The Beltway is at a complete stand still

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I hear you, I also feel like bus to metro lengthens my commute a lot and I get that it won't work for everyone. But we're trying really, really hard to avoid getting a second car as long as possible (I think having a second kid might be the breaking point), and those are factors that would help for people who do need or want to use public transit.

No doubt, and I am not saying they would have no impact or are bad ideas. But there are a number of people who post on various threads claiming added buses would be a panacea and everyone should be willing to use them. I was merely pointing out why it would be hard for increased buses to have a major impact because it would still lead to doubling or tripling of commmite times (more if you required two buses to make it work, more likely when you factor in people often don't go straight home) something I doubt man of the posters would be willing to do themselves.

Plenty of people use buses now. Increased bus frequency would almost certainly make it more viable for more people (especially for people who take more than one, because it would reduce transfer delay)

Yup. It certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it's by far the most obvious step to better serve people with transit beyond a mile from metro. Just like a lot of people will just drive instead of using metro on weekend s because the time between trains is so long, and the obvious solution (given political will and funding, obviously) would be to increase service...that's a tradeoff people make with buses every day of the week.

The bus I use occasionally is not very full, even in rush. Increased frequency would help some, but I believe far less than you think.

Even if you triple the current capacity, going from every 30 to every 10 minutes, people's commute times would increase significantly, more so for people not going directly home or those returning post rush when frequency would presumably be reduced.

We hear right and left on this board how an extra 20-30 minute commute is a killer, but in this context people assume folks would be willing to add that time to take the bus. Not that many would. And if someone was proposing you increase your commute by that length for the greater good, I doubt you would be too keen either.

+1 I live pretty close to metro (15 minute walk), but I can be there on a Ride On bus in 4 minutes. But the darned bus comes so infrequently, the App with arrival times isn't always accurate and many of my neighbors drive because they don't want to deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I hear you, I also feel like bus to metro lengthens my commute a lot and I get that it won't work for everyone. But we're trying really, really hard to avoid getting a second car as long as possible (I think having a second kid might be the breaking point), and those are factors that would help for people who do need or want to use public transit.

No doubt, and I am not saying they would have no impact or are bad ideas. But there are a number of people who post on various threads claiming added buses would be a panacea and everyone should be willing to use them. I was merely pointing out why it would be hard for increased buses to have a major impact because it would still lead to doubling or tripling of commmite times (more if you required two buses to make it work, more likely when you factor in people often don't go straight home) something I doubt man of the posters would be willing to do themselves.

Plenty of people use buses now. Increased bus frequency would almost certainly make it more viable for more people (especially for people who take more than one, because it would reduce transfer delay)

Yup. It certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it's by far the most obvious step to better serve people with transit beyond a mile from metro. Just like a lot of people will just drive instead of using metro on weekend s because the time between trains is so long, and the obvious solution (given political will and funding, obviously) would be to increase service...that's a tradeoff people make with buses every day of the week.

The bus I use occasionally is not very full, even in rush. Increased frequency would help some, but I believe far less than you think.

Even if you triple the current capacity, going from every 30 to every 10 minutes, people's commute times would increase significantly, more so for people not going directly home or those returning post rush when frequency would presumably be reduced.

We hear right and left on this board how an extra 20-30 minute commute is a killer, but in this context people assume folks would be willing to add that time to take the bus. Not that many would. And if someone was proposing you increase your commute by that length for the greater good, I doubt you would be too keen either.

Some buses are hardly full, some are quite full, and many are in between.

There is evidence from several cities that increased frequency brings added riders.

What it does to someone's commute time is going to vary tremendously among people. It will depend on what their whole transt commute is like, what their auto alterantive is like, how easy parking is, etc.

Personally when I am not bike commuting, I take a bus to get to the metro (I live outside walking distance to metro) Parking by the day is expensive, and I hate driving in our traffic, even on a normal weekday. It takes maybe 20 minutes longer, but its much more relaxed.

Note, this is all aside from other things that can be done to make buses faster - transit signal priority for example, or dedicated bus lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone needs to refer to this thread on those endless threads in the real estate forum on why walkability and proximity to metro go for a premium. Traffic is the most unproductive time suck.

Or anytime someone posts a thread about how terrible metro is. I've been home for hours (and I live out near vienna)

Once every 10 years. Bfd

It is more than that and today's traffic is a similar anomaly.

People need to stop working in DC and push for more jobs in the burbs instead of living in shit shacks.

Aren’t al of these places people mentioning in the burbs?

Or, people need to live closer to their jobs in urban areas or walkable to metro and dump their cars all together. It's a healthier lifestyle than spending hours in traffic per day.

