I don't know about the rest of you bloggeers/readers but I miss the old Dr. Gridlock. There is ust no pizaz with this new guy = boring stuff!!

Is this just recitation of info already on the WMATA website? Then why not just refer people to the WMATA website and be done with it.

I miss the old guy too. I think we should have people with road rage or obvious viewpoints on to get some pizzazzz.

Just stop it. These postings are useful.

Yeah I miss the old guy too.

Dr. Gridlock is new on the job. What if you had a new assignment, doing something you never had done before? I bet it would take some time for you learn the ropes and to settle into the job. Even so, chances are you wouldn't do it exactly the same as someone else. You might even decide that a different path suits the job requirements better than what the other guy did. That being the case, would you find it helpful to hear from others, "I miss your predecessor?" Instead of vague griping, wouldn't you prefer to hear useful, thoughtful comments with suggestions for what readers are interested in reading about? Simply saying something lacks pizzaz is like a director telling an actor, "no, that's not right, do it again," without telling him what he would like to see done differently in his acting. Not enough guidance to go on. What would you do if you were providing coaching and feedback to a new employee -- would simple griping by you lead to the desired outcome? Not in most of the workplaces I've ever seen.

While yes these posts are informative, I have always thought of a blog as being more opinion based, which the new Dr. Gridlock's posts have been lacking. I would appreciate posts that would facilitate good, intelligent discussion amoungst your readers.

Also, since the New Dr. Gridlock has come on, the posts are all very factual and straight forward. Not really enlightening pieces regarding issues in the transit world. Posting issues of higher interest will earn more readership I believe.

Overall I think he is doing well (minus the time 270 stayed closed for a week and half and the Dr. was MAI).

Interesting points, Guidance v. griping and Laura. I don't think the old Dr. G had a blog (correct me if I am wrong). I just remember reading his column and seeing him do online Q&A in recent years. Laura is right in that blogs often have an opinion angle. I wonder if some of what we're seeing reflects Mr. Thomson's background as a reporter and editor rather than a columnist, such as Marc Fisher? Reporters are not supposed to express opinions in the stories they file but just to provide facts. Editors work to ensure that reporters' stories fit professional standards. I would think a blog for a reporter or an editor represents more of a challenge than it does for a columnist, he may feel he has to hew to a more objective stance if he also intends to keep filing or editing news reports. In other words, he can't harm his future ability to do his other job. I think Steve Ginsberg still files stories. I don't know what Mr. Thomson's editorial duties are.

Now that I think of it, I think you are right that the old Dr. G didn't really post in this space. That was left more to Mr. Ginsburg I believe. Though I only started reading this shortly before the old Dr. G. left. Now Mr. Ginsburg posts so rarely in this space and we are left with the "reporting" of the new Dr. G. While I completely understand your point that reporters are suppose to present a story in an unbiased light, read the address line of this page. Gasp! blog.washingtonpost.com/getthere.

A little more spice than "Expect metro delays this weekend" or "Accident on I-270" would be nice. The reason I enjoy reading this blog is reading the opinions of others and their take on traffic and transit in the area. Can't get much comment out of people with those topics beside "not again..."

Again, I think Dr. G. is doing well for stepping into a new position. My post before was mainly pointing out what I would like to see.

It's funny that people are like, "I miss the old Dr. Gridlock," when I clearly recall toward the end of his tenure many people complaining about how he'd degenerated into sort of phoning in his responses and constantly replying in chats, "Can you be more specific?" and not really giving useful answers.

Personally, I liked both old and new Dr. G. I just wanted to point that out.

I think the new Dr. Gridlock is doing a fair job so far.

I do however think the column is slanted more towards insignificant Metro users' gripes and transit advocacy than seeking sensible and realistic solutions to the area's traffic mess and advocating expansion/improvement of road infrastructure. I find that highly out of kilter since MOST commutes and other trips are by car, NOT by transit.

The Metro emphasis often borders on the mundane, and downright silly. For example, the piece about bogus "free ride" signs being pasted on bus shelters. What on earth does that have to to do with traffic? In fact, who cares? And why are we constantly treated to long pieces about someone's whining about not getting a seat on an "overcrowded" train? Come on, folks, you're riding the subway!

And does anyone who drives in or through Montgomery County REALLY believe the Purple Line will solve that area's traffic congestion and serve as a viable alternative to the ICC? If so, dream on.

