Very bold post, but ultimately correct. The system needs to be "crash-proof" in the sense that when one train goes down, Metro can re-route passengers easily and with rush-hour-ready service, so that it is focusing its attention on the crash victims, and not on the thousands of stranded passengers.

In New York City, for example, when the A & C Lines' control room caught fire, more than half a million people were disrupted, but the solution was just to walk two blocks over to the next line -- a rather minor inconvenience compared to what would happen in Washington if a long segment of track had to go out of service for several months for safety reasons.

by tom veil on Jun 23, 2009 9:49 am  

We need more than just the purple line; what if this would have happened somewhere else in the system such as the green or blue lines in Maryland or the orange line in Virginia there would be no way to get people around as with the purple line solution.

The silver line provides nothing if there is ever a delay since it will run on the same track as the blue and orange lines for some portions that line will be affected. There should be a rule of some sort that states no new lines can be on the same tracks as a current route and must be completely new but that is not likely to happen to stop any problems that may occur due to a domino effect.

The system needs a fully circular line that extends around the whole system that could function as a way for people to get around if something occurs. If that cannot be built at least a lines that go east to west near the northern portion of the system and the southern portion.

by KK on Jun 23, 2009 9:50 am  

Of course there is now a risk (if not certainty) that the CCC and assorted other villains will use this tragedy as an argument against the rail-option for the Purple Line.

After a day or so of mourning and contemplation, I'd really like to see GGW and other sites keep the record clear on deaths-per-mile traveled. Let's not let this tragedy become the anecdote that blots out the reality.

by Reid on Jun 23, 2009 10:23 am  

An entire 'rail beltway' would seem a good start. I'd love to see light rail through Arlington on more of a North-South axis - Glebe Rd? - that could connect Ballston through to Columbia Pike and Alexandria, and once you're doing that, closing the circle across the WWB to bring transit to underserved parts of PG county, and around the North side to relieve stress on the American Legion Br. seems reasonable.

Beyond that, infil in town would do a lot to spread the benefits of mobility. Lots of Northwest and Northeast are far from transit, as are chunks East of the river.

by Distantantennas on Jun 23, 2009 10:31 am  

We need redundancy in the Metro system, but that is why the connection between the two legs of the Red Line should be Metro Rail, not a totally different light rail system, with different cars and tracks. Light rail would not make a circuit.

In 2003, WMATA staff developed a plan that was supported by then-County Executive Doug Duncan -- originally called the Red Line Loop -- and subsequently dubbed the Purple Line Loop. This plan was found to be feasible by the Montgomery County Planning Board.

This Metro Loop called for a heavy rail Metro line to connect the two legs of Metro's Red line by running a metro from Silver Spring, along the railroad right-of-way north to the Beltway, then along the north side of the Beltway to Bethesda Medical Center.

This Metro connection would help when accidents like this occur, since Metro cars could keep running, by approaching from the other leg of the Red Line. It would be good for national security around the NIH and Medical Center, and would take more cars off the road. And it would offer a one seat ride from Union Station to Medical Center, without going through downtown DC -- thus alleviating Metro congestion downtown.

This Metro Loop plan was proposed years before BRAC was announced. And now we know that BRAC will bring thousands more employees, patients and visitors to Medical Center daily, by 2011 -- and huge traffic congestion.

This Metro Loop plan should be revisited NOW, both because of BRAC, and because it would greatly improve Metro's infrastructure and service.

Why would we blow all our transit money on a system that doesn't improve Metro and doesn't serve BRAC?

by Pam Browning on Jun 23, 2009 10:59 am  

I've recently started to not reply in comment threads of my own posts too much, rather letting others comment on what I wrote.

However, you're a very special case, Ms. Browning, since I have interacted with you off-line and have already gone round and round over the issues. Normally I'd reply to you but I just don't have the time to refute your talking points again. Plus, I don't want this thread to become Yet Another Purple Line Flame Thread.

I will point readers to the Purple Line NOW coalition and ACT's pro-Purple Line site so they can read the point in favor for themselves. Ms. Browning's link has her arguments against.

I am very flattered that you read my post and took time out of your day to comment.

by Cavan on Jun 23, 2009 11:13 am  

Thank you for your reply. I don't recall our communications off line, but I'm sure you agree that should not preclude me from making a point here.

