A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DC Metro Interconnects



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 25th, 2004, 07:33 PM
Kemp Brinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default DC Metro Interconnects

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message news:c3tn6q$kr5
But when I need to get to Greenbelt proper, rather than Beltsville or
College Park, I have to exit the station in the opposite direction,
and brave the parking lots. There's no way to get to Greenbelt proper
via Lackawanna Street without walking miles out of my way, either up
to Sunnyside or down to Greenbelt Road to cross the rail line. (Metro
ends there, but another rail line continues north.)


You can bike/walk to Greenbelt proper pretty easily. I bike it all the
time. It's about 2.5 miles.

Exit station (not via the Marc tunnel, the main way). Avoid the
parking lot entirely by turning LEFT after exiting station and follow
the Kiss-n-Ride/Bus access road that goes clockwise around parking
lot. Just follow the buses. Turn LEFT at Cherry Lane, cross over
beltway, RIGHT on Ivy Lane, and RIGHT on the last road before
Kenilworth, just past the last building on right (can't recall name,
may not be marked). That road dead-ends, but there is a little (and I
do mean little) paved cut-through to Crescent road about 50ft. long.
Take the 50ft cut-through to Crescent road, cross Kenilworth at the
light, and follow Crescent into G'Belt proper.

There are bike paths on Ivy Ln., Cherry Ln., and Crescent because this
is supposed to be the "official" bike route from the station to G'belt
proper, for whatever that is worth. Except on the short section of
Cherry Ln, the traffic is light enough and the lanes wide enough most
of the way that the drivers don't seem to care if you ride in the lane
as necessary. In my experience, G'belt drivers, in contrast to other
burbs I've biked in, are pretty kind to cyclists. YMMV of course.
  #22  
Old April 4th, 2004, 04:23 AM
Clark F. Morris, Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects

John R Cambron wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

John R Cambron * wrote:

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.


Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?



If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.



  #23  
Old April 4th, 2004, 04:00 PM
John R Cambron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects



"Clark F. Morris, Jr." wrote:

John R Cambron wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

John R Cambron * wrote:

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?



If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.


WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

--
================================================== ====================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or Hebron MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
================================================== ====================
  #24  
Old April 4th, 2004, 04:52 PM
Jon Bell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects

In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager.


John, you might want to reconsider that last sentence.

(spell-checker gone berserk? :-)

--
Jon Bell Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
  #25  
Old April 4th, 2004, 05:43 PM
Robert Cote
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects

In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:

"Clark F. Morris, Jr." wrote:

John R Cambron wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

John R Cambron * wrote:

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.


WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.


Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...

As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?
  #26  
Old April 4th, 2004, 07:57 PM
Baxter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Cote" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:


public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.


Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...

As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?


And here Cote engages in a lame spelling flame.


  #27  
Old April 5th, 2004, 04:36 AM
John R Cambron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects



Robert Cote wrote:

In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:

"Clark F. Morris, Jr." wrote:

John R Cambron wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

John R Cambron * wrote:

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.


WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.


Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...

As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?


Putting Baxter less then pleasant retort aside, please excuse
my lousy spell check spelling error, that should have been
discretion.

Oh and Robert, Thanks for the laugh at my expense.

--
================================================== ====================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or Hebron MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
================================================== ====================
  #28  
Old April 5th, 2004, 04:41 AM
John R Cambron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects



Jon Bell wrote:

In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager.


John, you might want to reconsider that last sentence.

(spell-checker gone berserk? :-)


Read my responce to Robert Cote.

--
================================================== ====================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or Hebron MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
================================================== ====================
  #29  
Old April 5th, 2004, 06:51 PM
Robert Cote
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects

In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:

Robert Cote wrote:

In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:

"Clark F. Morris, Jr." wrote:

John R Cambron wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

John R Cambron * wrote:

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.


Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...

As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?


Putting Baxter less then pleasant retort aside, please excuse
my lousy spell check spelling error, that should have been
discretion.

Oh and Robert, Thanks for the laugh at my expense.


Hopefully in the collegial manner in which it was intended.

In a different discussion universe the $1.5 billion, six year capital
shortfall is being debated in the context of last weeks' board
consideration of raising fares. I can't help but imagine that no public
washrooms is one of the least impacting on transport utility savings
available.
  #30  
Old April 6th, 2004, 04:03 PM
John R Cambron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Toilet facilities and transit was DC Metro Interconnects



Robert Cote wrote:

In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:

Robert Cote wrote:

In article ,
John R Cambron * wrote:

"Clark F. Morris, Jr." wrote:

John R Cambron wrote:

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

John R Cambron * wrote:

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?


If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...

As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?


Putting Baxter less then pleasant retort aside, please excuse
my lousy spell check spelling error, that should have been
discretion.

Oh and Robert, Thanks for the laugh at my expense.


Hopefully in the collegial manner in which it was intended.

In a different discussion universe the $1.5 billion, six year capital
shortfall is being debated in the context of last weeks' board
consideration of raising fares. I can't help but imagine that no public
washrooms is one of the least impacting on transport utility savings
available.


You will get no argument from me on that.

================================================== ====================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or Hebron MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/
================================================== ====================
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Feasibility of luggage on Rome metro? Rich Carreiro Europe 5 May 13th, 2004 07:04 AM
Paris, near Anvers Metro, safe at night ? jane Europe 5 May 3rd, 2004 10:10 PM
Tourists/visitors can no longer park in DC Metro lots Brian Robinson OR Carol Goter Robinson OR Bill Rob USA & Canada 1 March 28th, 2004 12:50 AM
Difficulty finding Paris metro fare information... westside Europe 11 January 29th, 2004 03:39 PM
Mexico City's Metro too "much" with kids? [email protected] Latin America 7 December 16th, 2003 03:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.