logo
In the D.C. region, the future of the Metro is the bus

In the D.C. region, the future of the Metro is the bus

Washington Post06-05-2025
The D.C. public transportation system is set to expand dramatically over the next 20 years. But aside from the long-delayed Purple Line, new train tracks aren't part of the plan. Leaders in and around the Metro system are putting their energy behind the less-loved side of transit: the bus.
In June, Metro rolls out its new 'Better Bus Network,' remaking the existing system with fewer stops and promises of faster service. Northern Virginia leaders just proposed 28 new bus routes, five of which are already in the works. The District has 7 bus-only lanes and wants a dozen more; Montgomery and Prince George's counties in Maryland are planning 17. Today, the region has about 30 miles of lanes reserved for buses. Plans call for 20 times more over the next two decades.
There are a couple reasons for the shift. One is money. New rail is remarkably expensive and difficult to build — the Purple Line is five years and $5 billion dollars over its original budget — and the Trump administration is expected to cut funds for transit projects. The other is the lasting impact of the pandemic. Metro ridership is rebounding as more people reported to offices, but it's still about a third lower than in 2019. Bus ridership, on the other hand, is actually higher — even though Metro data shows buses are slower, less frequent and less reliable than rail.
So Metro is focusing on making the existing rail and bus infrastructure more efficient to both accommodate the region's expected population growth and address its already arduous levels of traffic congestion.
🌸
Follow D.C. region Follow
'We need to move much, much faster on a regional, coordinated bus priority plan,' Metro planning chief Tom Webster said at a public meeting late last month. 'It is this region's future.'
Already, nearly as many people ride Metro buses every day as Metro trains. But these plans aim to double that ridership, bringing in people who have the option to drive. The goal is to 'compete with a single-occupancy vehicle, regarding the reliability and the frequency of service,' said Monica Blackmon, CEO of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority.
Saying no to 'the bloop'
In proposing the pivot to buses, Metro leaders put to bed a rail expansion known colloquially as 'the bloop.' The idea, which came out of a years-long study of how to speed up trains between Rosslyn and downtown D.C., would have redirected the Blue Line through Southeast Washington to link up with the Yellow Line in Alexandria. It would've added a stop by the hotels and casino at National Harbor and provided Metro access to St. Elizabeth's, Buzzard Point and Bolling Air Force Base.
But it came with an estimated $30 billion to $35 billion price tag and a 20-year timeline to complete. The entire bus network redesign was done in three years with no extra funding. Even the most ambitious local bus plans, which involve widening roads for bus lanes, cap out at around $1 billion.
'It makes sense for Metro to focus on the rail system it has, and give people something that will make their lives better right now — and that is what investing in the bus system does,' said Dan Reed, a former urban planner who works for the local pro-growth group Greater Greater Washington.
Still, there's a limit to what buses alone can solve as the region grows, some transportation experts and local officials say. A Beltway South bus line is envisioned, but replicating the 'bloop' would require several transfers.
'I don't understand why one of the richest metropolitan areas in one of the richest countries in the world can't have nice things like everybody else,' said Virginia State Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax), an advocate for the Blue Line loop. 'Bus is an important piece, but we cannot sacrifice rail investments just because it's hard.'
Transportation planners agree that at a certain distance or population density, buses are no longer effective. 'When the Purple Line opens and people can go from Bethesda to Silver Spring in nine minutes, you wont hear anyone say it should have been a bus,' Reed said.
Making buses work
Bus lanes have the potential to sidestep literal and figurative gridlock, skirting the kinds of costly battles that can derail bigger projects more reliant on federal dollars.
Advertisement
When Montgomery proposed making temporary lanes on Georgia Avenue permanent late last year, public survey results showed two-thirds of 2,800 locals were opposed. Three-quarters of those people said they usually drove down the corridor, which has five bus lines and four Metro stops. The bus lanes serve roughly 10,000 riders a day, but only 658 of the survey respondents took the bus more than twice a month.
Advertisement
If this were a plan that required federal funding, those opponents could have held it up for years with litigation or the threat of it. But the whole project cost was covered by the state for roughly $300,000, or $40,000 a mile. (For comparison, construction of the Purple Line has cost more than $300 million a mile.) The bus lanes stayed.
Marc Dunkelman, author of the book 'Why Nothing Works,' said the dynamics of projects like this reflect a broader problem in American governance.
Advertisement
'We're spending hand over fist more than other countries in similar economic circumstances, and that's not purely about the cost of labor or the cost of materials. It's that … we've created an industry of vetoes that are available to anyone who objects,' Dunkelman said. 'Should we lower our aspirations knowing our process is screwed up or should we change the process so we can get more optimal solutions?'
Advertisement
Interventions such as the Georgia Avenue lanes have improved bus speeds by as much as 60 percent, officials say, while reducing crashes by as much as 30 percent. And despite opposition from drivers, data indicates car traffic along bus priority routes has slowed by only a minute or two.
Skip to end of carousel
Make the most of the DMV with our newsletter (The Washington Post)
Make living in D.C. a little easier and more fun. Sign up for the Post Local newsletter to get local news, weather and expert advice — where to eat, where to drink and how to get around — every weekday.
End of carousel
'The folks driving vehicles didn't really experience a change,' D.C. City Administrator Kevin Donahue said at a regional transit meeting in March. 'They may not perceive that, because they're still in traffic before and after, but when we really study it the experience doesn't change at all.'
Advertisement
Maryland and D.C. can now ticket cars in bus-only lanes. Also appearing on the streets are signals that let buses move ahead of other traffic, and curb bumps with fare boxes that make it easier and faster to get on and off. The most ambitious projects, called 'Bus Rapid Transit,' or BRT give buses their own separated corridors similar to light rail.
Advertisement
'The operating costs aren't as high, the engineering isn't quite as intense, you can get through the process a little faster,' said transportation planner Julie Timm. She was a BRT skeptic herself until she was in charge of Richmond, Va.'s bus system, which now carries over a million riders a month. Now, she says, 'I'm a convert.'
'A bus is a bus'
The advantages buses hold over rail can also become drawbacks. Improvements are incremental and flexible, and therefor easier to scrap; new lines are easier to launch, and have resulted in a dozen local systems with separate names, fares and maps.
Advertisement
There's agreement that jurisdictions should work together on signage and some bulk purchases. But fares, schedules and stops have proven more controversial. Already, discussions of the bus plans have created disputes about how much control Metro should have as opposed to the jurisdictions that oversee (and pay for) the roads buses travel.
Advertisement
'There's a reason that we all have our local systems,' Alexandria City Council member Canek Aguirre said at a recent transit meeting in Northern Virginia. Alexandria's DASH service is free and electric, something Metrobus can't afford. 'You have a better understanding of not just your populace but the topography and your specific region,' he said in an interview afterward.
Loudoun Supervisor Matt Letourneau countered that localities should look to centralize as much as possible, given the political and financial climate for transit.
Advertisement
'We have to drive value to the maximum extent possible,' he said. 'For [the public], they don't distinguish as much between the operators — a bus is a bus.'
That fight isn't over; it will likely continue over the summer as local leaders discuss Metro's financial future. How those play out will help determine whether a built-out bus network will be a success or a compromise that satisfies no one.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith

