MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

It doesn’t increase usage enough to matter. There is basically nowhere in the US outside of Manhattan and a few other densely populated areas where people ride public transit for 50% or more of their trips. Manhattan has a population density that is 35x that of MOCO. Montgomery county will never have a population density to support the public transit utilization goals you want and this this policy goal is guaranteed to fail. The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents.It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

People right now, currently, right here in Montgomery County, ride the bus frequently. People who are county residents! Or do you think that people who ride the bus frequently aren't people?

DP. This response clearly ignores the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, which would have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims.

In so doing, it sets up a strawman that the prior poster has such great prejudice clouding their judgement as to consider those riding the bus to be subhuman. With plenty of constituencies that might consider themselves bus-rider-adjacent, in spirit if not in fact, the ground is fertile for such misrepresentation to dissuade those from fuller consideration of the point made, along with any aligned view.

Bravo, politico!

You tell me what "people are not going to ride the bus frequently" means, then.

Here's the full sentence: "It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department."

It's sad that you deflect with this when the answer was stated in the first sentence of the post you question.

Again, well done, politico.

How is it deflection? The PP literally said "people are not going to ride the bus frequently." Not most people, not the great majority of people, not people I know, not me and my friends. People.

And a few sentences later, the PP says "The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents."

It seems quite clear that, for the PP, only some people/county residents count as people/county residents.

You double down, here, on feigned daftness, trying to distract from the point. For the benefit of others, as you seem intent on such avoidance, I'll reiterate the meaning you sought in your prior post, but clearly do not wish to acknowledge:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

It doesn’t increase usage enough to matter. There is basically nowhere in the US outside of Manhattan and a few other densely populated areas where people ride public transit for 50% or more of their trips. Manhattan has a population density that is 35x that of MOCO. Montgomery county will never have a population density to support the public transit utilization goals you want and this this policy goal is guaranteed to fail. The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents.It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

People right now, currently, right here in Montgomery County, ride the bus frequently. People who are county residents! Or do you think that people who ride the bus frequently aren't people?

DP. This response clearly ignores the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, which would have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims.

In so doing, it sets up a strawman that the prior poster has such great prejudice clouding their judgement as to consider those riding the bus to be subhuman. With plenty of constituencies that might consider themselves bus-rider-adjacent, in spirit if not in fact, the ground is fertile for such misrepresentation to dissuade those from fuller consideration of the point made, along with any aligned view.

Bravo, politico!

You tell me what "people are not going to ride the bus frequently" means, then.

Here's the full sentence: "It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department."

It's sad that you deflect with this when the answer was stated in the first sentence of the post you question.

Again, well done, politico.

How is it deflection? The PP literally said "people are not going to ride the bus frequently." Not most people, not the great majority of people, not people I know, not me and my friends. People.

And a few sentences later, the PP says "The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents."

It seems quite clear that, for the PP, only some people/county residents count as people/county residents.

You double down, here, on feigned daftness, trying to distract from the point. For the benefit of others, as you seem intent on such avoidance, I'll reiterate the meaning you sought in your prior post, but clearly do not wish to acknowledge:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."

Different people can have different opinions on what is "the point."

Your point, I think, is made up of these components:

1. You don't take the bus, you don't plan to take the bus in the future, and you think other people like you don't/won't take the bus.
2. Therefore, potential residents of the potential new housing will drive.
3. When lots of people drive on the same roads at the same time, there is car traffic congestion.
4. Car traffic congestion is bad.
5. Therefore, there shouldn't be the potential new housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

It doesn’t increase usage enough to matter. There is basically nowhere in the US outside of Manhattan and a few other densely populated areas where people ride public transit for 50% or more of their trips. Manhattan has a population density that is 35x that of MOCO. Montgomery county will never have a population density to support the public transit utilization goals you want and this this policy goal is guaranteed to fail. The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents.It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

People right now, currently, right here in Montgomery County, ride the bus frequently. People who are county residents! Or do you think that people who ride the bus frequently aren't people?

