More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

Everything they said is true but otherwise you're right, people should use crosswalks without staring at their phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

I look forward to checking back in with you in a couple years when this turns into an inevitable ghetto to see you defend it.

Yet more predictable "DOOM AND GLOOM" from the right...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

I look forward to checking back in with you in a couple years when this turns into an inevitable ghetto to see you defend it.

Yet more predictable "DOOM AND GLOOM" from the right...

There is nothing political about being able to predict, based on years of empirical evidence, that every thing that comes out of this Montgomery County Planning Department is going to end up screwed up. They are notorious for not just over promising and under delivering, but actually over promising and delivering the opposite. The main reason is that it’s an organization that exists outside of accountability and so empiricism is meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

I look forward to checking back in with you in a couple years when this turns into an inevitable ghetto to see you defend it.

Yet more predictable "DOOM AND GLOOM" from the right...

You think that this is just from the right? Where are these righties that live in MoCo? You think that local democrats all
welcome these zoning changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

Everything they said is true but otherwise you're right, people should use crosswalks without staring at their phones.

By your logic we shouldn’t bother to paint cross walks because a lot of pedestrians die because they don’t use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

I look forward to checking back in with you in a couple years when this turns into an inevitable ghetto to see you defend it.

Yet more predictable "DOOM AND GLOOM" from the right...

There is nothing political about being able to predict, based on years of empirical evidence, that every thing that comes out of this Montgomery County Planning Department is going to end up screwed up. They are notorious for not just over promising and under delivering, but actually over promising and delivering the opposite. The main reason is that it’s an organization that exists outside of accountability and so empiricism is meaningless.

This is true. Planning has been captured by a handful of local land use lawyers who went to third tier law schools. Ever wonder why approvals take so long? It’s so those lawyers can bill their clients more. It slows down housing production and makes projects cost more.

Planning talks about reform sometimes but usually at least one of these lawyers is sitting on the advisory group and nothing happens. The lawyers are also big donors to YIMBY groups, which makes those groups less likely to be effective advocates for reform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

You know, it's funny, because I keep asking for painted cross walks, and the people responsible for the roads keep saying no, because painted cross walks give pedestrians a false sense of security.

As a licensed driver, you surely know that there are cross walks at every intersection, whether they're actually painted or not, and you have to stop for pedestrians in unpainted (known as "unmarked" crosswalks) EXACTLY THE SAME as you have to stop for pedestrians in painted ("marked") cross walks. As a licensed driver, you also surely know that it is legal for pedestrians to cross between intersections almost everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

This is a childish argument. Society needs to move and we try to keep people safe. To keep EVERYONE safe, we can't use cars and trucks... or bikes... or even horses. Society can't control people who cross the street wearing black at night. Society can't control everyone who drinks and drives. Society can't stop every idiot who speeds, etc. So, yes... in a society with many people and many making bad decisions, people are going to die in accidents.

Society can use street lighting. Society can use ignition interlocks. Society can use speed governors.

Umm… everything has a cost, including bad decisions. You are being ridiculous.

The issue here obviously isn't that Vision Zero is unattainable. It's that you're not interested in attaining it. You're fine with people being killed in car crashes. Well, everyone gets to have their own opinions, and that includes you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

Everything they said is true but otherwise you're right, people should use crosswalks without staring at their phones.

By your logic we shouldn’t bother to paint cross walks because a lot of pedestrians die because they don’t use them.

Huh? No. I think jaywalking is the same as a rolling stop. In most cases it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

You know, it's funny, because I keep asking for painted cross walks, and the people responsible for the roads keep saying no, because painted cross walks give pedestrians a false sense of security.

As a licensed driver, you surely know that there are cross walks at every intersection, whether they're actually painted or not, and you have to stop for pedestrians in unpainted (known as "unmarked" crosswalks) EXACTLY THE SAME as you have to stop for pedestrians in painted ("marked") cross walks. As a licensed driver, you also surely know that it is legal for pedestrians to cross between intersections almost everywhere.

