They should implement this alignment through Reston for Metro that follows the W&OD trail for a bit: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=xWMpSuvPK43SNN_PkOcJ&hl=en&msa=0&msid=104231489843257225692.000464da75f05aec7a18c&ll=38.957673,-77.365379&spn=0.105721,0.152264&t=h&z=13

by NikolasM on Jun 5, 2009 2:31 pm • link • report

Wow. My gf works at Georgetown and we only have one car, she has to take that bus a lot. As if they couldn't possibly make it more inconvenient for GTown employees to get to work, then there is this. Awful.

by JBE on Jun 5, 2009 2:33 pm • link • report

NikolasM, yes it should have, and a number of Reston residents have stated as such. But, as you've alluded, the old W&OD rail line is now a trail, and so it would require, basically, a subway along the entire route, because there isn't enough ROW to the side of the trail for an at-grade heavy rail line.

A subway, then, could be built anywhere, under any roads, rather than just sticking to the trail.

In any case, the land in the median is free and the deal is long since done, so we'll have to deal with what's now planned.

by Joey on Jun 5, 2009 2:41 pm • link • report

Man, Georgetown residents are stuck up. Do they really think that if they kill GUTS that people will stop visiting the University? Not only is it one of the biggest employment centers in DC not to have a Metro station nearby, but GU Hospital is arguably the best hospital in town. For example, my wife has a pretty rare medical condition that GU has specialists for; no one short of God himself could stop my wife from getting to GU Hospital when she needs to see a doctor. Long story short, for every GUTS bus that doesn't roll down Reservior, you'll get about 10-15 taxicabs instead.

by tom veil on Jun 5, 2009 2:43 pm • link • report

The streets of Georgetown really weren't built to handle these large buses. I'd imagine that for the residents in Georgetown it's a quality of life issue. What wrong with asking them to use roads that can better handle them ... and thus impose less on the resident's peace and quiet? It'll probably make these streets are lot more pleasant and usable by a lot of others ... including pedestrians and bicyclists.

by Lance on Jun 5, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report

Tom, GU has a major entrance on Canal Road with roads from there leading to all parts of the campus including the hospital. I think the residents are just saying 'go make your noise on your own roads instead of ours' ... Can't blame them, can you?

by Lance on Jun 5, 2009 2:51 pm • link • report

Lance, the streets of Georgetown weren't built to handle automobiles either. And the residents don't own the roads, the city does. How would you feel if the residents of the apartment buildings on Connecticut Avenue demanded that all those cars not go on their residential street - oh, I forgot, you don't think people who live in apartments have the same rights as people who live in single-family houses.

by tt on Jun 5, 2009 3:11 pm • link • report

I'm not sure it's 100% accurate to say that "ANC" is demanding this change. The Commissioners attended this meeting and made their opinions heard, but I don't think they were acting in their capacity's as commissioners in doing so. The issue has not come up in any of the monthly meetings. I'm not sure the Commission can act in its official capacity through anything but its monthly meetings.

But that's really beside the point.

It does seem like an overreaction to force such a radical rerouting. I'm not really sure what the best short term solution is, but long term I think the best option would be for GU to buy smaller buses and more of them. Right now they operate these rather large and heavy school buses. I imagine most people involved would prefer buses half the size they are now if they run twice as often.

Moreover, the Georgetown Transportation Study calls for a resurfacing of the roads in question, which will also reduce vibrations. But those are long term recommendations.

One more thing, I was under the impression that running the buses straight out onto Canal Road isn't an option for a while due to major construction. I'm not sure about that though. The Voice knows this stuff better than me.

by The Georgetown Metropolitan on Jun 5, 2009 3:12 pm • link • report

Joey, actually it appears that the timeline for when to build phase 2 of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project is now officially up in the air. The project website states that "a construction start date has not been set" and there is no longer a mention of when (what year) it'll be completed on. I don't know if that means it's been delayed indefinitely or they've just given up trying to estimate the timeline.

by Mario on Jun 5, 2009 3:14 pm • link • report

Good grief. Let's just close all streets west of Rock Creek Park and south of Glover Park to all motorized vehicles. This is a joke. If Georgetown University can't run buses on public streets then those residents shouldn't be allowed to run their cars on them, either. Fair is fair.

Some people have too much free time and take themselves way too seriously.

by Cavan on Jun 5, 2009 3:15 pm • link • report

Don't the GUTS busses run down the same streets as the WMATA D6 bus? What's the difference?

by Burleith on Jun 5, 2009 3:32 pm • link • report

@Mario, I don't think I addressed the timeline of Phase II? Wiehle is the westernmost Phase I station.

by Joey on Jun 5, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report

TT,

Cars were built to fit into roads such as Georgetown's ... buses weren't.

Cars and buses go up Connecticut Ave. ... as well as one of the streets where I live (I'm near a corner) ... and THOSE streets are big enough enough for buses ... Georgetown's aren't.

And where on earth does this come from?

oh, I forgot, you don't think people who live in apartments have the same rights as people who live in single-family houses.

by Lance on Jun 5, 2009 5:37 pm • link • report

Joey, I think that there is plenty of ROW in that area for a trail and the rail lines. Maybe I am an optimist on this one but nowhere is it particularly tight. Rail Trails are all technically supposed to be for rail first and foremost should the need ever arise again.

by NikolasM on Jun 5, 2009 6:17 pm • link • report

Jasper:

"Who was there first? Oh, yeah, the University."

City of Georgetown: founded 1751

Georgetown University: founded 1789

But, in any case, the issue isn't 'who was there first'. The issue is what is a reasonable thing to do. Asking the buses to use the larger more commercial streets where their noise and vibration is less likely to disturb people in the quiet enjoyment of their homes doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The riders are still getting to their destinations and from what I can see it's not taking them any more substantial time to get to their destinations ... maybe even less time when you consider that once on GU grounds there'll be little traffic to impede the buses' speed.

by Lance on Jun 5, 2009 6:31 pm • link • report

My goodness, there was no university here when I moved here 250 years ago! Where are all these college students coming from?

@Burleith: that's a good question. ANC commissioner Lewis has been quoted as saying "They also serve bus stops in the residential area, so they’ll probably stay." (http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2008/04/17/route-leaves-gu-going-in-circles/)It's not just that these buses are disruptive to the neighborhood, it's that they benefit a segment of the neighborhood population that isn't me. I see no reason why anyone else should use these buses if I can't.