DP. This response clearly ignores the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, which would have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims.

In so doing, it sets up a strawman that the prior poster has such great prejudice clouding their judgement as to consider those riding the bus to be subhuman. With plenty of constituencies that might consider themselves bus-rider-adjacent, in spirit if not in fact, the ground is fertile for such misrepresentation to dissuade those from fuller consideration of the point made, along with any aligned view.

Bravo, politico!

You tell me what "people are not going to ride the bus frequently" means, then.

Here's the full sentence: "It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department."

It's sad that you deflect with this when the answer was stated in the first sentence of the post you question.

Again, well done, politico.

How is it deflection? The PP literally said "people are not going to ride the bus frequently." Not most people, not the great majority of people, not people I know, not me and my friends. People.

And a few sentences later, the PP says "The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents."

It seems quite clear that, for the PP, only some people/county residents count as people/county residents.

You double down, here, on feigned daftness, trying to distract from the point. For the benefit of others, as you seem intent on such avoidance, I'll reiterate the meaning you sought in your prior post, but clearly do not wish to acknowledge:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."

Different people can have different opinions on what is "the point."

Your point, I think, is made up of these components:

1. You don't take the bus, you don't plan to take the bus in the future, and you think other people like you don't/won't take the bus.
2. Therefore, potential residents of the potential new housing will drive.
3. When lots of people drive on the same roads at the same time, there is car traffic congestion.
4. Car traffic congestion is bad.
5. Therefore, there shouldn't be the potential new housing.

^^^and the other PP's implicit point (unless that was you) is that when they say "people" they mean people like them, and when they say "county residents" they mean county residents like them. It's not clear whether people unlike them and/or county residents unlike them don't exist at all, or simply don't count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

Nothing is more telling about what the future holds for transit in MoCo than how many parking spaces developers put in their site plans. It was almost always more than the minimum and now that there are no minimums they keep building parking. Developers know that people prefer driving and their site plans reflect that.

People prefer driving to what? Also, people who? A third of people can't or don't drive.

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. Based on the number of spaces in site plans, it’s safe to say the target customers for new housing prefer driving to everything else. But you have to let the market decide, right?

That's silly. It's safe to say the builders believe the buyers are willing to pay for the parking spaces.

However, you're making two big assumptions.

1. Most people just purely love driving.
2. Our transportation policy should enable people's love of driving.

I think the first assumption is factually incorrect, and the second assumption is wrong.

I drive a lot. It's the only way I can conveniently manage the transportation my family needs. Out of four adults in my family, two are non-drivers. If we had non-car options that worked as well as my driving, I would never drive again.

Those things are wrong based on what, your personal anecdote?

Why do you think either of these beliefs are correct?

1. Most people just purely love driving.
2. Our transportation policy should enable people's love of driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

Nothing is more telling about what the future holds for transit in MoCo than how many parking spaces developers put in their site plans. It was almost always more than the minimum and now that there are no minimums they keep building parking. Developers know that people prefer driving and their site plans reflect that.

People prefer driving to what? Also, people who? A third of people can't or don't drive.

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. Based on the number of spaces in site plans, it’s safe to say the target customers for new housing prefer driving to everything else. But you have to let the market decide, right?

That's silly. It's safe to say the builders believe the buyers are willing to pay for the parking spaces.

However, you're making two big assumptions.

1. Most people just purely love driving.
2. Our transportation policy should enable people's love of driving.

I think the first assumption is factually incorrect, and the second assumption is wrong.

I drive a lot. It's the only way I can conveniently manage the transportation my family needs. Out of four adults in my family, two are non-drivers. If we had non-car options that worked as well as my driving, I would never drive again.

Those things are wrong based on what, your personal anecdote?

Why do you think either of these beliefs are correct?

1. Most people just purely love driving.
2. Our transportation policy should enable people's love of driving.

1. Yes, most people love driving in comparison with other forms of transportation.
2. Yes.

Do you think that people love taking the bus? Do you think that the average bus rider in Montgomery County is doing so voluntarily, or doing so because they don’t have access to a car or parking? Do you think that we should be actively forcing additional density into suburban areas based partially on some unproven idea that somehow people are going to magically start taking the bus? Or are you planning to import bus riders?