No thanks. Walkable might make me skinnier but people in the city have horrible attitudes, are rude, don't know their neighbors and have general terrible mental health.

You do realize the name of the website you're posting on? Commute length is one of the largest factors in life satisfaction so "terrible mental health" does not have any basis in reality.

We're on Capitol Hill and very close with our neighbors. DW and I garden with the woman next door and if I needed someone to check on the house I would have my choice between 3 people. We don't engage in the suburban BMW X1 vs X3 pissing contest so I guess in that sense we're not that close.

You do realize that people on this board don't always and actually rarely work in DC. They also don't have terrible commutes because they work within their own suburb. Sure you can look at a small sliver of the population that have a terrible commute and extrapolate that everybody in the burbs also have the same commute, which is often done on this board. People on this board could not believe people in Gaitherburg actually work at Shady Grove Hospital, or Medimmune or NCI.

Wow 3 people.

NP. Source for people "rarely" working in DC on this particular site?

There has been a recent influx of suburban tumbleweeds like PP who visit this site because they live in "DC" (Rockville). Large overlap with the conservatives on here who moan being oppressed on a privately-run internet message board.

DP.. I'm sure Jeff appreciates that the "suburban tumbleweeds " who live in "DC" (Rockville and other DC 'burbs) visit this site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get the folks in Potomac, MD to drop their opposition to a new bridge. The Maryland commuters from Tyson’s have totally messed up McLean.

That said - totally empathize with you in your current predicament. Take care

I am all for it and I live in Potomac. $20 dollar toll payable to Potomac residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone find using apps like Waze helpful yesterday?

Sort of. The apps didn't help with traffic because they were constantly re-routing and you're better off in these cases to pick a route and stick with it. The time estimates were also WAY WAY low. Waze helped me because I could look at my remaining 4 miles and see -- for the duration of over an hour -- that the mph was at 0 and 1 mph, so I knew it would take me up to 4 more hours to get there, and that's why I turned around and when back where I came from. Had I not had that I may have stuck it out longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get the folks in Potomac, MD to drop their opposition to a new bridge. The Maryland commuters from Tyson’s have totally messed up McLean.

That said - totally empathize with you in your current predicament. Take care

I am all for it and I live in Potomac. $20 dollar toll payable to Potomac residents.

And can I add, I noticed that the Fire/Rescue teams cleaning up that accident were all from Fairfax County. Please correct me if I am wrong. MD doesn't pull their weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I hear you, I also feel like bus to metro lengthens my commute a lot and I get that it won't work for everyone. But we're trying really, really hard to avoid getting a second car as long as possible (I think having a second kid might be the breaking point), and those are factors that would help for people who do need or want to use public transit.

No doubt, and I am not saying they would have no impact or are bad ideas. But there are a number of people who post on various threads claiming added buses would be a panacea and everyone should be willing to use them. I was merely pointing out why it would be hard for increased buses to have a major impact because it would still lead to doubling or tripling of commmite times (more if you required two buses to make it work, more likely when you factor in people often don't go straight home) something I doubt man of the posters would be willing to do themselves.

Plenty of people use buses now. Increased bus frequency would almost certainly make it more viable for more people (especially for people who take more than one, because it would reduce transfer delay)

Yup. It certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it's by far the most obvious step to better serve people with transit beyond a mile from metro. Just like a lot of people will just drive instead of using metro on weekend s because the time between trains is so long, and the obvious solution (given political will and funding, obviously) would be to increase service...that's a tradeoff people make with buses every day of the week.

The bus I use occasionally is not very full, even in rush. Increased frequency would help some, but I believe far less than you think.

Even if you triple the current capacity, going from every 30 to every 10 minutes, people's commute times would increase significantly, more so for people not going directly home or those returning post rush when frequency would presumably be reduced.

We hear right and left on this board how an extra 20-30 minute commute is a killer, but in this context people assume folks would be willing to add that time to take the bus. Not that many would. And if someone was proposing you increase your commute by that length for the greater good, I doubt you would be too keen either.

Some buses are hardly full, some are quite full, and many are in between.

There is evidence from several cities that increased frequency brings added riders.

What it does to someone's commute time is going to vary tremendously among people. It will depend on what their whole transt commute is like, what their auto alterantive is like, how easy parking is, etc.

Personally when I am not bike commuting, I take a bus to get to the metro (I live outside walking distance to metro) Parking by the day is expensive, and I hate driving in our traffic, even on a normal weekday. It takes maybe 20 minutes longer, but its much more relaxed.

Note, this is all aside from other things that can be done to make buses faster - transit signal priority for example, or dedicated bus lanes.