I would like to see more emphasis on helping the MAJORITY deal with the traffic problems - and there are many - and less emphasis on broken escalators and dead rats in Metro stations.

The other Dr. Gridlock was obviously slanted towards transit vs. roads; he even went so far as to say that DC's cancelling its planned highway system (one of the best in the country, BTW) and transfering all the funding to Metro rail was a good thing. And I don't recall him ever taking a favorable stand on road projects such as the ICC.

I was hoping for an improvement with the new column. I need to see more open- mindedness this time around.

OK, how about parking at WMATA HQ and hustling them down for questions and answers instead of waiting for the PR flack to call back.

For the record I DONT miss Bob Levy.

Just out of curiosity, what data pool are you looking at when you use the term a "majority?" If you mean most readers of this blog, it simply may be that you are in the minority and most of the readers ride METRO and have an interest in it. Actually, I think Dr. G seems to be doing a fairly good job in the balance of items.

Metrorail carried 724,491 riders yesterday. Metrobus carried 464,000 riders. Those numbers are high enough to warrant some attention to issues affecting those people, don't you think?

The blog is not supposed to be about "traffic" but rather about "transportation." So the item about the bogus sign does fit under that umbrella, even if you're not interested in it. What drives blog entries? Well, I think more transit items are posted simply because public transportation generates more daily news stories and items. I'm sure when there are highway related items in the news, Dr. G will post entries about them.

I don't drive to work so am unlikely to read postings about highway issues, if I was short of time, I'd skip over them and read the ones dealing with Metrorail and Metrobus. But if Dr. G were to write mostly about "traffic," what are you looking for from him -- on a daily basis?

I haven't seen much whining on the blog about not getting a seat on Metro. On the contrary, there have been a fair number of postings from people who have described how they have helped out other riders, given up their seats, blah blah blah. Nice to hear. One rider even described how stoicly his or her family members reacted to riding crowded trains under difficult circumstances, without complaining about it. I have noticed a few riders expressing concerns about how to safely stand on a train, stuff like that. Dr. G himself started that thread and mentioned it again in the column in today's print edition Weekly section. So it sounds as if he is interested in hearing about that. But there's hardly been any talk from anyone on the blog about why they can't get seats. From reading the blog, it sounds as if most people cope pretty well with Metro. They seem sophisticated about the environment, reasons for overcrowding and delays, etc. Good for them, I say. Most of my rides on Metro are fine in terms of my interactions with fellow riders and by reading this blog, I can see why.

Here we go again with the washington "Me, Me, ME!" mentality...

CEEAF, I find it interesting that you say Dr. G. does not report enough in regards to raods. However on the blog page there are 11 entries. 7 of them have to do with roads (Proposals by states, tolls, road closures, accidents, and pedestrain deaths).

I would also like to point out that of those 11 posts, the last one regarding new metro cars has generated the most discussion comments. So obviously there are a lot of people out there interested in metro and transit.

I live in Maryland and take metro everyday, so I really have no interest in what is happening with road planning in Virigina. But I'm not going to post on that thread how we shouldn't be talking about this boring stuff. Let's talk about stuff I want to talk about. Me me me me ME! Really CEEAF, get a grip and skip over those posts that don't interest you. Or better yet, start your own whiny blog.

From RIGHT and CORRECT Laura:

"Here we go again with the washington "Me, Me, ME!" mentality..."

Pretty much sums up your post, in fact, your entire mindset.

"Metrorail carried 724,491 riders yesterday. Metrobus carried 464,000 riders. "

A grand total of 30% of commuters and 105 of all-day trips. Wow!

Laura,

I think you're right that you see some of the "Washington mentality" in some postings here. Some of the postings also reflect how different people engage in public discourse. It's an interesting forum (record). On the same page, you see the boom, bam, blast gotcha style of discussing an issue alongside the "can't we all just agree to disagree" style. And the one-liner putdowns and potshots versus the ruminative attempts to suss out underlying causes. And the chatty, illustrative, anecdote-filled narratives. And everything in between.

I have no more expectation that the different styles can coexist happily than I do that the roads vs. rails advocates will find happiness in the same blog. Like you, I don't expect conformity in terms of people all being interested in the same issue. But I see no point in posting "who cares" after each entry that doesn't interest me, because chances are, it interests someone else. No harm then. Who am I to tell someone what they should be interested in. After all, in no way does it diminish me or hurt me if someone is interested in something else. I also don't expect rigid conformity of style of discourse. That's why I set low expectations for any blog -- in terms of what people may post and how they do it -- and then find myself surprised when people post good stuff. It's always nicer to be pleasantly surprised, LOL. You're always worth reading, by the way.

