WMATA opens up 7 days a week til midnight on July 18

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am not sure that you understand that the world has constraints. Since WMATA was awarded a dedicated funding stream a little over 2 years ago, they have already borrowed against it to the tune of nearly a Billion dollars for capital projects. In the meantime, during COVID the have been operating with massive losses. The only thing that has kept them solvent so far is almost $2.5 billion in total Federal bailout funds.

These details may not bother you, but they should. There is no secret money tree. Due to the dedicated local funding, there will be no longer emergency requests to DC, VA or MD to fill operating budget shortfalls. As a result, WMATA is operating empty trains under the presumption of faith that Mitch McConnell will come to their rescue later this year or next.

The obvious reason to run fewer trains now when it’s not needed is so that they don’t have to cut service when it is needed. But they are an irresponsible agency and don’t seem capable of changing their ways.

"Not needed," as decided by whom? You? The people who are using Metro likely have a different opinion about whether the service is needed.

Not needed based on existing utilization of the service. Ridership is extremely low right now. They provide public access to the data, so you are welcome to check for yourself. Go ahead and keep cheering on the waste. If you actually cared about transit you would have a very different view.

[Anonymous]

Metro staying open until midnight doesn't benefit me. Not waiting 25 minutes for trains (transfers suck) when I can drive to work in 30 minutes would benefit me. I would return to a Metro with 3-5 minute headways on all lines. I will not regularly commute on a Metro that thinks 12-15 minute headways is acceptable rush hour service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Metro staying open until midnight doesn't benefit me. Not waiting 25 minutes for trains (transfers suck) when I can drive to work in 30 minutes would benefit me. I would return to a Metro with 3-5 minute headways on all lines. I will not regularly commute on a Metro that thinks 12-15 minute headways is acceptable rush hour service.

But according to the PP, reductions in headways are not "needed" and are a waste of money, because you are not currently riding Metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro staying open until midnight doesn't benefit me. Not waiting 25 minutes for trains (transfers suck) when I can drive to work in 30 minutes would benefit me. I would return to a Metro with 3-5 minute headways on all lines. I will not regularly commute on a Metro that thinks 12-15 minute headways is acceptable rush hour service.

But according to the PP, reductions in headways are not "needed" and are a waste of money, because you are not currently riding Metro.

There is actually zero evidence that supports this idea. Prior to COVID, the annual song and dance was that WMATA would announce that it had a massive budget shortfall and would propose dramatically huge service cuts, including increased headways. The Fed and local governments would provide WMATA a bailout to cover the shortfall and prevent the service cuts. Then ridership would fall every year anyway.

Prior to COVID, the system basically operated at full capacity during rush hour based on demand. Cost saving measures were introduced to reduce service during low demand times. Every so often, local governments would convince WMATA to restore late night service in particular, but it never worked. As a result, there is a much stronger argument that Metrorail service should be responsive to demand. Unfortunately it would be irresponsible to spend the resources just to satisfy this PPs desires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro staying open until midnight doesn't benefit me. Not waiting 25 minutes for trains (transfers suck) when I can drive to work in 30 minutes would benefit me. I would return to a Metro with 3-5 minute headways on all lines. I will not regularly commute on a Metro that thinks 12-15 minute headways is acceptable rush hour service.

But according to the PP, reductions in headways are not "needed" and are a waste of money, because you are not currently riding Metro.

There is actually zero evidence that supports this idea. Prior to COVID, the annual song and dance was that WMATA would announce that it had a massive budget shortfall and would propose dramatically huge service cuts, including increased headways. The Fed and local governments would provide WMATA a bailout to cover the shortfall and prevent the service cuts. Then ridership would fall every year anyway.

Prior to COVID, the system basically operated at full capacity during rush hour based on demand. Cost saving measures were introduced to reduce service during low demand times. Every so often, local governments would convince WMATA to restore late night service in particular, but it never worked. As a result, there is a much stronger argument that Metrorail service should be responsive to demand. Unfortunately it would be irresponsible to spend the resources just to satisfy this PPs desires.

Oddly enough, this is exactly my opinion when it comes to road projects.

