DC2NY says DDOT rules will kill their business

Transit

DC2NY says DDOT rules will kill their business

by David Alpert • June 23, 2008 10:44 am

Reader Kevin Ricche, a frequent bus rider to New York, was outraged by DDOT's new rules limiting intercity buses to loading on a single block at L'Enfant Plaza. He contacted DC2NY, the first low-fare bus to offer Wi-Fi Internet access.

Intercity buses loading in Dupont
Circle. Photo by M.V.Jantzen on Flickr.

The owner called Kevin back to say that these rules will put them out of business. According to the owner, DDOT has refused to meet with DC2NY, or to explain what "complaints" prompted these rules. He heard that one other bus company may go under as well.

The rules also prohibit selling tickets curbside, which is a common practice for low-fare carriers. It lets people simply show up and buy a ticket instead of having to go to a ticket office or buy online. And I doubt there are any cheap storefronts to rent at L'Enfant Plaza for bus companies to operate ticket windows.

These rules go much farther than necessary. If noise and traffic complaints are an issue, there are many ways to fix them. We shouldn't be doing this so hastily, without public input. The buses have been operating for a long time—what's the rush?

Worst of all, it's hard to avoid at least the appearance that DDOT is doing this at the behest of another bus company. Greyhound and others pay money to have their own loading facilities, and they would enjoy cutting down this competition. Not being able to buy tickets curbside will favor the established bus companies. Maybe DDOT has good reasons, but we just don't know.

The Council should pass emergency legislation to stay these rules until a real discussion can happen.

15 comments

Tags: DC, DDOT, intercity buses

Banishing buses to L'Enfant (Jun 18, 2008)
DDOT calls a time out (Jul 4, 2008)
Bus rules: let's call a time out (Jun 26, 2008)
Replace bulk parking ticket discount with sensible curb management policy (Apr 3, 2009)
Where should the buses go instead? (Jun 23, 2008)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

I'd think Tommy Wells would be very interested in this issue.

DDOT should be about expanding transportation choices NOT limiting them and making driving your own private vehicle more attractive. Seems like a very Baltimore-ish approach to me.

I walked around the planned bus depot are last Wednesday evening. It was dead and depressing during the busiest time of the day so you can imagine what it would be like 1am Monday morning. It all looks like the set from Clockwork Orange complete with the bridge underpass where the homeless man was beaten up by the Droogs.

by Steve P. on Jun 23, 2008 11:11 am • link • report

Do these rules apply to the buses that let people off in Arlington? Maybe we'll just see new bus hubs emerge

by Nick on Jun 23, 2008 11:44 am • link • report

David, I will wholeheartedly agree that DDOT should have engaged the community in a discussion before this decision was made.

However, I feel your coverage on this has been very unbalanced. For instance, Kevin Ricche is a new york city resident who just wants his trip to Dupont to be as convenient as possible for him. That's all well and good, but if DC residents have legitimate concerns They deserve more weight than those of a NYC resident. I know for a fact that 555 Mass has had their garage doors blocked by these buses on many occasions. I've seen empty, double parked buses idling near Metro center for 20-30 minutes at a time. Anyone with who spends anytime downtown has to see the adverse impact these buses have to our Metrobuses. As mentioned in reader comments in your post from last Wednesday if these buses want to use Chinatown then pay for curb or lot space - their are no free lunches.

As far as DC2NY buses having their business killed I have two thoughts on that...

1) How do we know this is fact and not simply rhetoric to give their business a more sympathetic position to rail against DDOT from? You're skeptical of DDOT but take NY2DC at face value?

2) If a intra-city bus company doesn't have the business model to succeed at a metro station 5 minutes away that is serviced directly by 4 lines they don't have a very sustainable business.

by MDC on Jun 23, 2008 11:47 am • link • report

MDC: And I'm a DC resident who wants my trip from DC to NYC to be as convenient as possible. Having DC2NY pickup and drop off where it does now is exactly that.

by Noah_Deuce on Jun 23, 2008 12:11 pm • link • report

Noah_Deuce - so convenience for your sporadic trips to NYC trumps the daily inconvenience to our city's metrobus riders and residents of Chinatown?

by MDC on Jun 23, 2008 12:19 pm • link • report

Is there a meeting we can show up at to voice our displeasure at this bureaucratic fiat?

by Boots on Jun 23, 2008 12:41 pm • link • report

One thing I've found curious is that there appears to be no mention of these rules on the DDOT website, nor has any announcement that I can remember come over the DDOT email announcement list. Which is more suggestive of underhanded and political than it is of working in the best interests of the traveling public. DDOT appears to argue by magic words: they incant "safety" and we're all supposed to fall under a spell in which we stop thinking.

