14 ms·

How the Washington D.C. Metro got so bad

74 points by pwthornton 11y ago

notacoward 11y ago
I guess the saddest part is that the DC Metro seemed no worse than others I've ridden on as a tourist, such as Atlanta or NYC. The couple of times I've been to DC, the Metro seemed at least the equal of my home-town (Boston) MBTA which I rode for years as my daily commute. DC's Metro sucks? Yeah, welcome to the US.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  It's been a long time since I've been to DC, but honestly, when I was in DC, I thought the Metro was among the best subways I'd ever seen. Clean, quiet, smooth. Paris is the only place I've been that had better. But it sounds like DC's has maybe not been kept up as well in the last several years.
  - totalrobe 11y ago
    I've lived in the DC area for 2.5 years and even during that short time we have seen a big increase in delays and complete service outages, and have had several electrical fires including an entire substation that has to be replaced. Service after 10 pm and on weekends is a total crapshoot.
  - djKianoosh 11y ago
    It is definitely not clean anymore. Or it is not clean in the main commuter stations that you may or may not have seen. The stench is unbearable in some stations like Metro Center, Gallery Place and a few other ones.
- TYPE_FASTER 11y ago
  That was my impression as well.
- timdiggerm 11y ago
  I've been a tourist in NYC, and their system is loads better than DC's. It makes me so sad when I get back from New York and find myself on the Metro again.
  - _of 11y ago
    The NYC subway works surprisingly well, considering that some of the tech that runs it is 100 years old [1]. :) [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-why-the-new-york-city-subway-is-always-delayed-2015-11?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-why-the-new-york-city-...
- untog 11y ago
  Perhaps as a tourist you haven't been traveling at peak times? I've visited DC for work, and been traveling at normal commuting times, and it's been hell. The NYC subway also has a huge list of issues, but when you factor in the respective sizes of the systems, DC's is considerably worse.
  - notacoward 11y ago
    It's entirely likely that my experience as a tourist is unlike that of daily commuters. Then again, DC residents' experience of other systems is likely to be similarly anomalous. All we can do is share our experiences, and let readers interpret the aggregate result.
- adetdot 11y ago
  DC Metro is not that bad. I have rode the metro/subway in NYC, Bay area, and London. DC is clean and easy to get around compared to those areas in my opinion. The knock on the DC Metro might be that it is getting more expensive and it no open as late as NYC or London.
  - JPKab 11y ago
    Try being a daily rider. It's miserable. When things go bad, they go very, very bad. The BART sucks too, don't get me wrong. But the DC Metro is simply AWFUL compared to NYC, and it has far less tracks to maintain.
    - adetdot 11y ago
      I was a daily rider on and off for about 14 years and counting. DC Metro is not perfect by any means but I was satisfied most times. I lived in New York for a couple of months back in winter of late 2013 and early 2014. I was ready to get back to DC Metro after that time. This is just my opinion.
- showerst 11y ago
  The thing about metro is that 98+% of the time it's quite good, but when it's bad it tends to _really_ melt down. When the New York subway has a bad day, you're 20 minutes late. When Metro has a bad day you can be 1-2 hours late. It's also pretty lousy on weekends, especially if you have to switch lines it can be 5x slower than a car.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- JPKab 11y ago
  No, as someone who rode the Metro in DC daily for 8 years until I left the region 18 months ago, it is far, far worse than NYC Subway. The reason is simple. It was completely hijacked by a union who turned themselves into a "good old boys club" for people from the poor neighborhoods who were born and raised in DC and educated in it's horrifically bad public school system. The union once treated the management as the enemy, but once there was no more money left to squeeze from the system itself, they began treating the riders as the enemy. Fares were raised every 6 months by the time I left, and the system continued to degrade. The racial statistics of the system are clearly indicative of a racial bias in hiring which is a direct result of the good old boy hiring system. New mechanics are iced out in the same way the new managers were by the salary doubling overtime culture the employees practice. Because to them, a single mechanic working 12 hour shifts is better than two mechanics working 8 hour shifts, despite the former costing the same and doing far, far less than the latter to keep the system operational. I support unions in the private sector. But my experience dealing with the DC Metro has made me loathe them in any public monopoly where consumers have no way to choose a competitor when the union gets out of hand and starts siphoning money from them. My favorite, glaring example which is a tiny sliver of what occurs courtesy of the union: A bus driver, several years ago, randomly pulled his bus over when he saw a person in a "McGruff the crime dog" costume talking to children about drugs. He assaulted McGruff, and then got back on his bus and continued operations. The union forced the WMATA to rehire him, WITH BACKPAY. He still works there, serving the public. He also had a previous felony record.
