Sorry, I couldn't resist the (increadibly dorky) Highway to Hell reference. This is more of citywide (and really, just generally urban) issue, but Richard Layman (Rebuilding Place) has a really great piece on
why Metro's two track system is a serious problem (main points: delays when anything goes wrong, major danger if we ever experience a terrorist attack, a limit on DC's capacity for latenight service because they have to stop trains to do track maintenance).
2 comments:
I know Richard says "regardless of cost" but I wonder if cost can be disregarded. What is more expensive...digging to put in a third track or putting in light rail above ground that supplements the same routes and eases pressure on them? That would also have the benefit of not causing delays of the metro trains during construction.
Richard is talking about the old separate blue line proposal that was dropped in 2003. I don't see how the current station setup can accommodate more tracks.
Light rail on top misses the point. Because a goodly portion of the ridership is coming from outside the city and it isn't likely a light rail line would be accessible by those riders.
Post a Comment