New York Post

time9 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith

It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi

Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin
Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin

Boston Globe

time9 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin

Related : For Russia, 'this is a breakthrough even if they don't agree on much,' said Sergei Mikheyev, a pro-war Russian political scientist who is a mainstay of state television. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, iced out of the Alaska talks about his own country's future, has come to the same conclusion, telling reporters Tuesday: 'Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos. He needs a photo from the meeting with President Trump.' Advertisement But it is more than a photo op. In addition to thawing Russia's pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO — a perennial Russian goal — and postponed Trump's threat of tough new sanctions. Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Putin did not commit to a ceasefire by last Friday, he would to punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas. Advertisement The deadline passed with no pause in the war — the fighting has in fact intensified as Russia pushes forward with a summer offensive — and no new economic penalties on Russia. Ukrainian firefighters and rescue personnel at the site of a Russian bombing in the area in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on July 24. Friday's summit in Alaska pull the Russian leader out of diplomatic isolation from the West, and Ukrainian and European leaders fear it gives him an opening to sway the American president. DAVID GUTTENFELDER/NYT 'Instead of getting hit with sanctions, Putin got a summit,' said Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. 'This is a tremendous victory for Putin no matter what the result of the summit.' Before Alaska, only two Western leaders — the prime ministers of tiny Slovakia and Hungary — had met with Putin since he ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was placed under an international arrest warrant for war crimes in March 2023. Many in Europe have been flabbergasted by Trump's decision to hold a summit on Ukraine that excluded Zelenskyy, and the continent's leaders have pressed the president not to strike a deal behind Ukraine's back. Trump tried to allay those fears in a video call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, on Wednesday. The Europeans said they had hammered out a strategy with Trump for his meeting with Putin, including an insistence that any peace plan must start with a ceasefire and not be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. A peace deal on Ukraine is not Putin's real goal for the summit, said Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'His objective is to secure Trump's support in pushing through the Russian proposals.' For Putin, she said, the meeting is a 'tactical maneuver to turn the situation in his favor' and calm what had been increasing White House anger over the Kremlin's stalling on a ceasefire. Advertisement On the eve of the summit Thursday, the Kremlin signaled that it planned to inject other issues beyond Ukraine into the talks, including a potential restoration of economic ties with the United States and discussions on a new nuclear weapons deal. The arms idea plays into Russia's long-standing efforts to frame the war in Ukraine as just part of a bigger East-West conflict. Trump has called his rendezvous with Putin just a 'feel-out meeting' from which he will quickly walk away if a peace deal looks unlikely. President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Feb. 28. On Trump and Putin's meeting, Zelensky said, "Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos." DOUG MILLS/NYT Neither the White House nor the Kremlin has publicly stated what kind of peace deal they are looking for. But Trump has said it could involve 'some land-swapping,' something he feels he is well equipped to negotiate as a onetime New York property developer. Zelenskyy has rejected any land swap, insisting he has no authority under the Ukrainian Constitution to bargain away parts of the country. Agreeing to do so would be likely to trigger a serious political crisis in Kyiv and advance one of Putin's long-standing objectives: toppling Zelenskyy. Ukraine's surrender of its eastern regions would also torpedo Trump's hopes that the United States will one day benefit from Ukraine's reserves of rare earth minerals, most of which are in territory that Russia claims as its own. 'The worst-case scenario for Ukraine and more broadly is that Putin makes some sort of offer that is acceptable to the United States but that Zelenskyy cannot swallow domestically,' said Samuel Charap, a political scientist and the co-author of a book about Ukraine and post-Soviet Eurasia. Advertisement Putin, a veteran master of manipulation, will no doubt work hard in Alaska to cast Zelenskyy as an intransigent obstacle to peace. 'Trump thinks he can look into Putin's eyes and get a deal. He believes in his own talents as a negotiator,' said Nizhnikau, the Finnish expert on Russia. 'The problem is that Putin has been doing this his whole life and is going into this summit with the idea that he can manipulate Trump.' Trump's last summit meeting with his Russian counterpart, held in 2018 in Helsinki during his first term, showcased his propensity to accept Putin's version of reality. He said then that he saw no reason to doubt the Russian president's denials of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump and Russian President Putin arrived for a one-on-one-meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018, the last time the two world powers held a summit. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press Trump suggested this year that Ukraine was responsible for the invasion of its own territory and refused to join the United States' traditional Western allies in voting for a United Nations resolution condemning Russia's aggression. On Sunday evening, Zelenskyy worried aloud that Trump could be easily 'deceived.' Trump responded testily Monday to Zelenskyy's insistence that he could not surrender territory. 'He's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump snapped. 'There'll be some land swapping going on.' Still, said Charap, the political scientist, 'Putin can't really count his chickens yet.' Despite his iron grip on Russia's political system and its major media outlets, he has his own domestic concerns, particularly on the issue of land, if the sort of swap floated by Trump advances. 'Territory is a third rail politically, especially for Ukraine but also for Russia.' This article originally appeared in . Advertisement

