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 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
poor
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 cit
Dan 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://the
Always impressed by the Metro. Looks a bit more impressive in your pics
than it did when I was first introduced to/ used the Metro about 40
years ago during a couple of of four-week visits to Moscow...
Otis Wright
On 10/4/2016 16:42, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
When we were in Russia, 20 years
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
> On Oct 4, 2016, at 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
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
tra
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 stat
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:
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 t
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.c
12 matches
Mail list logo