You are beyond ridiculous. It’s not even really worth arguing about, but it’s kind of silly fun in a way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

Nothing is more telling about what the future holds for transit in MoCo than how many parking spaces developers put in their site plans. It was almost always more than the minimum and now that there are no minimums they keep building parking. Developers know that people prefer driving and their site plans reflect that.

People prefer driving to what? Also, people who? A third of people can't or don't drive.

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. Based on the number of spaces in site plans, it’s safe to say the target customers for new housing prefer driving to everything else. But you have to let the market decide, right?

That's silly. It's safe to say the builders believe the buyers are willing to pay for the parking spaces.

However, you're making two big assumptions.

1. Most people just purely love driving.
2. Our transportation policy should enable people's love of driving.

I think the first assumption is factually incorrect, and the second assumption is wrong.

I drive a lot. It's the only way I can conveniently manage the transportation my family needs. Out of four adults in my family, two are non-drivers. If we had non-car options that worked as well as my driving, I would never drive again.

Those things are wrong based on what, your personal anecdote?

Why do you think either of these beliefs are correct?

1. Most people just purely love driving.
2. Our transportation policy should enable people's love of driving.

1. Yes, most people love driving in comparison with other forms of transportation.
2. Yes.

Do you think that people love taking the bus? Do you think that the average bus rider in Montgomery County is doing so voluntarily, or doing so because they don’t have access to a car or parking? Do you think that we should be actively forcing additional density into suburban areas based partially on some unproven idea that somehow people are going to magically start taking the bus? Or are you planning to import bus riders?

You are beyond ridiculous. It’s not even really worth arguing about, but it’s kind of silly fun in a way.

If people purely love driving, why are there road rage, distracted driving, and the stress and harmful health effects of long driving commutes? If people purely love driving, what is the problem with traffic congestion? If people purely love driving, why do car commercials routinely show one car driving fast on an empty road, instead of most people's driving reality? How are you accounting for the reality that a third of the population can't or doesn't drive?

Why should our transportation policy enable people's love of driving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

Nothing is more telling about what the future holds for transit in MoCo than how many parking spaces developers put in their site plans. It was almost always more than the minimum and now that there are no minimums they keep building parking. Developers know that people prefer driving and their site plans reflect that.

People prefer driving to what? Also, people who? A third of people can't or don't drive.

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. Based on the number of spaces in site plans, it’s safe to say the target customers for new housing prefer driving to everything else. But you have to let the market decide, right?

That's silly. It's safe to say the builders believe the buyers are willing to pay for the parking spaces.

However, you're making two big assumptions.

1. Most people just purely love driving.
2. Our transportation policy should enable people's love of driving.

I think the first assumption is factually incorrect, and the second assumption is wrong.

I drive a lot. It's the only way I can conveniently manage the transportation my family needs. Out of four adults in my family, two are non-drivers. If we had non-car options that worked as well as my driving, I would never drive again.

Those things are wrong based on what, your personal anecdote?

Why do you think either of these beliefs are correct?

1. Most people just purely love driving.
2. Our transportation policy should enable people's love of driving.

1. Yes, most people love driving in comparison with other forms of transportation.
2. Yes.

Do you think that people love taking the bus? Do you think that the average bus rider in Montgomery County is doing so voluntarily, or doing so because they don’t have access to a car or parking? Do you think that we should be actively forcing additional density into suburban areas based partially on some unproven idea that somehow people are going to magically start taking the bus? Or are you planning to import bus riders?

You are beyond ridiculous. It’s not even really worth arguing about, but it’s kind of silly fun in a way.