For some reason, the link to my name and website is not correct on my previous post. I would appreciate the opportunity to get the correct link posted here.

http://www.savethetrailpetition.org/

Thank you!

by Pam Browning on Jun 23, 2009 11:30 am  

Wouldn't it be great to have the purple line AND the redline connection Pam Browning described? Both!

by Bianchi on Jun 23, 2009 11:37 am  

Yes. And the Montgomery County Planning Board determined that we could have both the Metro Red Line connection and the Purple Line. They said it would be feasible to connect between Bethesda and Silver Spring with Metro, and connect between Silver Spring and New Carrollton with light rail or Bus Rapid Transit. The Purple Line is NOT precluded by the Metro connection.

by Pam Browning on Jun 23, 2009 11:52 am  

this main line needs more tracks- it is as simple as that. The planners and railroads need to grow some testicles and start taking over highways and placing rails on them. Redundancy would allow more trains, and allow emergency fucntions to proceed at a more rapid pace. Trains could still run if our Metro had been designed with 4 tracks instead of just two- and we could also have real express trains. The second busiest transit system in North America needs to add redundancy- extra tracks- NOW.

by w on Jun 23, 2009 11:52 am  

The notion that Metrorail is the only sort of train we should ever build is absolutely ridiculous. It is a recipe for literally throwing money down the toilet.

Match the mode to the actual needs of the corridor.

by BeyondDC on Jun 23, 2009 11:58 am  

I'm envisioning the purple line as currently planned plus more metro infill, like a connection between Bethesda and SS, and more e-w connections. There's a big distance between the planned purple line and the next e-w route through downtown DC. BRT is a poorer choice then rail for so many reasons.

by Bianchi on Jun 23, 2009 12:03 pm  

re: savethetrailpetition

Um, isn't the current plan for the right of way to be used by both light rail AND bicyclists/peds?

The trail is saved. It looks like this is simply an anti-purple line screed. I think the loss of a few trees in the ROW is worth the fossile fuels and other impacts it will mitigate.

by William on Jun 23, 2009 12:12 pm  

Pam, just out of curiosity, where do you live?

by SG on Jun 23, 2009 12:15 pm  

SG, I live in the Town of Chevy Chase, and where do you live?

And what is your full name? I am being jumped on personally by folks who won't even put their names with their comments.

Why don't we stick to the merits of the discussion?

Yes, William ?, there is a plan to bulldoze the narrow right-of-way and destroy all the trees and put a "trail" next to two tracks of trains, 10' from hikers and bikers, with trains passing every three minutes. The trail will be fenced in on both sides, for safety from the trains, and for privacy from the very nearby homeowners.

Please look at the photos of the current Trail, and you will see what will be lost.

http://www.savethetrailpetition.org/

by Pam Browning on Jun 23, 2009 12:49 pm  

Im not just talking about the Purple Line

Actually I had meant the Red Line, which shares the ROW w/ Amtrak, CSX, and MARC.

Each train service should have it's very own double tracks, even if they have to spread the main line out over Blair Road or put it on a deck over the existing 4 tracks.

Highways and roads should never be considered sacrosanct.

We have sacrificed far too many good rail lines in the uSA by converting them into parking lots , malls , nature trails, or roads.

we must begin doing the opposite and turn roads into rails.

by w on Jun 23, 2009 1:13 pm  

Asking where you live is somewhat valid. Youre advocating the expansion of rail... just in someone else's back yard. For your information, I grew up in Chevy Chase, where my family still lives (and has lived for generations). We support the Purple Line. I now live in DC. As for my name, why would I tell you my name? You offered yours up, but few others do or have any obligation to.

Saving the trail and building the Purple Line can be one and the same. And it will be. Obscuring reality is not something that's beneficial for anybody, and in my opinion that's what your website does. It's like an underhanded political campaign that misrepresents the other side while pretending to protect or save something whose existence isn't threatened.

by SG on Jun 23, 2009 1:14 pm  

Once again, I ask this to not become Yet Another Purple Line Flame War. If you want one, here ya go.

We all know Ms. Browning's views on the Purple Line. She has been very public with her views for many years now. There is no need to ask her questions about her views. Just follow her link if you want to know where she stands.