  - greggarious 11y ago
    Do you have a cite on that? Would love to circulate it, but can't without an attribution.
    - SAS24 11y ago
      "But Vaughn, the arbitrator, decided that Brim's actions, although illegal and inappropriate, were not undertaken with malicious intent. Vaughn based his decision on witness statements, including those of the police officer, Tyrone Hardy, Metro officials said. Vaughn reduced Brim's penalty to a 30-day suspension and awarded him back pay for the rest of the time. Farbstein did not know the value of back pay awarded in either case." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060905926.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06...
- dkrich 11y ago
  There's a night and day difference between riding the metro on a vacation and on a daily basis during rush hour.
- badmadrad 11y ago
  I actually liked the Metro. I lived in DC up until early 2014 and found it be smooth when it wasn't rush hours. But maybe it was the fact I didn't ride during rush hour very much that I liked it. That being said, now I live in Chicago and I think the "L" sucks because I have to ride it for rush hours. Its slow and bumpy ride and I am pretty sure it was designed in the Thomas Edison era. In conclusion, riding the train sucks during rush hour.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    There are probably exceptions, but I imagine that there are very few people who love their city's public transit system--including European ones--if they have to ride it daily at rush hour.
  - jgroszko 11y ago
    As a tourist the DC Metro at least seems much cleaner to me than the Chicago L that I commute on every day. The displays that show arrival times for the next train in DC are slick, but many L stations have those now too.
officialchicken 11y ago
Flawed by design. There are only 2 sets of tracks instead of 3 or 4 like most cities; in DC, trains can't pass each other except in unusual circumstances. There are no sidings or passings at stations. They can not run express trains, use skip-stop, etc. As usual, the DC-centric view is that it's a political / will-power issue when the reality is the analog of bandwidth - you can't fit more trains on the track no matter what control "protocol" you use.
- untog 11y ago
  The London tube has 2 sets of tracks across most of the network, it doesn't seem to suffer anywhere near the same as DC does.
- cballard 11y ago
  > you can't fit more trains on the track no matter what control "protocol" you use. This is false, CBTC has greatly increased L train capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_of_the_New_York_City_Subway#Canarsie_Line_CBTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_of_the_New_York_Cit... The Canarsie line is two-tracked and doesn't have any mechanism for passing besides single-tracking (also, no tail tracks at the Manhattan terminus).
  - officialchicken 11y ago
    L-train capacity was increased due to Sandy renovations of the tracks and switches, not just signal improvements. Same as G.
- Symbiote 11y ago
  Almost every metro system has two tracks for the majority of the length. The New York system is very unusual.
Yhippa 11y ago
I haven't been to many other subway systems in the US other than Chicago, Atlanta, and D.C. I would say in the US that D.C. seems to be the worst from the sense of long times between cars, full cars that stop but you can't get on because it's completely full, and making it difficult to add value to a stored value card. Including European systems I feel that I can tell if a system is good or not if it impedes the travel part of my day. Can I notice that the system is actively getting in my way?
sageabilly 11y ago
