inherited that had to be replaced back then and had severe budgetary issues...
The railroads, Philadelphia Transit Company, the Red Arrow, and Schuylkill Valley Lines ran very old equipment and deferred maintenance quite a bit as well.
Thankfully, they managed to pull through. Re: the second hand cars, though...I know the CTA cars were obtained because the Bullets and Strafford Cars could literally run no more. They, along with the transfered M3s, helped to keep the line from being bussed. This was due to the fact that the N5s were severely delayed.
Besides, with the huge problems they constantly have buying new railcars, can you blame them for not wanting to deal with the headaches? :)
Never heard about the potential for "MBTA cars" to run in the BSS, but it probably was for a similar reason...an emergency band-aid until something new was obtained. Also, the M3s had openable windows and fans that were "innovative" at the time they were built. Too bad the majority of them weren't retrofitted with a/c (one car was, but it was unreliable).
Quote from: 79MetroExtraMD on September 22, 2010, 08:17:40 AM
Has SEPTA ever refurbished the BSS cars? I know they are reaching almost 30 years and could due for a good facelift.
I don't think they ever refurbished the BSS cars (that's not to say they were never overhauled, though). However, outside of some upgraded signage and maybe a very good deep cleaning, I don't think it's really that necessary. The cars are in GREAT shape for their age.
I think the only cars SEPTA ever fully refurbished are the Silverliner IVs.
What is the point of the extra long station names, anyway? Is it more like something that just looks good on paper since most people will end up short-handing the names anyway?
Quote from: Tritransit Area on September 24, 2010, 02:12:45 PM
Never heard about the potential for "MBTA cars" to run in the BSS, but it probably was for a similar reason...an emergency band-aid until something new was obtained. Also, the M3s had openable windows and fans that were "innovative" at the time they were built. Too bad the majority of them weren't retrofitted with a/c (one car was, but it was unreliable).
This would be right. The BSS by that point (around 30 years ago) had cut train frequency/lengths to the bone as the original cars were dying for good left and right and David Gunn had an agreement in principle to get the 01100's to Philly as a bandaid. Only problem is that Hawker-Siddley went on strike for a year and SEPTA was able to strike a fast deal with a then-new-to-the-US Kawasaki to get the current cars in during the interim.
For cars without AC made after AC became feasible, the M3's actually had decent lives. The aforementioned 01100's barely made 25, their sister 01400's barely made 30, same for the R27/R30's in NYC. Even some of the earliest AC'd cars got retired soon, the PATH K-car series and CTA 2000's barely made 30, the Airporters in Cleveland didn't even make 20!
Quote from: Tritransit Area on September 24, 2010, 02:30:04 PM
What is the point of the extra long station names, anyway? Is it more like something that just looks good on paper since most people will end up short-handing the names anyway?
Think of it this way. Even if something like "AU" or "Adams Morgan" is far away from the station, at least it seems like you can take the Metro there, even if a long walk or shuttle bus ride is involved in actually reaching your destination.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on September 24, 2010, 03:00:34 PM
For cars without AC made after AC became feasible, the M3's actually had decent lives. The aforementioned 01100's barely made 25, their sister 01400's barely made 30, same for the R27/R30's in NYC. Even some of the earliest AC'd cars got retired soon, the PATH K-car series and CTA 2000's barely made 30, the Airporters in Cleveland didn't even make 20!
NYCTA's R27, R30/30A didn't get retrofitted with A/C because the added weight, and these cars were already very heavy. This pretty much put them on the road to an "early" retirement. All other NYCTA car classes with A/C (both factory and retrofits) has given 40 years of service. The R44 may be the exception to fall just short of 40, but those cars have been trouble-plagued from day one.
Heading back on topic, the madness continues. This from "DG_rad" on Twitter:
This just in: ANC 6D will hear a request to add "Banneker Memorial" to the L'Enfant Plaza metro station name. Ok WMATA time for a new policy
I know that getting any name cap policies will probably be impossible with Name Inflation Bow-Tie on the board, but there needs to be a stop to the madness. Notice how stations outside the District never succumb to the madness? All this while another station needs a name change as it has a defunct institution attached to it.
I think it might be time to go MBTA style and go with one name with pushing anything else if it isn't an acronym to a line below. This is what happens when you allow elected officials on the board.
I do think it's important for WMATA, or any transit agency to keep station names as simple as possible while also being descriptive of nearby points of interests. The problem is where do they draw the line? I like names like Van Ness-UDC, Franconia-Springfield, Tenleytown-AU etc. Names I think are too long are those like Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, New York Ave-Florida Ave Gallaudet U and of course U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial-Cardozo. Sure it's important to point out these points of interest at various stations, but for the sake of simplicity, I'm not sure they should always be part of the station name. Of course I do think it's important for stations with nearby points of interest to have such signage in the stations and on maps. On the other hand I do see where it's a bit difficult to shorten names in many WMATA stations.
