More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

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.

This real issue is that you live on a magical planet outside of reality where money is unlimited. You are not being reasonable and myopically focusing on preventing a specific issue that caused less than 0.5% of total deaths in the county. This idea you are obsessed with will cost the county billions of dollars to pay prevent a very small number of deaths. You seem to have no perspective on actual resource constraints that exist for county governments and you are hellbent on spending an unlimited about of money up to the entire county budget to prevent a small number of deaths.

[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.

This real issue is that you live on a magical planet outside of reality where money is unlimited. You are not being reasonable and myopically focusing on preventing a specific issue that caused less than 0.5% of total deaths in the county. This idea you are obsessed with will cost the county billions of dollars to pay prevent a very small number of deaths. You seem to have no perspective on actual resource constraints that exist for county governments and you are hellbent on spending an unlimited about of money up to the entire county budget to prevent a small number of deaths.

The real issue is that you are worried that the county will take actions that might inconvenience you while you are driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did this "you and your fellow cyclists" business come from? How about "you and your fellow drivers" following the law? The category of "your fellow drivers" includes me, by the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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.

[Anonymous]

If this project only changed zoning west of Sligo, would anyone really object?

[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.

This real issue is that you live on a magical planet outside of reality where money is unlimited. You are not being reasonable and myopically focusing on preventing a specific issue that caused less than 0.5% of total deaths in the county. This idea you are obsessed with will cost the county billions of dollars to pay prevent a very small number of deaths. You seem to have no perspective on actual resource constraints that exist for county governments and you are hellbent on spending an unlimited about of money up to the entire county budget to prevent a small number of deaths.

The real issue is that you are worried that the county will take actions that might inconvenience you while you are driving.

DP. I appreciate that you like to create strawmen and put words in other people’s mouths, but they did not say that at all. What they are saying that resources should be allocated to maximize benefit. For example, it would probably increase safety and enhance county revenue just by installing more speed cameras. As a result, it is not necessary to spend millions from a constrained capital budget with many competing priorities liked over crowded schools to reengineer entire roadways. What it looks like is starting from a conclusion (“complete street”) and then trying to justify it.

The Planning Department in the county is unfortunately stuffed full of people who are highly motivated to do things that they can present at conferences or apply for awards to stoke their own egos instead of doing the most appropriate things for county to make everyone better off within our resource constraints.

[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.

This real issue is that you live on a magical planet outside of reality where money is unlimited. You are not being reasonable and myopically focusing on preventing a specific issue that caused less than 0.5% of total deaths in the county. This idea you are obsessed with will cost the county billions of dollars to pay prevent a very small number of deaths. You seem to have no perspective on actual resource constraints that exist for county governments and you are hellbent on spending an unlimited about of money up to the entire county budget to prevent a small number of deaths.

The real issue is that you are worried that the county will take actions that might inconvenience you while you are driving.

DP. I appreciate that you like to create strawmen and put words in other people’s mouths, but they did not say that at all. What they are saying that resources should be allocated to maximize benefit. For example, it would probably increase safety and enhance county revenue just by installing more speed cameras. As a result, it is not necessary to spend millions from a constrained capital budget with many competing priorities liked over crowded schools to reengineer entire roadways. What it looks like is starting from a conclusion (“complete street”) and then trying to justify it.

The Planning Department in the county is unfortunately stuffed full of people who are highly motivated to do things that they can present at conferences or apply for awards to stoke their own egos instead of doing the most appropriate things for county to make everyone better off within our resource constraints.

"Resources should be allocated to maximize benefit" for whom and for what? For the PP, for driving convenience.

I'm totally in favor of more speed cameras. Speed cameras are a component of Vision Zero.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this project only changed zoning west of Sligo, would anyone really object?

Based on the reaction of some people at community meetings, for proposed changes west of Sligo (other changes, any changes), the answer is: yes.

[Anonymous]

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

[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

DP. I don’t like racist outcomes or ineffective growth strategies either. You may prefer those outcomes, but I hope you’re in the minority (not too sure after reading this board for a while).

What PP says about the history of MNCPCC and its effect on current outcomes is 100 percent true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That should have been your clue that many of these new fangled traffic engineers don't know what they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That should have been your clue that many of these new fangled traffic engineers don't know what they are doing.

It's the old fangled traffic engineers who say stuff like that.

[Anonymous]

Sounds great!

[Anonymous]

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.