PP here again. I have an idea. Let's improve things in Montgomery County for other forms of transportation! Including buses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

It doesn’t increase usage enough to matter. There is basically nowhere in the US outside of Manhattan and a few other densely populated areas where people ride public transit for 50% or more of their trips. Manhattan has a population density that is 35x that of MOCO. Montgomery county will never have a population density to support the public transit utilization goals you want and this this policy goal is guaranteed to fail. The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents.It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

People right now, currently, right here in Montgomery County, ride the bus frequently. People who are county residents! Or do you think that people who ride the bus frequently aren't people?

DP. This response clearly ignores the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, which would have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims.

In so doing, it sets up a strawman that the prior poster has such great prejudice clouding their judgement as to consider those riding the bus to be subhuman. With plenty of constituencies that might consider themselves bus-rider-adjacent, in spirit if not in fact, the ground is fertile for such misrepresentation to dissuade those from fuller consideration of the point made, along with any aligned view.

Bravo, politico!

You tell me what "people are not going to ride the bus frequently" means, then.

Here's the full sentence: "It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department."

It's sad that you deflect with this when the answer was stated in the first sentence of the post you question.

Again, well done, politico.

How is it deflection? The PP literally said "people are not going to ride the bus frequently." Not most people, not the great majority of people, not people I know, not me and my friends. People.

And a few sentences later, the PP says "The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents."

It seems quite clear that, for the PP, only some people/county residents count as people/county residents.

You double down, here, on feigned daftness, trying to distract from the point. For the benefit of others, as you seem intent on such avoidance, I'll reiterate the meaning you sought in your prior post, but clearly do not wish to acknowledge:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."

Different people can have different opinions on what is "the point."

Your point, I think, is made up of these components:

1. You don't take the bus, you don't plan to take the bus in the future, and you think other people like you don't/won't take the bus.
2. Therefore, potential residents of the potential new housing will drive.
3. When lots of people drive on the same roads at the same time, there is car traffic congestion.
4. Car traffic congestion is bad.
5. Therefore, there shouldn't be the potential new housing.

Either you would be thinking incorrectly, then, or, more likely, given your immediate follow up post and the fact that you did not even bother to address the meaning quoted for which you asked, you would be presenting another strawman to avoid others' points with the hope of detracting from them for casual readers.

Your 1 doesn't apply. Your 2 is incomplete hyperbole. Your 3 is obvious. Your 4 is slanted. Your 5 draws a simplistic conclusion, the thrust of which might be reached in any case, if presented in a more nuanced manner and with more legitimately presented supports (transportation concern among them, but far from the only one).

All just more logically fallacious argument. Again, the meaning proffered to your own question was:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."

Happy hunting, politico!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

It doesn’t increase usage enough to matter. There is basically nowhere in the US outside of Manhattan and a few other densely populated areas where people ride public transit for 50% or more of their trips. Manhattan has a population density that is 35x that of MOCO. Montgomery county will never have a population density to support the public transit utilization goals you want and this this policy goal is guaranteed to fail. The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents.It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

People right now, currently, right here in Montgomery County, ride the bus frequently. People who are county residents! Or do you think that people who ride the bus frequently aren't people?

DP. This response clearly ignores the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, which would have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims.

In so doing, it sets up a strawman that the prior poster has such great prejudice clouding their judgement as to consider those riding the bus to be subhuman. With plenty of constituencies that might consider themselves bus-rider-adjacent, in spirit if not in fact, the ground is fertile for such misrepresentation to dissuade those from fuller consideration of the point made, along with any aligned view.

Bravo, politico!

You tell me what "people are not going to ride the bus frequently" means, then.

Here's the full sentence: "It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department."

It's sad that you deflect with this when the answer was stated in the first sentence of the post you question.

Again, well done, politico.

How is it deflection? The PP literally said "people are not going to ride the bus frequently." Not most people, not the great majority of people, not people I know, not me and my friends. People.

And a few sentences later, the PP says "The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents."

It seems quite clear that, for the PP, only some people/county residents count as people/county residents.

You double down, here, on feigned daftness, trying to distract from the point. For the benefit of others, as you seem intent on such avoidance, I'll reiterate the meaning you sought in your prior post, but clearly do not wish to acknowledge:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."