Living in the DC metro area I see two big issues with Metro service: 1- there are four different jurisdictions (VA, MD, DC, and the Feds) all trying to agree on every little thing and all trying to get their piece of the pie, and 2- people have to use Metro. Traffic on I-66/495/395 is so ungodly bad that even when Metro is single-track for repairs it's still on par or even slightly faster than traffic. And that's on a good traffic day; it's worse when it's raining. Not to mention the standard issue with finding and paying out the nose for parking once you've driven into DC. Metro doesn't have a huge incentive to provide better service because even with ridership being down 5% it's probably not going to dip much further since Metro riders have no alternative. I think DC is also semi-unique in the makeup of its commuters since inside the beltway is such a hub for employers and a large number of employees are happy to have an hour+ commute each way. The cost of real estate is so ridiculously high around here that you don't start seeing 3+ BR townhomes becoming accessible on anything other than a VP+ salary until about 15 miles out from downtown DC. If you want a freestanding home over 1000sft the affordability distance becomes 20+ miles. From what I've seen a vast majority of people will do whatever contortions they need to in their personal lives to get and keep a government/ government contractor job because those jobs have incredible stability (contractor not as much as working directly for the government, however that depends on what contractor you work for). Once you've got the coveted federal job you're happy to live in a basement 20 miles from the city on your entry-level pay tier because if you can just grin and bear it long enough you'll be almost guaranteed employment for life. Those employees can, do, and will continue to use Metro despite every problem it has because sitting in their car on I66 for an hour is not a viable alternative.
- rplst8 11y ago
  The lack of planning and forethought is criminal for the taxes we're paying.
  - sageabilly 11y ago
    Well, do keep in mind the origins of the Metro itself- I've talked with older residents in DC who remember when Metro was being built people were terrified it'd bring the problems of the inner city out to the suburbs; remember that it was being planned/built in the late 60s/early 70s when DC was a much more violent and scary city than it is today. This is what led to the system being inefficient and weirdly laid out in the first place.
rayiner 11y ago
> This situation might have been less crippling had Metro’s original architects built an additional track. The older systems in New York and Chicago both have four in places. Here, it was deemed too expensive. As a result, 40 years later, the only way for trains to bypass active work areas is to single-track around them, worsening delays. It's incredible how short-sighted the D.C. Metro planners were.
- rootbear 11y ago
  I took a tour of the tunnels with my High School science club while the system was under construction. It was fascinating and I learned a lot about why they made the decisions they did. Tunneling for Metro was staggeringly expensive and having a third track would have greatly increased costs. The rails of the Metro are 1/4" closer together than standard American gauge, to reduce the side-to-side motion of the trains, which have standard gauge trucks. This allowed them to make the tunnels just a little bit narrower and saved millions in tunneling costs. But, clearly, this does complicate maintenance.
  - pwg 11y ago
    > Tunneling for Metro was staggeringly expensive This probably had greater play in the reasoning years ago to forgo an extra track than we realize at this time. Most of the DC Metro was built by tunnel boring underneath already existing DC buildings. Very little, until one gets out to the suburbs, was built by open-cut and backfill, and even less of the system is surface grade. The planners in the late 50's to mid 60's, budgeting out 2*X (where X is likely a largish two digit number) of miles of tunnel boring, likely thought they were making a great money saving decision by not boring a third or fourth tunnel. And since typical human nature is to not think of the "what can go wrong" scenarios before they actually go wrong, those same planners likely never considered the "how do we fix track in tunnel 2 without having to half shut the system down to do so?" aspects of their decisions at the time.
    - potatolicious 11y ago
      > "And since typical human nature is to not think of the "what can go wrong" scenarios before they actually go wrong, those same planners likely never considered the "how do we fix track in tunnel 2 without having to half shut the system down to do so?" aspects of their decisions at the time." Having met transit planners before, I think you're probably not giving them enough credit. The sort of hellish clusterfuck that happens when things go wrong in a 2-track system is well understood and not new even during Metro's planning and construction. More likely it was decided that a 2-track system that went straight to hell the moment something went wrong is a better choice than nothing at all, which is the alternative. It's not that they were trying to save money, but rather trying to fit the system within a budget that simply couldn't get any larger. Same deal here in NYC - the new Second Avenue Subway is 2-track even though everyone, the MTA included, knows the problems inherent in it. The problem is that there is literally no way to cough up enough money to make it a 3- or 4-track subway. Public transit has been a dirty word in American politics for over half a century, and the willingness to invest isn't much different. These weren't short-sighted decisions, they were entirely cognizant of the shortcomings, but there wasn't any other choice.
