Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:58     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Bus costs like 1/4 what the metro costs. I couldn't afford metro much when I lived in DC and didn't make much.


No, the disparity is nowhere near that. Metro gets more expensive the farther you travel, but longer trips would be impossible to do by bus.


Density around metro stops farther away makes much more sense than in the city...where we have buses.


???

Density around Metro stops makes sense everywhere.


Not in DC when it appears what people currently would really like is to maintain green space, have single family homes, duplexes, and very small apartment buildings with family sized apartments (not luxury condos) and are happy to have them spread throughout the city on the fantastic bus lines.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:46     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.


Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:41     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I live 2 blocks from a metro station and back when I used to commute downtown for my highly-compensated professional job, I took the bus. So, it's not all poors.

The bus is often faster, it goes more places, and it's more flexible; if traffic is bad, I just ask the driver to let me off and I walk. In COVID times, the huge advantage of the bus is the ability to open the windows.

Even with the bus, though, the same basic density arguments apply. One of the reasons the bus is a great option for me is that I have 15 different bus routes that stop within two blocks of my house.


Can you please not use that term? It's really offensive.


DP. Is there really any difference between that and poor people, particularly in an informal, often irreverent setting?
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:39     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:30     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:I live 2 blocks from a metro station and back when I used to commute downtown for my highly-compensated professional job, I took the bus. So, it's not all poors.

The bus is often faster, it goes more places, and it's more flexible; if traffic is bad, I just ask the driver to let me off and I walk. In COVID times, the huge advantage of the bus is the ability to open the windows.

Even with the bus, though, the same basic density arguments apply. One of the reasons the bus is a great option for me is that I have 15 different bus routes that stop within two blocks of my house.


Can you please not use that term? It's really offensive.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:10     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Bus costs like 1/4 what the metro costs. I couldn't afford metro much when I lived in DC and didn't make much.


No, the disparity is nowhere near that. Metro gets more expensive the farther you travel, but longer trips would be impossible to do by bus.


Density around metro stops farther away makes much more sense than in the city...where we have buses.


???

Density around Metro stops makes sense everywhere.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:06     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Bus costs like 1/4 what the metro costs. I couldn't afford metro much when I lived in DC and didn't make much.


No, the disparity is nowhere near that. Metro gets more expensive the farther you travel, but longer trips would be impossible to do by bus.


Density around metro stops farther away makes much more sense than in the city...where we have buses.


And that has what to do with whether the PP's statement regarding the relative cost of buses was accurate?
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:03     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There’s a pandemic.
If you haven’t noticed, car traffic is way way down too.
Should we tear up all the roads too?


No, but we should be assessing how commuting patterns will change before we commit to new road projects. We'd be silly not to be doing similar assessments regarding the long term impact on metro riding.


We don't know that. Indeed, we can't *possibly* know the long-term impact on metro ridership right now. We'd be idiots to make any plans or assessments before the pandemic is over and we see what *actually* happens. You can't "assess" something that hasn't happened yet.


So you think planning is purely reactive and no effort should be made to forecast? That's not how government or business works.

Of course we don't know exactly how things will shake out long-term. And, yes, to the degree possible we should avoid making large, expensive, irreversible decisions before we have a better sense of how things will look post-pandemic. But you can't put everything on hold for years, and it could easily take years for people to have a sense of how many/which changes will be permanent. Also, nothing is ever "permanent," things constantly change and policy makers can't simply wait and wait because they don't know how things will change going forward.

In a related context, policy makers are already assessing what jobs will not come back (which itself will impact commuting, among other things) and trying to plan accordingly. Do you think we should wait until we see permanent job loss (and for long would be enough for you?) before we start to try to take measures to help counteract these job losses?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/road-to-recovery/2021/02/17/unemployed-workers-retraining/


No. I think we're in the middle of an unprecedented situation and we can't really forecast the effects right now. Maybe lots of jobs will end up being remote, but I'd be shocked if most of the federal government goes full-time WFH. Maybe people will move out to the suburbs for more space, and will rely on Metro even more to get to their jobs.

Frankly, I think Metro should be using this time to make necessary repairs and improvements so that when ridership begins to climb again, it will be in a position to offer good service. Cutting Metro is a self-fulfilling prophecy: they lack money, so they have to cut service, so fewer people ride, so they lose money, so they have to cut service, etc. We should be putting money into critical infrastructure in general right now -- Metro, roads, power grid, etc. -- when unemployment is high and interest rates are low.


I agree that most government (and most jobs generally) won't go full-time WFH. But we don't need anything close to that to have a profound impact on metro. If people commute 2 more days than before, that will have a massive impact.

As for people moving to the suburbs and using metro more, maybe. But, if traffic is lessened, you may have more people choosing to drive even from further distances. It is also likely that, if you do have more people moving to the suburbs, a greater number of longer trips from the suburbs would be offset somewhat by fewer shorter trips by people in the city.

In terms of massive infrastructure, it sounds like you want a jobs program more than anything. Otherwise, your contention that we should make huge investments in metro and roads right now goes completely against your argument that this is unprecedented and we have no idea how things will shake out going forward.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:03     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Bus costs like 1/4 what the metro costs. I couldn't afford metro much when I lived in DC and didn't make much.