Different people can have different opinions on what is "the point."

Your point, I think, is made up of these components:

1. You don't take the bus, you don't plan to take the bus in the future, and you think other people like you don't/won't take the bus.
2. Therefore, potential residents of the potential new housing will drive.
3. When lots of people drive on the same roads at the same time, there is car traffic congestion.
4. Car traffic congestion is bad.
5. Therefore, there shouldn't be the potential new housing.

^^^and the other PP's implicit point (unless that was you) is that when they say "people" they mean people like them, and when they say "county residents" they mean county residents like them. It's not clear whether people unlike them and/or county residents unlike them don't exist at all, or simply don't count.

I imagine that PP would disagree with your slanted characterization of what they meant by "people," to say nothing of whether those unlike them "don't count." Perhaps they might weigh in on the hyperbole you have dripped all over their position.

[Anonymous]

I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

That's fine. You don't have to take the bus. The only people with bus expectations are the people who are opposing the zoning proposal.

Teachers, police officers, nurses, and firefighters would all presumably appreciate a shorter drive to work, rather than a longer drive to work, especially with the crazy work hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.

This is not about traffic modeling it is about actual data on bus ridership for the county. It makes up such an insignificant portion of total transportation trips that it makes no sense link zoning to bus transit access. This is what the county is doing and they are specifically stating that buses will mitigate traffic issues, which is a blatant lie. There is no data to support this. You are just avoiding the topic altogether. Busses are not relevant to this zoning discussion because people don’t use them enough to actually matter for traffic levels. So upzoning everywhere because “buses” is stupid.

First, MoCo is simultaneously investing in significant bus infrastructure projects along the major corridors (BRT) that will make it more accessible and more pleasant. It will feel more like the T in Boston or another streetcar. That will increase ridership....as it has in multiple other jurisdictions.

Second, sometimes public policy is not built on existing behavior, but to encourage different behavior. By your logic, there would be no reason to build a charging network for electric cars, or invest in composting programs where people do not already compost.

Public policy is not supposed to be built on magical beliefs that ignore real world data, but this is exactly what MOCO is doing right now. Their policy decisions are based on nothing but the intuition of density bros that lack critical thinking skills. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

It doesn’t increase usage enough to matter. There is basically nowhere in the US outside of Manhattan and a few other densely populated areas where people ride public transit for 50% or more of their trips. Manhattan has a population density that is 35x that of MOCO. Montgomery county will never have a population density to support the public transit utilization goals you want and this this policy goal is guaranteed to fail. The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents.It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

People right now, currently, right here in Montgomery County, ride the bus frequently. People who are county residents! Or do you think that people who ride the bus frequently aren't people?

DP. This response clearly ignores the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, which would have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims.

In so doing, it sets up a strawman that the prior poster has such great prejudice clouding their judgement as to consider those riding the bus to be subhuman. With plenty of constituencies that might consider themselves bus-rider-adjacent, in spirit if not in fact, the ground is fertile for such misrepresentation to dissuade those from fuller consideration of the point made, along with any aligned view.

Bravo, politico!

You tell me what "people are not going to ride the bus frequently" means, then.

Here's the full sentence: "It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department."

It's sad that you deflect with this when the answer was stated in the first sentence of the post you question.

Again, well done, politico.

How is it deflection? The PP literally said "people are not going to ride the bus frequently." Not most people, not the great majority of people, not people I know, not me and my friends. People.

And a few sentences later, the PP says "The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents."

It seems quite clear that, for the PP, only some people/county residents count as people/county residents.

You double down, here, on feigned daftness, trying to distract from the point. For the benefit of others, as you seem intent on such avoidance, I'll reiterate the meaning you sought in your prior post, but clearly do not wish to acknowledge:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."

Different people can have different opinions on what is "the point."

Your point, I think, is made up of these components:

1. You don't take the bus, you don't plan to take the bus in the future, and you think other people like you don't/won't take the bus.
2. Therefore, potential residents of the potential new housing will drive.
3. When lots of people drive on the same roads at the same time, there is car traffic congestion.
4. Car traffic congestion is bad.
5. Therefore, there shouldn't be the potential new housing.

