4 ms·

Another thing to consider, for cars, is that these things need PARKING SPACES. For an already dense city that means large, multilevel parking garages dotted all

Another thing to consider, for cars, is that these things need PARKING SPACES. For an already dense city that means large, multilevel parking garages dotted all over the city. How many more garages are we talking about for a half million more cars? A lot... enough to impact the nature and function of the city itself. If you're going to make a case for private cars vs WMATA, there is a wider scope of things to evaluate than just operating cost.

rayiner 8y ago
You wouldn't need more parking spots. For people commuting from outside the downtown core, Metro is already car-oriented, and operates 60,000 parking spots at stations (not including lots run privately or by VA/MD). For people traveling inside the downtown core, they could just take the bus--as lower income folks in D.C. already have to do because Metro doesn't go where they live.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  Of course you would need vast increases of parking spots. But it doesn't matter, this is all hypothetical. WMATA isn't going anywhere. DC would not be DC without the WMATA. And those WMATA trips from the burbs into DC can't be replaced with car trips or bus trips.
- tptacek 8y ago
  DC busses appear to be more heavily subsidized than the trains are. Am I misreading the stat, or misunderstanding your argument?
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    According to the FY 2019 budget [1], operating expenses of busses are much more heavily subsidized than rail (recovery ratio of 23% for the former if you look at page 35). [1]: https://www.wmata.com/about/records/public_docs/upload/FY2019-Approved-BudgetFinal.pdf https://www.wmata.com/about/records/public_docs/upload/FY201...
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The operating subsidy for rail is slightly less than for the bus, but that's dwarfed by the difference in annual capital expenditures (about $1 billion for rail versus $200 million for bus). Metro's fare recovery is a bit misleading, because most of its "capital budget" is actually for maintenance and repair, which is an operating cost. Also, the bus serves much lower income people than rail--I'm okay with it receiving subsidies.
prolikewh0a 8y ago
>Another thing to consider, for cars, is that these things need PARKING SPACES. Every single parking spot at any transit center in and around Seattle is full by 7AM. There was a new one built south of the airport at Angle Lake Station with something like 1000-1500 parking spots and you can't find anything past 7-8AM.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  I can believe it! Now imagine _ALL_ of those cars having to find parking in the central business district of Seattle.

rayiner 8y ago

You wouldn't need more parking spots. For people commuting from outside the downtown core, Metro is already car-oriented, and operates 60,000 parking spots at stations (not including lots run privately or by VA/MD). For people traveling inside the downtown core, they could just take the bus--as lower income folks in D.C. already have to do because Metro doesn't go where they live.

crispyambulance 8y ago
Of course you would need vast increases of parking spots. But it doesn't matter, this is all hypothetical. WMATA isn't going anywhere. DC would not be DC without the WMATA. And those WMATA trips from the burbs into DC can't be replaced with car trips or bus trips.
tptacek 8y ago
DC busses appear to be more heavily subsidized than the trains are. Am I misreading the stat, or misunderstanding your argument?
- pcwalton 8y ago
  According to the FY 2019 budget [1], operating expenses of busses are much more heavily subsidized than rail (recovery ratio of 23% for the former if you look at page 35). [1]: https://www.wmata.com/about/records/public_docs/upload/FY2019-Approved-BudgetFinal.pdf https://www.wmata.com/about/records/public_docs/upload/FY201...
- rayiner 8y ago
  The operating subsidy for rail is slightly less than for the bus, but that's dwarfed by the difference in annual capital expenditures (about $1 billion for rail versus $200 million for bus). Metro's fare recovery is a bit misleading, because most of its "capital budget" is actually for maintenance and repair, which is an operating cost. Also, the bus serves much lower income people than rail--I'm okay with it receiving subsidies.

prolikewh0a 8y ago

>Another thing to consider, for cars, is that these things need PARKING SPACES. Every single parking spot at any transit center in and around Seattle is full by 7AM. There was a new one built south of the airport at Angle Lake Station with something like 1000-1500 parking spots and you can't find anything past 7-8AM.

crispyambulance 8y ago
I can believe it! Now imagine _ALL_ of those cars having to find parking in the central business district of Seattle.