|
|
| [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible (1167591) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1167591) | |
[Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jul 20 18:19:23 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-20/mta-vs-wmata-why-metro-is-terrible.html |
|
|
| (1167592) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jul 20 18:23:29 2012, in response to [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jul 20 18:19:23 2012. The grass is always greener . . . |
|
|
| (1167610) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by EastSideRider on Fri Jul 20 21:35:12 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by italianstallion on Fri Jul 20 18:23:29 2012. IAWTP; meanwhile, there's someone else who moved from New York to D.C. who can give an account on why Metro beats the MTA. And another person who's lived in both cities, moved to Portland, and says TriMet beats them both.Personally, I like both for what each of them provides (and they do provide different things for different reasons), but I realize that BOTH need serious improvement. Hell, ALL |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1167620) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jul 21 04:22:27 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by italianstallion on Fri Jul 20 18:23:29 2012. and of course METRO doesn't run 24/7 and charges outrageous fares |
|
|
| (1167627) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jul 21 09:52:02 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by EastSideRider on Fri Jul 20 21:35:12 2012. Having grown up in NY I think I naturally go to other transit systems with a positive outlook for them. But the only thing I liked in the few times I've used DC Metro over the years is its cleanliness, and I'd rather have a little dirt around the system than wait for trains at off-peak hours with frequencies more representative of buses.Washington's system reminds me a lot of London's. Huge crowds at stations - takes forever to get to the platform - shut down overnight - complex fare structure - but stations and trains are aesthetically pleasing. |
|
|
| (1167630) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jul 21 11:09:29 2012, in response to [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jul 20 18:19:23 2012. Babies run cities. |
|
|
| (1167654) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Jul 21 14:14:08 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jul 21 09:52:02 2012. shut down overnightNew York is a bit of an outlier in this regard. Of the big global systems, only New York runs 24/7 subway service of the vast majority of the network. Everybody else either stops running or has a system of special buses for overnight hours. |
|
|
| (1167676) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Jul 21 16:22:39 2012, in response to [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jul 20 18:19:23 2012. The two complaints, ATO and escalator availability have to do with design decisions made back in the 1970's, not with how WMATA is managed. Current manual operation woes are split into two groups. The first is a cover-your-ass stance since the 2009 accident. The ATO is not broken, but if the vital ATC system sometimes stops detecting trains then Metro wants an operator that is looking ahead and might be in a position to stop on sight. However that only applies to 2, 4 and 6 car train run outside of peak periods when manual operation does not decrease capacity. During peak periods 8 car trains have never been able to operate under ATO because the ATO technology the system was built with in 1976 can't ensure that a train that long can hit platform properly. Second the escalators all break down because the system made design choices to use escalators in place of stairs at almost all locations with overwhelms the agency with broken escalators because there are more of them to break down, but also because they are put in places where they can be rained on. |
|
|
| (1167680) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Jul 21 17:16:52 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Jul 21 16:22:39 2012. An 8 car train is able to be operated automatically, but deferred maintenance has resulted in the equipment that would bring a train to a stop at the exact right spot not able to work well enough to do that reliably. Sand Box John might be able to elaborate more. |
|
|
| (1167692) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by TonyG on Sat Jul 21 19:03:50 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Jul 21 14:14:08 2012. The issue in NYC in comparison to many other places is that running buses just might not be cost effective at all. Running buses along similar routes to the subway could increase trip times tremendously and as capacity would be tremendously reduced, labor costs would skyrocket as easily 5-6 buses (at a minimum) would be needed to replace 1 train. |
|
|
| (1167716) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat Jul 21 21:12:58 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Jul 21 17:16:52 2012. I find that a little odd. I would expect that of a locomotive-hauled train, but the Metro is essentially an MU train, so every car (or set of cars) should be able to brake and accelerate the same. Hell, I would expect 2-car trains to be more troublesome, because there are fewer cars to compensate for mechanical difficulties. |
