The second story, "Prince George's joins digital age," is timely, given Alpert's editorial on public subsidies in rural areas, which explicitly mentioned telecommunication subsidies. From the article, "...Massie students are in line for a new tool: a publicly funded high-speed network that will bring the school firmly into the digital age."

Sounds like a public service subsidy to me.

by Andy R on Aug 1, 2011 8:53 am • link • report

@ helmet: British doctors are right. Biking conditions should be so safe you don't need a helmet. Just like pedestrians are not required to dress like Michelin men, bikers should be free to hop on and off their bikes.

@Buy in Georgetown: Wait wait, did the Citizens Association of Georgetown include the opinion of all the second home-owners in Georgetown that don't really live there? High rent and a sluggish economy have forced some long-time businesses to close. BS. It's half time residents and the fact that the remaining residents try to block new car-poor and therefor local shopping residents (aka students) from turning their neighborhood into a "ghetto".

DC ranks highest for drug and alcohol abuse.

Well, at least the drug and liquor abusers have a convict representing them in the City Council ;-) Who said DC democracy does not work?

by Jasper on Aug 1, 2011 8:59 am • link • report

Are they moving all the Greyhound buses to Union Station?? That might make people afraid to take buses again. The nice thing about the NYC express buses is that people didn't have to deal with all the usual characters that frequent bus stations.

by aaa on Aug 1, 2011 9:07 am • link • report

When the "hip" intercity bus services first started, the selling point was that they could offer low fares and quality service because they didn't have standard "overhead" costs that Greyhound does. Since they didn't have terminals, they didn't have to pay rent. Since they didn't have guys loading your bags onto the bus, or selling tickets at a window, or answering phones in some back office, they didn't have to pay those people. Now it seems like it's all reverting back to the Greyhound model. And from my experience with these buses, the quality is reverting back as well.

by Rob P on Aug 1, 2011 9:11 am • link • report

I have a few friends who were up in arms when they read the Trump thing. While I think that Trump is the biggest self inflated, hypocrital gas bag this side of the 1950's, the idea for a luxury hotel for the space is something many (if not most) in town wanted for the Old Post Office. They just don't want Trump involved.

I agree that we would all be better off if Trump just went ahead and filed for bankruptcy again and left us all alone, his money is just as green as anyone elses. Hopefully another lux hotel chain will have the best redevelopment plan but it wouldn't be the end of the world if Trump got it. Atleast something would be done with the space.

by freely on Aug 1, 2011 9:49 am • link • report

@aaa

I think bus depots gets all the "usual characters" because they're often little more than dimly lit parking lots in run-down areas of the city. It's also not uncommon for people to just be standing around and waiting for a bus; making the lots a perfect place for just about any type of clandestine activity. I don't think a busy transportation hub at Union Station would have that same type of appeal to those who frequent the current Greyhound depot for purposes other than getting a bus.

@Rob P

You're right, of course, about the overhead costs, but they exist regardless of where the buses park and unload. Before, the Chinatown bus companies were simply externalizing those overhead costs by using public spaces as their depots. While having the cheap services they provide may be worth the public expense, the costs are still there. As for the bus line's quality, I think that's deteriorating despite overhead costs. While they may get more expensive to ride, perhaps formalizing intercity buses as a standard transportation option (as opposed to something ridiculed for serving only the poor and deranged) would be a good thing in improving quality.

by Adam L on Aug 1, 2011 9:58 am • link • report

Although I feel that the quality has indeed slipped,

I think that the discount buses do still have many advantages over Greyhound's business model.

Off of the top of my head, the DC-NYC trip is the perfect length for a driver to make two trips, and call it a day, which puts him back in his home city, and reduces costs associated with deadheading, lodging, and overtime.

Also, most routes operate as a hub-and-spoke model, usually without any intermediate stops between endpoints. If the bus company can fill the entire bus, this further reduces costs and increases on-time performance.

