Again David - I object to us being hypercritical attitude towards government organizations and while on the flip side just simply taking at face value anything a private business claims. How do we no for a fact the relocation will put NY2DC out of business? At this stage of debate devoid of transparency NY2DC has an incentive to exaggerate the potential harm to their business to evoke sympathy.

by MDC on Jun 26, 2008 2:17 pm  

MDC: Forget about the issue of DC2NY going out of business. L'Enfant is not the right place for loading for many other reasons. We should find a better solution, and I'm not convinced there's such an urgency to do this before taking a moment to figure out that better solution.

by David Alpert on Jun 26, 2008 2:28 pm  

I don't dispute the process you are trying to urge DDOT to slow down and engage in. I am just uncomfortable with 24/7 hypercriticalness of any city agency that exists on blogs (not just yours) while on the flip side taking heresay from a business owner with vested interests as fact. I'm a firm believer that being fair and balanced builds credibility.

by MDC on Jun 26, 2008 2:34 pm  

Is that a non-ironic use of "fair and balanced"? Wow — everyone turn away for a sec, I'm in the dirt giggling …

by Greg Greene on Jun 26, 2008 3:42 pm  

Off-topic to the question at hand, but: this is an example of the "flexibility" of buses that's often touted as an advantage of buses vis-a-vis rail. It's really a disadvantage.

I imagine a hypothetical first-time visitor from New York, who heard from a friend who made a trip 4 months ago how the Chinatown buses drop you off in a really cool neighborhood in DC, and who gets on one after this rule is in effect, perhaps sees a flyer or notice about the new destination, not that he knows anything about DC geography.

Flexibility includes the flexibility to make the experience worse for the rider.

by thm on Jun 26, 2008 4:16 pm  

The buses should be moved somewhere else period, where that is that's another story those buses are constantly blocking traffic by double parking, parking infront of metrobus stops, blocking garages and etc.

There should be no reason for residents of the city getting disadvantaged because of tourist, and company that could basically go to another part of the city, but decides to go into high populated area and then block traffic.

DC should do what New York does and start restricting buses on some of the streets, restrict the buses to main roads like NY Ave, Rhode Island Ave, 11th street, 13th street, 16th street, Conn Ave, Mass Ave, Penn Ave.

You can go to any of the places these buses stop at and find one of them double parking, parking infront of a metro bus stop or blocking a garage entrance, I have even seen on blocking a fire hydrant. I try to report the illegal things I see but no one does anything about them so I just said f it.

I say if they want to complain so much either let them stay where they are and target there ass, every violation they catch write there ass a ticket thats double the price.

Make them move to Le'Enfant Plaza

or

Let them decide where to go but it has to be near a main road that leads out of the city and make them pay for spaces

by kk on Jun 26, 2008 5:46 pm  

Moving the buses is not necessarily a bad idea. However, one SINGLE depot is. One of the great advantages of the current system is that passengers can choose which bus line to take based on which is most convenient to get to from their home or work. At a minimum there should be a service available near every line of the Metro (as there is now).

by Erica on Jun 27, 2008 2:29 pm  

Here are several reasons why the curbside buses need to be located to a single spot, rather than spread around the city:

* Several of the less reputable companies discriminate against disabled riders. Drivers have refused to allow blind passengers on their buses, forced seeing eye dogs to go underneath the bus in the luggage compartment, or required additional payments (ie, bribes) to allow the guide animals on the bus. A couple of lawsuits are pending, but when they lose these suits, the less reputable companies simply shut down and open up under a new name the very next day.

* Some of the companies have serious safety problems. Their vehicles are not properly maintained and their drivers violate all kinds of federal rules.

* There have been several instances of environmental violations by buses dumping their bathroom waste in public places.

* Legitimate businesses suffer when curbside buses set up stops in front of their shops.

The DC government needs to conduct inspections to combat the problems with discriminatory and unsafe activities. They cannot do so when the buses are all over the city. The centralization will allow the legitimate companies to continue to operate while giving the city the chance to hold businesses accountable that operate outside the law.

by resident on Jun 27, 2008 9:04 pm  

@resident - while we're at it, let's put all hospitals on one street so the district can regulate them easier, too. also, public schools suck --let's put them all on northbound 16th street, because the city just can't regulate things 'all over the city'. get taxis off the street while we're at it.

let's not stop there. Since 'centralization will allow legitimate companies to continue to operate' (huh?), then we should really just have anyone under the poverty line move to a special place in the city where the government can take care of them better -i guess your saying concentrations are always better, and always solve the problem.

No Bus Ghetto! let's stop these NIMBY folks who want all the wealth of the city with none of the responsibilities!

(i agree with MDC --all this 'hearsay' and 'hyperness' about evil Big Bus should be rooted in fact, not just because someone had a bad day on a bus, or some lawyer found a way to make some fees for the day. these ANC astroturfers here are just showing the true colors of their anti-business, anti-middle-class attitudes.)

by Resident Too on Jun 28, 2008 12:47 pm  

Resident Too: "No Bus Ghetto" is great—wish I'd thought of calling the campaign that. Maybe the next round!

by David Alpert on Jun 28, 2008 12:57 pm  

I'm not really sure how to respond to Resident Too, since s/he ranting rather than discussingg. But on re-reading my comment from the other day, there's something that may be worth fleshing out a bit....

The District government and state governments are responsible for inspecting buses to ensure their safety. Those inspections, by law, have to take a look at the drivers and the vehicles. The current curbside bus system makes it hard for DDOT to carry out these inspections because the bus companies are spread out all over the city and our government doesn't have enough inspectors to cover every curbside bus stop. Centralizing the buses will allow these federally mandated inspections to occur with all the companies rather than just for Greyhound and Peter Pan, which is the case now.

An inspection regime which only covers some of the companies provides an incentive for operators to ignore the law. To put it another way, if you don't inspect all the companies then there's an incentive for everybody to decrease their safety standards because it lowers their costs and increases their profit margin.

There is clear proof that some of the curbside companies operate outside the law. They have unqualified, overworked drivers operating unsafe vehicles. And they discriminate against the handicapped.

If you don't like DDOT's proposal, then that's fine. But if you're supporting the status quo then you need to face the fact that you're supporting dangerous buses and discrimination. There may be better ways for DDOT to work this plan, but it's very clear that something has to be done to change the way things work right now.

by resident on Jun 29, 2008 11:19 am  

resident - Did you actually witness a dog shut into the luggage compartment?

by Bianchi on Jun 29, 2008 11:54 pm