Smirnoff 11y ago
Yeah, Metro administration in DC always infuriated me because they gave zero f*cks about quality, contracts or safety. 1. One time, they stopped working with a startup (which provided payment cards/passes via direct paycheck/deposit) without giving any warning. So I was stuck with $465 on my card, which I couldn't really use now. 2. There also have been several cases when some drunk/high/angry people would assault passengers in the evening. Ok, that happens in other places too. However, one time I went and complained about it and they told me "Sorry, we can't do anything. They left, we can't stop them now" Ok, how about you look at your cameras so that you can stop them next time or increase number of police? Yeah, their employees didn't really care about it.
cmurf 11y ago
Look at the plus side? It's cleaner than NYC's subway system. By a lot.
- djKianoosh 11y ago
  I have the exact opposite opinion.
  - badmadrad 11y ago
    NYC is dirty city. When there's trash on the streets all the time its hard not to feel like everything is dirtier. That being said, I feel like it depends on the stations. I would argue that the dirtiest stations in NYC are way way more gross. You got some pretty gnarly rat situations in some of the stations.
  - solutionyogi 11y ago
    NYC subway may be better in other aspects but as a New Yorker, I agree with parent that DC system is way cleaner than NYC.
GVIrish 11y ago
Count me as another DMV resident who now avoids the hot mess that is the Metro. For me, the scary thing is that the multitude of issues the Metro has almost weekly means that another fatal incident can happen any day now. After the 2009 crash the trains all went to manual brakes so they could sort out the automatic braking system that failed. To my knowledge that still isn't fixed. That indicates to me that they're still way behind on getting safety under control, much less making the organizational changes required to avoid another fatality like the L'Enfant incident. WMATA embodies the cautionary tale of an organization that has allowed incompetence, selfishness, and indolence to metastasize and paralyze a big organization to the point that it is killing people. It's going to take a whole new cadre of leadership to root out the blight at WMATA, not to mention the boatload of money that will be needed to pull out of the death spiral. It's a shame, I bought my damned house partially because of its proximity to a Metro stop and now I avoid taking it.
- eli 11y ago
  I'm less worried about a train derailment or crash. Metro has well-documented safety failures, but if you look at the numbers you're far safer riding a Metro to work than riding a bike or driving a car. That said, I really think it's a matter of time before overcrowded rush-hour platforms lead to someone falling on the tracks or getting stampeded. I fought thought this crowd this morning: https://twitter.com/wowindc/status/676761566751105025 https://twitter.com/wowindc/status/676761566751105025
  - GVIrish 11y ago
    Yeah my rational mind tells me that with 600k people riding the Metro every day, the chances of me actually running into a dangerous incident are fairly small. However, the chances of me running into a lengthy delay are pretty high. The crowding thing at rush hour is a huge pain, usually on the evening commute. Haven't actually ridden Metro since Silver line started up but I can't imagine that has lessened the crush.
antongribok 11y ago
Long time listener, first time caller... Want to use the opportunity that this story is on the front page to advertise http://wmataru.org/ http://wmataru.org/ If you live in DC, please join. I think wheat they're trying to do is a good thing. They are trying to focus on a few key areas to put various kinds of pressure on WMATA officials. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, except that I went to their first public meeting. To say that it was "eye opening" would be an understatement. I've lived in the DC metro area for over 25 years and I thought I knew all of WMATA's problems, but some of the stories I heard at that meeting made me realize how lucky I am to live within walking distance to an Orange Line stop.
mjevans 11y ago
At least D.C. has a metro/subway system. Seattle's own efforts are anemic, noisy, and above ground most of the time; in addition to being incredibly slow, expensive, and doing nothing to ease a complete lack of urban planning that has lead to a vast sprawl of suburbs and expensive rent in anything like city areas.
binxbolling 11y ago
Would also love to see an in-depth look at how the MBTA got so bad. A couple fancy new/remodeled stations and 3rd rail replacements can't hide the fact that it's an utter shitshow right now.