@The Georgetown Metropolitan: while at this particular meeting the commissioners weren't acting in their official capacity, they do need to eventually sign off on the campus plan.

by Georgetown resident on Jun 5, 2009 6:40 pm • link • report

Asking the buses to use the larger more commercial streets where their noise and vibration is less likely to disturb people in the quiet enjoyment of their homes doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

There are far more people living on main streets with apartment buildings than on side streets with single family houses. But in your world, only single family homeowners are entitled to "quiet enjoyment." That's where my comment came from.

by tt on Jun 5, 2009 8:05 pm • link • report

tt, these aren't 'main' streets that we're talking about. The GU bus travels for the most part through narrow neighborhood streets such as Q Street. I'm sure no one would have a problem with it using M and Wisconsin Streets as well as Canal Road ... the "main" streets in Georgetown.

by Lance on Jun 5, 2009 11:06 pm • link • report

Whether Georgetown residents like it or not, Reservoir Rd is a local thoroughfare, so there's no reason why local buses shouldn't be allowed to run on it (including GUTS, since GU is a local entity).

by Froggie on Jun 6, 2009 6:31 am • link • report

Lance, weren't there once streetcars on P and Q Streets?

And my point is that streets like Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues have more residents than side streets. Why should the residents of the side streets have the right to exclude outsiders, but not the more numerous residents of the main streets?

Saying that one is a main street and the other isn't is no answer. Who decides which one is a main street? If residents of the street get to decide, shouldn't that apply to all streets?

by tt on Jun 6, 2009 7:13 am • link • report

tt,

Because the residents of the side streets are far more affected than those on the main streets. When you have a narrow street with the traffic moving nearly up to the wall of the house/building, you get a lot more noise and vibration than you do on a wide street where there is room for the noise and vibrations to dissipate.

Additionally, I don't agree with you that "apartment houses are on the larger, main roads" and "single-family houses are on the narrower, residential streets." Georgetown is made up of far many more renters than it is home-owners ... and most of those renters live in what you're implying are "single-family homes". A good number (probably most), aren't. Not even counting the good many that have been split into apartments or condos, I think you'd be hardpressed to find a house on the narrow streets there without a rental basement apartment.

Lastly, when people rent or buy on what is designated as a main road or in adjacent to a commercial area, you know what you're getting. Just like when you rent or buy on a side street not adjacent to commercial areas. And yes, these main roads are indeed designated, just like commercially zoned areas are. Main roads get a US or DC designation such as "Rte 29" or "Snow Emergency Route" (and these are just examples). Look through maps of the city and you'll see these clearly indicated on maps.

by Lance on Jun 6, 2009 9:45 am • link • report

funny, reading over many of the comments, such as tt's, I get the impression that those who want to see the buses travel narrow residential streets (1) aren't even interested in open discussion as to whether less intrusive alternatives are possible; (2) ARE fixated on wanting the buses to travel through streets where they perceive the residents as being "uppity" "rich" people in "single family roads".

i.e., I don't see any desire for people wanting to come up with good solutions ... Only people wanting to "stick it to 'em" ... for whatever reasons I can't imagine ...

by Lance on Jun 6, 2009 9:53 am • link • report

I'm reading this debate between Lance, et al, about "main" streets and "side" streets, and I feel like the obvious hasn't been said:

Reservoir Road is one of the widest streets in Georgetown (roughly the same width as Wisconsin). It's four healthy-width lanes wide (though some is often taken up by parking), and it's not largely residential. It's got a number of embassies on it, several schools, and a hospital. It gets tremendous amounts of cross-town traffic taking people from the east toward the Palisades.

The absurdity of the Commissioner's statement was that Reservoir Road is *not* a small side street. It's a heavily travelled commuter route.

by Joey on Jun 6, 2009 11:09 am • link • report

Joey,

I don't know the specifics of this issue. (I actually just know what I've read here on this blog about it.) But I do know the area ... And my guess is that it's not as much a matter of keeping these buses off of Reservoir Road, which yes is designated a main road, but rather the "cutting through" the side streets that has to occur for these buses to get to the GU Hosp. area ... when an easy alternative exists on Canal Road ... the university main "vehicular traffic entrance". From what I've seen, most of these buses are coming from either across the river via the Key Bridge, or downtown. Either way, they have very very easy access to Georgetown University's main vehicular entrance which is off of Canal Road just past the Key Bridge. Once on University property, any problems associated with these university buses become university problems. Seems fair to me. Especially since it doesn't cause any hardships to those traveling a different route to get to the same destination point in the end ...

by Lance on Jun 6, 2009 11:26 am • link • report

Lance, I think the downtown routes already use the Canal Road entrance. But for a bus going to Dupont Circle, which is roughly due east of the northern edge of the University, I think it's shortsided and absurdly selfish for the residents to think city buses shouldn't use a direct commuter route.

The Commissioner specifically complained of buses on Reservoir Road, and I think that kills his credibility if he's implying it's a small, residential, side street.

Sure, I understand that truly narrow (possibly belgian-blocked) residential streets can't handle a lot of traffic (bus or otherwise), but if there are six streets in Georgetown that *can* handle it, they're:

* M St/Canal

* K St

* Wisconsin Ave

* P St

* Q St

* Reservoir Rd

If the buses can get a direct route using these wider commuter-route streets, why should they have to inconvenience bus riders by doubling their commute time, for the benefit of those in single-occupancy vehicles, when the bus carries far more people in one trip than the cars do in 10x as many trips? (Note, one of the complaints was about buses slowing down traffic.)

by Joey on Jun 6, 2009 11:35 am • link • report

Sorry, when I said "city buses" . . . take that to mean buses in general. I know GUTS is private.

by Joey on Jun 6, 2009 11:36 am • link • report

Joey,

I'd take P St and Q St off that list. But also, you say 'for the benefit of single-occupancy vehicles'. I thought this whole debate was about the noise and vibration problems caused to the residents of the neighborhood ... and how to minimize it. If that is the case then I see this offer as very reasonable. I mean the alternative is to ban the buses outright. And there's no reason that should be off the table. We could put in super highway/freeway ramps to give people more/better access to the university, but just because we could, doesn't mean we should. Ditto with the university's buses. Historically, the university never had its own transportation system other than a shuttle to the Rosslyn Metro. (I think the GUTS started maybe as recently as 10 years ago?) Just because the University can make it easier for folks to get to it by bus, doesn't mean it should be allowed to do so at any cost. Just like we wouldn't stand for putting in major freeway ramps to facilitate access by motorists, we shouldn't stand for big loud buses that similarly wreak havoc with the neighbors ... renters or owners. It's just a matter of balance. If re-routing through M Street/Canal Road adds 5 - 10 minutes time to a commute, then so be it. We don't need to be destroying our neighborhoods just to speed people's commute times. I would think that is something Smart Growth advocates can agree with.

by Lance on Jun 6, 2009 12:20 pm • link • report

First, I want to clarify a few things. The university runs 5 shuttles. In order of frequency of use:

The Rosslyn shuttle, exiting prospect street, turning around 34th(?) street to M, to the Key bridge to the Rosslyn Metro. it re-enters the university via canal rd. It boards on the southwestern part of campus.