No, it's not irresponsible for a transit agency to provide transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro staying open until midnight doesn't benefit me. Not waiting 25 minutes for trains (transfers suck) when I can drive to work in 30 minutes would benefit me. I would return to a Metro with 3-5 minute headways on all lines. I will not regularly commute on a Metro that thinks 12-15 minute headways is acceptable rush hour service.

But according to the PP, reductions in headways are not "needed" and are a waste of money, because you are not currently riding Metro.

There is actually zero evidence that supports this idea. Prior to COVID, the annual song and dance was that WMATA would announce that it had a massive budget shortfall and would propose dramatically huge service cuts, including increased headways. The Fed and local governments would provide WMATA a bailout to cover the shortfall and prevent the service cuts. Then ridership would fall every year anyway.

Prior to COVID, the system basically operated at full capacity during rush hour based on demand. Cost saving measures were introduced to reduce service during low demand times. Every so often, local governments would convince WMATA to restore late night service in particular, but it never worked. As a result, there is a much stronger argument that Metrorail service should be responsive to demand. Unfortunately it would be irresponsible to spend the resources just to satisfy this PPs desires.

Oddly enough, this is exactly my opinion when it comes to road projects.

No, it's not irresponsible for a transit agency to provide transit.

Seriously. Amazing how so many people don't understand the concept of induced demand. No one is driving on roads that don't exist, yet lack of drivers is never used as a reason not to build a road. The road gets built or expanded, the drivers flock to it, congestion increases all over again. The same concept works for transit. Using lack of ridership as an excuse not to make service usable is ridiculous. The ridership isn't there *because* the service doesn't go where and when people need it to. Build it and they will come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Metro staying open until midnight doesn't benefit me. Not waiting 25 minutes for trains (transfers suck) when I can drive to work in 30 minutes would benefit me. I would return to a Metro with 3-5 minute headways on all lines. I will not regularly commute on a Metro that thinks 12-15 minute headways is acceptable rush hour service.

But according to the PP, reductions in headways are not "needed" and are a waste of money, because you are not currently riding Metro.

There is actually zero evidence that supports this idea. Prior to COVID, the annual song and dance was that WMATA would announce that it had a massive budget shortfall and would propose dramatically huge service cuts, including increased headways. The Fed and local governments would provide WMATA a bailout to cover the shortfall and prevent the service cuts. Then ridership would fall every year anyway.

Prior to COVID, the system basically operated at full capacity during rush hour based on demand. Cost saving measures were introduced to reduce service during low demand times. Every so often, local governments would convince WMATA to restore late night service in particular, but it never worked. As a result, there is a much stronger argument that Metrorail service should be responsive to demand. Unfortunately it would be irresponsible to spend the resources just to satisfy this PPs desires.

Oddly enough, this is exactly my opinion when it comes to road projects.

No, it's not irresponsible for a transit agency to provide transit.

Seriously. Amazing how so many people don't understand the concept of induced demand. No one is driving on roads that don't exist, yet lack of drivers is never used as a reason not to build a road. The road gets built or expanded, the drivers flock to it, congestion increases all over again. The same concept works for transit. Using lack of ridership as an excuse not to make service usable is ridiculous. The ridership isn't there *because* the service doesn't go where and when people need it to. Build it and they will come.

100% b.s. Not even free transit induces demand for transit ridership. Read the studies.

What you have written some sort fairytale imagined out of a fever dream and has no relationship to reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
100% b.s. Not even free transit induces demand for transit ridership. Read the studies.

What you have written some sort fairytale imagined out of a fever dream and has no relationship to reality.

That's because primarily transit use depends on service, not price. If transit does what people need it to do (for example, run frequently), then people will take it. If transit doesn't do what people need it to do, then obviously people won't take it, even if it's free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
100% b.s. Not even free transit induces demand for transit ridership. Read the studies.

What you have written some sort fairytale imagined out of a fever dream and has no relationship to reality.

That's because primarily transit use depends on service, not price. If transit does what people need it to do (for example, run frequently), then people will take it. If transit doesn't do what people need it to do, then obviously people won't take it, even if it's free.