74 points by pwthornton 11y ago

I guess the saddest part is that the DC Metro seemed no worse than others I've ridden on as a tourist, such as Atlanta or NYC. The couple of times I've been to DC, the Metro seemed at least the equal of my home-town (Boston) MBTA which I rode for years as my daily commute. DC's Metro sucks? Yeah, welcome to the US.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
It's been a long time since I've been to DC, but honestly, when I was in DC, I thought the Metro was among the best subways I'd ever seen. Clean, quiet, smooth. Paris is the only place I've been that had better. But it sounds like DC's has maybe not been kept up as well in the last several years.
- totalrobe 11y ago
  I've lived in the DC area for 2.5 years and even during that short time we have seen a big increase in delays and complete service outages, and have had several electrical fires including an entire substation that has to be replaced. Service after 10 pm and on weekends is a total crapshoot.
- djKianoosh 11y ago
  It is definitely not clean anymore. Or it is not clean in the main commuter stations that you may or may not have seen. The stench is unbearable in some stations like Metro Center, Gallery Place and a few other ones.
TYPE_FASTER 11y ago
That was my impression as well.
timdiggerm 11y ago
I've been a tourist in NYC, and their system is loads better than DC's. It makes me so sad when I get back from New York and find myself on the Metro again.
- _of 11y ago
  The NYC subway works surprisingly well, considering that some of the tech that runs it is 100 years old [1]. :) [1] http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-why-the-new-york-city-subway-is-always-delayed-2015-11?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/this-is-why-the-new-york-city-...
untog 11y ago
Perhaps as a tourist you haven't been traveling at peak times? I've visited DC for work, and been traveling at normal commuting times, and it's been hell. The NYC subway also has a huge list of issues, but when you factor in the respective sizes of the systems, DC's is considerably worse.
- notacoward 11y ago
  It's entirely likely that my experience as a tourist is unlike that of daily commuters. Then again, DC residents' experience of other systems is likely to be similarly anomalous. All we can do is share our experiences, and let readers interpret the aggregate result.
adetdot 11y ago
DC Metro is not that bad. I have rode the metro/subway in NYC, Bay area, and London. DC is clean and easy to get around compared to those areas in my opinion. The knock on the DC Metro might be that it is getting more expensive and it no open as late as NYC or London.
- JPKab 11y ago
  Try being a daily rider. It's miserable. When things go bad, they go very, very bad. The BART sucks too, don't get me wrong. But the DC Metro is simply AWFUL compared to NYC, and it has far less tracks to maintain.
  - adetdot 11y ago
    I was a daily rider on and off for about 14 years and counting. DC Metro is not perfect by any means but I was satisfied most times. I lived in New York for a couple of months back in winter of late 2013 and early 2014. I was ready to get back to DC Metro after that time. This is just my opinion.
showerst 11y ago
The thing about metro is that 98+% of the time it's quite good, but when it's bad it tends to _really_ melt down. When the New York subway has a bad day, you're 20 minutes late. When Metro has a bad day you can be 1-2 hours late. It's also pretty lousy on weekends, especially if you have to switch lines it can be 5x slower than a car.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
JPKab 11y ago
No, as someone who rode the Metro in DC daily for 8 years until I left the region 18 months ago, it is far, far worse than NYC Subway. The reason is simple. It was completely hijacked by a union who turned themselves into a "good old boys club" for people from the poor neighborhoods who were born and raised in DC and educated in it's horrifically bad public school system. The union once treated the management as the enemy, but once there was no more money left to squeeze from the system itself, they began treating the riders as the enemy. Fares were raised every 6 months by the time I left, and the system continued to degrade. The racial statistics of the system are clearly indicative of a racial bias in hiring which is a direct result of the good old boy hiring system. New mechanics are iced out in the same way the new managers were by the salary doubling overtime culture the employees practice. Because to them, a single mechanic working 12 hour shifts is better than two mechanics working 8 hour shifts, despite the former costing the same and doing far, far less than the latter to keep the system operational. I support unions in the private sector. But my experience dealing with the DC Metro has made me loathe them in any public monopoly where consumers have no way to choose a competitor when the union gets out of hand and starts siphoning money from them. My favorite, glaring example which is a tiny sliver of what occurs courtesy of the union: A bus driver, several years ago, randomly pulled his bus over when he saw a person in a "McGruff the crime dog" costume talking to children about drugs. He assaulted McGruff, and then got back on his bus and continued operations. The union forced the WMATA to rehire him, WITH BACKPAY. He still works there, serving the public. He also had a previous felony record.
- greggarious 11y ago
  Do you have a cite on that? Would love to circulate it, but can't without an attribution.
  - SAS24 11y ago
    "But Vaughn, the arbitrator, decided that Brim's actions, although illegal and inappropriate, were not undertaken with malicious intent. Vaughn based his decision on witness statements, including those of the police officer, Tyrone Hardy, Metro officials said. Vaughn reduced Brim's penalty to a 30-day suspension and awarded him back pay for the rest of the time. Farbstein did not know the value of back pay awarded in either case." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060905926.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06...
dkrich 11y ago
There's a night and day difference between riding the metro on a vacation and on a daily basis during rush hour.
badmadrad 11y ago
I actually liked the Metro. I lived in DC up until early 2014 and found it be smooth when it wasn't rush hours. But maybe it was the fact I didn't ride during rush hour very much that I liked it. That being said, now I live in Chicago and I think the "L" sucks because I have to ride it for rush hours. Its slow and bumpy ride and I am pretty sure it was designed in the Thomas Edison era. In conclusion, riding the train sucks during rush hour.
- ghaff 11y ago
  There are probably exceptions, but I imagine that there are very few people who love their city's public transit system--including European ones--if they have to ride it daily at rush hour.
- jgroszko 11y ago
  As a tourist the DC Metro at least seems much cleaner to me than the Chicago L that I commute on every day. The displays that show arrival times for the next train in DC are slick, but many L stations have those now too.