The DuPont Shuttle, whose route is what's under debate. I might also note that right now, in a short-term effort to appease neighbors, the shuttle exits via reservoir, goes up Wisconsin and Down Massachusetts in what is already an insultingly long trip to run a straight line. (It used to go in a straight line during rush hour, but they've since further acquiesced) You can see comparison of some proposals here: http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2009/04/21/insane-dupont-guts-route-tested-again-this-weekend/ It boards the north end of campus, by the hospital. It's heavily used by hospital employees (indeed, one point that's very important in this debate is that many hospital workers, everyone from doctors to janitors take this route more than most students at rush hour. When shifts change there are long lines. You can understand why class issues seem so salient when a lot of these employees don't have cars.)

And then the more "minor" shuttles

the Wisconsin Ave shuttle: departs reservoir and heads up Wisconsin. Two of its main purposes are to provide transport to the Safeway (which is now temporarily under construction), and to the Whitehaven building, a university-owned building with a lot of university offices. People who live near there also sometimes take it. It boards on the north end of campus.

the Law center shuttle: boards on the south end of campus and takes students to the law center (downtown, sorta near the Supreme Court building). Exits via prospect, re-enters via canal. Boards on the South end of campus.

Arlington loop: runs only at rush hour, serves residential areas of Arlington, mostly in the Rosslyn-Courthouse neighborhood areas. Exits prospect, re-enters via canal. Boards on the south end of campus

you can see a map here: http://otm.georgetown.edu/guts/campugutsstops1208.pdf

by Anon on Jun 6, 2009 1:08 pm • link • report

DC is a city. If a street's on the grid, it's fair play to drive on. End of story. Don't like it? Move to the countryside.

by tom veil on Jun 6, 2009 1:12 pm • link • report

I have to support P and Q as main passages from east-to west, say from Shaw to GT hospital, or anywhere nearby. East-west routes are limited and always a challenge in our city. Q and P go all the way through and are essential.

by Bianchi on Jun 6, 2009 1:34 pm • link • report

@ Lance: The University was founded in 1789. The school has been there since 1634 or so, according to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_University.

And actually, I wasn't really aiming at the founding date of the city of Georgetown, but to the current residents. I assume very few of them can trace their presence back to 1789.

Asking the buses to use the larger more commercial streets where their noise and vibration is less likely to disturb people in the quiet enjoyment of their homes doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

No it is not. It is not reasonable to ask hundreds of people to give 15 minutes of their day, twice a day, because you (Georgetowners) didn't realize that you bought a home that has a bus route on it. News flash: you live in a big city. Buses will ride. Deal with it.

Here's a counter proposal: If you want traffic reduction. Let's make some streets in Georgetown transit only. It will get the buses and taxis through faster, so the houses shake less, from all those single-person operated SUV that the residents feel the need to drive (seriously, you're not in Colorado here). Transit only streets exist all over the world in old cities, where streets weren't designed for heavy traffic.

I get the impression that those who want to see the buses travel narrow residential streets (1) aren't even interested in open discussion as to whether less intrusive alternatives are possible; (2) ARE fixated on wanting the buses to travel through streets where they perceive the residents as being "uppity" "rich" people in "single family roads".

What you are asking is utterly unreasonable. That ends any opportunity for an open discussion. There are no large streets in Georgetown.

i.e., I don't see any desire for people wanting to come up with good solutions ... Only people wanting to "stick it to 'em" ... for whatever reasons I can't imagine ...

How is your demand that people reroute a bus route to twice the length, with twice the traffic, and twice the pollution in any way a good solution? What exactly is the problem? A slight vibration in your house? You think Georgetown employees enjoy sitting in the GUTS bus? They vibrate way more.

I'd take P St and Q St off that list.

[Note to self: why do you fall for trolls every time and start screaming?]

There is a freaking tram line in P St, how the #$@ do you want to say that this is not a major through street?

I thought this whole debate was about the noise and vibration problems caused to the residents of the neighborhood ...

No it's not. It is about snotty neighborhoods residents not giving a crap about people who pay for the existence of their neighborhood. How would you pay for your mortgage when you can't rent out your dungeon like basement to 3 bunking students for $2500 a month? What do you think would happen to the property values in Georgetown the second that the university says: Ok, we've had enough, we're outta here. We'll buy a patch of land in NOVA (as GW has done) and screw you guys, we're gone.

Historically, the university never had its own transportation system other than a shuttle to the Rosslyn Metro

Historically, there was a %$# tramway to Georgetown! I am very sure, the University and all of it's students and employees we welcome a metro stop, or a light rail route to the University. It did exist. It does not now. Please enlighten me on the reason. I can guess though.

If re-routing through M Street/Canal Road adds 5 - 10 minutes time to a commute, then so be it.

Time is not free. Even other people's time is valuable. It comes with a cost. If only in the extra gallons of fuel that will be used by the buses.

-----

My apologies to everybody except Lance for screaming. I should know better.

-----

Lance, I do not care about the wealth of the residents of Georgetown. I just care about the fact that the residents of Georgetown, and Foggy Bottom, I might add, are utterly devoid of the fact what both universities bring to their neighborhoods. GW is the largest private employer in the district. Georgetown is up there too. Let's not forget that many many many many residents make thousands of dollars renting out showbox size rooms for hundreds of dollars a month. And yet, residents of the neighboring communities do nothing but NIMBY every single move that the universities make.

Georgetown residents have been whining for years about the buses, and their only solution to the "problem" is that the bus riders (not themselves) need to spend more time in traffic, never mind the environmental and time cost.