Either you would be thinking incorrectly, then, or, more likely, given your immediate follow up post and the fact that you did not even bother to address the meaning quoted for which you asked, you would be presenting another strawman to avoid others' points with the hope of detracting from them for casual readers.

Your 1 doesn't apply. Your 2 is incomplete hyperbole. Your 3 is obvious. Your 4 is slanted. Your 5 draws a simplistic conclusion, the thrust of which might be reached in any case, if presented in a more nuanced manner and with more legitimately presented supports (transportation concern among them, but far from the only one).

All just more logically fallacious argument. Again, the meaning proffered to your own question was:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."

Happy hunting, politico!

What are the logical fallacies?

When is the last time that you, yourself, took the bus? Do you take the bus frequently?

How do you, yourself, weigh the potential for more housing vs. the potential for more car traffic congestion?

Who is "politico" and what are they hunting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's lots of neighborhoods in DC where the housing density has gone up dramatically in recent years. Without exception, they are far, far more expensive now than they were before. Housing prices in our neighborhood didnt take off until they started building condos everywhere.

What is your neighborhood?

Do you think that the way to make housing more affordable is to NOT build more housing?

Reading through this thread it looks like the YIMBY plan is to make housing more affordable is by eliminating housing.

I’d also like them to be more clear, are they trying to build more affordable (or attainable) housing, or are they trying to make housing more affordable?

The second implies that they are trying to decrease property values, which I think that many of them are actually trying to do. They want to saturate the market until our property values decrease.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

Ok well then you should be able to tell us how much all of this will reduce housing prices. So, let's here it. Be specific. What can we expect?

Insulting people is not evidence, and nor is citing apocryphal anecdotes about how, "you know, there's this one neighborhood in Helsinki that did this and it totally worked and you should Google it."

The number of housing units in many areas of DC has skyrocketed over the past 10 years (14th Street, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, etc) and prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Still waiting on an answer here.

What kind of an answer would satisfy you? As Yogi Berra famously said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

Is this a real question? Obviously, if you have no idea whether upzoning will push prices up or down (and you obviously don't), then maybe don't claim that it will result in affordable housing. That is, maybe don't lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's lots of neighborhoods in DC where the housing density has gone up dramatically in recent years. Without exception, they are far, far more expensive now than they were before. Housing prices in our neighborhood didnt take off until they started building condos everywhere.

What is your neighborhood?

Do you think that the way to make housing more affordable is to NOT build more housing?

Reading through this thread it looks like the YIMBY plan is to make housing more affordable is by eliminating housing.

I’d also like them to be more clear, are they trying to build more affordable (or attainable) housing, or are they trying to make housing more affordable?

The second implies that they are trying to decrease property values, which I think that many of them are actually trying to do. They want to saturate the market until our property values decrease.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

Ok well then you should be able to tell us how much all of this will reduce housing prices. So, let's here it. Be specific. What can we expect?

Insulting people is not evidence, and nor is citing apocryphal anecdotes about how, "you know, there's this one neighborhood in Helsinki that did this and it totally worked and you should Google it."

The number of housing units in many areas of DC has skyrocketed over the past 10 years (14th Street, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, etc) and prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Yeah, it's weird how housing prices went up in Navy Yard, as it was transformed from a small rundown area with very little housing, to a small happening area with lots of housing!

You mean, they bought a bunch of single family homes from black families for $250,000 a pop and replaced them with apartments that cost $1 million each.

Yes, hooray for gentrification.

Are you posting from Vladivostok? Because here in DC, that's not what happened.

Super weird attempt at gaslighting, dude. That's obviously what happened. DC is only major city in America that is becoming more white, and that's thanks to upzoning. The recipe behind upzoning is 1. buy single family homes from black people 2. raze them 3. replace them with million dollar condos sold to white people. that's how DC is getting so white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.