Before Overhauling Metrorail, Be Aware Of System's History
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Looking at our transit system's uncertain future, it helps to discuss how we got this far.
Dear Dr. Gridlock:
One contributor [Dr. Gridlock, July 6] noted correctly that Metro has cultivated the notion that it is different from other subway systems, more like a commuter railroad than a subway.
This notion, mass transportation without the masses, was always doomed to fail. Either the special ambiance would persist and the system would serve so few people it would gain little public support, or the system would attract significant ridership and would have to discard its pretense of exclusivity.
That Metro was designed to be different, to correct the alleged failures of other subways, notably New York's, accounts for many of Metro's flaws in station design, in track layout, in rolling stock design and so on.
Instead of learning from others' experiences, Metro's designers set out to do something different, often with unfortunate consequences. See, for example, the choice of escalators when stairs would have done at least as well.
Of course, the decision to design unique rolling stock rather than use a proven prototype, perhaps the San Francisco transit system cars, was, and remains, an expensive folly.
Sadly, Metro's management failed to grasp a lesson from systems in places such as New York. In the 1950s and 1960s, the New York system lived off past investments, allowing its infrastructure to deteriorate and failing to build capacity to match the growth of its region. Unfortunately, Metro made the same mistake.
You added a comment that Metro's technology might not be adequate for the future. You need to understand that effective electric train technology has existed for more than a century. Improving transit depends on expanding capacity by using existing technology. The only technological change that might be relevant to Metro is different signaling to allow shorter headways [the difference in distance between trains].
Metro would be better advised to simplify its technology and borrow more from older, better-established systems. And, rather than spending money on improved signaling, it would be better off building another Potomac River crossing.