Sure, people who really hate driving and are very cost sensitive will opt for an extra 20 minute or so commute each way. People who are starved for time and are willing to pay a little more will take the bus. At least in my area, there are far more of the latter than the former, but I am sure the mix may change in other areas.

Dedicated lanes and the like will help on some routes, but when you are talking about routes the neighborhoods a few miles from metro, there often is only one lane, or at most two, so a dedicated lane wouldn't be feasible. But on routes on the beltway or other highways, it might make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I hear you, I also feel like bus to metro lengthens my commute a lot and I get that it won't work for everyone. But we're trying really, really hard to avoid getting a second car as long as possible (I think having a second kid might be the breaking point), and those are factors that would help for people who do need or want to use public transit.

No doubt, and I am not saying they would have no impact or are bad ideas. But there are a number of people who post on various threads claiming added buses would be a panacea and everyone should be willing to use them. I was merely pointing out why it would be hard for increased buses to have a major impact because it would still lead to doubling or tripling of commmite times (more if you required two buses to make it work, more likely when you factor in people often don't go straight home) something I doubt man of the posters would be willing to do themselves.

Plenty of people use buses now. Increased bus frequency would almost certainly make it more viable for more people (especially for people who take more than one, because it would reduce transfer delay)

Yup. It certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it's by far the most obvious step to better serve people with transit beyond a mile from metro. Just like a lot of people will just drive instead of using metro on weekend s because the time between trains is so long, and the obvious solution (given political will and funding, obviously) would be to increase service...that's a tradeoff people make with buses every day of the week.

The bus I use occasionally is not very full, even in rush. Increased frequency would help some, but I believe far less than you think.

Even if you triple the current capacity, going from every 30 to every 10 minutes, people's commute times would increase significantly, more so for people not going directly home or those returning post rush when frequency would presumably be reduced.

We hear right and left on this board how an extra 20-30 minute commute is a killer, but in this context people assume folks would be willing to add that time to take the bus. Not that many would. And if someone was proposing you increase your commute by that length for the greater good, I doubt you would be too keen either.

Some buses are hardly full, some are quite full, and many are in between.

There is evidence from several cities that increased frequency brings added riders.

What it does to someone's commute time is going to vary tremendously among people. It will depend on what their whole transt commute is like, what their auto alterantive is like, how easy parking is, etc.

Personally when I am not bike commuting, I take a bus to get to the metro (I live outside walking distance to metro) Parking by the day is expensive, and I hate driving in our traffic, even on a normal weekday. It takes maybe 20 minutes longer, but its much more relaxed.

Note, this is all aside from other things that can be done to make buses faster - transit signal priority for example, or dedicated bus lanes.

Sure, people who really hate driving and are very cost sensitive will opt for an extra 20 minute or so commute each way. People who are starved for time and are willing to pay a little more will take the bus. At least in my area, there are far more of the latter than the former, but I am sure the mix may change in other areas.

Dedicated lanes and the like will help on some routes, but when you are talking about routes the neighborhoods a few miles from metro, there often is only one lane, or at most two, so a dedicated lane wouldn't be feasible. But on routes on the beltway or other highways, it might make sense.

People who really hate driving OR are very cost sensitive may opt for an added 20 minutes. Or who can use that to get away with one less car per household.

As for lanes, the HOV lanes on I395 are filled with express buses taking NoVa folks to the Pentagon, mostly for transfer to metro. There are more and more HOV and HOT lanes coming. There is also a bus only lane from Braddock Road in Alex to Crystal City, and such lanes will be coming to Montgomery soon. And likely 16th Street in DC.

Note transit signal priority (letting the bus driver override the usual traffic signal timing) can be very effective and does not involve taking a whole lane away from other vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get the folks in Potomac, MD to drop their opposition to a new bridge. The Maryland commuters from Tyson’s have totally messed up McLean.

That said - totally empathize with you in your current predicament. Take care

I am all for it and I live in Potomac. $20 dollar toll payable to Potomac residents.

And can I add, I noticed that the Fire/Rescue teams cleaning up that accident were all from Fairfax County. Please correct me if I am wrong. MD doesn't pull their weight.

The article linked further up with the video said that there were emergency crews from Maryland and Virginia working on the cleanup.

[Anonymous]

This woman trying to get from Great Falls to Georgetown University said the last half mile took her 40 minutes. Why would you not park and walk at some point before that?
https://wtop.com/local/2019/03/lanes-reopen-on-inner-loop-on-american-legion-bridge/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get the folks in Potomac, MD to drop their opposition to a new bridge. The Maryland commuters from Tyson’s have totally messed up McLean.