Oh, and don't forget that a discount bus terminal is going to have far fewer overhead expenses associated with it. As was already mentioned, the no-bullshit online ticketing system considerably reduces business overhead, and means that bus terminals can essentially be unstaffed. Also, the fact that these bus services strongly discourage layovers or connecting services means that the bus terminal can get away with providing less seating.

I hope that we don't get many stragglers spilling over into Union Station, although I think that they can probably handle this if it happens anyway. It'll probably be a mutually-beneficial arrangement, as bus passengers will be able to patronize the many businesses within Union Station; especially during off-peak hours, when the station gets rather quiet.

All in all, I think that this is by far the best possible use for the Union Station Parking Garage (as long as it doesn't further disrupt plans for the streetcar).

I'll also be very happy to have the Megabus traffic jam removed from K St NE. The buses themselves are fine, but the parade of cars/taxis doing pickups/dropoffs there is a nightmare, especially if you're on a bike.

by andrew on Aug 1, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

Oh, and I'm surprised that the Fairmont didn't express interest in the Old Post Office. It seems *exactly* like the sort of prestige property that the company normally looks for.

Also, the Trump organization (and Ivanka Trump's old bosses, Forest City Ratner) have been involved in more than a few shady development deals in recent years. I'd be extremely wary of doing business with either.

by andrew on Aug 1, 2011 10:05 am • link • report

@ Bike helmets...

Yes, biking should be so safe that no one thinks helmets are needed but, even if the danger of being hit by an auto were eliminated, it would still be a dangerous activity given the speed with which people ride.

Eight stiches, a concussion and a cauliflower ear were the result of one of my mistakes while riding down a residential street. If I'd been wearing a helmet I'd have been essentially uninjured.

The flip side is when I was hit by a car. Without my helmet, there is no question I'd be dead. I shattered the windshield and a witness saw my head bounce on the ground several times. I never lost consciousness but have no memory of the windshield or bouncing...

One could also argue (but I'm not taking that position) that helmets should be worn everywhere. While out running on the Mall one fine spring day a few years back, I tripped, fell and knocked myself out. Quite a nice concussion from that one - I have no recollection of about 15 minutes after the fall. If I'd been wearing a helmet while out running, I'd not have knocked myself out.

I've logged many, many thousands of miles, raced and was even a courier for a while "back in the day" so I speak from experience here but this is anecdotal, not statistical evidence.

Do I wear a helmet now? Usually (while biking) but not always... it's a risk assessment. Sometimes I'm willing to accept the risk, other times not.

by Crash Test Dummy on Aug 1, 2011 10:28 am • link • report

@Jasper:

@ helmet: British doctors are right. Biking conditions should be so safe you don't need a helmet. Just like pedestrians are not required to dress like Michelin men, bikers should be free to hop on and off their bikes.

I'm going to go ahead and play Devil's advocate here and argue that biking conditions *are* safe enough that a helmet's not required. While things could be safer, the odds of a particular individual getting into a serious accident while cycling are actually vanishingly low.

It's arguably less likely than being involved in a serious high-speed accident on the congested highways in our region.

by oboe on Aug 1, 2011 11:21 am • link • report

@Crash Test Dummy,

Man, you should get yourself checked out. Your constant self-inflicted injuries might be a symptom of an undiagnosed condition, or something.

http://littleliteraturereview.blogspot.com/2010/11/mr-bump-arraignment-of-undiagnosed.html

by oboe on Aug 1, 2011 11:29 am • link • report

I'm an experienced cyclist - and given the number of miles that most recreational cyclists ride, I can see the case for not legally requiring helmets. The incidence of injuries (head injuries per 1,000 miles) is just a lot lower among recreational cyclists, because they ride a lot less.

Most group rides and all races for road cyclists won't let anyone start without a helmet. And definitely, we should encourage everyone to wear one.

by Weiwen Ng on Aug 1, 2011 11:33 am • link • report

@ oboe; not your best analogy.