Foggy Bottom residents on the same hand, keep demanding that GW puts retail at the ground level of their new buildings. WTF? Is GW a Mall or a University? Put the freaking retail in your own buildings! Oh, you don't want that because it disturbs the quietness of your building? Really? GW has had to put a student cap in effect to get "permission" of the neighborhood to build on a block the university owns! The near-infinite negotiations made block 54 the largest unused space in the District. How's that for constitutional property rights?

You live in a big city. Deal with it. If you don't want to, buy a slap of land in Loundoun county or WV and enjoy your silence.

by Jasper on Jun 6, 2009 2:23 pm • link • report

"It's heavily used by hospital employees (indeed, one point that's very important in this debate is that many hospital workers, everyone from doctors to janitors take this route more than most students at rush hour. When shifts change there are long lines."

Perhaps that is part of the problem. These shuttles started off as a way to fill the gaps for the students that public transportation wasn't filling. E.g., getting students to a Metro station. Nowadays, from what you're telling me, they are being used by people who have other options. People who can easily ride the Metro buses or drive themselves to their jobs. Why should the neighbors have to deal with a second, and unnecessary, bus system? Like I said earlier, the idea of banning this private bus system altogether from this historic district should not be off the table. In addition to this being a neighborhood, this is a historic district with fragile buildings that we want to preserve. Having a second "public" bus system which is not accountable to the public running through it seems to make little sense ... especially if it is being used not by the students ... by people who have many other options open to them ... including Metro Bus.

by Lance on Jun 6, 2009 3:32 pm • link • report

Lance,

For starters, this bus is free to Georgetown students and staff, which is one advantage when many of these medical students and support staff cannot afford cars. You may say the cost is minor, but a year long round-trip dare will cost you $1300. Not just pocket change.

You also said these people can easily drive themselves to their job. First, many can't afford to. Cars, and their associated upkeep, is no small fee, especially under medical school debt, or on the salary of people working many support functions. Second, just because people can drive their cars doesn't mean they should. It causes more pollution, adds traffic that can be avoided (as has been stated several times, the single-driver traffic on reservoir causes more damage than the buses ever will), and only exacerbates the problem of parking.

More importantly however, these buses (when run in a straight line) are faster and more reliable than public buses because they don't need to make intermediary stops, and are targeted to times when the most employees use them. If you shifted the transportation burden to Metrobuses entirely, you'd see about as many buses on reservoir, since they'd have to take into account the increased volume. but they'd make a lot of stops that are unnecessary, while the university has a large enough employment center that running shuttle service makes sense.

Now Lance, here's my question to you: how is the university-operated system any different than WMATA-run buses which travel the exact same route?

by Anon on Jun 6, 2009 5:18 pm • link • report

Now Lance, here's my question to you: how is the university-operated system any different than WMATA-run buses which travel the exact same route?

It isn't other than that it adds more buses into the mix. Again, I don't think the issue is operating on a main road like Reservoir Road, but rather going through the neighborhood side streets (e.g., Q St and P St). I see your point that there would be a need for more buses if the GU staff and doctors used Metro buses. BUT, first off, you'd probably have less buses running in total ... firstly because instead of a half full Metro bus and a half full GUTS bus traveling the same route, you'd have one central scheduler (i.e., Metro) optimizing the correct number of buses to accommode the riders, and secondly, if these doctors and staffs paid what it really cost them to use the services and roads they are uses, they might use them more sparingly ... perhaps driving instead ... and negating some of the bad externalities caused by buses. I for one would rather have 20 quiet cars driving by than one noisy and shaking bus. And I'd wager that the pollution caused by that one bus (not even counting the noise and visual pollution) is far worse than those 20 cars. Now, I'm not saying that all mass transit is noisy and polluting. I'm just saying that buses are. (And yes, I know that some of the Metro buses are propane powered; but I don't think the average bus is ... and especially not the GUTS buses.) For example, modern electric powered trams like the kind they have in Europe are quiet and don't shake the neighboring buildings like the buses here do. Maybe that is an option. I wonder if GU would be willing to fund construction of the first of the new trams (without overhead wires) here in DC ... ? After all, if they're willing to pay to bus their folks to work (rather than just pay these folks enough to allow them to decide for themselves how they want to get to work), then I'd think GU probably has the funds (and definitely the know-how) to help bring back the trams ....

by Lance on Jun 6, 2009 5:44 pm • link • report

This guy Lance is an absolute clown. My head is literally about to explode from reading all the posts from this troll.

Here are facts:

1.) As an owner of property, you may feel entitled to certain rights. YOU DID NOT PURCHASE THE ROAD IN FRONT OF YOUR TOWNHOUSE, YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF A BUS-FREE ROADWAY.

2.) Further, property owners SHOULD FUCKING ENCOURAGE THE SUBSIDIZING OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE MASS TRANSIT TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE STREET. It's unreal that you can sit here and say that removal of GUTS buses passing your Q street residence would bring a reduction in congestion. MORE PEOPLE WOULD JUST DRIVE TO WORK if GUTS service were made ridiculously slow as is proposed.

Honestly I am just too enraged to continue. Basically what assholes like Lance are asking is that everyone else suffer so he can enjoy a slightly quieter neighborhood. He wants GUTS riders to wait longer in traffic. He wants drivers in other jurisdictions to be delayed by more metal being convolutedly pushed through other streets. Then he goes to claim that he is the one being REASONABLE trying to preserve a HISTORIC neighborhood! These are the choruses of butthurt NIMBYs who think they bought a license to cause this sort of unnecessary hardship to others to go with their shitty townhouse.

by Sensible person on Jun 6, 2009 6:26 pm • link • report

uh ... Sensible person ... I don't live in Georgetown AND I've already mentioned I don't mind having buses drive by where I DO live. You're not very 'sensible' are you? It sounds like you the kind of person that wants to pack people into buses, and don't care about the consequences to anyone or anything else ... while you probably drive around in an large SUV ... praising yourself for having 'helped' the environment ...

by Lance on Jun 6, 2009 7:12 pm • link • report

uh ... Sensible person ... I don't live in Georgetown AND I've already mentioned I don't mind having buses drive by where I DO live. You're not very 'sensible' are you? It sounds like you the kind of person that wants to pack people into buses, and don't care about the consequences to anyone or anything else ... while you probably drive around in an large SUV ... praising yourself for having 'helped' the environment ...

by Lance on Jun 6, 2009 7:12 pm • link • report

It takes a little over an hour to take the Metro from Silver Spring, to Georgetown with the shuttle bus ride. It is 8 miles away. Anything that makes getting to Georgetown any more difficult than it already is should be off the table. Historic townhouses, narrow streets...whatever. If you want to kill the bus route then come up with another solution, but don't disconnect this neighborhood from the rest of the city any further.

