Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since DC is not a grid city but a hub 'n spoke city, my ideal public transit [only for the subway mind you] would consist of an 8 point star with 3 rings on top of the star. Each spoke able to expand as required and a ring added as population necessitates.
Basically, one which mimics the actual population and not one which is dictated by ideologies or local funding issues.
DC is a hybrid, with the diagonal avenues cutting across a grid street system.
DC is a hybrid, with the diagonal avenues cutting across a grid street system.
True. But in my "dream" the format I've picked would still cover all that so everyone is within a walking distance of a stop. One issue I've noticed is that there are long bits between stops and it does not seem to be about legitimate geographic concerns or population density.
Compare the population density map with the silver line. I know 66 is messed up, but the problem is 66. Not because the area around the airport contains dense population. In fact, by local standards, where the silver line goes and intends to continue is a great suburbia with .25 acre for all and a car based culture.
Look at the green line. I don't think it's that way because people don't want to use public transit. One line for an entire quadrant. Every other quadrant has at least two. I think DC public transit is now being used to keep people away while allowing others to come in.
The huge gap in Arlandria is unacceptable. That area is a large space of dense population with high rise projects cramming people in like sardines. The only reason it's not mapped as such is because of the huge parks, like the cemetery. If that area had decent stops underneath, could you imagine the number of cars that could be taken off the roads? But that part is mixed between rich folks with million dollar homes on .50 acre lots, and new immigrants crammed 4 to a room in tenements; so who cares if they get a subway stop, right?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The DC metro system is funded by the federal government. 40% of the ridership is federal and when the subsidy dries up, ridership is down. (Cost of transit commuting unpredictable for federal workers - Baltimore Sun). All government facilities that deal with the public must be metro accessible. Even the new FBI building must be within walking distance of a metro stop, where ever that might end up being. So add those folks too. Add in the users who are contractors, add in the subsidies it receives flat out from the feds, plus the District and States [who receive federal transit funding], plus the matching capital grants from the feds on top of regular contributions.
The metro system charges the most at the peak times, when they're sure to get the $17 a day from the feds ($6 each way plus $5 parking), while low income people might wait until 10AM to use it to avoid the high fees by working the dreaded 11-7 shift common only to low wage service jobs. Even the Metro study shows that rich people use the subway while poor people use the bus, and only San Francisco has higher rates.
It is a system that is purely designed to mass move bureaucrats. Which makes sense, given the area. But DC is a city in its own right without regard to the feds and it should view it's metro system as such so it comes to the proper conclusion that it needs to meet the needs of the local residents. Not just the federal government.
This all folds into the regional planning and how this area seems to work against the regular person. Where I work, they've built up so much housing density that it can't be filled. Seriously. 3/4 empty building right next to the metro and has been for almost 2 years now. But will they lower the cost of a one bed apartment from $2000 a month to $1600 to fill it in? No way. Because they don't want people to live there that can only afford $1600 a month [plus parking, which of 4 floors only one gets half filled]. They will lower the $2k to $1800 a month if you're a federal employee. We don't talk about it, but we all know there is rent strata in the area. $1000, $1300, $1600, $2000 and $2500, which correlates to perceived social divisions.
Since the OP asked for a dream metro, I gave my dream. Reasonably priced accessibility for everyone who wishes to use it with expansion based on the needs of all and population density, not just federal government concerns.
True. But in my "dream" the format I've picked would still cover all that so everyone is within a walking distance of a stop. One issue I've noticed is that there are long bits between stops and it does not seem to be about legitimate geographic concerns or population density.
Compare the population density map with the silver line. I know 66 is messed up, but the problem is 66. Not because the area around the airport contains dense population. In fact, by local standards, where the silver line goes and intends to continue is a great suburbia with .25 acre for all and a car based culture.
Look at the green line. I don't think it's that way because people don't want to use public transit. One line for an entire quadrant. Every other quadrant has at least two. I think DC public transit is now being used to keep people away while allowing others to come in.
The huge gap in Arlandria is unacceptable. That area is a large space of dense population with high rise projects cramming people in like sardines. The only reason it's not mapped as such is because of the huge parks, like the cemetery. If that area had decent stops underneath, could you imagine the number of cars that could be taken off the roads? But that part is mixed between rich folks with million dollar homes on .50 acre lots, and new immigrants crammed 4 to a room in tenements; so who cares if they get a subway stop, right?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The DC metro system is funded by the federal government. 40% of the ridership is federal and when the subsidy dries up, ridership is down. (Cost of transit commuting unpredictable for federal workers - Baltimore Sun). All government facilities that deal with the public must be metro accessible. Even the new FBI building must be within walking distance of a metro stop, where ever that might end up being. So add those folks too. Add in the users who are contractors, add in the subsidies it receives flat out from the feds, plus the District and States [who receive federal transit funding], plus the matching capital grants from the feds on top of regular contributions.
