Platitudes Won’t Solve Metro’s Problems

The Washington City Paper asked “thirteen riders, advocates, and experts” how to fix the Washington Metro Rail system. Former Metro general manager Dan Tangherlini and former DC DOT director Gabe Klein offered banalities about “putting the customer first.”

Smart-growth advocate Harriet Trepaning thinks Metro “needs a different kind of leader,” as if changing the person at the top is going to keep smoke out of the tunnels and rails from cracking. She admits that “I don’t think we’ve been straight with anybody, including ourselves or our riders, about what it really takes to [keep the rails in a] state of good repair.” But her only solution is to have “a dedicated source of revenue,” i.e., increase local taxes for a system that already costs state and local taxpayers close to a billion dollars per year.

Coalition for Smarter Growth director Stewart Schwartz and former APTA chair Rod Diridon also want to throw money at it. Others dodge the money question and suggest that Metro do all sorts of things that it can’t afford and doesn’t have any incentive to do anyway.

These drugs are also not recommended to patients with elongated interval since they can cause troubles of generic cialis online learningworksca.org cardiac rhythm to them. Many people feel embarrass to discuss their overnight shipping viagra personal issue with doctors. We are well known of order viagra viagra for the first time, it is recommended that you buy online. Penegra customers have given reports of side effects ranging from severe headaches, to discount cialis generic find over here heart attacks, extremely low blood pressure, prolonged and painful erections, lightheadedness, vision changes, short breath, irregular heartbeat, ringing in the ear, you should start reading the information leaflet, particularly the information regarding negative effects, that comes along with the prescription medication.

Only one writer dared to suggest that “rail was probably the wrong choice for D.C.” for the very reason Tregoning suggests: Metro planners and managers have deceived themselves and the public about how much it truly costs to keep it in a state of good repair. Moreover, in the long run–10 years–“shared, self-driving cars are going to replace most transit.”

In the short run, tnstead of building the Purple Line, completing the Silver Line, and rebuilding the other rail lines, Metro should “seriously consider replacing” some of its worn-out rail lines “with bus-rapid transit.” This way, it won’t be stuck paying for a bunch of white elephants when people discover that shared, self-driving cars are less expensive, more convenient, and more reliable than trains. Unfortunately, these suggestions are likely to fall on deaf ears even though they are the most affordable ones offered.

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

17 Responses to Platitudes Won’t Solve Metro’s Problems

  1. OFP2003 says:

    Orange Line train driver said now it will be 12-18 months before Orange line is fixed. That drove at least one more person to the Yellow Line.
    Looking for the unsolicited proposal to rip up the rails, pave the whole system, and run computer controlled driverless pods or mini-busses. Could run express, they could pass each other and maximize both sides of the “road”, etc etc etc

  2. FrancisKing says:

    “Only one writer dared…”

    Was it the janitor?

    Comes of watching Hong Kong Phooey as a child.

  3. JOHN1000 says:

    Great idea OFP2003!!

    Since the tunnels and land corridors already exist, running buses (even people-driven ones) would save incredible sums a year in maintenance costs and give more flexibility.

    So simple, obvious and sensible that it doesn’t have a chance in DC.

  4. OFP2003 says:

    Rail commuting systems are simply designed with a whole lot of waste included. First, the tracks sit idle 80-99% of the time right? Second half of the trains are returning empty to the starting point of the commute. Third, a good chunk of the rails are not supporting the commute, but instead “returning empties” to the starting point. With computer control, smaller delivery units, downtown vehicle storage, and flexibility to use both sides of the road (former track) imagine the efficiency! Imagine putting ambulances or other emergency vehicles in the same system!

  5. Frank says:

    “First, the tracks sit idle 80-99% of the time right?”

    I don’t know. Do they? To play devil’s advocate, don’t most roads “sit idle” most of the time?

    “Imagine putting ambulances or other emergency vehicles in the same system!”

    This is perhaps the strongest point. But isn’t this a bit of a false comparison? Certainly commuting is not equal to emergency services. Some might argue (I’m not one of them) that by putting (forcing?) more people into fixed rail transit, it clears up space for emergency vehicles. Still, the point stands about efficiency.

  6. Sandy Teal says:

    Funny how an oil company can’t say “We can’t spend money cleaning up an oil spill or maintaining safe pipelines — we are spending all our money building new pipelines”. Funny how a timber company can’t say “We can’t afford to replant trees because we are spending all our money cutting down more trees.”

    But government can say “We can’t afford to maintain safe trains because we are spending all our money expanding our tracks and stations.” What a country!

  7. msetty says:

    Antiplanner:
    Platitudes Won’t Solve Metro’s Problems

    Neither will the ravings of a knee-jerk rail hater who simply refuses to believe, on ideological grounds, what transit planners and engineers will point out to him ad nauseam regarding the real world capacities of rail vs. bus, vs. his fantasies about buses.

    Imagine people getting asphyxiated with an underground version of this, or this.

  8. Not Sure says:

    “To play devil’s advocate, don’t most roads “sit idle” most of the time?”

    Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but it’s been my observation that at the times when roads are sitting idle, there aren’t any trains/trolleys/etc. waiting for traffic on their tracks, that could be proceeding on their way if they could use the road lanes.

  9. msetty says:

    Note Sure said:
    Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but it’s been my observation that at the times when roads are sitting idle, there aren’t any trains/trolleys/etc. waiting for traffic on their tracks, that could be proceeding on their way if they could use the road lanes.

    The main technical problem with The Antiplanner’s proposal to convert Metro to busways is that the bus “lanes” are narrow and cannot have pullouts at stops without major rebuilding of stations, a particularly huge expense for the many subway stations.