We also know my views and the views of the contributors and most of the commenters here on the Purple Line. No need to revisit old ground.

by Cavan on Jun 23, 2009 1:20 pm  

Pam wrote this: The trail will be fenced in on both sides, for safety from the trains, and for privacy from the very nearby homeowners.

My reply: And how is this different from what's (possibly illegally) going on at Columbia Country Club? Are those big, bad, evil golfers really a threat?

by Froggie on Jun 23, 2009 1:27 pm  

Rails to Trails is meant to save the corridor for rail if the need should arise in the future. Looks like the need is there again.

by NikolasM on Jun 23, 2009 1:37 pm  

the person was new to me and I got somewhat sandbagged. Indeed if we had more redundancy like Cavan suggests in the post the transportation infrastructure would be improved. My supervisor couldn't get to work today. Last night I drove to pick up my S.O. who was stranded at NY ave - after a frightful eternity waiting for a return call to find out if SO was on THAT train (SO was one or two trains behind).

by Bianchi on Jun 23, 2009 1:39 pm  

W, very few rail systems have express tracks. They aren't worth the cost investment, versus building nearly parallel lines or even streetcars routes. Look at the strategy they've used in London, Tokyo, and Moscow: nearly redundant, interconnected lines, but no express lines. More coverage, more alternative routes, and if there is a problem then you take a different line.

by цarьchitect on Jun 23, 2009 1:41 pm  

I'm with Cavan. It's been a long time since Purple line opponents could be taken seriously. There is no point engaging this small minority of wealthy NIMBYs on an issue that the rest of the region (including the major cycling organizations) agrees upon.

by BeyondDC on Jun 23, 2009 2:01 pm  

Cavan, I'm glad you link people to your former post "Residents support the Purple Line" because I read it quite a while after your initial post and wanted to clear up your mis-characterization of the testimony heard at the 4-H meeting that night.

While you were correct in saying that the majority of speakers spoke in favor of the Purple Line (including the Town of Chevy Chase), the clear majority of residents spoke against putting it as light rail on the Trail. The majority of people who spoke in favor of light rail on the Trail were primarily members of Purple Line Now (like Webb Smedley and his son) or ACT (like you) or those who represented the business community (like Ed Asher, a founding member of Purple Line Now, former president of Chevy Chase Land Company and a resident of North Chevy Chase). Almost every representative of a resident group from this area (including the Town of Chevy Chase, Kensington, East Bethesda, Chevy Chase Hills, Citizens Coordinating Committee of Friendship Heights, and Edgevale) spoke against putting light rail on the Trail. In fact, the majority of speakers spoke against rail on the trail, period.

We've been reviewing all the comments (written and oral) submitted to MTA as part of the DEIS process as well. Once I've had a chance to go through them thoroughly, I'd be happy to share the findings. You might be interested to know that the form letters generated by Save the Trail far outnumber those generated by ACT, Purple Line Now and Smarter Growth Coalition combined.

Pat Burda

by Pat Burda on Jun 23, 2009 2:04 pm  

Once again, Pat, I appreciate you taking the time to read my writing.

I will reiterate my desire for this thread to not turn into Another Purple Line Flame Thread.

by Cavan on Jun 23, 2009 2:09 pm  

I am so looking forward to not having to hear about the mature trees that will be lost. If it where really about trees there is a whole rainforest in South America that's disapearing. Of course, it's about having your cake and eating it too, especially since the trail was always ment to be a trolley line. I honestly don't know how the opponents of the Purple line can honestly make their points based on environmentalism with a straightr face.

My sympathies go out to all those affected by this horrible accident.

by Thayer-D on Jun 23, 2009 2:31 pm  

I will reiterate my desire for this thread to not turn into Another Purple Line Flame Thread.

I admire your resilience, but you're asking the conversation to thread a pretty narrow course: talk about the usefulness of the Purple Line but not its form or path.

by Reid on Jun 23, 2009 2:31 pm  

Moving a bit south for the sake of the thread, I would also argue that a situation like this would be catastrophic had it happened on the Orange/Blue Line anywhere between Rossyln and Capitol Hill. While what happened yesterday was a tragedy beyond comprehension, I can't imagine how horribly crushed the network would be (and for how long) had this happened underground, like between McPherson and Farragut West. Imagine that. The system would be shut down for weeks.

