Anonymous wrote:

So we are not only going to drastically increase the frequency of existing bus lines, but we are also going to add lots of new bus lines, which of course will also run very frequently? Do you really think there is the political will to pay for all of that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

?

It's not an utopian vision. It's an actual reality in lots of places.

Agree. Plus PP frames the issue narrowly around her needs/behavior. What she doesn't take into account is that increased bus frequency means that other people can rely on the bus to metro, allowing for a wider pool of people to consider jobs that encompass this commute. Higher frequency also helps with the car v. public transportation cost/benefit. When bus routes increase frequency they usually also extend hours or go to the later hours, allowing workers in non-office settings to rely on them more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

?

It's not an utopian vision. It's an actual reality in lots of places.

Agree. Plus PP frames the issue narrowly around her needs/behavior. What she doesn't take into account is that increased bus frequency means that other people can rely on the bus to metro, allowing for a wider pool of people to consider jobs that encompass this commute. Higher frequency also helps with the car v. public transportation cost/benefit. When bus routes increase frequency they usually also extend hours or go to the later hours, allowing workers in non-office settings to rely on them more.

There's also the "buses don't go to my kids' activities" issue. Well, buses could go there. And kids can take themselves on buses, too, instead of needing to be driven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

?

It's not an utopian vision. It's an actual reality in lots of places.

Agree. Plus PP frames the issue narrowly around her needs/behavior. What she doesn't take into account is that increased bus frequency means that other people can rely on the bus to metro, allowing for a wider pool of people to consider jobs that encompass this commute. Higher frequency also helps with the car v. public transportation cost/benefit. When bus routes increase frequency they usually also extend hours or go to the later hours, allowing workers in non-office settings to rely on them more.

There's also the "buses don't go to my kids' activities" issue. Well, buses could go there. And kids can take themselves on buses, too, instead of needing to be driven.

We would need to rein in the nanny state if you want more kids to take buses. I worry about my kids walking two blocks home from elementary school. I'm sure they'd get the cops called on them if they were on a bus by themselves.

Anonymous wrote:
My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They really need to put one in. Thoughts?

My thought is they needed to put a very large parking garage at the King St metro.
If there were parking, people who live there would drive and park at the metro station and take metro.

I hate, hate, hate the magical thinking of "people will use public transportation to get to public transportation despite that adding anywhere from a half hour to an hour to their commute!"
There is no evidence that people in this area are going to abandon their cars even to go 1 mile.

No. The King/Callahan/Russell intersection is bad enough as is. There is nothing difficult about the 15-20 minute walk or 5 minute bus ride from Taylor Run. Talk about privileged.

How often do the buses come? I had this discussion with someone about Bethesda. I live more like 2-2.5 miles from the metro and drive in. It is too far to walk daily and the bus comes every half hour even in rush and would transform an 8-10 minute ride into 20+. Unless the buses came very frequently, which isn't realistic, there is just no way I am going to take the bus despite the cost of parking. This is particularly true since I have to get kids and get them to activities and the chance of bus routes lining up is very low.

It's simply a fantasy that some have that people will turn to public transportation to get to metro and restricting parking, as some advocate, is fool hardy.

Metrobuses now have pretty accurate GPS tracking which makes it a lot more pleasant to catch a bus

I'm PP and I agree that helps, but only so much when the bus only comes every 30 minutes. It may not be possible to time leaving in the morning to the bus (e.g. the metro bus left right after the school bus and I couldn't afford to wait 30 minutes for the next one) and it is even harder to try to time things on the backend when a metro ride precedes catching the bus. And of course the bus still take a good bit longer than driving yourself.

With the gps I have definitely been times I have used the bus in the morning when I had flexibility or got lucky. If I got lucky on the backend, great, if not an uber home is about the same price as parking. But it just isn't a viable alternative most days.

The cost to have the buses come every 5 or 10 minutes would be staggering and I still don't think demand would improve that much.

Anonymous wrote:

We would need to rein in the nanny state if you want more kids to take buses. I worry about my kids walking two blocks home from elementary school. I'm sure they'd get the cops called on them if they were on a bus by themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

?

It's not an utopian vision. It's an actual reality in lots of places.

Agree. Plus PP frames the issue narrowly around her needs/behavior. What she doesn't take into account is that increased bus frequency means that other people can rely on the bus to metro, allowing for a wider pool of people to consider jobs that encompass this commute. Higher frequency also helps with the car v. public transportation cost/benefit. When bus routes increase frequency they usually also extend hours or go to the later hours, allowing workers in non-office settings to rely on them more.

There's also the "buses don't go to my kids' activities" issue. Well, buses could go there. And kids can take themselves on buses, too, instead of needing to be driven.

We would need to rein in the nanny state if you want more kids to take buses. I worry about my kids walking two blocks home from elementary school. I'm sure they'd get the cops called on them if they were on a bus by themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

?

It's not an utopian vision. It's an actual reality in lots of places.

Agree. Plus PP frames the issue narrowly around her needs/behavior. What she doesn't take into account is that increased bus frequency means that other people can rely on the bus to metro, allowing for a wider pool of people to consider jobs that encompass this commute. Higher frequency also helps with the car v. public transportation cost/benefit. When bus routes increase frequency they usually also extend hours or go to the later hours, allowing workers in non-office settings to rely on them more.

There's also the "buses don't go to my kids' activities" issue. Well, buses could go there. And kids can take themselves on buses, too, instead of needing to be driven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

?

It's not an utopian vision. It's an actual reality in lots of places.

Agree. Plus PP frames the issue narrowly around her needs/behavior. What she doesn't take into account is that increased bus frequency means that other people can rely on the bus to metro, allowing for a wider pool of people to consider jobs that encompass this commute. Higher frequency also helps with the car v. public transportation cost/benefit. When bus routes increase frequency they usually also extend hours or go to the later hours, allowing workers in non-office settings to rely on them more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

?

It's not an utopian vision. It's an actual reality in lots of places.

Anonymous wrote:

My own experiences show how limited the effect of increased frequency would have on ridership. Even if buses came every 5 minutes (which is wildly unrealistic) I still wouldn't use them that often. It would still increase my commute time 10-20 minutes each way, even when I didn't have to pick up kids and/or take them to activities - neither of which could really be done via bus since they don't go there. (Maybe I could theoretically piece together 2 to 3 buses each way to make it work, but the added time and hassle would be tremendous.)

As for the costs of roads, the 2 miles of roads I drive will still need to be there regardless and the added wear and tear is pretty minimal.

I'd love better transit and bike trails (biking would be an option for me occasionally) but your utopian vision that buses and bikes are going to become the main means of transportation if we just provide enough funding doesn't work in the real world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm PP and I agree that helps, but only so much when the bus only comes every 30 minutes. It may not be possible to time leaving in the morning to the bus (e.g. the metro bus left right after the school bus and I couldn't afford to wait 30 minutes for the next one) and it is even harder to try to time things on the backend when a metro ride precedes catching the bus. And of course the bus still take a good bit longer than driving yourself.

With the gps I have definitely been times I have used the bus in the morning when I had flexibility or got lucky. If I got lucky on the backend, great, if not an uber home is about the same price as parking. But it just isn't a viable alternative most days.

The cost to have the buses come every 5 or 10 minutes would be staggering and I still don't think demand would improve that much.

There is a well-established, solid relationship between increased frequencies and increased use. Your own experiences explain why.

The costs of road construction are staggering. If we instead used that money for transit, bike lanes, and sidewalks, we could really get somewhere.