|
|
| (1167748) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sun Jul 22 00:18:01 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Jul 21 17:16:52 2012. An 8 car train is able to be operated automatically, but deferred maintenance has resulted in the equipment that would bring a train to a stop at the exact right spot not able to work well enough to do that reliably. Sand Box John might be able to elaborate more.The subsystem that controls automatic station stops is primarily a train board subsystem. The subsystem responds to passive coils (marker coils). There are total of 14 coils on each track, 7 on each side of the center of the platform. They are placed 167' 484' 1,200' and 2,700' from the center of the platform. The 167' location has a single coil, the other 3 locations have pairs. 1 coil in the pairs at the 484' and 1,200 locations are variable frequency coils that have the functionality to program a train with less then 8 cars to stop long or short of the center of the platform when set to do so.  167' marker coil schuminweb.com If 2 or more of the marker coils are broken, missing or out of calibration automatic station stop will fail to function properly. If the wheels on the axle that count wheel revolutions is not calibrated to the actual diameter of the wheels the train will not stop accurately. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1167755) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jul 22 00:40:40 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Jul 21 14:14:08 2012. The two major routes in Chicago are still 24/7. |
|
|
| (1167760) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jul 22 02:41:59 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jul 22 00:40:40 2012. The two major routes in Chicago are still 24/7.But since when was CTA a major global system? :-) |
|
|
| (1167776) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Jul 22 12:08:56 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by 3-9 on Sat Jul 21 21:12:58 2012. A 2-car train has the most margin for error. The problem arises when a 8 car train has part of the first or last car hanging off the end of the platform. |
|
|
| (1167810) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WayneJay on Sun Jul 22 14:27:19 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jul 21 04:22:27 2012. Preach on! The outrageously high fares are my number one gripe with WMATA's metrorail. |
|
|
| (1167820) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Jul 22 14:54:46 2012, in response to [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jul 20 18:19:23 2012. I don't know about "terrible" - I was on it Friday (all 5 lines and all 6 car types) and didn't find conditions that appalling - despite Mt Vernon Square station being closed due to water on the mezzanine floor. The one condition that struck me as being needed of remediation was the darkness of some of the stations - a few of which are approaching bear's cave status. The lower level of Metro Centre is dark to the point of nearly being unable to see. The concrete at Judiciary Square is so darkened by track dust and dirt that one has a hard time seeing the person in front of them. Things are only marginally better at places like Rosslyn and Foggy Bottom. The lower level vaults under the pod at Gallery Place-Chinatown are abstitively filthy. Up top, plants and vines are growing out of joints and groins at West Hyattsville, and the terraced garden at Prince George's Plaza has become overgrown. The system itself was functioning properly - trains were frequent and without delay. The air conditioning worked marvelously - especially in the 1K and 6K cars. I'd give Metro a solid "B" - far from terrible. A little spit, polish and whitewash will go a long way.Photos of FRIDAY 20 JULY DC/BALTO TRIP will be forthcoming. wayne |
|
|
| (1167824) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jul 22 15:17:59 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by WayneJay on Sun Jul 22 14:27:19 2012. well, y'know I'm one of those "commies" who thinks mass transit is like fire/police etc. I was born in DC raised mostly in Bethesda--fares from my corner to downtown were double what I paid CTA within Chicago for twice the distance exploring the L in the 50s. Distance/zone fares suck IMHO. end rant |
|
|
| (1167884) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WayneJay on Sun Jul 22 18:18:36 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jul 22 15:17:59 2012. Agreed, agreed. I'm a Bronx NY native and I've lived in the DC area since 1996. There's many things I love about this area, but one thing that makes me long for NYCTA is WMATA's fares. My wife and I both have chosen to drive to/from our jobs in DC instead of getting gouged by metrorail fares. Our one-way regular fare from Shady Grove is 5.75! I still say, I don't know how low income folks make it and I truly feel for them. My feeling is that mass transit should be affordable, and metrorail is anyhing but affordable. |
|
|
| (1167887) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sun Jul 22 18:33:51 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by WayneJay on Sun Jul 22 14:27:19 2012. Metro has extensive operations outside of Washington. If it were organized like New York there would be a Washington Metro, a Virginia Metro and a Maryland Metro each charging its own fare. |
