DC is NOT ‘Walkable’

I can only assume that the term ‘walkable’ so often used to describe DC means one doesn’t need a car. Goodness knows I don’t want to literally WALK everywhere! And this implies that we have public transportation that is available and easy to use. I vehemently disagree.

How can we be expected to use alternate transportation options or rely on public transportation when it is so UNRELIABLE?

Take this morning, for example, as I waited in the rain for the bus. I ride the bus every morning. Is this because I’m supremely conscious of the environment? No. My office does not provide parking. Lucky for me, I’m at least on the busline, even though I live in Georgetown, which declined a metro station. Anyway… first the 32 bus and then the Circulator rolled through my busstop without stopping!!! (This is not the first time it’s happened… and I wasn’t the only poor soul waiting!)

Bus service isn’t the only poor public transport. I think, in a major city and national capitol, metrorail should be available 24 hours a day – and should be expanded to take passengers to destinations outside of the regular tourist hotspots. There is only one city that does this well, and I know DC is not NYC, but it is our best model of a ‘walkable’ city.

To be fair – I know we can get there. DC can be ‘walkable.’ People will take public transportation if it becomes consistent and reliable. Also, I do know it’s a tough job, and every bus operator I’ve ever met has been very professional and NICE. I just wish you would stop for me!

One thought on “DC is NOT ‘Walkable’

  1. Ditto … not that this is DC, but when I lived in Bethesda, I had to take the bus & the Bethesda busses would just turn on the “out of service” sign and not stop for anyone else when they were full. I mean I know they couldn’t take anyone, but can’t they call for backup or something? So frustrating!

Add Comment

Current ye@r *