More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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?

Since the voters of Montgomery County elect the members of the Montgomery County Council, and the members of the Montgomery County Council vote on the zoning changes, I'm going with: yes, the majority of voters in Montgomery County are ok with the zoning changes.

The MNCPPC structure was set up one hundred years ago by corrupt racist property owners so they could control real estate development in Montgomery and PG County. It is a governance structure for planning that you will not find anywhere else in Maryland, the region or the country. It’s also proven to be highly dysfunctional and susceptible to corruption and scandal over the years, which is probably because that is what it was designed to do. The Montgomery County Council has proven fully incompetent and ineffective and providing oversight and accountability and the reality is that its days are numbered. Legislation has already been introduced at the state level and a “commission” has been established. It may take a decade, but the it’s days are numbered.

when you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process

Isn’t that exactly the YIMBY agenda?

We have a process for zoning SFH and multifamily areas, it currently works. Aren’t you just complaining about the process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

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?

Since the voters of Montgomery County elect the members of the Montgomery County Council, and the members of the Montgomery County Council vote on the zoning changes, I'm going with: yes, the majority of voters in Montgomery County are ok with the zoning changes.

The MNCPPC structure was set up one hundred years ago by corrupt racist property owners so they could control real estate development in Montgomery and PG County. It is a governance structure for planning that you will not find anywhere else in Maryland, the region or the country. It’s also proven to be highly dysfunctional and susceptible to corruption and scandal over the years, which is probably because that is what it was designed to do. The Montgomery County Council has proven fully incompetent and ineffective and providing oversight and accountability and the reality is that its days are numbered. Legislation has already been introduced at the state level and a “commission” has been established. It may take a decade, but the it’s days are numbered.

when you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process

Isn’t that exactly the YIMBY agenda?

We have a process for zoning SFH and multifamily areas, it currently works. Aren’t you just complaining about the process?

Yes, we do. The process includes master plans, corridor plans, sector plans, etc., as well as zoning text amendments. That's how the county establishes and changes zoning. Who is complaining about this process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

Are you seriously asking people why they have the priorities they have, instead of the priorities that you have? How about this: everyone chooses their own goals to apply their interest and diligence to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

Are you seriously asking people why they have the priorities they have, instead of the priorities that you have? How about this: everyone chooses their own goals to apply their interest and diligence to.

Interesting that deaths of that are predominantly women and people of color are not your priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

Are you seriously asking people why they have the priorities they have, instead of the priorities that you have? How about this: everyone chooses their own goals to apply their interest and diligence to.

Interesting that deaths of that are predominantly women and people of color are not your priority.

Maybe you could find out who gets killed in car crashes.

[Anonymous]

What does the blue dash line equate to in the charts? It goes right by my house !!

[Anonymous]

I don’t know why anyone is talking about traffic fatalities. This is on a BRT line, so no one is going to drive or even have a car because there will be no parking minimums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

Are you seriously asking people why they have the priorities they have, instead of the priorities that you have? How about this: everyone chooses their own goals to apply their interest and diligence to.

Interesting that deaths of that are predominantly women and people of color are not your priority.

Maybe you could find out who gets killed in car crashes.

How many is that in Montgomery County? Great way to prove that you don’t care about the lives of people of color or violence against women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

One white guy on a bike getting killed gets more attention than 100 black guys getting murdered

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

One white guy on a bike getting killed gets more attention than 100 black guys getting murdered

One white guy on a bike getting killed gets an entire road pointlessly reengineered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

Why don’t you apply this same interest and diligence towards achieving zero homicides in the county. That will have a much bigger impact, particularly for equity and justice.

One white guy on a bike getting killed gets more attention than 100 black guys getting murdered

One white guy on a bike getting killed gets an entire road pointlessly reengineered.

And, on average, on cyclist per year is killed in DC. More people are killed by lightning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- driver speeding
4 deaths -- driver drunk/stoned/impaired
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/atv/motorcycle error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- driver speeding
4 deaths -- driver drunk/stoned/impaired
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/atv/motorcycle error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Zero is obviously unattainable. But the more sophisticated question is what are the details on the 40 deaths, plus those prior years. You can't address a problem, assuming there is one, without more details here. If only a few happened at red lights, then red lights are not the issue.

That data is readily available, courtesy of the police. They say that in 2022, there were 35 traffic deaths in DC which is about the same it is every year. Despite the billions poured into bike stuff and the endless reengineering of roads, traffic deaths don't actually change very much each year, especially when you consider there's billions of trips taken each year.

Here's the causes in 2022:

12 deaths -- pedestrian error
9 deaths -- driver speeding
4 deaths -- driver drunk/stoned/impaired
4 deaths -- driver error
2 deaths -- bicycle error
2 deaths -- medical emergency
1 death -- scooter/atv/motorcycle error
1 death -- hit and run/unknown

Your idea here seems to be: people make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't do anything to reduce the number of car crashes that kill people.

No wonder you don't like Vision Zero, which is based on this idea: humans make mistakes, but those mistakes shouldn't come with the death penalty.

Whose reckless and requires vigorous enforcement under your view and who is just making innocent mistakes?