|
|
| (1167919) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WayneJay on Sun Jul 22 20:39:50 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by merrick1 on Sun Jul 22 18:33:51 2012. Never said metrorail has to be like NYCTA. so I'm not really sure of your point. As I've stated in earlier posts, my issue is metrorail are the fares that get very expensive for anything beyond a short trip. |
|
|
| (1167925) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jul 22 21:00:35 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jul 22 15:17:59 2012. Distance/zone fares suck IMHOSnicker. You'd hate well run German systems. :-) |
|
|
| (1167944) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sun Jul 22 22:17:51 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by WayneJay on Sun Jul 22 20:39:50 2012. The fares aren't high if you stay in Washington. NYCTA would probably charge distance based fares if it had lines beyond the city limits. |
|
|
| (1167955) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jul 22 23:58:11 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by merrick1 on Sun Jul 22 18:33:51 2012. Or if rationality ruled, Montgomery, PG, Arlington, Fairfax would, like the Bronx, Queens, Kings, and Richmond, be the outer boros. 179th/Hillside to say95th St or 207th to Far Rockaway are far longer than any equivalent single fare on WMATA. The city/ounty borders are really obsolete. |
|
|
| (1167956) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 00:01:52 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jul 22 21:00:35 2012. That may be. underline HO. |
|
|
| (1167968) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 23 01:12:58 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by merrick1 on Sun Jul 22 22:17:51 2012. The fares aren't high if you stay in Washington. NYCTA would probably charge distance based fares if it had lines beyond the city limits.Washington, DC covers an area of 68.3 square miles, if you include Arlington County and most of the City of Alexandria it's 100 square miles, the 5 boroughs of New York City covers an area of 468.9 square miles. The WMATA compact covers an area of 1,500 square miles, that is more then 3 times greater then then area served by NYCT. Here are the length in miles of the 5 lines on WMATA: 21.941 Yellow lineLength in miles from urban core to terminals 08.936 Gallery Place to Branch AvenueAnd just for poops grins 34.943 Silver line (Stadium-Armory - Ryan Road (VA-277) Ashburn)John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1167969) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 02:15:55 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 23 01:12:58 2012. Thanks, John. This data makes clear how irrelevant the political subdivisions are in this debate. IIRC The A 207th to Far Rock is circa 32 miles and the 2 from E241st to New lot is not much shorter. |
|
|
| (1167973) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Jul 23 02:37:36 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 02:15:55 2012. Except how many people are riding the A or 2 from end to end? WMATA's fares are on par with other systems for comparable distances from the system core. However, WMATA goes much further out than these other systems, and once the NYC, Chicago, or Boston lines would end is about the point where WMATA fares start to jump. |
|
|
| (1168005) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 23 08:00:06 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 02:15:55 2012. Thanks, John. This data makes clear how irrelevant the political subdivisions are in this debate. IIRC The A 207th to Far Rock is circa 32 miles and the 2 from E241st to New lot is not much shorter.I Don't consider it irrelevant the fact that WMATA serves an area of 1,500 square miles compared to NYCT 468.9. The sliding scale fares exist partly because the member jurisdictions subsidize public transit at different percentages. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1168051) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 14:23:45 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Jul 23 02:37:36 2012. excuse me. No, WMATA distances according to what John posted are in fact shorter. Making a comparison between Bethesda (closest station to where I grew up and NOT counting extra fare or time for bus from door to Metro) at roughly 12 miles out from downtown with my grandfather's Chicago home just under 10 miles from the Loop, the latter is within CTA's single fare zone thus way cheaper for a similar ride.Looking at gross area ## $2:25 buys access to nearly 6 times the square mileage in NYC compared to DC. and includes buses. Chicago is similar in that a single fare buys much longer trips. Now, many might say, well, noone travels from 207th to Far Rockaway, however in a recent news item, a Chicago woman was interviewed who takes a bus to the Red Line on the South Side, changes to the Blue and goes to O'Hare to work baggage. She has a long commute, but a single fare. |
|
|