Also, something interesting I found in a recent apartment search. The rents seem to be lower in Georgetown/Glover Park/Burleith/Palisades (1 br apartment) than in U St., Dupont, Capitol Hill, Woodley Park, some parts of Columbia Heights, etc. Maybe the relative transit isolation is making Georgetown a less desirable place to live these days for renters.

by JBE on Jun 6, 2009 7:16 pm • link • report

Okay - If they stop running the GUTS bus I'll just start driving to Georgetown and park in their neighborhoods which barely have any parking enforcement.

Or not, I don't actually use the Dupont Shuttle that often. More often I use the Roslyn Shuttle or Arlington Loop (which, btw, runs through arguably more residential areas on 1.5 lane roads). Still, the current mid-day Dupont shuttle takes ridiculously long as it is. The alternative route which runs through Georgetown neighborhoods during rush hour already has a Metrobus line on it.

In reality, I don't think this would be a problem if the GUTS bus drivers were a little more responsible. The drivers are probably some of the worst drivers I've ever seen, some are constantly talking on the non-handsfree phone (which is illegal in DC) and refuse to stop for pedestrians at times. Still, I don't see how shuttling thousands of people everyday using bad drivers is better than having thousands of more cars traveling through the neighborhood.

by Max D. on Jun 6, 2009 7:26 pm • link • report

Sensible person, please keep your tone more civil. While you and many others may disagree with Lance, calling him a "clown" or an "asshole" brings down the level of discussion here.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 6, 2009 7:33 pm • link • report

S. Person, please keep it to a minimum. You're only hurting your own cause.

Lance, first off, if pollution really was a pressing issue, you'd encourage a straight-line route, end of story. But even if you were able to lay claim to pollution as a legitimate impact, the fact of the matter is that public transit, especially transit as heavily used as GUTS, has a net positive impact on the environment. Even if I were to buy that buses increased pollution over the length they traveled compared to cars (and I don't), the shuttle encourages metro use on the first leg of the trip, as opposed to driving the entire way.

Then you say that the university's provision of these buses distorts the free market choices of the employees. I agree. There is a lot of market distortion going on here. But the biggest distortion comes from the massive federal and local spending that has built highways and roads all across the union, with hardly a dime to local public transit. If people paid the true cost of those roads they drive on, you'd certainly see metro ridership soar. (in any case, one has to admit it's easier and cheaper to pay for a set of buses than to give each employee the appox. retail value of the bus ride.

by Anon on Jun 6, 2009 9:29 pm • link • report

I attended Georgetown in the mid to late eighties, and I am pretty sure GUTS bus routes ran along P and Q -- they certainly ran on Reservoir Road. As others have pointed out, Metrobus runs along P and Q as well. I'm not sure what has changed that has led Georgetown residents to conclude that these bus routes are "unacceptable."

Of course, the town-gown conflict and sense of entitlement displayed by a certain segment of Georgetown residents is nothing new -- does anyone here remember Westy Bird?

(Richard Layman refers to Bird's failed efforts to keep Georgetown students from voting in ANC elections at http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/11/more-elections.html, but does not provide much detail on this pre-intertubes controversy -- suffice it to say that there were some pretty ugly attempts to intimidate students who tried to exercise their right to vote).

Seems to me that when it comes to NIMBYism, rich people are fundamentally no different than you and me -- although they might feel a bit less constrained about throwing their weight (and money) around to get their way.

Casey

by Casey Anderson on Jun 7, 2009 10:31 am • link • report

Casey, You're inadvertently perpetuating the myth that 'only rich people live in Georgetown'. Just look at the demographics by doing a google search and you'll see that the Georgetown "average income" numbers don't come anywhere near the top for the DC metro area (or for DC itself, for that matter.) Georgetown residents make up a large segment of people from a variety of income strata. (AGAIN, I don't live in Georgetown. I know from when I too was a student there ... and from living in DC.)

What I find ultimately disturbing in many (not all) of these posts is that I'm hearing 'this is an area full of rich people, so we need to stick it to them and run noise vibrating buses through to disturb them even if we have alternatives to prevent that'.

Again, were we talking about making access easier for motorists by converting some of the narrow 18th century streets into highway sized ramps, there would be no question that most people on this blog would oppose that. But effectively doing the same thing with noisy vibrating buses that threaten the stability of the historic houses as well as the tranquility of the neighborhood, and no one opposes it ...

I guess I'm seeing two profound prejudices exhibited by many (though not all) of the posters on here: (1) a resentment toward what they perceive as a "rich" area (even though the truth is that Georgetown overall is very middle-class) and (2) a skewing toward mass transit to the point where they're willing to advocate it at "any cost" ... Yes, when it comes to motorists they are quick to say "so what if commute times get extended because of our policies? So what if people have to spend an extra 15 mins per day commuting because of what we advocate?", but when it comes to themselves everything changes. The slightest inconvenience on their part, irrespective of the good it would do overall, suddenly becomes and insurmountable inconvenience. My God ... they might have to spend an extra 15 mins a day on a FREE bus in order to allow an entire historic neighborhood to survive. Yes, that would be too great a sacrifice to ask of these people already getting a free ride.

It tells us a lot about the hypocrisy, and enviousness of at least some of these proponents of mass transit. It really has nothing to do with their 'wanting to do the right thing'. It's all about "Mb>me, me, me!"

by Lance on Jun 7, 2009 11:32 am • link • report

How does "tranquility" suddenly turn into "survival"? And if Georgetown is such a middle-class neighborhood, why don't the nurses' aides and janitors on the buses just buy houses there? I am at a loss.

by tt on Jun 7, 2009 1:03 pm • link • report

Lance, the alternative to running the buses through P/Q is to use a much more circuitous route that makes transit trips longer. Transit trips are already a lot longer than driving, so making them any longer is a big disincentive to taking the bus.

I don't know if you agree with the basic premise that we should encourage people to take transit wherever they can, because it reduces congestion, pollution, noise, and the need for parking. If you disagree that we should encourage transit then I don't know what we can agree on.