You’re against pedestrian bridges because pedestrians don’t use them. You are against cross walks because they provide “false sense of safety”. I guess the only solution then is for everyone to stay home because there is nothing that can be done. Except, I was in Ireland a little while ago and you know what I noticed? Cyclist and pedestrians followed the rules. They did not jaywalk or run red lights, even if there were no cars present. They waited diligently for their signal and went across the street. Perhaps if you folks want European levels of traffic safety the answer is in European levels of compliance behavior by cyclists and pedestrians and cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

Everything they said is true but otherwise you're right, people should use crosswalks without staring at their phones.

By your logic we shouldn’t bother to paint cross walks because a lot of pedestrians die because they don’t use them.

Huh? No. I think jaywalking is the same as a rolling stop. In most cases it doesn't matter.

DP. They're not the same, actually. Rolling a stop sign is always illegal, whereas in most cases, so-called "jaywalking" is completely legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

You know, it's funny, because I keep asking for painted cross walks, and the people responsible for the roads keep saying no, because painted cross walks give pedestrians a false sense of security.

As a licensed driver, you surely know that there are cross walks at every intersection, whether they're actually painted or not, and you have to stop for pedestrians in unpainted (known as "unmarked" crosswalks) EXACTLY THE SAME as you have to stop for pedestrians in painted ("marked") cross walks. As a licensed driver, you also surely know that it is legal for pedestrians to cross between intersections almost everywhere.

You’re against pedestrian bridges because pedestrians don’t use them. You are against cross walks because they provide “false sense of safety”. I guess the only solution then is for everyone to stay home because there is nothing that can be done. Except, I was in Ireland a little while ago and you know what I noticed? Cyclist and pedestrians followed the rules. They did not jaywalk or run red lights, even if there were no cars present. They waited diligently for their signal and went across the street. Perhaps if you folks want European levels of traffic safety the answer is in European levels of compliance behavior by cyclists and pedestrians and cars.

No, that's our transportation departments. Our transportation departments are against painted crosswalks, on grounds that painted crosswalks provide a false sense of security to pedestrians.

Speaking of following the rules, when you're driving, do you stop for pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

Everything they said is true but otherwise you're right, people should use crosswalks without staring at their phones.

By your logic we shouldn’t bother to paint cross walks because a lot of pedestrians die because they don’t use them.

Huh? No. I think jaywalking is the same as a rolling stop. In most cases it doesn't matter.

DP. They're not the same, actually. Rolling a stop sign is always illegal, whereas in most cases, so-called "jaywalking" is completely legal.

You are very intelligent. LOL. I’m not interested in whatever nonsense strawman you are gaming to argue. There is a crime of “Jaywalking” that exists in all jurisdictions in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is part of Vision Zero that we should eliminate all pedestrian crossings on roads in favor of bridge crossings? Vegas does the bridges, but of course only on the strip. We need them on every inch of every roadway, plus walls on the roads to make sure people use the bridges.

No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level.

Nothing that you said is true. Also to add that painted cross walks cost very little and pedestrians refuse to use those either. So what?

You know, it's funny, because I keep asking for painted cross walks, and the people responsible for the roads keep saying no, because painted cross walks give pedestrians a false sense of security.

As a licensed driver, you surely know that there are cross walks at every intersection, whether they're actually painted or not, and you have to stop for pedestrians in unpainted (known as "unmarked" crosswalks) EXACTLY THE SAME as you have to stop for pedestrians in painted ("marked") cross walks. As a licensed driver, you also surely know that it is legal for pedestrians to cross between intersections almost everywhere.

You’re against pedestrian bridges because pedestrians don’t use them. You are against cross walks because they provide “false sense of safety”. I guess the only solution then is for everyone to stay home because there is nothing that can be done. Except, I was in Ireland a little while ago and you know what I noticed? Cyclist and pedestrians followed the rules. They did not jaywalk or run red lights, even if there were no cars present. They waited diligently for their signal and went across the street. Perhaps if you folks want European levels of traffic safety the answer is in European levels of compliance behavior by cyclists and pedestrians and cars.

No, that's our transportation departments. Our transportation departments are against painted crosswalks, on grounds that painted crosswalks provide a false sense of security to pedestrians.

Speaking of following the rules, when you're driving, do you stop for pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks?

Here’s an idea. Since you want to make the US more like Europe. Please start with you and your fellow cyclists following the law. Because as an American in Europe that is the most obvious difference. A literal “wow moment” seeing throngs of pedestrians and cyclists waiting to go until they had a signal even when there was no car in sight.