Maybe a New York-type approach would work. The one thing I've never heard complaints about is NYCTA's subway station names. Even those with nearby points of interests tend to be not very long: Examples: Eastern Parkway-Brooklyn Museum, Mets-Willets Point, 116th Street-Columbia University, 66th Street-Lincoln Center. Then we have a bunch that include the neighborhood like: Flushing-Main Street, Coney Island-Stillwell Ave, 179th Street Jamaica, 177th Street-Parkchester etc.
I think the big problem on the DC side is that everything is political and ANC members have a disproportionate amount of influence to WMATA in contrast to local legislators in Virginia and Maryland. The root of a lot of this seem to be in areas that are "bouncing back" which want as much exposure as possible hence why most of the Green Line from the District Line to the Anacostia is bloated.
The mentality of "if we put a place in a name, it'll be closer than it really is" that Metro operates under is one that should end and I think there should be a distance cap in what can be mentioned. A cap alone would get rid of most colleges in names, many of which (American, George Mason, Gallaudet) lobbied to bloat the name. There also should be less redundancy, I'm looking at the "7th St" in Mount Vernon Square.
Some names just need to be fixed. New York Avenue's a bit of a joke since the actual road is a bit from the station, Adams Morgan is as close to Columbia Heights than Woodley Park, Georgia Avenue-Petworth is barely in Petworth, etc.
If anything, I think the desire for neighborhoods and organizations to be connected to Metrorail says something about how important Metrorail and the transportation system in general are to Washington as a city. That said, simple names are better, and Jackson Graham had letter limits for station length.
The original name for GA Ave was just Petworth, they added in Georgia Avenue when the route got changed.
Adams-Morgan wants to be "close" to the Metro, and especially in light of whose ward that is, I don't see that one going away, even if it is a bit of a stretch to say the station is there. I think Woodley Park is best suited for the Adams Morgan suffix since it has the flattest walking route and also the Circulator (and before that, the 98). At least the station never opened with its original name, Zoological Park.
If AU, GMU, or some other university wants to pay to have its name plastered on a sign, I don't really have an issue with that. I don't think Metro should be forced to make such changes at its own expense, as was the case with National Airport. I do think these organizations and politicians need to consider the distance of the suffixes from the actual station, but to be fair, most of these places are either close by to stations or connected by regular shuttle service. I never knew we had an African American Civil War Memorial in DC until it wound up in the station name, that one can go. But I have no problem with most of the new names.
I think the suburban stations are less likely to get suffixes because out there, there are fewer close in locations that can be reasonably added to a station name.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 07, 2010, 12:29:46 PMI think the suburban stations are less likely to get suffixes because out there, there are fewer close in locations that can be reasonably added to a station name.
Exactly - for my home station, Glenmont, what would you say: Glenmont-KFC? Glenmont-Glenmont Center? Glenmont-Fire Department?
Quote from: SchuminWeb on October 08, 2010, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 07, 2010, 12:29:46 PMI think the suburban stations are less likely to get suffixes because out there, there are fewer close in locations that can be reasonably added to a station name.
Exactly - for my home station, Glenmont, what would you say: Glenmont-KFC? Glenmont-Glenmont Center? Glenmont-Fire Department?
Glenmont-Georgia Avenue-Randolph Road-Layhill Road-Water Tower-Kemp Mill-Aspen Hill-Leisure World-Indian Spring CC-Colesville-Sandy Spring-Olney-Brookville
Did I leave anything out?
KFC.
Today, the Washington Post ran a story on coming up with Silver Line station names that says the goal was no more than two words per name, with U Street being a notable exception among others. Other station naming criteria is also mentioned in the article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2010102006378.html
Wow! I didn't think it would get this involved. The problem I see with imposing a two-word per name limit (and the like) is that they'll be cases where more words are necessary. Then it becomes an issue of when to allow an exception. This probably would more often be a fight between local politicians. I think some common-sense needs to be used in determining station names. Also, I wish it could be done by WMATA officials without "influence" (and threats) from politicians.
Quote from: WayneNYC on October 21, 2010, 03:19:39 PM
Wow! I didn't think it would get this involved. The problem I see with imposing a two-word per name limit (and the like) is that they'll be cases where more words are necessary. Then it becomes an issue of when to allow an exception. This probably would more often be a fight between local politicians. I think some common-sense needs to be used in determining station names. Also, I wish it could be done by WMATA officials without "influence" (and threats) from politicians.