That said - totally empathize with you in your current predicament. Take care

I am all for it and I live in Potomac. $20 dollar toll payable to Potomac residents.

And can I add, I noticed that the Fire/Rescue teams cleaning up that accident were all from Fairfax County. Please correct me if I am wrong. MD doesn't pull their weight.

The article linked further up with the video said that there were emergency crews from Maryland and Virginia working on the cleanup.

Also, it happened in Fairfax County, so it would makes sense for them to be the main responders. They called in the MD teams for backup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I hear you, I also feel like bus to metro lengthens my commute a lot and I get that it won't work for everyone. But we're trying really, really hard to avoid getting a second car as long as possible (I think having a second kid might be the breaking point), and those are factors that would help for people who do need or want to use public transit.

No doubt, and I am not saying they would have no impact or are bad ideas. But there are a number of people who post on various threads claiming added buses would be a panacea and everyone should be willing to use them. I was merely pointing out why it would be hard for increased buses to have a major impact because it would still lead to doubling or tripling of commmite times (more if you required two buses to make it work, more likely when you factor in people often don't go straight home) something I doubt man of the posters would be willing to do themselves.

Plenty of people use buses now. Increased bus frequency would almost certainly make it more viable for more people (especially for people who take more than one, because it would reduce transfer delay)

Yup. It certainly wouldn't be a panacea but it's by far the most obvious step to better serve people with transit beyond a mile from metro. Just like a lot of people will just drive instead of using metro on weekend s because the time between trains is so long, and the obvious solution (given political will and funding, obviously) would be to increase service...that's a tradeoff people make with buses every day of the week.

The bus I use occasionally is not very full, even in rush. Increased frequency would help some, but I believe far less than you think.

Even if you triple the current capacity, going from every 30 to every 10 minutes, people's commute times would increase significantly, more so for people not going directly home or those returning post rush when frequency would presumably be reduced.

We hear right and left on this board how an extra 20-30 minute commute is a killer, but in this context people assume folks would be willing to add that time to take the bus. Not that many would. And if someone was proposing you increase your commute by that length for the greater good, I doubt you would be too keen either.

Some buses are hardly full, some are quite full, and many are in between.

There is evidence from several cities that increased frequency brings added riders.

What it does to someone's commute time is going to vary tremendously among people. It will depend on what their whole transt commute is like, what their auto alterantive is like, how easy parking is, etc.

Personally when I am not bike commuting, I take a bus to get to the metro (I live outside walking distance to metro) Parking by the day is expensive, and I hate driving in our traffic, even on a normal weekday. It takes maybe 20 minutes longer, but its much more relaxed.

Note, this is all aside from other things that can be done to make buses faster - transit signal priority for example, or dedicated bus lanes.

Sure, people who really hate driving and are very cost sensitive will opt for an extra 20 minute or so commute each way. People who are starved for time and are willing to pay a little more will take the bus. At least in my area, there are far more of the latter than the former, but I am sure the mix may change in other areas.

Dedicated lanes and the like will help on some routes, but when you are talking about routes the neighborhoods a few miles from metro, there often is only one lane, or at most two, so a dedicated lane wouldn't be feasible. But on routes on the beltway or other highways, it might make sense.

People who really hate driving OR are very cost sensitive may opt for an added 20 minutes. Or who can use that to get away with one less car per household.

As for lanes, the HOV lanes on I395 are filled with express buses taking NoVa folks to the Pentagon, mostly for transfer to metro. There are more and more HOV and HOT lanes coming. There is also a bus only lane from Braddock Road in Alex to Crystal City, and such lanes will be coming to Montgomery soon. And likely 16th Street in DC.

Note transit signal priority (letting the bus driver override the usual traffic signal timing) can be very effective and does not involve taking a whole lane away from other vehicles.

Depends what you can use that added 20 minutes for. I take public transport for an 45 minutes and I could drive in 30. But my walk to the metro is part of my (limited) exercise routine, and I can read on the metro (documents for work, answer emails on my phone that get sent out when there's a signal). And I also hate to drive, so there's that.

[Anonymous]

They need to up car pool lanes to three in car. Get rid of electric/hybred car thing to get in Express lane, put a toll on bridge between VD and MA and add a bus lane

[Anonymous]

Since the well-connected Potomac residents will stall a new bridge forever, why not reinstate the ferrys that used to cross the Potomac: Noland's Ferry, Edwards Ferry, maybe some others? Cheap, and they would do the job in a case like this.

[Anonymous]

Why can't they rejigger the bridge so that the median is movable and they could ensure that there are lanes going in both directions regardless of what happens on the bridge?

To above, White's Ferry is still working.