Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 15:25     Subject: How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Our home is approximately 1 mile from metro. We typically walk or bike with latter taking 10 or less. Walking takes about 25 mins, bus is about 10-15 mins. I don't consider this that much of a problem but for folks around here it appears from a market standpoint that it's too far. It's never been a problem commuting wise. We still get into work within an hour.

Obviously if money is no object, people would want to be as close to the Metro as possible. But as everyone here knows, you will pay a very high premium to live near the metro inside the beltway. What distance is too far where it's not worth it?


I think being about three miles from Metro is ideal. Quick drive, but away from the riff-raff.


See I prefer walking distance to the Metro, about 2 1/2-3 miles from the assholes.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 14:59     Subject: How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
Anonymous wrote:I work in urban planning. 1/4 mile is considered the most "walkable" distance max. You can push that to a half mile if its a highly desirable neighborhood. This applies to metro. Bus lines would need to be closer than 1/45 mile to make it desirable transit accessible.


1/45 of a mile would be in my living room, approximately.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 14:58     Subject: How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
I work in urban planning. 1/4 mile is considered the most "walkable" distance max. You can push that to a half mile if its a highly desirable neighborhood. This applies to metro. Bus lines would need to be closer than 1/45 mile to make it desirable transit accessible.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 14:55     Subject: How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
"Close" to metro depends on what you want to use metro for. If it's just to commute to work, I think .5 to .75 is close because you can establish a regular routine of walking to the metro. But we use metro to go out to dinner, movies, theater, museums, etc. In that case, we'd probably drive if we lived .75 miles away. For personal chores and entertainment, it's more important that metro be much closer so you can make an impromptu trip without having to plan for it.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 14:43     Subject: Re:How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
I would just list the distance. I'm 1.6 to ballston and 1.6 to efc in Arlington- definitely not walkable and I don't consider my hood metro accessible.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 14:39     Subject: Re:How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
Funny, I'm in Dc, about half a mile from the nearest metro stop, and I find it too far.

The bus is less than a block away from me, and that's infinitely more convenient so that's what I take.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 14:27     Subject: Re:How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
Anonymous wrote:We're .75 miles and it's just on the cusp of "accessible" - though i do think it depends on context. In the district, I wouldn't call something a mile away from a station "metro accessible," but in Falls Church, i would.


While I understand your point, this is the type of thinking skews things significantly towards suburbia and skews all sorts of real estate decisions. I found myself getting caught up in it too, when I was looking for a place, since realtors also seem to broaden what's walkable When you're outside of DC. It seems odd to me, since I'd rather walk on well-traveled city sidewalks than quieter suburban streets. It's this type of thinking that keeps a lot of people from seriously considering some great DC neighborhoods.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 14:22     Subject: Re:How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
We're .75 miles and it's just on the cusp of "accessible" - though i do think it depends on context. In the district, I wouldn't call something a mile away from a station "metro accessible," but in Falls Church, i would.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 13:54     Subject: Re:How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
We are 0.6 miles to metro and think it's reasonable to list "metro accessible", however I would still add distance in listing. I agree with PP, DC proper people are looking for under 0.5 mile, suburb 1.0 mile is fine.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 13:27     Subject: Re:How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
I walk 20 minutes through the neighborhood -- one of the best parts of my day.
Anonymous
Post 03/02/2016 13:16     Subject: How far is too far to be considered accessible to metro?
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Our home is approximately 1 mile from metro. We typically walk or bike with latter taking 10 or less. Walking takes about 25 mins, bus is about 10-15 mins. I don't consider this that much of a problem but for folks around here it appears from a market standpoint that it's too far. It's never been a problem commuting wise. We still get into work within an hour.

Obviously if money is no object, people would want to be as close to the Metro as possible. But as everyone here knows, you will pay a very high premium to live near the metro inside the beltway. What distance is too far where it's not worth it?


I think being about three miles from Metro is ideal. Quick drive, but away from the riff-raff.


No riff-raff in downtown Bethesda, much prefer to be closer in so that we can walk as a family to eat out for dinner and go shopping.



Honestly, the last time I went to Bethesda Row it was crowded as hell. We caught a movie and afterwards had to listen to a bunch of noisy, stoned kids complain about their parents and school.