Over Half of Americans Don't Trust Trump on Ukraine, Russia War: Poll
Over Half of Americans Don't Trust Trump on Ukraine, Russia War: Poll

Newsweek

time11 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Over Half of Americans Don't Trust Trump on Ukraine, Russia War: Poll

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Over half of U.S. adults are not confident that President Donald Trump can make "wise decisions" when it comes to the Ukraine and Russia war, a new survey from the Pew Research Center shows on Thursday. Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for additional comment. Why It Matters The poll's findings frame public expectations ahead of a high-profile bilateral meeting on Friday between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, aimed at discussing a potential ceasefire in Ukraine and broader U.S.-Russia issues, including Arctic cooperation. What To Know The Pew Research Center survey found 59 percent of U.S. adults were either "not too confident" or "not at all confident" that President Trump could make wise decisions about the Russia-Ukraine war; 40 percent expressed at least some confidence. The poll interviewed 3,554 U.S. adults between August 4 and August 10 with a margin of error of 1.8 percent. The survey also shows key partisan differences: a substantial majority of Democrats say that the U.S. has a responsibility to help Ukraine, with 66 percent, compared to 35 percent of Republicans. This number is up from 23 percent in a March survey, however. The public also expressed views on U.S. assistance: Pew found 29 percent said the U.S. was not providing enough support to Ukraine, and 18 percent said it was providing too much, while 50 percent of Americans said the U.S. had a responsibility to help Ukraine defend itself, and 47 percent said it did not. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can be seen meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., February 28, 2025. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL... President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can be seen meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., February 28, 2025. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images) More What People Are Saying Democratic Representative Jason Crow of Colorado on X this week: "Everyone wants Russia to stop its aggression & for an end to the war in Ukraine. But Trump keeps handing Vladimir Putin victories. Meeting in the U.S., without Ukraine at the table, is exactly what a dictator like Putin wants." Trump on Truth Social on Wednesday: "Very unfair media is at work on my meeting with Putin. Constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton, who just said that, even though the meeting is on American soil, 'Putin has already won.' What's that all about? We are winning on EVERYTHING. The Fake News is working overtime (No tax on overtime!)." The president continued: "If I got Moscow and Leningrad free, as part of the deal with Russia, the Fake News would say that I made a bad deal! But now they've been caught. Look at all of the real news that's coming out about their CORRUPTION. They are sick and dishonest people, who probably hate our Country. But it doesn't matter because we are winning on everything!!! MAGA" What Happens Next Trump and Putin are scheduled to meet on Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. Observers said the outcome could influence U.S. relationships with allies, Kyiv's negotiating position and congressional appetite for future assistance to Ukraine.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store