officialchicken 11y ago

Flawed by design. There are only 2 sets of tracks instead of 3 or 4 like most cities; in DC, trains can't pass each other except in unusual circumstances. There are no sidings or passings at stations. They can not run express trains, use skip-stop, etc. As usual, the DC-centric view is that it's a political / will-power issue when the reality is the analog of bandwidth - you can't fit more trains on the track no matter what control "protocol" you use.

untog 11y ago
The London tube has 2 sets of tracks across most of the network, it doesn't seem to suffer anywhere near the same as DC does.
cballard 11y ago
> you can't fit more trains on the track no matter what control "protocol" you use. This is false, CBTC has greatly increased L train capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_of_the_New_York_City_Subway#Canarsie_Line_CBTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_of_the_New_York_Cit... The Canarsie line is two-tracked and doesn't have any mechanism for passing besides single-tracking (also, no tail tracks at the Manhattan terminus).
- officialchicken 11y ago
  L-train capacity was increased due to Sandy renovations of the tracks and switches, not just signal improvements. Same as G.
Symbiote 11y ago
Almost every metro system has two tracks for the majority of the length. The New York system is very unusual.

Yhippa 11y ago

I haven't been to many other subway systems in the US other than Chicago, Atlanta, and D.C. I would say in the US that D.C. seems to be the worst from the sense of long times between cars, full cars that stop but you can't get on because it's completely full, and making it difficult to add value to a stored value card. Including European systems I feel that I can tell if a system is good or not if it impedes the travel part of my day. Can I notice that the system is actively getting in my way?