So FWIW, assuming that this tragedy does not turn public opinion against WMATA indefinitely, I think yesterday's events clearly demonstrate why splitting Blue/Orange Lines through DC is essential for keeping the system open in the event of a massive failure. I would say even moreso than the Purple Line rail option (which I wholeheartedly, enthusiastically support). my .02

by JTS on Jun 23, 2009 2:49 pm  

Thayer-D-

I am so looking forward to not having to hear about the mature trees that will be lost. If it where really about trees there is a whole rainforest in South America that's disapearing. Of course, it's about having your cake and eating it too, especially since the trail was always ment to be a trolley line. I honestly don't know how the opponents of the Purple line can honestly make their points based on environmentalism with a straightr face.

me-

So basically the ICC/Maryland Highway Opponents that always use the dramatic scare tactic "Building New Highways in Maryland will ruin the Trees" are full of s--- because if they really cared about the trees and the so-called enviroment(according to their false characer definition)they would work more on protecting the heavilly forrest mountains of the Apps. from Suburban Sprawl Expansion instead of trying to De-rail Economic and Business Growth by preventing Highway building and Upscale Development in the DC/Maryland Suburbs and the Baltimore area.

by mike on Jun 23, 2009 3:01 pm  

Uberarchitect ;

You are WRONG about more tracks.

We need them.

by w on Jun 23, 2009 3:04 pm  

let's see how long Manhattan or Berlin function if we take away their express tracks.

DC's Metro system is the second busiest in the entire continent- and it was not planned for these kinds of numbers or usage.

# or more tracks are essential for adequate functioning and redundancy- especially in times of emergency- if Metro had more than 2 tracks it would not necessarily have had to shut down yesterday.

by w on Jun 23, 2009 3:08 pm  

Tsarchitect: Tokyo may not have express lines, but they tend to have express tracks at most stations, not to mention multiple tracks on several of their lines. The line that rings around Tokyo comes to mind...but it's also been 12 years since I was stationed there...

by Froggie on Jun 23, 2009 3:15 pm  

Hi, not only the system is NOT SAFE, the trains & stations are in very bad quality. Trains inside are dirty & damaged. The tiles in the stations are black not terracota like their are supposed to be. The A/C most time is bad. In the night there is not security guards, women has to avoid ride in the night if the don't want to be bothered. In addition, there is not any protecion between the people and the rail. This is the US capital? I was expecting a new, clean & safe mass transportion before came to DC 2 weeks ago, but the metro in Puerto Rico seems to be way better.

by Kelvin Medina on Jun 23, 2009 3:54 pm  

@w - it would have been shut down if there were a dozen tracks. Lest you forget, yesterday afternoon nine people died in the worst train accident in the system's history.

I think this is a very important conversation to have and I want to get it back on topic as well. I am of the opinion that a separate blue line is more essential to the survivability of the system in the event of an accident than a purple line. I know one is theoretically much closer to reality, but I maintain that had a crash of this scale happened on the orange/blue lines in DC, we would be looking at no blue/orange line for at least 10 days, imo. It is the ability to walk to another station in the event of a disruption that is key (a la nyc). with infinite cash I'd push the separate blue line followed by the purple line followed by something west-eastbound in between those two. Ultimately, I like to see a loop around the beltway, but walkability between downtown stations would prevent a catastrophe from paralyzing the system more than the purple line would.

by JTS on Jun 23, 2009 4:11 pm  

Mike,
Good point. The amount of trees lost for the IIC would be equivalent to the ones for the IIC. And the point about environmentalsim has nothing to do with removing all those cars from the streets by building the Purple Line.

by Thayer-D on Jun 23, 2009 4:34 pm  

If accidents only occur at a rate of three accidents in 15 years vs. dozens a day (compliments of OP), then why is the need for redundancy so great?

Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Urbanism. The neo-urbanists will take any crisis to force their agenda upon an unsuspecting public.

by MPC on Jun 23, 2009 4:49 pm  

@ JTS

What WMATA really needs is for all the lines to be separate.

But that will never happen unless the system has to be rebuilt.