Wasn't the original aim also to have a letter limit just in case two words needed to be used? I remember something of a letter limit being mentioned somewhere (I think The Great Society Subway). That would work better for "short" 3-word names (Van Ness-UDC, Van Dorn Street).
Graham aside, I think there needs to be some more clarity in station names. Did Mt. Vernon Square really need 7th Street added when there are 4 other stations on 7th Street? Is there any reason for Waterfront to keep a dead SEU around this long? Virginia Tech's building a big research center near Ballston, do we turn Ballston into "Ballston/MU-VT"?
Unless someone wants to pay for new signage to get rid of SEU, might as well leave it. New signs do cost money.
Great Society Subway mentions a letter limit for two word stations. Van Ness is a two word station, not a three word station, the UDC was added later.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 21, 2010, 03:57:04 PM
Unless someone wants to pay for new signage to get rid of SEU, might as well leave it. New signs do cost money.
How much would it cost to just cover up all the SEU's inside the station? SEPTA did that when "Olde City" lost it's E at 2nd St on the MFL. Might be an easy/painless way to change things in the interim.
I think it gets a bit more complicated than that, considering how many places "Waterfront-SEU" is printed in the system. But it certainly seems doable, as I remember WMATA's putting brown tape over "New York Ave" at Gallery Place before the former opened.
If you're doing just the station, it seems kind of pointless, because by then you're already there. Doing everything else would be more helpful, but then again, I'd wait for there to be a lot more changes to signage before slipping this one in, because it is a relatively minor change.
Quote from: SchuminWeb on October 21, 2010, 10:14:00 PM
I think it gets a bit more complicated than that, considering how many places "Waterfront-SEU" is printed in the system. But it certainly seems doable, as I remember WMATA's putting brown tape over "New York Ave" at Gallery Place before the former opened.
If you're doing just the station, it seems kind of pointless, because by then you're already there. Doing everything else would be more helpful, but then again, I'd wait for there to be a lot more changes to signage before slipping this one in, because it is a relatively minor change.
There are still some odd signs on the Red Line that say "Tenley Circle" or "Nicholson Lane" even though those names never were put into place. Union Station has a sign on the Shady Grove side that says "Rockville" as the final destination and the odd "Union Station/Visitor Center" pylon there has persisted for a long time. Also, don't forget the odd maps that left off he "A" in "CUA".
I think fixing Waterfront would be a lot easier than the above.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on October 21, 2010, 06:40:15 PM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 21, 2010, 03:57:04 PM
Unless someone wants to pay for new signage to get rid of SEU, might as well leave it. New signs do cost money.
How much would it cost to just cover up all the SEU's inside the station? SEPTA did that when "Olde City" lost it's E at 2nd St on the MFL. Might be an easy/painless way to change things in the interim.
IIRC, it costs about $100,000 to change all the signage in a single station, and $400,000 to change maps and stripmaps systemwide.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on October 21, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
Quote from: SchuminWeb on October 21, 2010, 10:14:00 PM
I think it gets a bit more complicated than that, considering how many places "Waterfront-SEU" is printed in the system. But it certainly seems doable, as I remember WMATA's putting brown tape over "New York Ave" at Gallery Place before the former opened.
If you're doing just the station, it seems kind of pointless, because by then you're already there. Doing everything else would be more helpful, but then again, I'd wait for there to be a lot more changes to signage before slipping this one in, because it is a relatively minor change.
There are still some odd signs on the Red Line that say "Tenley Circle" or "Nicholson Lane" even though those names never were put into place. Union Station has a sign on the Shady Grove side that says "Rockville" as the final destination and the odd "Union Station/Visitor Center" pylon there has persisted for a long time. Also, don't forget the odd maps that left off he "A" in "CUA".
I think fixing Waterfront would be a lot easier than the above.
I'm pretty sure the Rockville last stop sign was removed at Union Station, unless there is another one I was not aware of existing. John can better explain why those exist, but it has to do with the way they were put on the pylons, and that changes are difficult to make.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 22, 2010, 04:38:12 AM
Quote from: Scrabbleship on October 21, 2010, 06:40:15 PM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 21, 2010, 03:57:04 PM
Unless someone wants to pay for new signage to get rid of SEU, might as well leave it. New signs do cost money.
How much would it cost to just cover up all the SEU's inside the station? SEPTA did that when "Olde City" lost it's E at 2nd St on the MFL. Might be an easy/painless way to change things in the interim.
IIRC, it costs about $100,000 to change all the signage in a single station, and $400,000 to change maps and stripmaps systemwide.
And the cost of tape and manpower, even at inflated ATU 689 rates, to cover up/scrape off all the SEU's inside the station, and maybe every Green Line stripmap, has to be a fraction of that.