No, the disparity is nowhere near that. Metro gets more expensive the farther you travel, but longer trips would be impossible to do by bus.


Density around metro stops farther away makes much more sense than in the city...where we have buses.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 10:02     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:I live 2 blocks from a metro station and back when I used to commute downtown for my highly-compensated professional job, I took the bus. So, it's not all poors.

The bus is often faster, it goes more places, and it's more flexible; if traffic is bad, I just ask the driver to let me off and I walk. In COVID times, the huge advantage of the bus is the ability to open the windows.

Even with the bus, though, the same basic density arguments apply. One of the reasons the bus is a great option for me is that I have 15 different bus routes that stop within two blocks of my house.


Same. Much prefer bus. However, same arguments don't apply. Density arguments are singularly focused on metro stops. Bus access is much more diffused through the city and more rational to build throughout the city answering needs for different lifestyles + choices, rather than pushing height excepted concrete clusters around metro stops.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 09:49     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There’s a pandemic.
If you haven’t noticed, car traffic is way way down too.
Should we tear up all the roads too?


No, but we should be assessing how commuting patterns will change before we commit to new road projects. We'd be silly not to be doing similar assessments regarding the long term impact on metro riding.


We don't know that. Indeed, we can't *possibly* know the long-term impact on metro ridership right now. We'd be idiots to make any plans or assessments before the pandemic is over and we see what *actually* happens. You can't "assess" something that hasn't happened yet.


So you think planning is purely reactive and no effort should be made to forecast? That's not how government or business works.

Of course we don't know exactly how things will shake out long-term. And, yes, to the degree possible we should avoid making large, expensive, irreversible decisions before we have a better sense of how things will look post-pandemic. But you can't put everything on hold for years, and it could easily take years for people to have a sense of how many/which changes will be permanent. Also, nothing is ever "permanent," things constantly change and policy makers can't simply wait and wait because they don't know how things will change going forward.

In a related context, policy makers are already assessing what jobs will not come back (which itself will impact commuting, among other things) and trying to plan accordingly. Do you think we should wait until we see permanent job loss (and for long would be enough for you?) before we start to try to take measures to help counteract these job losses?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/road-to-recovery/2021/02/17/unemployed-workers-retraining/


No. I think we're in the middle of an unprecedented situation and we can't really forecast the effects right now. Maybe lots of jobs will end up being remote, but I'd be shocked if most of the federal government goes full-time WFH. Maybe people will move out to the suburbs for more space, and will rely on Metro even more to get to their jobs.

Frankly, I think Metro should be using this time to make necessary repairs and improvements so that when ridership begins to climb again, it will be in a position to offer good service. Cutting Metro is a self-fulfilling prophecy: they lack money, so they have to cut service, so fewer people ride, so they lose money, so they have to cut service, etc. We should be putting money into critical infrastructure in general right now -- Metro, roads, power grid, etc. -- when unemployment is high and interest rates are low.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 09:43     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:Bus costs like 1/4 what the metro costs. I couldn't afford metro much when I lived in DC and didn't make much.


No, the disparity is nowhere near that. Metro gets more expensive the farther you travel, but longer trips would be impossible to do by bus.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 09:42     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Bus costs like 1/4 what the metro costs. I couldn't afford metro much when I lived in DC and didn't make much.
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 09:40     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There’s a pandemic.
If you haven’t noticed, car traffic is way way down too.
Should we tear up all the roads too?


No, but we should be assessing how commuting patterns will change before we commit to new road projects. We'd be silly not to be doing similar assessments regarding the long term impact on metro riding.


We don't know that. Indeed, we can't *possibly* know the long-term impact on metro ridership right now. We'd be idiots to make any plans or assessments before the pandemic is over and we see what *actually* happens. You can't "assess" something that hasn't happened yet.


So you think planning is purely reactive and no effort should be made to forecast? That's not how government or business works.

Of course we don't know exactly how things will shake out long-term. And, yes, to the degree possible we should avoid making large, expensive, irreversible decisions before we have a better sense of how things will look post-pandemic. But you can't put everything on hold for years, and it could easily take years for people to have a sense of how many/which changes will be permanent. Also, nothing is ever "permanent," things constantly change and policy makers can't simply wait and wait because they don't know how things will change going forward.

In a related context, policy makers are already assessing what jobs will not come back (which itself will impact commuting, among other things) and trying to plan accordingly. Do you think we should wait until we see permanent job loss (and for long would be enough for you?) before we start to try to take measures to help counteract these job losses?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/road-to-recovery/2021/02/17/unemployed-workers-retraining/
Anonymous
Post 02/17/2021 09:39     Subject: Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:There’s a pandemic.
If you haven’t noticed, car traffic is way way down too.
Should we tear up all the roads too?


No, but we should be assessing how commuting patterns will change before we commit to new road projects. We'd be silly not to be doing similar assessments regarding the long term impact on metro riding.

I think metro like other commuter dependent businesses have their stuck their collective head in the sand on planning for what comes next. I would think that a quarter at most of pre-Covid commuters would be a realistic number to begin with. If my business relied on commuters or out-of-towners, I would be extremely concerned right now. And then what does that mean for taxes in the District? Gonna be very painful.