What if two crashes occurred on the same day perhaps on the blue/orange and the yellow/green that would cause hell the only things worst would be for a crash at Metro Center and either L'Enfant Plaza that would take the system down plus you would leave thousands of people stranded like some were yesterday.

We need three separate lines going east/west and north/south in DC.

The blue split needs to be built plus splitting up the orange/silver along with the green/yellow.

by Kk on Jun 23, 2009 4:58 pm  

JTS: given that there's still the Yellow Line crossing of the Potomac, the "Orange/Blue disaster" you predict wouldn't be quite as bad. 'Course, to be fair, any such situation would turn the Pentagon and Rosslyn stations into an absolute zoo...

by Froggie on Jun 23, 2009 5:37 pm  

Froggie: Woops, you're right, and London has them on part of the Metropolitan line.

W: The vast majority of world transit systems do not use express tracks, for the simple reason is that they are not worth the money. The handful of places that do use them are major metropolises with short distances between stations. New York's 4,5,6 line, for example, serves more people in a day than the entire Metro system and it stops every third of a mile or less. Express trains may make sense there, but even so, the MTA isn't building express tracks on the Second Avenue Subway.

In subways where stations are as deep or distant as they are here, express tracks are avoided. Planners instead build slightly redundant routes with more stations: more nodes in the network, more locations for greater density, and easier access to transit. Separate lines have benefits that make the system more efficient on a whole on the whole, whereas express lines only make certain trips quicker, usually from places with emptier cars.

On top of the significant capital construction costs, the service isn't that efficient, except between huge nodes and during rush hours. If express trains mean waiting 10 minutes for a local train and then another 10 for an express train, and then again for the local train, which is sometimes the first local train, the trip probably could have taken in less time and hassle on the first local train.

Don't believe me? It was easier to sit on the 1 from 145th St too 51st St than taking the 2/3 and skipping local stops and gaining a maximum of 5 minutes.

Finally, as JTS mentioned, this would have shut down any nearby tracks. In fact - it did. CSX and MARC had to stop service on that section of track because of it. Putting the line in another location, for example North Capitol line, would not have this problem.

But this is to say nothing of using non-subway modes, which are less expensive but still work quite well in terms of total transit use.

by цarьchitect on Jun 23, 2009 8:45 pm  

As цarьchitect mentions, Tokyo (among other cities) does not have "express" tracks per se. One must look separately at the former national rail services (JR) and the subway/private commuter lines. JR has many more services on many more lines than an individual private railway, so in essence they can have actual "express" lines in some sections. For example, the Chuo Line express between Shinjuku and Ochanomizu stops once at Yotsuya, but the Chuo/Sobu local stops six times. They do not follow the same path for their entire length, however. The same is true of the Yamanote Line and the Saikyo/Shonan-Shinjuku Line between Ikebukuro and Osaki -- the Yamanote Line stops at every station, while the Saikyo Line, being on separate tracks that only have platforms at some of those stations, make fewer stops. They are separate services, but for that section they function as complementary local/express service.

Private lines, on the other hand, tend to run local/rapid/express/limited express services on the exact same tracks, but local trains stop to allow faster trains to pass or to connect at a platform. This could be done on new double-tracked Metro lines by building passing loops at particular stations and scheduling local and express trains. This is much cheaper than quadruple-tracking an entire line as is done in New York, and is perfectly suited to a system like Metro in which stations are widely-spaced. (New York's subway has stops every few hundred meters in some places, making completely separate express tracks a necessity.)

by wmata on Jun 23, 2009 9:27 pm  

Had the tragic crash instead occurred north of the Silver Spring station, the Purple Line might not have been usable as an alternate route. The red line loop concept works well regardless of where a disruption occurs.