You really should add the caveat that this is your personal opinion. And that's me being polite. Decades of research have not borne this out. As a result, significant amount of current research focuses the economic impacts of wait times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
100% b.s. Not even free transit induces demand for transit ridership. Read the studies.

What you have written some sort fairytale imagined out of a fever dream and has no relationship to reality.

That's because primarily transit use depends on service, not price. If transit does what people need it to do (for example, run frequently), then people will take it. If transit doesn't do what people need it to do, then obviously people won't take it, even if it's free.

You really should add the caveat that this is your personal opinion. And that's me being polite. Decades of research have not borne this out. As a result, significant amount of current research focuses the economic impacts of wait times.

It's my personal opinion that people won't take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Why would people take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Do we really need to do research on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
100% b.s. Not even free transit induces demand for transit ridership. Read the studies.

What you have written some sort fairytale imagined out of a fever dream and has no relationship to reality.

That's because primarily transit use depends on service, not price. If transit does what people need it to do (for example, run frequently), then people will take it. If transit doesn't do what people need it to do, then obviously people won't take it, even if it's free.

You really should add the caveat that this is your personal opinion. And that's me being polite. Decades of research have not borne this out. As a result, significant amount of current research focuses the economic impacts of wait times.

It's my personal opinion that people won't take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Why would people take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Do we really need to do research on that?

And you personal opinion is both contrary to fact and if implemented, is damaging to the long-term economic viability of the system. Very saavy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
100% b.s. Not even free transit induces demand for transit ridership. Read the studies.

What you have written some sort fairytale imagined out of a fever dream and has no relationship to reality.

That's because primarily transit use depends on service, not price. If transit does what people need it to do (for example, run frequently), then people will take it. If transit doesn't do what people need it to do, then obviously people won't take it, even if it's free.

You really should add the caveat that this is your personal opinion. And that's me being polite. Decades of research have not borne this out. As a result, significant amount of current research focuses the economic impacts of wait times.

It's my personal opinion that people won't take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Why would people take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Do we really need to do research on that?

And you personal opinion is both contrary to fact and if implemented, is damaging to the long-term economic viability of the system. Very savvy.

I actually made a mistake. I should have said "short term financial viability". The effects will be immediately felt in this current FY operating budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
100% b.s. Not even free transit induces demand for transit ridership. Read the studies.

What you have written some sort fairytale imagined out of a fever dream and has no relationship to reality.

That's because primarily transit use depends on service, not price. If transit does what people need it to do (for example, run frequently), then people will take it. If transit doesn't do what people need it to do, then obviously people won't take it, even if it's free.

You really should add the caveat that this is your personal opinion. And that's me being polite. Decades of research have not borne this out. As a result, significant amount of current research focuses the economic impacts of wait times.

It's my personal opinion that people won't take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Why would people take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Do we really need to do research on that?

And you personal opinion is both contrary to fact and if implemented, is damaging to the long-term economic viability of the system. Very saavy.

So, there's an established body of research demonstrating people's willingness to take transit that goes places they don't want to go, at times they don't want to travel? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
100% b.s. Not even free transit induces demand for transit ridership. Read the studies.

What you have written some sort fairytale imagined out of a fever dream and has no relationship to reality.

That's because primarily transit use depends on service, not price. If transit does what people need it to do (for example, run frequently), then people will take it. If transit doesn't do what people need it to do, then obviously people won't take it, even if it's free.

You really should add the caveat that this is your personal opinion. And that's me being polite. Decades of research have not borne this out. As a result, significant amount of current research focuses the economic impacts of wait times.

It's my personal opinion that people won't take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Why would people take transit if transit doesn't do what they need it to do? Do we really need to do research on that?

And you personal opinion is both contrary to fact and if implemented, is damaging to the long-term economic viability of the system. Very saavy.

So, there's an established body of research demonstrating people's willingness to take transit that goes places they don't want to go, at times they don't want to travel? Really?

The debate club guy is back at it. Go and argue with the other person in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you say “super spreader” vector?

I guess infection rates will be headed back up in August.

I don’t get this comment. Why would infections go up???