Your chance of being involved in a "serious high speed" auto accident on "highways" is bad construction. Serious accidents are still common, but being killed in them -- due to enforced safety measures - is much less likely. And although I don't know if it applies to the DC area, most people aren't being killed on highways -- it is non-divided roads that are the real killers.

I do agree that biking is pretty safe.* And the accidents in the city aren't ones that helmets are very useful in protecting.

The study, cited, however, is a real mishmash. Could it be that bikers live longer because they are, umm, active individuals who aren't dying of coach potatoitis? Or even if banned helmets, said active individuals would talk up another activity? There was another study earlier this year that found most serious bike accident result in spinal injuries, which clearly helmets would do little to no good for.

* which is why the continual chatter from this blog on the death penalty for drivers that kill bikers is a bit off.

by charlie on Aug 1, 2011 11:34 am • link • report

Just two quick comments:

First, the particulars aside, my point was that humans seem to compartmentalize our behaviors into "normal" activities, where we don't even bother to assess risk, and "dangerous" activities where the risk and perceived risk are not connected in any way.

Cycling is one of those "dangerous" activities. Another example would be folks' irrational fear of flying when it's the taxicab ride from the airport to your hotel that's going to kill you.

Secondly, I'm not sure we see a whole lot of advocacy for the death penalty for drivers--just any repercussions for negligent driving whatsoever.

by oboe on Aug 1, 2011 11:56 am • link • report

It's particularly interesting that that helmet study was British. My impression of the Brits is that they are very safety conscious. I still remember some Royal Society of the Prevention of Accidents, or something or other, coming out to criticize Ginger Spice's album which had a picture of her on the cover wearing roller skates and holding on to the bumper of a car. This also means I apparently still remember Ginger Spice, which is unfortunate.

by TM on Aug 1, 2011 12:11 pm • link • report

Re: Helmets

While I agree with the sentiment that helmets should not be mandatory for adults, I think the issue should be analyzed from a different angle. Do non-helmeted bikers pose a threat to anyone other than themselves? I think the answer is basically "no", so adult bikers should be free to make the helmet decision on their own.

This is similar to the previous discussion on whether bicyclists should be required to obtain licenses like drivers. The framing question there is also whether bikers typically pose a public safety hazard and since the answer is largely "no", a license shouldn't be required. Even though knowledge of bike laws and safety rules/tips is probably more important to your safety than wearing a helmet.

by Falls Church on Aug 1, 2011 12:20 pm • link • report

@oboe; yes, I agree with your point about risks, but that's also the rub.

"Also, regardless of the level of intoxication on the part of the driver, the conviction was on hit-and-run. Frankly, folks who are convicted of hit-and-run should be staked out to an anthill. Whatever's left should be given a lifetime ban on driving." -- Oboe on July 25.

The same push for enhanced penalties -- the horrible image of a car and bike colliding -- is exactly the same fear that keeps people from riding. Instead of saying we need more laws, what we need is to stop people from being afraid. Existing law in DC does a pretty good job in making bicycling safe.

We're actually agreeing here: bicycling in the city is pretty safe, and we don't need helmets.

by charlie on Aug 1, 2011 12:26 pm • link • report

Note that the past GGW vidoes on bikesharing in China and those on bike usage in Holland show throngs of riders with not a single person wearing a helmet. When we reach critical mass we'll probably follow suit.

Until then, I am going to keep wearing a helmet because I have kids and can't afford to leave them with a brain-dead or dead-dead parent, even if a crash is unlikely.

There have been times when I needed a CaBi for a short ride and didn't have a helmet with me, so occasionally I'll ride au natural (skull exposed), but I don't want my kids to see that. Bad example.

by Ward 1 Guy on Aug 1, 2011 12:35 pm • link • report

@Jasper, re: "British doctors are right. Biking conditions should be so safe you don't need a helmet. Just like pedestrians are not required to dress like Michelin men, bikers should be free to hop on and off their bikes."

