John McManus wrote:
[snip]
> If the mass transit (the Metro I think its called) wasn't so good
> then I would put up with the Harrington. But since the mass transit
> system is so good in DC there is no need to stay so close. The
Harrington
> is always recommended because of its location and convenience. I
found
> that convenience in DC is just being near a Metro Station. I was
very
> impressed the subway system in DC. Clean, bright, spacious, safe
and
> very easy to navigate. My next trip I will stay in an Arlington
> hotel near a Metro station. You can get a much, much nicer room for
> about $40 cheaper per night and free parking.
[snip]
This is definitely a personal preference thing. I've engaged this
topic before, and it has been discussed extensively about DC in
particular
before. But the summary is that if you stay outside of DC and commute
in,
you're gonna have all the fun of a commuter. You'll spend in total
a couple of hours each day in the Metro system. And ultimately the
metro does stop running each day.
The flip side is what you allude to. If you have a car, it's
cheap to park it outside of town. You'll get a better room for
the money, and you'll get a cheaper room period if that's what you
want. For some of us traveling is about being there. For others
it's about visiting. A subtle but important difference. I'm kinda
anti "day tripping" any way so that probably explains alot.
|