To Laura:

" Me me me me ME! Really CEEAF, get a grip and skip over those posts that don't interest you. Or better yet, start your own whiny blog."

Last time I checked, this blog was open to all.

Now, if you don't like MY posts or anyone else's, start YOUR own "whiny blog" and restrict it to those who share your self-righteous sense of importance.

"I live in Maryland and take metro everyday"

I should have known. That's the problem I have with you Metrophiles. You have an incredible sense attitude of entitlement.

Reality check: the world doesn't revolve around you and your precious Metro, nor does it owe you anything. Grow up.

CEEAF:

I can understand why you may not be interested in issues related to Metro. You don't have to be. Many people focus only on that which directly affects them and you like the rest of us, are just plain old human.

But I don't understand why you conflate Laura's mention of the form of transportation she uses with her supposedly believing that the world revolves around Metro. Laura specifically said she didn't post about her lack of interest in certain topics. How would you react if someone posted after each of your comments, "who cares about you and your precious car, grow up?" You wouldn't like it. I don't see the point of your using that approach with her.

There is fundamentally no difference in terms of importance or status between you and Laura, you both simply are two DC area commuters, who get around using different methods of transportation. Up to your last posting, I had been reading both of your comments on various entries on the blog with interest. The blog isn't restricted nor as you say, should it be. I'm not enthusiastic about her telling you to get your own blog, in her place, I just would have commented on what you said and left it at that. But I gotta tell you, you didn't gain any points when you wrote to her, "Reality check: the world doesn't revolve around you and your precious Metro, nor does it owe you anything. Grow up." As much as I disagree with her tone to you, which didn't match her usual style, nothing she said substantively warranted that.

Here's hoping for better stuff on the blog in the future.

I don't really miss the old Dr. Gridlock. I noticed a pattern of publishing incendiary letters that were guaranteed to generate incendiary responses. Maybe this was a trick to sell newspapers, but it really didn't stimulate constructive discussion.

I would advise the new Dr. Gridlock not to publish letters about left lane blockers, Metro riders that don't give up handicapped seats to pregnant riders, or obnoxious BMW, Volvo or SUV drivers. I would also advise him not to say that he is a "transit advocate". That just causes every highway advocate to question his motives and biases.

"Metrorail carried 724,491 riders yesterday. Metrobus carried 464,000 riders. "

Keep in mind those numbers are boardings, not riders. The Census Bureau says there are only 349,000 transit riders in the entire Metropolitan Statistical area. A transit rider that rides Metrobus and Metrorail to and from work counts as 4 boardings.

http://tinyurl.com/y8qud2

The new Dr. Gridlock also needs to be careful saying that Metro carries a million riders a day.

"The Census Bureau says there are only 349,000 transit riders in the entire Metropolitan Statistical area."

That is 349,000 transit commuters, not non-commuters (tourists, protesters, etc.)

I see what you mean about people boarding, Cartman. Of course, whatever the number, there obviously are people who depend on Metrorail and Metrobus. My elderly mother is one, she doesn't drive, and couldn't get around as much as does, if she couldn't use a bus or subway. Other people can't afford a car. Twenty years ago, I used to ride a bus to work and I remember hearing a few fellow riders talk about that being the fourth bus they rode to their jobs (the ones talking seemed to live in Maryland and work in Virginia). I didn't disdain them or view them as fools for not owning cars; I simply was grateful my daily commute was not that long and felt sorry for them that theirs was.

As noted above, I think some of the people writing here conflate readers who simply describe their individual experiences with "activists." Saying you personally benefit from transit (or highways) doesn't necessarily mean you begrudge money being spent for other modes of transportation. Unless, of course, you view life as a zero sum game. In fact, I think it is entirely possible to be both a transit advocate and a highway advocate, that is, to say that of the limited funds available some should be spent prudently on transit and some on highway improvements, new construction, etc. I suspect that is where most people are, although they may argue for "more" for the projects that affect them, "less" for the ones that don't. I don't imagine there are many people who would tell the ones who ride four buses to work because they can't afford to buy a car, "more fool you," or conversely tell the ones who slog through congestion on the roads while they comfortably read a newspaper on a subway train, "who cares."