These seem like the seats on most coach buses, which tend to be fine. Glad they're testing out improving seats, though odd that this has been going on for years so sporadically. Maybe they're starting a bigger roll out now?

Also pleasantly surprised no one has suggested these seats are just stuffed with money metro is going to transport around and launder.

Why would you ask for something, if you don't know it exists? General suspicion of things being wrong is not a good enough reason to waste their staff's time. You may be giving the impression that, like House Republicans are doing to the Obama administration, you're asking for documents over and over until you get something that proves you're right. Try giving a different impression.

-I've said multiple times that I'm not excusing Metro for being slow, but that if you care about getting results over getting mad than changing you attitude will help.
-The little positive reporting is usually something like a station manager was helpful, framed in a SO SHOCKING! way, often coming off as a backhanded compliment. 95% of it is negative. I would say Metro does a good thing when most every morning I wait no more than 5 minutes for a train, when they finally decided to invest in improving the system, when I get out of a Nationals game to find a metro train waiting at the platform and another a minute behind it. Many view this as providing the service we pay for, which it is, but it's not like the system is a disaster as portrayed here.
-Please explain how asking for the expenses they incurred while doing your FOIA is corrupt. It's fine to disagree with their conclusion about whether the penalty should have be given, but it's not going into some guys beer fund. Using words like corrupt instead of misguided or burdensome are what I'm talking about, it emits a clear bias that makes your reporting untrustworthy.
-I do ask around actually, I often get fun poked at for wanting to talk about the metro. I would say a select few people are very upset. Most people don't let things like a delayed commute ruin their day, and so are mildly annoyed or don't think about it. You live in a bubble of anger if you think that the entire city hates the metro. If it did, you'd see much more action.

I agree that WMATA needs to be more open, though I'm not sure the urgent need for this specific information on manual operation is as cut and dry as the author makes it out to be, he didn't do a good job of making that case in the article. I'm pretty sure I've read many times that they have to make all the recommended improvement before they can return to automatic.

That's kind of not the point though. What I am saying is that the fact that WMATA views the site as hostile, regardless of whether or not that is unfair, is to be expected considering the content and style. Attacking someone usually doesn't produce great results. An occasional in depth expose is good, but that's not what we have here. More information would be great, but what's the best way to get it?

Do you think that this post complaining about the request is going to make them more likely to grant it in the future? I don't. And they're not going to magically change by themselves. So I see the two choices as continuing to vent about it and seeing little change or trying a different, more moderated tactic and maybe getting something done.

Also noticed I've been calling FOIA, FOAA, sorry for that previously.

The facts aren't great but not as bad as you make it out to be. Yes, there are plenty of bad anecdotes but there are hundreds of thousands of people who use the metro who do just fine. I don't think the one-sided reporting is deliberate, just not always well thought out.

I'm not sticking up for metro as perfect, last Saturday was dumb. I'm saying to change it, this is the wrong way.

I'm not avoiding facts, but it sounds like you disagree with me and think I have more own agenda. While I don't, that's not what a troll is.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

I am posting opinions that go against much of the commenters', but I'm not doing it off topic or to get a rise out of you. And my language is pretty reasoned, unlike, sadly, many of you.

I do get all that. But this is the only site that writes exclusively about metro. GGW is the closest but it's really been expanding its reach. If there was a wide diversity of opinions in the area I wouldn't care, much like Limbaugh and John Stewart, but until someone starts an objective site on improving the metro I want to do my best to improve this one. Maybe his goal is to just yell at the metro a lot, if so fine, I can stop reading, but if there is a shared goal of actual improvement than change is needed.

Oh by the way, this kind of comments reflects the culture that pervades this blog that I have been talking above. Bashing a system that most riders are at most mildly annoyed with like it's some cartoonishly evil villein.

Yes!