Would that I could cross the street with such velocity that my dead were in danger of exploding on impact. Biking's just faster.

Also - Woo! BoltBus finally in the Garage! I think Bolt/Mega/etc. have been haphazardly operating out of there for about a year now, but good to know they're finally making it more permanent.

Impromptu poll: how much better is Union Station than NY Penn? "A lot", "Alot", or "NY Penn Makes Me Cry Exasperative Tears of FAIL"?

by Ronald on Aug 1, 2011 12:38 pm • link • report

@ helmets: I think the debate is going the wrong way here. It's not about personal responsibility or free choice. It's about demanding from the government/road engineers/other users of the road that roads are so safe that nobody needs to think about wearing a helmet.

Whenever a someone suggests making helmets mandatory, a discussion should follow on why she thinks that traffic is so unsafe that helmet are needed, not on the personal liberty to choose whether to wear a helmet or not.

BTW: It is rather ridiculous to demand bicyclists wear helmets, while there are still states where motorbikers are not required to wear helmets (be it that motorhelmets are required in MD, DC and VA).

http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx

by Jasper on Aug 1, 2011 12:38 pm • link • report

or, "D", Ronald has typos 'a lot': "...my [head] were in danger of exploding on impact"

Although, I think "dead" makes my point better

by Ronald on Aug 1, 2011 12:42 pm • link • report

British health and safety culture is absurd, but that is also why the Telegraph, the favorite newspapers of all philistines, is highlighting the study.

British cycling culture seems very recreational and less geared towards commute cycling than say, Dutch or Danish models. CycleHire in London is changing that, but there was a good study which found it was mostly all yuppies using it.

by charlie on Aug 1, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report

"Do non-helmeted bikers pose a threat to anyone other than themselves? I think the answer is basically "no", so adult bikers should be free to make the helmet decision on their own."
------------------

That makes about as much sense as saying people should be allowed to "make a decision on their own" to use a helmet when riding a motorcycle or to wear a seatbelt.

Problem is, when those who "make a decision on their own" to forego a safety device end up injured or killed, the costs of their injuries end up being covered by the rest of us in higher insurance premiums.

Bad enough we have to watch out for the bikers who insist on riding in rush hour traffic. Now we'll eventually have to pay more for insurance when sone them crack their skulls because they think they're too cool to wear a helmet and some some British doctors who don't deal with American-style traffic say helmets are unnecessary.

by ceefer66 on Aug 1, 2011 12:48 pm • link • report

It's obvious that Trump looks down on the president. If he gets the Old Post Office lease, it will be official.

by Bob on Aug 1, 2011 12:50 pm • link • report

That makes about as much sense as saying people should be allowed to "make a decision on their own" to use a helmet when riding a motorcycle

They should be. I agree

or to wear a seatbelt.

This is different. Wearing a seatbelt keeps the driver in front of the steering wheel, where studies show they have some chance of regaining control of the car and mitigating the crash. So there is a public safety function to that.

Passengers without seatbelts become projectiles that can crush other passengers or the driver and so, there again, there is a public safety aspect to this.

The proper analogy would be saying that 'people should be allowed to "make a decision on their own" to use a helmet when riding' in a car. And I agree, that they should.

by David C on Aug 1, 2011 12:51 pm • link • report

There are other biking hazards that do not have anything to do with rude auto traffic. I once hit a patch of oil; my bike collapsed beneath me within 1 second. I knew another guy that had a squirrel run into his spokes. In both case the helmets saved us from far more serious injury.

Given the trends in legislation (e.g., seat belt laws), a helmet law is probably inevitable.

by goldfish on Aug 1, 2011 1:13 pm • link • report

Problem is, when those who "make a decision on their own" to forego a safety device end up injured or killed, the costs of their injuries end up being covered by the rest of us in higher insurance premiums.

I'm pretty sure that auto insurance only covers the cyclist's injury if the driver is at fault (not sure how that works in no-fault states). So the above statement amounts to saying that bikers should be inconvenienced because there are too many bad drivers out there who seriously injure bikers, causing all driver's rates to go up. The root problem in this situation are the bad drivers, so the remedy should focus on identifying and remediating the bad drivers. Or, if that's not feasible, all drivers will have to put up with lower speed limits because some drivers are too bad to drive safely.

by Falls Church on Aug 1, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report

@oboe; yes, I agree with your point about risks, but that's also the rub.
"Also, regardless of the level of intoxication on the part of the driver, the conviction was on hit-and-run. Frankly, folks who are convicted of hit-and-run should be staked out to an anthill. Whatever's left should be given a lifetime ban on driving." -- Oboe on July 25.

Just to clarify, this has nothing to do with bikes vs cars, or pedestrians versus drivers for that matter. What we're really talking about when we say "hit and run", is someone hitting a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist (even another driver) and driving (or cycling) away to leave them to their fate.

Big difference between that and negligent, or even willfully reckless driving.

[I'm honored you've decided to become my Boswell, though. History will look kindly upon you for it.]

by oboe on Aug 1, 2011 1:55 pm • link • report

"Should bike helmets be mandatory?: British doctors conclude that bike helmets should not be mandatory because they reduce cycling and don't adequate protect riders. Helmets are not mandatory in DC and could be a factor in CaBi's success."

No helmets? Fine by me. People should get to choose if they want to wear one or not. Besides, we need more organ donors anyways.

by Anonymous on Aug 1, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report

No helmets? Fine by me. People should get to choose if they want to wear one or not. Besides, we need more organ donors anyways.

"Hey! I don't care if all these legions of people want to kill themselves in one of those 'aeroplane' contraptions, but I say if God had intended us to fly, he would've given us wings!"

Some medical advice: Don't hold your breath waiting for all the helmetless-bicyclist organ donors to start turning up at the morgue.

by oboe on Aug 1, 2011 3:38 pm • link • report

Union Station - are there any details on what changes they will make for the bus service? New waiting room in the garage area, displays for bus arrivals and departures? The parking garage level at Union Station is off to the back of the complex, not that well connected or integrated into the main parts of Union Station. Will be interesting to see how well it works with large numbers of buses & people going through the garage.

Still, this will make Union Station even more of a key intermodal transportation center: Metro, Amtrak, 2 commuter rail systems, intercity buses, H Street streetcar, rental bikes, tourist trolleys.

Re: Trump and the Old Post Office - Does DC need another luxury hotel? Especially one with the Trump brand? Trying to imagine an over the top ostentatious Trump Hotel with his name in big letters on the building that close to the FBI building. Of course, Trump may be bidding just for the Pennsylvania Avenue street address to boost his ego (if expanding his ego even larger is even possible at this stage).

by AlanF on Aug 1, 2011 5:04 pm • link • report

Will there be facilities to fuel the buses handle waste and other things along that nature(Greyhound). I'm quite sure there is fuel stored underneath the Greyhound station on 1st Street is there room for that at Union Station.

Does Greyhound own or lease the land there station sits on now

by kk on Aug 1, 2011 9:26 pm • link • report

In principle I'm all for the intercity buses being in Union Station: if you've ever caught a MegaBus in Boston, you know what a luxury this can be. But (and this is all conjecture) it seems to me that Union Station's bus bay is smaller, and its interior consistently more bustling than South Station. I would imagine that DC gets more intercity buses than Boston (again, conjecture, but DC is a MegaBus hub, unlike Boston). I get frustrated trying to walk through Union Station: just trying to navigate the crush of humanity - so I could see this causing a lot of additional strain on the already strained station.

by Lucre on Aug 2, 2011 8:43 am • link • report

@Oboe - Thanks for one of the heartiest laughs I've had in a long time. I've sent that link to several friends who see quite a similarity between Mr. Bump and myself. :-)

by Crash Test Dummy on Aug 2, 2011 10:08 am • link • report