Do noisy buses *really* threaten the stability of historic homes? According to this paper by Dallas Area Regional Transit, the threshold velocity level for damage to fragile buildings is 100, which is equivalent to construction blasting 50m away. Buses are listed at a velocity level of 75, which is the threshold for "residential annoyance".

So don't claim "damage to buildings" if you don't have the data.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 7, 2009 2:22 pm • link • report

Michael,

These buses aren't 50 meters away from the homes when they drive by. At most they are 10 meters (30 feet) away. From your own citation that would mean they are experiencing more a velocity level of more than 100.

And you are correct is wondering if I agree with the basic premise that we should encourage people to take mass transit whenever possible. I do not. I also would not agree with encouraging people to use personal vehicles, Zip vehicles, bicycles, or even walking. I feel people should be free to decide for themselves which means best suits there needs. There shouldn't be market distortions as those which this 'free ride' produce. People, individually or in the aggregate, should be free to lobby for and to pay for any means they want. Government should be filling a need and not creating it. The reason we have the wonderful road network we have today is because there was a need for it and fortunately we had visionaries out there willing and able to recognize that need and lobby for the funding the fill it. There was no social engineering involved as is the case when you try to encourage people to use mass transit by "sweeting the deal" with non-market based incentives such as a free ride. If enough people want mass transit (or any form of transit for that matter including a person vehicle based one), then it'll happen ... and it'll happen not because it is "being encourcaged" but instead because it is "being demanded". The difference here is that it will not only be free market based, but fair. It won't be being pushed on any one ... not even with "a carrot".

by Lance on Jun 7, 2009 2:35 pm • link • report

... closing my bold , sorry

by Lance on Jun 7, 2009 2:37 pm • link • report

Lance, if you think the federal government didn't essentially create America's current transportation habits when it decided to create the highway system (at a time when Europe was building mass transit), then I'd like to see the evidence behind that. The fact is, hundreds of billions have been spent building the highway system, which directly led to the growth of suburbia and use of the automobile. Transit has received peanuts. If it received even half of what roadways have, we'd be in a very different America right now.

And for the record, transit is being demanded. The issue we're talking about right now is exhibit A, all I see is you attempting to stifle that demand.

by Doug on Jun 7, 2009 3:32 pm • link • report

Speak of this back before Georgetown was an histric area why didnt anyone consider trying to widen some streets; they could have torn down some of the buildings around a hundred years ago with no problems or even when the first bus route started in the area why not do something than.

Why not just reroute the bus to Farragut North where it could travel a different route instead of going through the side streets; its only a stop away and if most people are coming from the metro it wouldn't make a difference since I bet most are not coming from metro center or gallery place via another line.

by KK on Jun 7, 2009 4:28 pm • link • report

Ok, my last comment to the troll of Lance:

People who can easily ride the Metro buses or drive themselves to their jobs.

Ooh, you'd rather have even more gridlock than now during rush hour? Do you realize that these buses are full of people that would otherwise would be in a car? Do you know how many other cars you would have in your street? Well, in Sweden they can explain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5o6oFQwLKA

Like I said earlier, the idea of banning this private bus system altogether from this historic district should not be off the table.

Oh, you're objecting to the a private university offering free transportation to its students, employees and visitors? Would you rather subsidize WMATA through your taxes? And where exactly, would all those cars be parked? Do you realize that there is a two-year waiting period before employees can actually apply for a (ridiculously overpriced) parking permit?

In addition to this being a neighborhood, this is a historic district with fragile buildings that we want to preserve.

Just like the students, employees and visitors of the University would like to preserve the University, which is impossible if the surrounding neighborhood obstructs access.

especially if it is being used not by the students ... by people who have many other options open to them ... including Metro Bus.

Nice of you to ignore the fact that those students needs to be taught be staff that need to come from somewhere. What other options are you talking about? Do you really think GU would run GUTS if there was an alternative?

I for one would rather have 20 quiet cars driving by than one noisy and shaking bus.

Those cars would not be driving by. They would be stuck in traffic from 6am to 10 am and from 3h30pm to 8pm.

And I'd wager that the pollution caused by that one bus (not even counting the noise and visual pollution) is far worse than those 20 cars.

I don't bet, but you've lost that one. Even despite the old crappy nature of the GUTS buses.

are quiet and don't shake the neighboring buildings like the buses here do.

Perhaps if the street were decently paved, buildings wouldn't shake.

I wonder if GU would be willing to fund construction of the first of the new trams (without overhead wires) here in DC ... ?

Why would they? They have been forced to invest in buses. They have those now. And regardless of what they do, you and your neighbors will complain.

After all, if they're willing to pay to bus their folks to work (rather than just pay these folks enough to allow them to decide for themselves how they want to get to work), then I'd think GU probably has the funds (and definitely the know-how) to help bring back the trams ....

I am sure the University would loooove to not pay for the transportation of their employees. Unfortunately, they have somewhat of a space problem. Where would they build the parking lot to put those cars? They can not built south due to the Potomac. They can not build west because of a cliff. And north and east are out because the neighborhood would never allow it. They can't go up either, because of the DC height restrictions, and they have been digging quite deep recently, so that's out too.

Question: where would they build the parking for the cars?

by Jasper on Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm • link • report

I'm a graduate student at Georgetown, who relies on the Dupont GUTS bus to get to and from campus. Georgetown does not have graduate student housing, and as such, most of us live off-campus, not near the University. In my program, nearly half of the students are part-time, working and attending class at night.

Right now, the GUTS bus travels along Q St. only during rush hours--they also usually tend to only run the big buses during rush hours, opting instead, for smaller short buses during the rest of the day. When I travel to campus during rush hour and we go along Q St it takes about 10-15 minutes to get to campus. When I get out of class at 8pm, the bus takes the long way, and it takes about 20-25 minutes to get back.

The new proposed route will take a minimum of 30 minutes (probably more during rush hour)--this is very inconvenient for Georgetown employees and off-campus students, who often live no where near to campus and have long commutes to get there. The bus does not run much more often (if at all) than the WMATA buses that travel along Q and P streets all day long.

Georgetown residents do have some valid complaints against the University (regarding off-campus housing, trash, etc.) but this is not one of them. They do not own the public roads. By not standing up for its employees and students, the University is doing us a HUGE disservice, that will likely result in more people driving and parking on Georgetown streets and taking cabs, something I'm sure Georgetown residents won't like too much.

by Alissa on Jun 7, 2009 5:30 pm • link • report

I agree with Alissa that this bus route proposal will have a negative impact on students and the Georgetown community and I am surprised that the university isn't doing more on the students behalf.

