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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |