Reply to The Beltway is at a complete stand still

Forum Index » Cars and Transportation

Reply to "The Beltway is at a complete stand still"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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

Once every 10 years. Bfd[/quote]

It is more than that and today's traffic is a similar anomaly.[/quote]

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

Aren’t al of these places people mentioning in the burbs?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Except that isn't remotely realistic.  You can't simply fit everyone who lives in the region walkable to the metro.  Nor could everyone afford to live in many of those areas, regardless of space limitations.[/quote]

Right — tell me how to make it work when I work in McLean and DH works in Rockville. How are we supposed to not use a car?[/quote]
The reason that urban planners are emphasizing density near metro and walkability is that it makes more sense than having people waste their time in hours of traffic each day.
As for the PP, you don't say where you actually live.  But McLean and Rockville both have metro stops.   If you lived in downtown DC, you could  metro to either place pretty easily. 
   Presumably that would have kept you from 4 hours on the beltway today. [/quote]

Today, sure.  But on any normal day it would take longer for at least one person from most locations.  People are ignoring that today is far from the norm.

Density around metro is all well and good, but do you really think most places 1+ from metro stops are going to empty out?  Or that it would be a good thing if they did?[/quote]
In 40 years, I think most of those homes will be replaced with high rises.  Millennials aren't keen on cars or traffic.  Much easier to surf while on metro or a commuter train.[/quote]

Even if you were right that most homes will be replaced by high rises - a likely dubious proposition - how does a high rise 2-3 miles from metro, never mind further, help?  You still wouldn't be walkable to metro or other transit.  Maybe transit options expand somewhat but how do you expand enough so that you still don't have lots of people too far to walk to transit?

No doubt density around metros has and will increase, but areas non-walkable to metro are hardly going to be depopulated.[/quote]

More frequent buses is an easy one. Buses going by once or twice an hour removes a lot of the utility of metro when you live 2-3 miles away. Also, bike path or lane access - 2 miles to metro is doable most days if the route is safe, but I won't live even that far if I have to cross or ride on major roads with no bike access.[/quote]

Except it isn't easy.  Both of those things would help, but it will be very hard for either to have a major impact.  As far as bike paths, for a whole host of reasons, a relatively small segment of the population is going to be willing to bike in, even with dedicated bike lines.

As for buses, it would be very hard, never mind very expensive, to have a bus network than can cover enough territory to provide most people a bus option.  And all of those buses would have to come quite frequently to make it a viable option for most people.  If they come even every 10 minutes, which would be a tremendous increase over current rates for most routes, people won't use them because it would substantially lengthen commutes, even when people are coming straight home.  Once you factor in people going all disparate ways in the evenings, the chance of having bus routes that would work logistically without very long commutes is very small.

I will give you a personal example.  I live 2-3 miles from a metro.  It takes me 10 minutes to drive to the metro.  There is actually a bus that comes close to my house, but in only comes every 30 minutes in rush.  Once I am on the bus, it takes almost 20 minutes to get to the metro.  So even if the bus comes immediately, I am doubling my commute to metro.  Obviously, there will almost always be some wait time, further extending it.  In the morning, I can watch the arrival app to cut wait time at the stop, but I may still have to wait the nearly 20-30 minutes for the next bus because I can't catch the sooner one before my kids leave.  The afternoon is the bigger problem.  I can't control nearly as precisely when I arrive off the metro, and the schedules aren't that precise anyway.  I have just as good of a chance of just missing a bus as just making one, meaning I could easily have 30 minutes waiting for the bus and then 20 minutes on it.  That's a hell of a lot longer than the 10 minute drive.

Even if the buses came every 10 minutes, I would still be looking at at least doubling and sometimes tripling my commute time to metro.  Sorry, that's just not going to happen, given that every minute is at a premium with two working parents and little kids.  I am hardly alone in this viewpoint, which is why it would be very hard to increase buses so much that it would have a significant increase.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics