By Mike Breen Metro Transit is the rail system, the system that’s supposed to save the world.
But it’s also the system in which the world has gotten really, really, bad.
It’s the system where the world is supposed to live and die.
Metro is the system by which the people of Metro live and thrive.
It runs from Washington, D.C., to the suburbs, the city center, and beyond.
It is the largest public transportation system in the country, the largest in the world, the second largest in Asia, and one of the world’s most popular.
But for decades, Metro has been plagued by a growing and persistent problem: ridership has declined.
Metro has had to make a series of strategic decisions to try to make up for its decline in ridership, and these decisions have ranged from the radical, like canceling all train service on a major highway to the mundane, like scaling back service on key highways to cut costs.
The system’s failure to attract and retain riders has led to the current political turmoil, as well as the looming prospect of a shutdown that could end with millions of people losing their jobs.
As a result, the question has been asked again and again: Can Metro’s rail system be saved?
What will be the ultimate solution?
It’s a question that has been answered repeatedly by Metro and its advocates over the years.
It hasn’t been easy.
When I first started looking into Metro in the mid-2000s, I had a hard time finding good news stories about the transit system.
There were just so many bad ones that I had to scroll through, which made it difficult to know what to read next.
The most common explanation I heard was that the Metro system is failing because of poor leadership, poor infrastructure, or bad luck.
These stories seemed to boil down to the simple fact that Metro’s leaders are incompetent.
They don’t understand the problems that exist.
In a 2015 report titled “Metro’s Failed Leadership: Lessons for the Future,” the University of Maryland’s Martin Prosperity Institute’s Brian Gorman wrote that Metro is losing millions of riders every year because of leadership failures.
In another 2015 report, Metro said that it had lost more than $7 billion in riders and money since 2008 because of “uncontrolled financial losses, poor communication, and poor operational decisions.”
That’s just one example of the myriad of failures that have led to Metro’s failure.
But the problem isn’t limited to Metro.
Ridership is declining because of the Metro Blue Line, a major rail line that’s been under construction for more than a decade, which opened in 2003.
The first phase of the Blue Line is slated to open in 2019, but the city has already paid $4.6 billion for the line, with the majority of that coming from the federal government.
Riderships have been falling, and Metro’s own projections predict that it will have to cut services, curtail service, or cancel service altogether.
There are also a host of other factors that are driving the declining ridership.
Metro’s trains are old, and as a result have had less than half the maintenance that they should have.
The Blue Line has also had its own problems, with a shortage of parking and maintenance, overcrowding, and, most importantly, the failure of its own engineers to understand how to properly install new equipment.
In 2015, Metro CEO Anthony Foxx told the Washington Post that Metro had “a very bad track record in terms of the maintenance and the training and the technology” for the Blue and Green Lines.
And Metro’s problems with reliability aren’t limited in the metro area.
In Washington, Metro’s system is often referred to as “the last-mile system” because it connects to the city and then terminates at a local station.
This means that Metro ridership is often lower than that of local bus lines.
In 2016, Metro lost almost 1.6 million riders on its “last-mile” system, which is the most congested route of the system.
These riders are not the ones who are actually on the train at the end of the line.
They’re the ones that ride the last few miles before they get to the final destination.
This is a very dangerous situation for Metro because it means that the people that are actually riding the last miles of a system don’t get to have a great experience.
And this means that riders are losing the opportunity to get to work.
But Metro’s leadership doesn’t seem to be listening to the voices of riders and the people who use the system, and they’re not listening to their concerns.
The Metro board met recently to discuss how to fix Metro’s problem, but it did not discuss the question of how to solve the problems riders are experiencing.
Metro board member Mike Linn said that the issue is not whether Metro should be funded, but whether Metro can do a better job of running the system as a system.