Originally Posted by
Chapel Hill Guy
It's been a few years since we lived there, so I guess things could have changed. It was always clean when I rode the metro.
Metro was even more sparse back in the 80's. The green line was not even wasn't even completed until 1999 while its completion date was 1976. So your familiarity with the D.C. Metro, as well as your credibility is highly questionable. It may have served your needs, but surely, you don't think it was built just for your benefit.
I hope you didn't think there weren't any suburbs around Washington, D.C.
Originally Posted by
Chapel Hill Guy
We owned and lived in two different places right in DC, so the Metro worked well for us. I agree a lot of folks need to drive to a metro station in the burbs. The fact that folks were willing to do that says a lot about how much time it could save you versus driving. I always found traffic horrible in the greater DC area and I lived there a long time.
The metro does not even cover all parts of D.C., which is quite small really. Again, cherry picking your examples doesn't prove anything, but lack of your credibility. Even if one could drive to a metro station, not everyone worked in a place easily accessible from a metro station. Even at the highest levels of oil prices, metro ridership does not exceed about a quarter of a million trips. D.C. metro is. at best, skeletal. The gaps need to be filled for the system to be truly functional and useful.
Originally Posted by
Chapel Hill Guy
Nah, let's move to something else.
I see. You haven't got any left to talk about.
I did not say anything about cleanliness of D.C. Metro. The metro While the metro stations and the trains in Delhi are clean, people travelling in the metro is quite another matter (terrible BO).