Quote from: Scrabbleship on October 22, 2010, 07:03:29 AM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 22, 2010, 04:38:12 AM
Quote from: Scrabbleship on October 21, 2010, 06:40:15 PM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 21, 2010, 03:57:04 PM
Unless someone wants to pay for new signage to get rid of SEU, might as well leave it. New signs do cost money.
How much would it cost to just cover up all the SEU's inside the station? SEPTA did that when "Olde City" lost it's E at 2nd St on the MFL. Might be an easy/painless way to change things in the interim.
IIRC, it costs about $100,000 to change all the signage in a single station, and $400,000 to change maps and stripmaps systemwide.
And the cost of tape and manpower, even at inflated ATU 689 rates, to cover up/scrape off all the SEU's inside the station, and maybe every Green Line stripmap, has to be a fraction of that.
And the "do nothing option", which in this case has no drawbacks (since SEU doesn't exist anymore, I doubt anyone is going to try finding it, some people might be puzzled by the station suffix but whatever), is even less than that and more aesthetically pleasing in some ways.
I think they should get rid of 7th Street on the MVS name, I never understood why it was there in the first place.
I think the DC government should pay up and indicate that Stadium-Armory is for RFK Stadium (i.e. RFK Stadium-DC Armory) and that Navy Yard is for Nationals Park (i.e. Navy Yard-Ballpark). I also think that maybe, since the Verizon Center is now in the same hands as all of its tenants, perhaps a deal can be worked out between WMATA, the DC Government, and Monumental Sports to add in the word Arena to Gallery Place.
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 22, 2010, 08:23:48 AM
Quote from: Scrabbleship on October 22, 2010, 07:03:29 AM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 22, 2010, 04:38:12 AM
Quote from: Scrabbleship on October 21, 2010, 06:40:15 PM
Quote from: WMATAGMOAGH on October 21, 2010, 03:57:04 PM
Unless someone wants to pay for new signage to get rid of SEU, might as well leave it. New signs do cost money.
How much would it cost to just cover up all the SEU's inside the station? SEPTA did that when "Olde City" lost it's E at 2nd St on the MFL. Might be an easy/painless way to change things in the interim.
IIRC, it costs about $100,000 to change all the signage in a single station, and $400,000 to change maps and stripmaps systemwide.
And the cost of tape and manpower, even at inflated ATU 689 rates, to cover up/scrape off all the SEU's inside the station, and maybe every Green Line stripmap, has to be a fraction of that.
And the "do nothing option", which in this case has no drawbacks (since SEU doesn't exist anymore, I doubt anyone is going to try finding it, some people might be puzzled by the station suffix but whatever), is even less than that and more aesthetically pleasing in some ways.
I think they should get rid of 7th Street on the MVS name, I never understood why it was there in the first place.
I think the DC government should pay up and indicate that Stadium-Armory is for RFK Stadium (i.e. RFK Stadium-DC Armory) and that Navy Yard is for Nationals Park (i.e. Navy Yard-Ballpark). I also think that maybe, since the Verizon Center is now in the same hands as all of its tenants, perhaps a deal can be worked out between WMATA, the DC Government, and Monumental Sports to add in the word Arena to Gallery Place.
I think adding RFK Stadium to Stadium Armory at this point might be a gambit since who knows how much longer it will be standing? What if DC United ends up not getting a soccer-specific stadium and leaves town, leaving RFK near fallow? What if the threatened "Danny Dome" to replace RFK does get built? Why change the name now when it may need to be changed again down the road?
I support Ballpark being added to Navy Yard and am still surprised it wasn't done from the get-go. I understand naming rights conflicts and all and possibly wanting to hit up the buyer of the park for money, but given the state of the economy I doubt it'll happen anytime soon if ever even.
I support swapping Chinatown for Arena at Gallery Place. Chinatown is practically Chinablock at this point outside of the BID everyone knows this. A lot more people are getting off for Verizon Center than for Chinablock. I still wonder why a deal wasn't made for that when then-MCI Center was opened and everyone was under the WS&E banner.
I never supported swapping out Chinatown for Arena, I think it should be an addition. I actually think Chinatown is a more descriptive name than Gallery Place, especially for people who don't know the "etymology" behind the name.
Chinatown-Arena, then?
Gallery Place-Chinatown/Arena is fine. No worse than some of the other (legitimate) long station names we have already. Even if it isn't the official name, many operators call it that (or a variation of that name) anyway.
Metro is looking at revising its name changing policy and perhaps shortening/simplifying some station names (http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/05/metro-looking-changing-station-names)
This makes sense, but would Metro get their way with so many outside forces in play?