Toilet facilities and transit was Re: DC Metro Interconnects

[Clark F. Morris, Jr.]

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.
If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?

If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Clark F. Morris, Jr.

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.
If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?

If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

[Robert Cote]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Clark F. Morris, Jr.

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.
If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?

If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...

As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by John R Cambron
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...
As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?

And here Cote engages in a lame spelling flame.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Robert Cote

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Clark F. Morris, Jr.

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.
If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?

If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...
As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?

Putting Baxter less then pleasant retort aside, please excuse
my lousy spell check spelling error, that should have been
discretion.

Oh and Robert, Thanks for the laugh at my expense.

[Robert Cote]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Robert Cote

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Clark F. Morris, Jr.

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.
If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?

If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...
As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?

Putting Baxter less then pleasant retort aside, please excuse
my lousy spell check spelling error, that should have been
discretion.
Oh and Robert, Thanks for the laugh at my expense.

Hopefully in the collegial manner in which it was intended.

In a different discussion universe the $1.5 billion, six year capital
shortfall is being debated in the context of last weeks' board
consideration of raising fares. I can't help but imagine that no public
washrooms is one of the least impacting on transport utility savings
available.

[John R Cambron]

Post by Robert Cote

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Robert Cote

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Clark F. Morris, Jr.

The restrooms on the WMATA metrorail were never intended for use by
the public. I have no trouble with them being closed to the public.

Nor do I. However, plenty of people do.
If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?

If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Desecration? I've heard of railfans having religious experiences but...
As the only one allowed to desecrate does this mean the manager doesn't
flush?

Putting Baxter less then pleasant retort aside, please excuse
my lousy spell check spelling error, that should have been
discretion.
Oh and Robert, Thanks for the laugh at my expense.

Hopefully in the collegial manner in which it was intended.
In a different discussion universe the $1.5 billion, six year capital
shortfall is being debated in the context of last weeks' board
consideration of raising fares. I can't help but imagine that no public
washrooms is one of the least impacting on transport utility savings
available.

You will get no argument from me on that.

======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or >>>Hebron<<< MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ ***@chesapeake.net
======================================================================

[Yeoh Yiu]

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Clark F. Morris, Jr.

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?

If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give desecration
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.

http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/

[John R Cambron]

Post by Yeoh Yiu

Post by John R Cambron

Post by Clark F. Morris, Jr.

If they were required to spend millions to make every station usable
to the blind and to wheelchair users, why not spend thousands to make
every station usable by people with weak bladders, which are far more
common than wheelchairs or blindness?

If you build restrooms and open them to all, some one has to be
paid to keep them clean. WMATA is in the business of moving
commuters not facilitating commuters.

BART seems to be able to do it. On systems that have trips that can
last over an hour, this is a much appreciated amenity. I know I
appreciated them when I used BART. In general transit seems to be a
user surly enterprise with operations like New Jersey Transit and Albany
Transit lacking system timetables and system maps, most systems
requiring exact change and lacking washroom facilities or the ease of
exit and re-entry without paying a fare penalty if the need for a rest
room is urgent.

WMATA decided early on that the cost of maintenance and vandalism
was to high a price to pay to provide public facilities. That is
why the restrooms in stations are not directly accessible to the
public. Later the policy on access was changed to give discretion
to the station manager. We are now back to where we started
because of security.

Without the locked dooors, there's less of a security hazard.
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross_new/
http://www.urinal.net/charing_cross/
http://www.urinal.net/manila/
http://www.urinal.net/stadhouders_kade/

Well considering that WMATA metrorail station restrooms are in
areas of the stations where they share access to station support
facilities. Making the access point accessible through an unlocked
door is not a very good way of maintaining security to the other
areas.