I was a Georgetown graduate student and I relied on the GUTS bus to get me to and from school each day. I was attending Georgetown when, in the end of the semester, the bus started using the longer route down Mass Ave. This made my commute home significantly longer because we usually hit rush hour traffic. I remember thinking that changing the bus route was not only illogical, but also a poor choice of timing since we were in the middle of exams.

Honestly, this whole debate strikes me as a bit insenstive to the students. The bus is ALREADY long and tedious to ride and making it longer because of noise just seems silly. I understand that buses are loud; but Georgetown IS a part of the city and the GUTS buses have been going along these routes since I was an intern 10 years ago. Furthermore, the public DC buses already go along a similar route. Frankly, it seems similar to moving to Eastern Market and complaining about the crowds.

by Sarah on Jun 7, 2009 7:28 pm • link • report

I don't understand the problem that residents are having. Metrobus already runs the D6 and D3 several times an hour along Reservoir Rd and Q Street and the G2 several times an hour along P Street to Dupont Circle. Simply moving GUTS to a different route won't get rid of buses, and it may in fact increase the number of buses along those routes to respond to the demand that exists.

Yes, running buses along Canal Road and Whitehurst or up along Whitehaven Parkway sounds like a good idea, but rush hour delays and the sheer length of the route guarantees that the trip will take much longer than anticipated, forcing more standees during rush hour and requiring more buses to be purchased or leased.

That being said, some of the drivers have lead feet, and the noise generated by driving a large bus that fast down Q Street can be mitigated by driving more slowly or using smaller vehicles (which they already do most of the day). But to expect the buses to simply go away is unreasonable and disrespectful to a large community of people who live and work in the middle of Georgetown, and who give the neighborhood a lively and active atmosphere.

by wmata on Jun 7, 2009 9:18 pm • link • report

Lance: "These buses aren't 50 meters away from the homes when they drive by. At most they are 10 meters (30 feet) away. From your own citation that would mean they are experiencing more a velocity level of more than 100."

Well, looks like I didn't read the cite quite correctly, all sources are cited as 50 feet away, so sorry about that.

Velocity levels are in decibels, so they don't quite work like you would think. At most you could say the buses are half the distance away, which would increase the sound's pressure difference by a factor of two (sound pressure related to 1/r). A factor of two difference in pressure is about a 3dB change in a decibel-rated scale, so we're talking about a change from about 75 to maybe 78, which is listed as "residential annoyance, infrequent events (commuter rail)". The 25dB change from 75dB to 100dB would be more like a 300x increase in velocity, something that moving the bus a bit closer isn't going to do.

It's still certainly nowhere near "blasting at construction sites". As in explosions, as in they're attempting to destroy something that doesn't want to be destroyed.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 8, 2009 7:11 am • link • report

Two points:

1) GU is filling a demand/need by providing a free service to its students and staff. A "free" service would be funded by the state, but this is a transportation solution funded by the University as a benefit to its consitutency. The university is subsidizing transportation as a benefit to its core.

2) demographics of Georgetown; If you remove the university housing from the equation, then you would see that Georgetown is indeed an exceedingly affluent area (it doesn't take a rocket scientist), but the numbers previously cited in the comments include students and young professionals (many working on the Hill) making under 25,000 a year. That is not to say that it isn't true that Georgetown has a diversity of economic strata, but you hve to look inside to be discerning about the nature of that diversity.

by William on Jun 8, 2009 7:35 am • link • report

William, wouldn't you agree that these students are equally affected by the noise as the non-students? .... Not that I agree that all renters are students or even that all owners are affluent. (What about the many condos that are priced on average below what condos go for on 14th Street? ... and no one would call 14th Street 'affluent'.)

Of course the whole matter that some would even think 'it's ok' to 'stick it to 'em' if we're talking about 'affluent' people vs. 'middle-class' or 'lower-class' people is pretty warped to begin with ...

by Lance on Jun 8, 2009 9:44 am • link • report

Michael, Thanks for the explanation/clarification. However, what you're describing as "residential annoyance, infrequent events (commuter rail)". Is indeed something that can destroy a neighborhood. I don't know enough to know whether a sustained exposure to this level of noise will cause structural damage (my guess is it definitely could, but I admit I don't know for sure), BUT physical destruction isn't the only way we lose neighborhoods. Neigbhorhoods also get lost when people stop wanting to live there and a cycle of disinvestiture occurs. Would you want to buy a house or condo where there is "residential annoyance, infrequent events (commuter rail)"? Remember these aren't modern homes with noise insulating qualities such as you'd find in the condos on 14th Street or Connecticut Avenue. And these aren't mid-rises or high-rises where most of the units are far removed from the source of the noise. These are mainly 2 story or 3 story rowhouses built more than some 130+ years ago.

by Lance on Jun 8, 2009 9:51 am • link • report

Lance, you mentioned that this is a historic district with fragile buildings, implying that the noise/vibration was doing harm to the actual buildings. Now when you're presented with data showing that buses do not cause damage to buildings, only potential annoyance to the occupants, you change the subject to whether the noise can "destroy the neighborhood" through annoyance alone.

The effect of "residential annoyance" is already reflected in people's willingness to live there, through residential home prices. You'd just have to factor that in when you decide to live there.

by Michael Perkins on Jun 8, 2009 10:32 am • link • report

Somehow I'm not quaking in fear that Georgetown is about to turn into a slum.

by tt on Jun 8, 2009 10:51 am • link • report

Wow, I go away for a weekend and look at what I miss.

Lance et al.,

Lance, let me be the first to apologies for the rough treatment that you have received from some of the posters on this blog, and state the while they may disagree with your views their treatment of you was uncalled for, and I am more then a little ashamed by their behavior.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from pervious postings on this blog I would characterize your views as pro-highway? I feel that this is an important point that needs to be discussed, as that you views are radically opposed to a majority of people who follow this blog, which I think is the source of, and reason that the arguments are so severe.

That being said, I feel that I must disagree with you about your classification of P street as a residential road, it is effectively 4 lanes wide (2 for traffic and 2 being used for parking); while I do understand that buses going by a house can cause no shortage of annoyance for the residents, I also understand the views of some of your detractors, in that they feel that both the length of time that the buses have been running on this route as well as the economic benefits that the university provides in the form of employment and taxes.