    To make his ideas work (sort of), automated operation of buses would be required, and they’d have to have positive guidance because of the narrow tunnels, e.g., resembling the passive guidance provided by rail tracks. Certainly buses can be automated while on the former rail guideways, to allow operation of bus platoons, up to 8-9 vehicles at one time, stopping in a manner resembling the current subway operations. Assuming articulated buses and 60-90 second headways between platoons, capacity at 70 people per bus would be similar to what Metro trains can deliver with 8-car trains at 2-3 minute headways. The only reason single-unit buses in places like Bogota are able to carry 30,000+/passengers per hour is due to most busways there having mostly grade-separated 4+ lanes allowing buses to pass one another, something not possible with the current Metro infrastructure.

    In addition to the disruptive, and costly conversion of each Metro line to bus technology (presumably over 5-10 years so as not to shut down the system all at once), a number of ramps and new connecting tunnels would be needed to allow buses to “fan out” through the service area. Buses would have to be “high floor” with dozens, if not hundreds of new high-floor bus stops around the Washington region. Operating costs would also be relatively high compared to the current Metro rail operation, since at least twice as many costly, hybrid electric buses would required (2,600+) as railcars, plus the current regional bus fleet. This entire process would take several years, and would probably cost at least $8-$10 billion (replacing rail guideway and signalling alone would cost at least $10 million per guideway mile, or well over $1 billion). With some “value engineering” and elimination of marginal projects the Metro bureaucrats want but don’t really need, the rail, electrical, signalling and station amenities could be rebuilt for substantially less, without the level of disruption that The Antiplanner favors.

    The Antiplanner will predicably claim that robocars will save us, but then I can’t take such neomania too seriously, due the routine failure of predictions by technophiliacs that their pet technologies will “solve” problems that are not technical, but social in nature. The technical issues are “easy” compared to the “human” issues involved. And this is even assuming that we WANT to totally remake our society, cities and towns once again–like we did very undemocratically with the automobile a century ago–to suit the needs of the technology, as opposed to people. Well, I vote HELL NO! Edward Abbey is a good role model for future robocar monkey-wrenching…

  10. Frank says:

    Did someone fart? I smell something bad. Like someone opened their rotting mouth here instead of in his own personal vacuum chamber.

  11. Not Sure says:

    “And this is even assuming that we WANT to totally remake our society, cities and towns once again–like we did very undemocratically with the automobile a century ago…”

    When was the vote held, that made our society, cities and towns the way they were before the automobile?

  12. metrosucks says:

    Mserry, please go comment over here, we’d love to hear your opinion on this:

    http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=11025

  13. transitboy says:

    It’s disingenuous to compare a streetcar that is slower and does not go as far as the buses it would presumably replace if it ever commenced operation with a rail system that carries more than 700,000 passengers per day in its current state of bad repair and has the potential to carry 1,000,000 passengers per day if it was managed well.

    I agree with msetty that it would probably be cost prohibitive to retrofit the rail tunnels for bus service. I infer that the antiplanner envisions shutting the Red Line down and operating BRT “light” buses down congested Connecticut Avenue NW. There are plenty of bad rail systems to pick on without attacking the very existence of the 2nd or 3rd largest rail system in the United States, depending on the month.

    Washington should look to the CTA for lessons in how to rebuild aging rail infrastructure. Bit by bit, the CTA rapid transit lines are getting back into good repair. Of course, the CTA is not busy building any new rail lines.

  14. Frank says:

    msetty is a nazi suffering from pe nis envy.

  15. OFP2003 says:

    Who’s interests? What if I would rather sit in my driverless car submitted to a city-transit traffic-control computer travelling on the above ground streets than be one of the 1,000,000 passengers squeezed into the dirty, smelly underground WMATA? Since when do we all have to be squished into those trains??
    .
    Alas, no one’s reading this thread anyway…

  16. prk166 says:


    The Antiplanner will predicably claim that robocars will save us, but then I can’t take such neomania too seriously, due the routine failure of predictions by technophiliacs that their pet technologies will “solve” problems that are not technical, but social in nature. The technical issues are “easy” compared to the “human” issues involved. And this is even assuming that we WANT to totally remake our society, cities and towns once again–like we did very undemocratically with the automobile a century ago–to suit the needs of the technology, as opposed to people”

    ~msetty

    You had me right up to this spot. We don’t know the future. We don’t know if we’ll be able to get 100% autonomous cars.

    a) What constitutes a democratic process?
    b) what problem(s) are you looking at so that you’d say “..their pet technologies will “solve” problems that are not technical, ” ?
    c) ” and this is even assuming that we WANT to totally remake our society, cities and towns once again” –> how would having a computer drive a car lead to a change in the current paradigm of auto based travel?

    I’m asking because I’m curious. I also see moving a large volume of people from point A to point B as a very technical problem. Having all autonomous vehicles would lead to large capacity gains without having to expand the current road footprints.

    Then again, when and if we ever get there, it raises the question of bothering with roads. Other than energy usage, if you can master 100% autonomous cars, you can do 100% autonomous airplane / helicopter / jet pants.

  17. prk166 says:


    Washington should look to the CTA for lessons in how to rebuild aging rail infrastructure. Bit by bit, the CTA rapid transit lines are getting back into good repair. Of course, the CTA is not busy building any new rail lines.
    ” ~transitboy

    I peaked but couldn’t find it. IIRC the CTA has something like a $12.5 Billion maintenance backlog. I’m not sure they’re making headway. Have they actually been reducing it? Or are they more like someone moving their legs to tread water but just a bit too slow so they’re slowly sinking deeper and deeper?

    The region has a $20B backlog
    http://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/04/02/regional-transit-needs-new-funding-to-meet-20-billion-backlog/

Leave a Reply