| (1168054) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 14:41:01 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 23 08:00:06 2012. You are correct that WMATA is burdened by serving several constituencies which often are in conflict over spending. I said irrelevant meaning the rider rarely cares where a jurisdictional line is drawn as long as the transit exists. Where I live in Oakland CA, I am 2 blocks from the border of Berkeley while further toward the bay there is a tiny town called Emeryville separating them.BTW, when I graduated Walter Johnson HS was in Rockville, apparently it is now in Bethesda which as a non-incorporated area had NO borders. Did the school move or did the name Bethesda expand? I might also note that although your mileage ## include the several counties, my experience is that WMATA has been shrinking the feeder bus services in Montgomery County. When my now deceased mother moved to Aspen Hill, there was a Metrobus stop 3 short blocks from her. That route no longer runs; Ride On has replaced it. The entire need for Ride On is IINM because WMATA wasn't adequately serving the market. |
|
|
| (1168063) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Jul 23 15:00:05 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 14:41:01 2012. The entire need for Ride On is IINM because WMATA wasn't adequately serving the market.I suspect the bonus may be that Ride On is cheaper to operate than WMATA due to differing cost structures. So for Montgomery County, it may be better to have Ride-On provide service than to pay WMATA. |
|
|
| (1168068) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jul 23 15:19:41 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jul 22 02:41:59 2012. Other than London and New York, would you say that's it outside of Asia? |
|
|
| (1168070) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 15:23:28 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Jul 23 15:00:05 2012. Probably true. If you are bound for somewhere on Metro, you incur a double fare. |
|
|
| (1168071) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 15:25:15 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jul 22 02:41:59 2012. I have no objectivity in this case. I happen to love Chicago because it has almost enough rail trackage. |
|
|
| (1168075) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Mon Jul 23 15:36:47 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 15:23:28 2012. Having lived in Montgomery County from 1995-1999, I can say Ride On does a far better job than the Metrobuses do. I predict eventually Fairfax County may decide to slowly buyout Metrobus routes in a similar manner. I think if we could somehow convince DC/Arlington to come together on a surface transit authority, WMATA can finally divest itself of it's bus operations and focus on Metrorail. |
|
|
| (1168085) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Jul 23 16:44:24 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 14:23:45 2012. I'm not a big GGW fan, but this explains it pretty well. Not every station pair is a perfect comparison, but most American heavy rail systems aren't taking you 15-25 miles away from the center of town. The reality is that distance based fares are the fairest way to charge people for public transit (and road use in general), since you only pay for what you use and those who use more contribute more. |
|
|
| (1168086) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Jul 23 16:44:35 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 14:23:45 2012. I'm not a big GGW fan, but this explains it pretty well. Not every station pair is a perfect comparison, but most American heavy rail systems aren't taking you 15-25 miles away from the center of town. The reality is that distance based fares are the fairest way to charge people for public transit (and road use in general), since you only pay for what you use and those who use more contribute more. |
|
|
| (1168087) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Jul 23 16:45:23 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 23 15:23:28 2012. No you don't. The same transfer discount is offered for transfers between Metrorail and Ride On as is offered between Metrorail and Metrobus. |
|
|
| (1168088) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Jul 23 16:45:41 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Jul 23 15:00:05 2012. That is pretty much right on the nose. |
|
|
| (1168124) | |
Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Jul 23 18:55:31 2012, in response to Re: [Bloomberg news] ... MTA vs. WMATA: Why Metro Is Terrible, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jul 23 15:19:41 2012. Other than London and New York, would you say that's it outside of Asia?Admittedly, I suspect it depends on one's biases. London, Paris, Moscow, and New York are obvious candidates due to their history and large size, but what about Madrid or Barclona? Or Belin (U+S-Bahns), Hamburg (again U+S-Bahns), Munich, and even Stockholm? Or Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Sao Paolo, or Santiago? Do you look at pure system length or do you start looking at ridership as well? CTA is a somewhat extensive system, but there are other systems with more ridership in a small footprint. And should one take into account complimenting modes like streetcar and regional railway networks? If one looks at non-Chinese systems due to their recent growth, CTA certainly wouldn't constitute a major global system, but you certainly wouldn't write off the system as a one-line, low ridership wonder. FWIW, within the United States, CTA is the last big metro system that I have to ride. |
|
|
