You'd think in 216 years Congress could get off the dime & do some a bit
of cleaning up.
On 10/6/2016 3:13 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
DC wouldn't exist if it weren't for Congress, it would still be mostly
swamp. Wait, I think it still is swamp...
On 10/6/2016 2:31 PM, John wrote:
As I noted, the DC Metro suffers from problems with deferred maintenance
among other things. It's a reasonably well thought out system that is
poorly implemented (and operated), and for that I blame Congress.
That's not unique to the DC Metro system. Almost everything that's
screwed up in the city of Washington, DC is due to Congress -
indifference, if not actual interference; something that's been true
ever since Congress moved there from Philadelphia.
I mentioned the DC Metro only as a point of comparison for the design &
appearance of the subway systems I encountered during my 2010 trip to
China. The systems were shiny & new looking, attractive in a modernistic
style while still being mostly utilitarian. They did not yet show the
kind of signs of neglect you see some places in the DC Metro due to
deferred maintenance & (not so) benign neglect that affects all of
Washington, DC, not just the DC Metro.
The China trip was organized by an instructor at the community college I
was attending at the time, who had married a woman in China while on
sabbatical. Our guides in China were his in-laws. We used the subway
systems, because that's what our local guides normally used to get
around.
We also used the Chinese railways to get from city to city ... the old
systems, because the new high speed rail was still under construction in
the areas.
New York City's utilitarian appearance is mainly due to the fact that it
IS utilitarian, and because it started out as a number of different
privately held, for profit railroad companies that only became a unified
"system" in 1940. The NYC system represents the socio-economic layout of
NYC, because the private railroads built their lines where they thought
they could make a profit. But at the same time, access to the NYC system
has helped to shape the socio-economic development of the metropolitan
area.
The "gem" of the system is more due to the artistic sensibilities of the
age in which it was constructed; also to having been intended as a grand
work of art "showpiece" for the then brand new IRT system.
The Moscow Metro wasn't built as a "show place" for the people, any more
than the castles & palaces of Europe were. They were meant to show the
majesty & power of the ruling elite. Likewise the Moscow Metro.
Which is cool, because I think they got more than they expected. Instead
of a stale propaganda piece, it's a work of art.
On 10/5/2016 12:47 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
John:
My impression of the DC Metro is very mixed: On one hand it has much
nicer trains than those in most (if not all) US cities (where present).
On another hand, the frequency of the trains is not that great.
(My impression is that even in Boston and Manhattan, the train frequency
is better, but I might be biased.)
My impression, that the coverage of the city in DC is subpar.
And yes, while writing my previous response, I was also thinking about a
few "hidden jems" - subway stations in NYC. However, that doesn't change
the otherwise extremely low key appearance of the extremely utilitarian
NYC subway. (And don't take me wrong, NYC subway is very useful.)
The aspect that bothers me about NYC subway is the layout of the lines.
It is far from being _logical. I know, on one hand it is a historic
inheritance (of how competing companies were running parallel lines
which is, btw, rather fascinating). On another hand, it is also a
reflection of the socio-economic layout of NYC.
E.g. in Manhattan, there are no lines east of the green lines. And the
organization of lines/routes along the same tracks is idiosyncratic.
As for Moscow Metro being a "show place", - it's always been difficult
for me to imagine people living in the beautiful palaces and castles in
Europe or in the RI mansions in the US. But I was somewhat surprised (or
amused?) seeing tourists photographing subway stations in Moscow until I
saw Chicago's L with my own eyes.
Igor
John Wed, 05 Oct 2016 05:55:47 -0700 wrote:
Hong Kong, Nanjing & Beijing subway systems were all pretty much like
the DC Metro (except newer & not as worn from deferred maintenance);
very Mies van der Rohe, lots of polished steel & glass à la the IBM
building in Chicago.
The Moscow Metro was built as much for a show place as it was for
transit. Compare NYC's closed City Hall Station. It was a beauty when it
was built.
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
I agree with Dan: While I haven't used London Underground, I have not
seen a large-city subway system that would unequivocally bit Moscow
Metro.
(But I haven't been to Chine or Korea.)
Besides the beautiful architecture, there are many advantages of
Moscow Metro:
1. Open long hours (most stations are open for entry from about 5:30am
till 1:00am, while typically the last train starts from the end
station at about 1am).
2. The frequency of trains during the day time is 2-4 minutes, and can
be 10 (or even close to 15) minutes at late night.
3. Trains are long, and hence have high capacity.
4. Low cost (very affordable) and simple payment system (per ride,
regardless of length or line changes).
5. Fairly large and mostly logical coverage (unlike e.g. lopsided
subway system in NYC).
The biggest negative aspect is the lack of temperature control inside
the trains (no AC), - until about 2010. These days there are still
many trains without AC.
Unfortunately, subway systems in the ConUS are by far inferior to
Moscow Metro (and some are crappy or nonexistant).
Igor
Daniel J. Matyola Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:32:15 -0700 wrote:
When we were there, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it performed as
well as it looked. The trains arrived and departed precisely on time.
They were clean, comfortable and cheerful. It is, in my opinion,
better
than the Paris Metro and the LondonUndergrounf in all respectsd.
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, P.J. Alling
<[email protected]> wrote:
The Metro was so beautiful because everything else about the old
Soviet
Union was so crappy. Probably under the gilt the Metro was crappy
too, but
it still looked good.
On 10/4/2016 4:42 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
When we were in Russia, 20 years ago, I was quite impressed by the
beauty
of the Moscos Metro stations, and the steep, speedy and thrilling
escalator
rides down to the stations.
I don't have any decent images from back then, but here are a few
someone
else took and posted:
http://themetapicture.com/moscow-metro-stations-are-magnificent/
Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