The metro system charges the most at the peak times, when they're sure to get the $17 a day from the feds ($6 each way plus $5 parking), while low income people might wait until 10AM to use it to avoid the high fees by working the dreaded 11-7 shift common only to low wage service jobs. Even the Metro study shows that rich people use the subway while poor people use the bus, and only San Francisco has higher rates.
It is a system that is purely designed to mass move bureaucrats. Which makes sense, given the area. But DC is a city in its own right without regard to the feds and it should view it's metro system as such so it comes to the proper conclusion that it needs to meet the needs of the local residents. Not just the federal government.
This all folds into the regional planning and how this area seems to work against the regular person. Where I work, they've built up so much housing density that it can't be filled. Seriously. 3/4 empty building right next to the metro and has been for almost 2 years now. But will they lower the cost of a one bed apartment from $2000 a month to $1600 to fill it in? No way. Because they don't want people to live there that can only afford $1600 a month [plus parking, which of 4 floors only one gets half filled]. They will lower the $2k to $1800 a month if you're a federal employee. We don't talk about it, but we all know there is rent strata in the area. $1000, $1300, $1600, $2000 and $2500, which correlates to perceived social divisions.
Since the OP asked for a dream metro, I gave my dream. Reasonably priced accessibility for everyone who wishes to use it with expansion based on the needs of all and population density, not just federal government concerns.
I think its amazing that they consider charging $1600 a month for a one bedroom to be so low that it would bring in a lower class of people. If you can afford $1600 a month for a one bedroom.. you are at least middle class. You won't find any low wage workers who can afford that unless they sell drugs on the side or they are a married couple splitting the rent.
I've always said that supply and demand dictate rent prices. But this is a clear example of rent prices being dictated more by "keeping certain people out" than by demand to live there. A half empty apartment building means low demand. So the price should drop to match it.
In the end, they can't just build luxury apartments everywhere. Rich people are not a big enough percentage of the population for that model to work. Not to mention the fact that people with more $$$ would often prefer to buy over renting.
I think its amazing that they consider charging $1600 a month for a one bedroom to be so low that it would bring in a lower class of people. If you can afford $1600 a month for a one bedroom.. you are at least middle class. You won't find any low wage workers who can afford that unless they sell drugs on the side or they are a married couple splitting the rent.
I've always said that supply and demand dictate rent prices. But this is a clear example of rent prices being dictated more by "keeping certain people out" than by demand to live there. A half empty apartment building means low demand. So the price should drop to match it.
In the end, they can't just build luxury apartments everywhere. Rich people are not a big enough percentage of the population for that model to work. Not to mention the fact that people with more $$$ would often prefer to buy over renting.
I know. I'd say what I really thought of it but it wouldn't go over too well with admins. Even with a 2 year agreement, the lowest this one new tenement building will go is $1800 for a one bed from what my co-workers have told me.
It's got the metro going for it but the building itself looks like the projects to me [perfect square, pale 70s brick, small windows]. It's far enough away from the hipster area that some people would be nervous about walking home after last call because it's mostly industrial lots and parking structures once you leave the 2 block zone of restaurants.
Eh... whatever. Stay empty, lose money. No skin off my back.
For me it would have to be an express line that runs from Reston to downtown DC bypassing Tysons and Arlington. Obviously it would not be super useful for most people, but it'd be my personal dream line.
For me it would have to be an express line that runs from Reston to downtown DC bypassing Tysons and Arlington. Obviously it would not be super useful for most people, but it'd be my personal dream line.
The Silver line should of been built with express tracks. Dulles Airport is so far from downtown DC that it would make more sense to have express trains from the Airport to East Falls Church to make the trip a little faster.
The Silver line should of been built with express tracks. Dulles Airport is so far from downtown DC that it would make more sense to have express trains from the Airport to East Falls Church to make the trip a little faster.
That would make sense but remember they didn't even want to pay to put the train stop at the front door of the airport, they'd be way to frugal to build an express line.
That would make sense but remember they didn't even want to pay to put the train stop at the front door of the airport, they'd be way to frugal to build an express line.
Yep.. the usual penny-pinching that lead Metro to have no express tracks from the start. Rather than spending the money on making the underground stations "majestic" or "beautiful" I would of preferred they spend it on express tracks OR at least a 3rd track to allow trains to by-pass track work and avoid the need for single tracking.
Don't get me wrong. I love Metro's architecture. But at the end of the day its a train that is supposed to take you from point A to point B. If it can't do that well what good is the beauty?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
