Most of the time I love Metro. Except when they make me wait on the platform for forever, like they did this morning to get to work. Oh well, since nobody is here, and since I never do anything all day anyways, it wasn't a big deal.
But yesterday was a big day for me on the Metro. On my way into work, I rode opposite Roy Hibbert of Georgetown. Let's just say that he was a big, big man. His calves were big old things, as big as my thighs. And anyone boarding the train had to walk on the opposite side of the pole from him. Because his knees stuck out all the way to it. I guess I had forgotten just how tall 7' was even though my boy Matt Slanika from the old Silver Spring Blue Devils Days.
Then on my way home, walking up the steps at Union Station, who walks by me, but the author of one of my favorite websites -- bobbyboswell.com. Of course I tell him, "Keep up the good work Bobby" which caught him off guard. He shook the hand, complimented me on the Bobby Boswell.com wrist bracelet from my night of heavy drinking and sleeping on the couch.
Of course, then he asks where I'm going, and I BLEW IT!!! I was going home. Totally should have tagged along with him on his Metro ride. Next time, I'll take the ride.
And Bobby, if you read this, give a shout out to section 131 tomorrow vs the Pink Cows and the drinks are on me next time. VAMOS UNITED!!!
Showing posts with label Metro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Metro. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Guns or Butter
One of the sections of the Washington Post that I try and read most closely and most religiously is the Outlooks section. The Sunday Post is a bit of a guilty pleasure, because I should be doing more to get things done on Sunday instead of sitting around in a pair of shorts and just reading.
But I came across this article about Afghanistan and the current military-political situation.
Two things jumped out at me. One, this guy is a heck of a writer because look at his opening two grafs:
The second paragraph is exactly the type of thinking that hasn't happened enough. In the famous "battle for hearts and minds" that is what is most important, according to our military leaders, I know that I forget to think about it that way. And yeah, there is no way that I'm going to stare down the business end of a fully automatic machine gun and like the person shooting it at me. No way, that's way too frightening.
A lot of officers and people thinking about it do get that. That's why we have success when we remember these things, why Coke, MTV, jeans and American fashion have taken over the world. They're what people want.
That's not to say that sometimes you don't need to have people looking down the business end of a machine gun. There is a huge place for that, and, as we saw after the U.S. Embassy bombings and the lack of American response (thank you Bubba ... go with the light intern version next time), it's the only thing that makes radical Islam respect us. They see a lack of military response as being weak. We need "force projection" and it's worked to keep any terrorist attacks from coming over since we started using it. For that, my congratulations and thanks to the members of the Armed Forces who understand that and want to be over there. Godspeed.
The second point that the article raised for me though was that the Romans knew this. Here's the graf that made me think it most obviously:
Isn't this what the legendary aphorism summed up so nicely: All roads lead to Rome? Why did the Romans build all those roads that linked everything together? Yes, partly it was to allow their centurions and Legions to march all over quickly, and in force, taking out any large population center. But it was also for the points that Nathaniel Fick makes, in that they realized that the Roman culture spread along the roads, allowed trade, and made everyone better off, reducing drastically the likelihood that Roman forces would have to march down them.
It's a lesson that those Centurions, standing in a building consciously built to mirror the marble of Roman architecture in a city that recalls the glories of Rome, can drive home to the next group of policy wonks getting off their Metro trains and heading to work on Capitol Hill every morning: the mix is what matters.
(If you want to learn more about Roman strategy in warfare, I highly recommend, as do most historians, Edvard Luttwak's The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Forces have a place, but so does peace.)
But I came across this article about Afghanistan and the current military-political situation.
Two things jumped out at me. One, this guy is a heck of a writer because look at his opening two grafs:
On a highway north of Kabul last month, an American soldier aimed a machine gun at my car from the turret of his armored Humvee. In the split second for which our eyes locked, I had a revelation: To a man with a weapon, everything looks like a threat.
I had served as an infantry officer in Afghanistan in 2001-02 and in Iraq in 2003, but this was my first time on the other end of an American machine gun. It's not something I'll forget. It's not the sort of thing ordinary Afghans forget, either, and it reminded me that heavy-handed military tactics can alienate the people we're trying to help while playing into the hands of the people we're trying to defeat.
Welcome to the paradoxical world of counterinsurgency warfare -- the kind of war you win by not shooting.
The second paragraph is exactly the type of thinking that hasn't happened enough. In the famous "battle for hearts and minds" that is what is most important, according to our military leaders, I know that I forget to think about it that way. And yeah, there is no way that I'm going to stare down the business end of a fully automatic machine gun and like the person shooting it at me. No way, that's way too frightening.
A lot of officers and people thinking about it do get that. That's why we have success when we remember these things, why Coke, MTV, jeans and American fashion have taken over the world. They're what people want.