There are certainly issues to look at here, and I can well believe that the original logistics model of these bus companies does not scale elegantly to the size they've collectively grown to. The frequency and duration of problems like double parking, entrance blocking, sidewalk crowding, and the like need to be quantified and compared to other commercial operations. Are these problems present 7 days a week? Only on weekdays? Only on weekends? During rush hour? Late at night? The companies and the riders need to be surveyed before choosing an alternate location for their operations.

If they're simply "blocking traffic," then it's hard for me to have much sympathy, because those who live or work in Chinatown should not expect to have an easy car-centric lifestyle. We need to remember to count people, not vehicles.

by thm on Jun 23, 2008 12:57 pm • link • report

if there's a traffic issue its more to do with individual drivers then with a bus loading and unloading passengers.

by dee on Jun 23, 2008 12:58 pm • link • report

>>"If they're simply 'blocking traffic', then it's hard for me to have much sympathy, because those who live or work in Chinatown should not expect to have an easy car-centric lifestyle. We need to remember to count people, not vehicles."

If they were only blocking traffic while loading and unloading that might be acceptable for a downtown area. But occupying a lane of the road as a defacto bus terminal where they just sit empty and idle for huge clips of time - no dice. That's not what roads are for and that's not acceptable congestion.

by MDC on Jun 23, 2008 1:17 pm • link • report

It seems to me that there may be a reasonable argument for moving these buses, but it hasn't been made by the city or vetted by the public. There is no chance for such an argument to win support when it is pushed through in the dead of night without comment or debate. That's the kind of thing we all ought to oppose no matter how good or bad the ordinance may be.

by Arlen on Jun 23, 2008 1:49 pm • link • report

I'm not crazy about the proposal, but there is some merit in MDC's comments. I work around Metro Center and I have recently noticed that the Bolt Buses do, in fact, frequently block the Metrobus stop. That is unacceptable. It makes me mad when double parked cars do it. Why should these buses get a pass?

by Eric on Jun 23, 2008 1:58 pm • link • report

Arlen gets to the heart of it: It's clear that there are/have been issues, but unilateral action by the city without the presentation of evidence, possible alternatives, and public input and comment is undemocratic and shortsighted. And again DDOT is hurt by not having a stated overall purpose or mission. Like "reduce single occupant vehicle trips" as Arlington does.

by Steve on Jun 23, 2008 2:04 pm • link • report

As per the Greyhound comment, Greyhound owns Boltbus, another low cost provider, and could be hurt by the decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050201468.html

by Charles on Jun 23, 2008 8:58 pm • link • report

I am a big fan of the bus lines. But as they serve as an intercity mass transit medium, they should be subject to regulatory and safety standards that any other inter-city mass transit is subject to obey.

Furthermore, just as the city subsidizes free parking on the streets, allowing these busses to use the same curbs for commercial purposes without any taxes being paid to the city is similarly subsidizing these busses. The city has every responsibility to regulate these busses and tax them when they use city property to conduct their business.

I caveat the above by stating that if they do not do so in a manner that is conducive with allowing them to stay in business, they are making a horrible mistake. Moving them to L'Enfant won't be the worst thing in the world for them in my opinion, however the city should assist that transition to be as painless as possible. And I would also like to renew my hopes that this move will bring some street life to L'Enfant...

by Dave Murphy on Jun 23, 2008 11:52 pm • link • report

Dave: Your point about parking is one objection I have to this proposal. Yes, maybe we shouldn't be subsidizing parking or buses, but it's not really fair to keep on subsidizing parking while we stop subsidizing buses in a fairly sudden and draconian way.

by David Alpert on Jun 24, 2008 7:47 am • link • report