sageabilly 11y ago

Living in the DC metro area I see two big issues with Metro service: 1- there are four different jurisdictions (VA, MD, DC, and the Feds) all trying to agree on every little thing and all trying to get their piece of the pie, and 2- people have to use Metro. Traffic on I-66/495/395 is so ungodly bad that even when Metro is single-track for repairs it's still on par or even slightly faster than traffic. And that's on a good traffic day; it's worse when it's raining. Not to mention the standard issue with finding and paying out the nose for parking once you've driven into DC. Metro doesn't have a huge incentive to provide better service because even with ridership being down 5% it's probably not going to dip much further since Metro riders have no alternative. I think DC is also semi-unique in the makeup of its commuters since inside the beltway is such a hub for employers and a large number of employees are happy to have an hour+ commute each way. The cost of real estate is so ridiculously high around here that you don't start seeing 3+ BR townhomes becoming accessible on anything other than a VP+ salary until about 15 miles out from downtown DC. If you want a freestanding home over 1000sft the affordability distance becomes 20+ miles. From what I've seen a vast majority of people will do whatever contortions they need to in their personal lives to get and keep a government/ government contractor job because those jobs have incredible stability (contractor not as much as working directly for the government, however that depends on what contractor you work for). Once you've got the coveted federal job you're happy to live in a basement 20 miles from the city on your entry-level pay tier because if you can just grin and bear it long enough you'll be almost guaranteed employment for life. Those employees can, do, and will continue to use Metro despite every problem it has because sitting in their car on I66 for an hour is not a viable alternative.

rplst8 11y ago
The lack of planning and forethought is criminal for the taxes we're paying.
- sageabilly 11y ago
  Well, do keep in mind the origins of the Metro itself- I've talked with older residents in DC who remember when Metro was being built people were terrified it'd bring the problems of the inner city out to the suburbs; remember that it was being planned/built in the late 60s/early 70s when DC was a much more violent and scary city than it is today. This is what led to the system being inefficient and weirdly laid out in the first place.

rayiner 11y ago

> This situation might have been less crippling had Metro’s original architects built an additional track. The older systems in New York and Chicago both have four in places. Here, it was deemed too expensive. As a result, 40 years later, the only way for trains to bypass active work areas is to single-track around them, worsening delays. It's incredible how short-sighted the D.C. Metro planners were.

rootbear 11y ago
I took a tour of the tunnels with my High School science club while the system was under construction. It was fascinating and I learned a lot about why they made the decisions they did. Tunneling for Metro was staggeringly expensive and having a third track would have greatly increased costs. The rails of the Metro are 1/4" closer together than standard American gauge, to reduce the side-to-side motion of the trains, which have standard gauge trucks. This allowed them to make the tunnels just a little bit narrower and saved millions in tunneling costs. But, clearly, this does complicate maintenance.
- pwg 11y ago
  > Tunneling for Metro was staggeringly expensive This probably had greater play in the reasoning years ago to forgo an extra track than we realize at this time. Most of the DC Metro was built by tunnel boring underneath already existing DC buildings. Very little, until one gets out to the suburbs, was built by open-cut and backfill, and even less of the system is surface grade. The planners in the late 50's to mid 60's, budgeting out 2*X (where X is likely a largish two digit number) of miles of tunnel boring, likely thought they were making a great money saving decision by not boring a third or fourth tunnel. And since typical human nature is to not think of the "what can go wrong" scenarios before they actually go wrong, those same planners likely never considered the "how do we fix track in tunnel 2 without having to half shut the system down to do so?" aspects of their decisions at the time.
  - potatolicious 11y ago
    > "And since typical human nature is to not think of the "what can go wrong" scenarios before they actually go wrong, those same planners likely never considered the "how do we fix track in tunnel 2 without having to half shut the system down to do so?" aspects of their decisions at the time." Having met transit planners before, I think you're probably not giving them enough credit. The sort of hellish clusterfuck that happens when things go wrong in a 2-track system is well understood and not new even during Metro's planning and construction. More likely it was decided that a 2-track system that went straight to hell the moment something went wrong is a better choice than nothing at all, which is the alternative. It's not that they were trying to save money, but rather trying to fit the system within a budget that simply couldn't get any larger. Same deal here in NYC - the new Second Avenue Subway is 2-track even though everyone, the MTA included, knows the problems inherent in it. The problem is that there is literally no way to cough up enough money to make it a 3- or 4-track subway. Public transit has been a dirty word in American politics for over half a century, and the willingness to invest isn't much different. These weren't short-sighted decisions, they were entirely cognizant of the shortcomings, but there wasn't any other choice.