That being said I feel that I must disagree with your opposition to the relocation of the GUTS buses, although I'm open for debate about the merits of various other routes.

by Art on Jun 8, 2009 10:52 am • link • report

Sure, let them drive to work and park on your streets in the neighborhood. When I was at GU in the early 90s there was a faculty/staff parking lottery then to park on campus. There's less parking space now.

by Q on Jun 8, 2009 11:51 am • link • report

Lance, about noise insulation. Most of the houses in Georgetown are brick. As an owner of a brick rowhouse in Capitol Hill, I can assure you that's about as much noise insulation as you're going to get.

by lou on Jun 8, 2009 1:48 pm • link • report

I am a Georgetown Alum who lives on Q Street on the Dupont side of Wisconsin. A few quick things.

1) I would NOT call P and Q "side streets" considering that WMATA runs buses on them. *4* WMATA bus lines run on Q Street. As someone who lives on Q Street, the Metro buses, which have lights, audio and stop every block (and have bad breaks) are far worse than Georgetown's buses. To say the University shouldn't run buses on these "side streets" is an argument that hold no water because the city is currently doing it.

2) Driving to Georgetown is not an option unless you live in Zone 2 and have a Zone 2 permit on your car. If you live outside of Zone 2, you cannot park on the street in Georgetown for more than 2 hours. Presumably, if you are working or attending a class, you will be on campus for more than two hours. There's no metro, so basically, it's buses or nothing.

3) The longer routes take longer, which has caused back up and increased commute times. It also burns more fuel, because the buses sit in more traffic. This costs the University more money and increases their carbon footprint. Also if the University were to stop running buses and force employees/students to take WMATA's buses - WMATA would need more buses. During peak hours GUTS runs more often than the G2 and some of the D buses as well. So taking away Georgetown buses would mean adding public transit buses - so it's not really getting rid of buses at all. It would also cost the city more since currently Georgetown is paying for their own bus system.

by Sarah on Jun 8, 2009 3:08 pm • link • report

It is apparent this blog does not have a clear respresentation of the context of what was being said. Very FEW residents complained at all about the GUTS buses. Maybe only one other then Mr. Lewis that I can recall. They MAIN argument was there was NO TRAFFIC PLAN presented by Georgetown University at all. GU said "hey, we are just floating ideas around here, what do ya think?" The response was, where is your traffic plan and when are you going to have it? Again, a couple comments were made in the blogs as if that was the entire tone and context of ALL neighbors. NOT correct. This has lead to this blog chasting MOST ALL the neighbors of Georgetown is ridiculous. Not the first time blogs get it wrong, but probably not going to be the last either. Part of the online world of creating something that is not really there.

by I was at meeting on Jun 8, 2009 3:21 pm • link • report

Would not an overpass at the Canal Road entrance to GU make i easier for buses to use it?

by Douglas Willinger on Jun 8, 2009 4:24 pm • link • report

"1.) As an owner of property, you may feel entitled to certain rights. YOU DID NOT PURCHASE THE ROAD IN FRONT OF YOUR TOWNHOUSE, YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF A BUS-FREE ROADWAY."

I think Lance's arguments betray a non-understand of Georgetown traffic patterns, but I think your response here betrays a non-understanding of homeownership. If I woke up tomorrow and, instead of a field outside of my house, there were an airport, I would obviously have a vested interest in this development despite it being just beyond my property line.

"2.) Further, property owners SHOULD FUCKING ENCOURAGE THE SUBSIDIZING OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE MASS TRANSIT TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE STREET. It's unreal that you can sit here and say that removal of GUTS buses passing your Q street residence would bring a reduction in congestion. MORE PEOPLE WOULD JUST DRIVE TO WORK if GUTS service were made ridiculously slow as is proposed."

This is not correct -- it's a non-contextual response. GUTS particularly caters to (1) university undergraduate students and (2) lower-income university service employees. The idea that either of these groups would necessarily drive to work in the absence of GUTS is an exaggeration of how many people who utilize the GUTS service own cars.

by Charity on Jun 8, 2009 5:18 pm • link • report

Actually Douglas, what would be easiest would be for Georgetown to use the public roads. It's not like the revenue Georgetown students & faculty bring in doesn't add just a few dollars to the tax base.

@I was there: thanks, your comments are helpful. Thank you or keeping The Voice Accountable. I think part of what worries Georgetown students however, is that the comments that were made were made by people with real decision-making authority, and that the university seemed so quick to acquiesce. If you're right, I understand why our comments may seem an overreaction, but I hope you can appreciate our concern too.

by Doug on Jun 8, 2009 10:40 pm • link • report

Art, Michael, Anon9:29, Thanks. You are all correct about keeping it civil.

by Lance on Jun 9, 2009 9:41 am • link • report

@ Sarah: GUTS particularly caters to (1) university undergraduate students and (2) lower-income university service employees.

This is BS. Sorry. GU runs GUTS because for most students, employees and visitors, it is the only way to get to GU. GU does not have enough parking spots to let everybody come by car. GU can not build more parking spots because of the limited size of campus. GU is not well connected to transit network of the DC area, due to a lack of metro-stop and the low frequency of WMATA buses.

So, in short, if you are not lucky enough to have one of the few parking permits on campus, there is not other way to get to campus. GUTS does not run solely or mostly for poor people. It runs for everybody.

Let's be fair here, there are no poor people at GU. Having little cash on your hands as a student does not mean you are poor. The fact you can afford to be a student at GU means you are wealthy, or have a wealthy sponsor. That makes you very privileged. I understand that after paying tuition, little may be left, but that does not make you poor.

by Jasper on Jun 9, 2009 11:31 am • link • report

Jasper, I think mot low-income remark were diected towards university support staff

by Doug on Jun 9, 2009 10:15 pm • link • report

"Let's be fair here, there are no poor people at GU."

That's not quite true. While I'd consider the large majority of GU students to be affluent, or at least upper-middle class, there are plenty that aren't. However, most students, regardless of income, have extremely limited transportation options, which GUTS barely fulfills with its current route (depending on the time of day, it often is quicker for me to walk to campus from Dupont). Shifting the route to Canal would make the Dupont buss nigh useless.

by John on Jun 10, 2009 5:53 pm • link • report