Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^for numbers - there are currently about 23,000 parking spaces in downtown Bethesda, including spaces on the street, county garages, and private garages and surface lots.

That's a whole lot of parking for a whole lot of cars, in an area on top of a Metro station.

Without many of these spots people would drive all the way to work in DC. Because there is parking available in Bethesda, many people use metro for the vast majority of their commute, which is ultimately what you want.

Anonymous wrote:^^^for numbers - there are currently about 23,000 parking spaces in downtown Bethesda, including spaces on the street, county garages, and private garages and surface lots.

That's a whole lot of parking for a whole lot of cars, in an area on top of a Metro station.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. I mentioned it early, but with quotes getting cut off it got lost. I am in Bethesda, a couple of miles from downtown and a couple of miles from the dc border.

Bus service from Bethesda to the Bethesda Metro could be better and should be better.

Downtown Bethesda has way too much cheap parking, which induces people to drive, which makes it much more difficult, unpleasant, and unsafe to walk around downtown Bethesda than it ought to be.

Based in what metric have you decided that parking is too cheap? How much should it cost in your estimation?

I also don't understand why you say it is difficult to walk in downtown Bethesda. There are sidewalks and frequent lights and crosswalks. They even changed some of the light patterns a couple of months ago to make it even better for pedestrians.

Because there are narrow sidewalks and lots of big roads where people drive too fast. "Even better for pedestrians" is not something I'd say about downtown Bethesda, unless I were comparing it to, I don't know, Orlando. "Less bad for pedestrians than many other parts of the county," sure.

Parking should cost enough that people who live nearby and/or who can take transit to their jobs in downtown Bethesda decide not to drive by themselves and park because parking costs too much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 mile in suburbia is nothing. I live in Capitol Hill and have a mile walk to the metro.

Uh, where on Capitol Hill is the walk to metro 1 mile? Nowhere.

Up by Ivy City

Ivy City is a completely different neighborhood than Capitol Hill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 mile in suburbia is nothing. I live in Capitol Hill and have a mile walk to the metro.

Uh, where on Capitol Hill is the walk to metro 1 mile? Nowhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. I mentioned it early, but with quotes getting cut off it got lost. I am in Bethesda, a couple of miles from downtown and a couple of miles from the dc border.

Bus service from Bethesda to the Bethesda Metro could be better and should be better.

Downtown Bethesda has way too much cheap parking, which induces people to drive, which makes it much more difficult, unpleasant, and unsafe to walk around downtown Bethesda than it ought to be.

Based in what metric have you decided that parking is too cheap? How much should it cost in your estimation?

I also don't understand why you say it is difficult to walk in downtown Bethesda. There are sidewalks and frequent lights and crosswalks. They even changed some of the light patterns a couple of months ago to make it even better for pedestrians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. I mentioned it early, but with quotes getting cut off it got lost. I am in Bethesda, a couple of miles from downtown and a couple of miles from the dc border.

Bus service from Bethesda to the Bethesda Metro could be better and should be better.

Downtown Bethesda has way too much cheap parking, which induces people to drive, which makes it much more difficult, unpleasant, and unsafe to walk around downtown Bethesda than it ought to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. I mentioned it early, but with quotes getting cut off it got lost. I am in Bethesda, a couple of miles from downtown and a couple of miles from the dc border.

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.

I framed it around my experience because a PP (who conveniently likes cutting off where she quotes) claimed my circumstances showed how added buses would make a huge difference. I pointed out how she was wrong as to the effect it would have on me.

Of course my experience isn't universal; I never claimed it was. But let's not pretend my circumstances are terribly unique either. Lots of folks where I live have two adult working, kids, and the means to pay for parking if it is substantially faster and easier.

More buses would certainly lead to some increase in ridership, but I don't believe it would be a drastic change, at least in my area or other similar areas. The tremendous costs would be much harder to justify if ridership did not, in fact, increase dramatically.

Could you be so kind as to say, in general terms, where you live? The OP was (apparently) talking about the City of Alexandria, and I don't think there is any large part of the City where a reasonable increase in bus service would not result in a meaningful increase in ridership. I do not wish to debate conditions in say, Chantilly, which I do not know at all well. Bus service is not something that can really be debated in the abstract - its impacted not only by income and family size, but by population density. proximity of destinations, and a range of other very local factors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1 mile in suburbia is nothing. I live in Capitol Hill and have a mile walk to the metro.

Uh, where on Capitol Hill is the walk to metro 1 mile? Nowhere.

Up by Ivy City

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.

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:

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.

I framed it around my experience because a PP (who conveniently likes cutting off where she quotes) claimed my circumstances showed how added buses would make a huge difference. I pointed out how she was wrong as to the effect it would have on me.

Of course my experience isn't universal; I never claimed it was. But let's not pretend my circumstances are terribly unique either. Lots of folks where I live have two adult working, kids, and the means to pay for parking if it is substantially faster and easier.

More buses would certainly lead to some increase in ridership, but I don't believe it would be a drastic change, at least in my area or other similar areas. The tremendous costs would be much harder to justify if ridership did not, in fact, increase dramatically.

Anonymous wrote:

I framed it around my experience because a PP (who conveniently likes cutting off where she quotes) claimed my circumstances showed how added buses would make a huge difference. I pointed out how she was wrong as to the effect it would have on me.

Of course my experience isn't universal; I never claimed it was. But let's not pretend my circumstances are terribly unique either. Lots of folks where I live have two adult working, kids, and the means to pay for parking if it is substantially faster and easier.

More buses would certainly lead to some increase in ridership, but I don't believe it would be a drastic change, at least in my area or other similar areas. The tremendous costs would be much harder to justify if ridership did not, in fact, increase dramatically.