That's not to say that sometimes you don't need to have people looking down the business end of a machine gun. There is a huge place for that, and, as we saw after the U.S. Embassy bombings and the lack of American response (thank you Bubba ... go with the light intern version next time), it's the only thing that makes radical Islam respect us. They see a lack of military response as being weak. We need "force projection" and it's worked to keep any terrorist attacks from coming over since we started using it. For that, my congratulations and thanks to the members of the Armed Forces who understand that and want to be over there. Godspeed.
The second point that the article raised for me though was that the Romans knew this. Here's the graf that made me think it most obviously:
Consider, for example, the question of roads. When U.N. teams begin building new stretches of road in volatile Afghan provinces such as Zabul and Kandahar, insurgents inevitably attack the workers. But as the projects progress and villagers begin to see the benefits of having paved access to markets and health care, the Taliban attacks become less frequent. New highways then extend the reach of the Karzai administration into previously inaccessible areas, making a continuous Afghan police presence possible and helping lower the overall level of violence -- no mean feat in a country larger and more populous than Iraq, with a shaky central government.
Isn't this what the legendary aphorism summed up so nicely: All roads lead to Rome? Why did the Romans build all those roads that linked everything together? Yes, partly it was to allow their centurions and Legions to march all over quickly, and in force, taking out any large population center. But it was also for the points that Nathaniel Fick makes, in that they realized that the Roman culture spread along the roads, allowed trade, and made everyone better off, reducing drastically the likelihood that Roman forces would have to march down them.
It's a lesson that those Centurions, standing in a building consciously built to mirror the marble of Roman architecture in a city that recalls the glories of Rome, can drive home to the next group of policy wonks getting off their Metro trains and heading to work on Capitol Hill every morning: the mix is what matters.
(If you want to learn more about Roman strategy in warfare, I highly recommend, as do most historians, Edvard Luttwak's The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Forces have a place, but so does peace.)
Metro Madness
I can't understand Metro. Seriously.
Don't get me wrong, it's an easy commute that ultimately drops me off everyday just a half block from my office.
But I can't understand something. With July being a month in which Metro set a ridership record in terms of number of riders on the rails, combined with the fact that everyone on each of those 19.2 million is spending at least $1.35 to ride, and large numbers of them, at least in the morning and evening rushes.
Now, even though I was a physics major in college, the numbers and math side was never my strong suit. But let's just for a minute assume that the average fare on Metro is $1.50 for each of those 19.2 million people sticking a fare card through the gates each day. That means that in July, the transport system took in $28.8 million. Since we're physicists, let's just round that to $30 million. And that's just the train part, not including the bus service, parking for those train riders in the outer suburbs.
Why all the math first thing on a Monday morning? Well sitting in the subterranean caverns under the Centurions (Union Station Metro stop, Red line), I waited for two trains to roll through because they were too full. The problem? At least one car in each of the first two six-car trains, had it's lights turned off and was out of service.
I see cars out of commission every night on my way home too. In times of record ridership, why can't Metro throw the money back into the cars and service? I can deal with having to wait, with single tracking and trains that aren't evenly spread out. But that's because at the end of the day, I expect that when a train rolls into the station, I'll be able to hop on quickly. When cars are too packed to stand there without spraining your back (as I did this morning piling on and then arching my back to fit in with the seas of humanity), can I ask where my transit money is going?
And does anyone know why this is happening repeatedly? Has Metro said anything? And isn't Metro a non-profit? Don't they have to sink all their money back into the system?
Don't get me wrong, it's an easy commute that ultimately drops me off everyday just a half block from my office.
But I can't understand something. With July being a month in which Metro set a ridership record in terms of number of riders on the rails, combined with the fact that everyone on each of those 19.2 million is spending at least $1.35 to ride, and large numbers of them, at least in the morning and evening rushes.
Now, even though I was a physics major in college, the numbers and math side was never my strong suit. But let's just for a minute assume that the average fare on Metro is $1.50 for each of those 19.2 million people sticking a fare card through the gates each day. That means that in July, the transport system took in $28.8 million. Since we're physicists, let's just round that to $30 million. And that's just the train part, not including the bus service, parking for those train riders in the outer suburbs.
Why all the math first thing on a Monday morning? Well sitting in the subterranean caverns under the Centurions (Union Station Metro stop, Red line), I waited for two trains to roll through because they were too full. The problem? At least one car in each of the first two six-car trains, had it's lights turned off and was out of service.
I see cars out of commission every night on my way home too. In times of record ridership, why can't Metro throw the money back into the cars and service? I can deal with having to wait, with single tracking and trains that aren't evenly spread out. But that's because at the end of the day, I expect that when a train rolls into the station, I'll be able to hop on quickly. When cars are too packed to stand there without spraining your back (as I did this morning piling on and then arching my back to fit in with the seas of humanity), can I ask where my transit money is going?
And does anyone know why this is happening repeatedly? Has Metro said anything? And isn't Metro a non-profit? Don't they have to sink all their money back into the system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