Another transit improvement that adds redundancy to Metro is an expanded and integrated regional commuter rail network. Governor O'Malley announced a long-term plan to add capacity and extend MARC trains into Virginia. The MARC Brunswick line which parallels the metro red line would be triple tracked between Point of Rocks and Silver Spring.

http://www.mtamaryland.com/marc%20plan%20full.pdf

Regular service resumes tomorrow on the MARC Brunswick line.

by Delegate Al Carr on Jun 23, 2009 11:28 pm  

It's unlikely that redundancy will be built into the system. I was returning from NYC when the crash occurred. The NYC subway has many advantages over DC--third tracks to help accommodate problem trains, etc., but there are many parts of the New York subway and construction/maintanance create many of the same problems that occur in the Metro system. the problem here appears to be one of routine repairs and limits of old, obsolete cars. this is no time for going on about pet issues or chiding people who pick on Cavan for chiding people who don't agree with him.

by Rich on Jun 23, 2009 11:49 pm  

I'm going to have to mildly agree with MPC here. You don't justify billions of heavy rail redundancy to make rare disasters less inconvenient to the system ridership. Shuttle buses are an appropriate band aid for a handful of days each decade. Urbanists rightfully criticize "Easter Sunday Parking" but clamoring for disaster proof system redundancy is along the same vein...

However there are compelling reasons for greater redundancy in the system core. Studies have shown that the Orange and Red Lines, even with 8 car trains, could max out in fifteen years. The growth curve for daily ridership and the land use benefits of TOD justify the capital expenses and future operating costs of system expansion.

by Paul S on Jun 24, 2009 4:41 am  

What if half of all the red line commuters could have stayed home and worked? Is that cheaper redundancy than a 1.2b light rail line that won't take one car off the road or free up one seat in current mass transit. Why are insisting on 20th century industrial solutions in a 21st century interconnected era?

by telecommutenow on Jun 24, 2009 8:10 am  

The problem with telecommuting is that the technology that enables it is the same technology that's allowing companies to outsource IT support to Asia...

by Froggie on Jun 24, 2009 8:28 am  

Kelvin:

1) The numbers indicate that Metro is safe. These are the first passenger fatalities since the 80s, for goodness sake.

2) Puerto Rico's Metro is brand new. Of course it's cleaner.

by BeyondDC on Jun 24, 2009 9:55 am  

Guards all over the place to protect the women?? WTF? What kind of society do *you* come from??

by andy on Jun 24, 2009 10:43 am  

Please stop using the graphic that shows the Purple Line overlaid on the Metro map. It creates the deliberate misimpression that the PL is part of the Metro system, which it is not.

On Monday any and all other transportation options would have been useful and welcome. However, the PL as currently envisioned would suck up so many public resources that we will not be able to build many other needed projects, such as the Corridor Cities Transitway. As a matter of fact, the State is already canceling scheduled road projects to cover perfectly predictable increases in the cost of the project before it has even broken ground!

by kschnee on Jun 24, 2009 11:26 am  

"the State is already canceling scheduled road projects"
That is GREAT news!!

by Bianchi on Jun 24, 2009 11:42 am  

Do tell why you consider that great news....ESPECIALLY if the projects in question are repair/replacement projects...

by Froggie on Jun 24, 2009 11:47 am  

Btw if you don't want a spirited debate on the PL, don't write about it.

And if you don't enjoy hearing opinions that are contrary to your own, why do you write a blog?

by kschnee on Jun 24, 2009 11:51 am  

I suppose you're addressing me with your questions, right?

I made that request because this post was not about the merits of the Purple Line on its own. We've already gone round and round on that topic.

This post was about redundant and interconnecting transit infrastructure. I used the Purple Line because it was relevent in this context. JTS made a point that I didn't about a separated Blue Line. Similar idea.

I love spirited debate and am thrilled to have so many comments in this thread. I'm also thrilled that most commentors got the point of the post rather than seeing it as Another Purple Line Flame Thread. We've had enough of those already. That's why I posted links to a previous Flame War and links to pro-Purple Line sites and pointed out that Ms. Browning had her views on her site.

If you would like to comment and debate about interconnecting and redundant transit infrastructure, that's wonderful. If you want to flame someone over why/why not the Purple Line is a good/bad idea go to another thread. Perhaps go into the search field on the upper right hand part of this page and type in "Purple Line." You'll get a lot of writing about its plusses and minuses. Then, go over to Maryland Politics Watch and do the same. You'll get a lot of pro-con debate there.