Smirnoff 11y ago

Yeah, Metro administration in DC always infuriated me because they gave zero f*cks about quality, contracts or safety. 1. One time, they stopped working with a startup (which provided payment cards/passes via direct paycheck/deposit) without giving any warning. So I was stuck with $465 on my card, which I couldn't really use now. 2. There also have been several cases when some drunk/high/angry people would assault passengers in the evening. Ok, that happens in other places too. However, one time I went and complained about it and they told me "Sorry, we can't do anything. They left, we can't stop them now" Ok, how about you look at your cameras so that you can stop them next time or increase number of police? Yeah, their employees didn't really care about it.

cmurf 11y ago

Look at the plus side? It's cleaner than NYC's subway system. By a lot.

djKianoosh 11y ago
I have the exact opposite opinion.
- badmadrad 11y ago
  NYC is dirty city. When there's trash on the streets all the time its hard not to feel like everything is dirtier. That being said, I feel like it depends on the stations. I would argue that the dirtiest stations in NYC are way way more gross. You got some pretty gnarly rat situations in some of the stations.
- solutionyogi 11y ago
  NYC subway may be better in other aspects but as a New Yorker, I agree with parent that DC system is way cleaner than NYC.

GVIrish 11y ago

Count me as another DMV resident who now avoids the hot mess that is the Metro. For me, the scary thing is that the multitude of issues the Metro has almost weekly means that another fatal incident can happen any day now. After the 2009 crash the trains all went to manual brakes so they could sort out the automatic braking system that failed. To my knowledge that still isn't fixed. That indicates to me that they're still way behind on getting safety under control, much less making the organizational changes required to avoid another fatality like the L'Enfant incident. WMATA embodies the cautionary tale of an organization that has allowed incompetence, selfishness, and indolence to metastasize and paralyze a big organization to the point that it is killing people. It's going to take a whole new cadre of leadership to root out the blight at WMATA, not to mention the boatload of money that will be needed to pull out of the death spiral. It's a shame, I bought my damned house partially because of its proximity to a Metro stop and now I avoid taking it.

eli 11y ago
I'm less worried about a train derailment or crash. Metro has well-documented safety failures, but if you look at the numbers you're far safer riding a Metro to work than riding a bike or driving a car. That said, I really think it's a matter of time before overcrowded rush-hour platforms lead to someone falling on the tracks or getting stampeded. I fought thought this crowd this morning: https://twitter.com/wowindc/status/676761566751105025 https://twitter.com/wowindc/status/676761566751105025
- GVIrish 11y ago
  Yeah my rational mind tells me that with 600k people riding the Metro every day, the chances of me actually running into a dangerous incident are fairly small. However, the chances of me running into a lengthy delay are pretty high. The crowding thing at rush hour is a huge pain, usually on the evening commute. Haven't actually ridden Metro since Silver line started up but I can't imagine that has lessened the crush.

antongribok 11y ago

Long time listener, first time caller... Want to use the opportunity that this story is on the front page to advertise http://wmataru.org/ http://wmataru.org/ If you live in DC, please join. I think wheat they're trying to do is a good thing. They are trying to focus on a few key areas to put various kinds of pressure on WMATA officials. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, except that I went to their first public meeting. To say that it was "eye opening" would be an understatement. I've lived in the DC metro area for over 25 years and I thought I knew all of WMATA's problems, but some of the stories I heard at that meeting made me realize how lucky I am to live within walking distance to an Orange Line stop.

mjevans 11y ago

At least D.C. has a metro/subway system. Seattle's own efforts are anemic, noisy, and above ground most of the time; in addition to being incredibly slow, expensive, and doing nothing to ease a complete lack of urban planning that has lead to a vast sprawl of suburbs and expensive rent in anything like city areas.

binxbolling 11y ago

Would also love to see an in-depth look at how the MBTA got so bad. A couple fancy new/remodeled stations and 3rd rail replacements can't hide the fact that it's an utter shitshow right now.