Skip to comments.A Failure of Imagination Put Metro on Wrong Track
Posted on 02/16/2012 4:52:23 AM PST by Kaslin
Believers in central planning should take a look at Washington's Metro rail transit system. While they will find many things to like, they will also see examples of how central planners -- and especially rail transit planners -- can get things disastrously and expensively wrong.
Things to like include aesthetics. Metro stations and cars are attractively designed and reasonably spacious. Metro attracts more riders than any other American rail transit system except, of course, New York's.
It has stimulated local planners and developers to create vibrant downtown-like clusters of stores, restaurants and apartment buildings along the Orange Line in Arlington, Va., and around the Bethesda, Md., station on the Red Line.
But then there are the bad things, which my colleagues at The Washington Examiner have documented at great length.
The escalators at the south side of the DuPont Circle station are being repaired and out of commission for -- get this -- nine months. This is Metro's fifth busiest station.
Other escalators are often on the fritz. Metro's designers didn't put canopies over all of the escalators but left them out in the open. It turns out that it rains and even snows sometimes in Washington and that water corrodes the metal escalator.
Who'd 'a' thunk it? Well, actually the designers knew all about the Art Noveau canopies that covered the stairwells of the Paris Metro, but they didn't have the funds to match what the French were able to manage at the turn of the 20th century.
Deferred maintenance and failure to replace outmoded cars have taken a heavy toll. This isn't the designers' fault, but this sort of thing happens frequently in public-sector agencies (and sometimes in private-sector companies, as well).
Metro has found the money to meet union demands, but too often it hasn't found funds to keep the system up to date.
In the wake of increased delays, and after a collision of two trains resulted in nine deaths in June 2009, ridership has fallen. In response, Metro has raised fares. Higher prices for worse service: not a winning combination.
Metro's more fundamental and interesting flaw is apparent when you look at its attractive route map. (Metro, like mass transit systems going back to the London Tube in the 1930s, is good at graphics.)
What you see is a bunch of differently colored lines converging in downtown Washington, near government and private-sector office buildings.
The assumption of Metro planners was that jobs would continue to be heavily concentrated in the historic downtown.
So there is no station serving Tysons Corner in Northern Virginia, which has become the largest office center between downtown Washington and Atlanta.
Joel Garreau, in researching his book "Edge City" on Tysons and similar clusters, asked Metro planners why they didn't put a station there.
The reply: We never thought there would be any development there. Suburbs are for houses.
But Northern Virginia lawyer named Til Hazel, who handled land acquisition cases on the Capital Beltway, figured it out. He bought big parcels in the triangle between the Beltway, Leesburg Pike and Chain Bridge Road, and made millions developing Tysons.
Now Metro is trying to extend the Orange Line to Tysons and beyond to Dulles Airport. This would have been much cheaper when the system was planned in the early 1970s and much of the land in between was vacant.
Now the costs are astronomical and construction deadlines seem far distant. But, hey, other systems are worse. New York opened its first subway line in 1906, but you still can't take a subway to LaGuardia or Kennedy airports.
Central planners have trouble envisioning the future and, at least in the case of rail transit planners, have a bias toward recreating the past.
They love the idea of channeling the masses into central destinations and have had trouble imagining that suburbs developing beyond the leafy residential enclaves of the 1950s. They have been slow to see that airports would be a major destination.
But as Joel Kotkin has pointed out, the centralization of business and shopping in downtowns was predominant only for a moment in time, between the onset of rail transit till the arrival of the automobile.
Systems like the Metro have failed to anticipate the future and, at great cost to national taxpayers, have helped the minority who prefer dense urban living. But with higher fares and lower reliability. Metro looks nice, but it's not much of a bargain.
Willie Green was a hoot.
bump for later
Question in my mind, did poor willy have a brain?
With his singular, don’t confuse me with the facts, focus on fast trains, he could have been on the presidential planning commission.
The Metro system was designed to look good, not actually work. The WMATA, like the USPS has become a benefits disbursement organization and not a functioning agency providing services to paying customers. Those that ride the system are not paying for upkeep, but the retirement benefits of someone no longer working or out on “disability” and most of the ridership gets some sort of gubmint subsidy so we’re paying three times.
1- local taxes, 2- federal taxes, 3- actual fares out of pocket.
There is no such thing as a truly private-sector office building in Washington DC.
One of my fond memories as a kid was taking the Staten Island ferry. The highlight of the trip was buying a *real* NY City-style pretzel at the ferry concession and putting mustard on it. Yum! :-)
Can we still call these "Willie Green Happy Choo-Choo" threads for old times sake? :^)
I find it odd tht Michael didn’t directly mention the amount of local and federal tax money the system soaks up.
You see hints of it in the comment about “deferred maintenance” and “union demands” vs. “haven’t found the funds” and “higher prices for worse service.”
It’s obvious that there’s a giant gap between revenues and costs,and that the gap’s made up from taxes; and without these, there’s probably no agency or company in the world that could build or keep the system running at all.
It would be nice if, every time a metro mass transit system was dicussed, the writer would report on the actual cost of a ride. You know, total expenditures divided by total rides. Some people would be outraged; some would say, “that’s the price we have to pay for a functioning city;” some would say, “Gee, I’m glad that’s not the cost of my monthly ticket!”
And of course I’m talking about systems already running, with actual economic data. Proposed systems, with their “projected” costs and ridership levels, well, those are pure la-la land.
By the way, where the hell is choo-choo willie when you need him?
I’m a “central planner” at my state’s DOT and I can envision the future, so please don’t lump us all together.
Actually, more often then not, it’s the local politicians, the barons of zoning and subdivision regulations, who don’t/can’t have any vision.
Of course, railways can carry people out of the city, too. So, they stop em' at the city line.
They're not impugning the people, but the system. I'm sure the Soviet Union had lots of farsighted people in central planning, but somehow their contributions didn't really go very far.
The top thre epic fails of metro -
1) it does not go to Tysons, the 7th largest city in the US, during business hours.
2) It does not go to Dulles.
3) It does not go to GMU, the largest unniversity in the Commonwealth of VA.
4) a 15-minute commute by car takes 2 hours by Metro.
5) The same commute by car costs 500% as much by metro.
6) When they wanted to install it, they also wanted to install “off-track betting” in the subway stations. Can you imagine the outrage?
7) Our horse barn was plowed over to make the West Falls Church Metro Station.
8) Umm ... I think I got past three... sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.