Judging by the number of comments, it would appear that the underlying point of the piece provides a lot to talk about within the GGW commentor community. It is great to read what others thought of ideas for future infill rail infrastructure, of which the Purple Line is one example, as is the separated Blue Line, as would be the DC streetcars.

by Cavan on Jun 24, 2009 12:21 pm  

Froggie, just being an ass on purpose to kschnee who expressed what I think is obvious comtempt for transit and a riduculous complaint that the purple line is shown on a metro map. What's that? Hatred of maps that have useful information on them? Does kschnee also object to road maps of Washington DC that show surrounding areas of VA and MD? State maps of MD that also show adjoining parts of PA?

by Bianchi on Jun 24, 2009 12:55 pm  

Bianchi, understood...but it's hard to detect sarcasm with so few words as you used earlier...

by Froggie on Jun 24, 2009 4:22 pm  

Thayer-D-

Good point. The amount of trees lost for the IIC would be equivalent to the ones for the IIC. And the point about environmentalsim has nothing to do with removing all those cars from the streets by building the Purple Line.

me-

Right because the people who already own cars will not be persuaded to ride the Purple Line Trolley-Like Lightrail. The Orange Line Runs right in the middle of I-66 and VDOT is now planning on widening the Highway due to Over-Crowding despite the fact that the Subway runs right along the busy highway. Rapid Transit will always have the benifical of the people who don't drive or own automobiles.

by mike on Jun 24, 2009 4:32 pm  

I am more than a little disgusted with both sides of the Purple Line debate and their use of this tragedy to support their political agendas. From where I sit, both sides come out as "villains." Shame on all of you! What seems to be the general consensus about the NTSB and reports covering this is that the likely culprit for the accident and resulting delays is lack of funds...something the politicians and those that elect them bear responsibility for....If and until we as a region, finally face the fact that this is an aging system in need of funds for repair and maintenance, I fear this will not be the last accident on the metro system. It is time to stop squawking about purple and silver lines and start holding the politicians and the metro board accountable for the system that exists now.

by md mom on Jun 25, 2009 10:53 am  

@BeyondDC:
1. Is not safe, because they don't replace that old trains. This is not USA? One of the best countries in the world? Then why they had that old trains working?
Why they don't follow the recommendations given about the train? This is a third world where the Metro administrations do whatever they want? Nowadays, the train should be 99.9% safe not 90% safe. The technology exists, but if they don't audit the system and give the proper maintenance then this happens. You buy a car and you change the oil every 3 months, if you can't buy a new car after 5 year, then you refurbished yours to work for 5 years more.

2. Yes is relatively new (around 2004 I think). It can be 10 years or 20 years old, but if you give the proper maintenance it can look like new, that what WMATA don' do. Instead of be a first class transportation, it look like transportation for indigents. Even worse, go to Metro Center @ 5PM the trains are over their capacity, I can't imagine a crash there. I feel very lucky not to be there, because I live in Silver Spring and took that line every day around 4:30 @ 5PM. I can’t go to Puerto Rico and say “Public transportation in DC our nation capital is excellent, no way is the worse in this world”

by Kelvin Medina on Jun 25, 2009 11:48 am  

Instead of be a first class transportation, it look like transportation for indigents.

LOL!

by Anonymous on Jun 25, 2009 11:59 am  

What the system needs most is multiple 'detour' lines or switching areas... This way if a train breaks down it can be 'pushed' into an off-line pouch until the system gets slower or shuts down at night to be moved. If there were a third line installed throughout the system, than trains could bypass a station... it would be impossible to have platform access to this third line at each station (cost-wise) but at least the line could be used to go around a station and then get back on the main line once the obstruction has been passed. There should also be more connectors to lines that intersect, Metro could use that to create 'new' lines using existing track. For example, a connector allowing a green line train to switch to the blue/orange lines could create all kinds of opportunities (although this has already sort of been done by sending special blue line trains from Gallery place to Franconia using the yellow line). Metro may also need to consider that 3 different lines may not be able to operate on one track effectively (i.e. the current plan to have silver/orange/blue running through downtown on one track)... I think re-aligning may be more effective...

by Matt on Jun 25, 2009 2:39 pm  

@ Matt

WMATA has already done the connector thing before I dont know if you remember but there was a Green Line Commutter Shortcut about a decade ago that ran from Farragut North to Greenbelt before the center portion of the Green line was completed.

The train start at Farragut North followed the Red Line to Brookland and between there and Fort Totten it enters the switch track and then follows the Green Line to Greenbelt bypassing Fort Totten.

by kk on Jun 26, 2009 12:55 am