More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

We should build housing to support bus stop construction?

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

We should build housing to support bus stop construction?

The zoning should allow for more housing around BRT stations. Which, on University, are planned to be at Amherst, Inwood, Arcola, Dennis, and Colesville (29).

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

Only if there is some place to take it. The core is what drives traffic.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

Only if there is some place to take it. The core is what drives traffic.

There are places to take it. You could ride the C buses and ask people where they're going.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

Only if there is some place to take it. The core is what drives traffic.

There are places to take it. You could ride the C buses and ask people where they're going.

Those buses are pretty empty as are most ride-on buses. Ride-on services only 50k-65k trips a year. To PP’s point, they would service more trips if people could take ride-on to their jobs in MoCo instead of having to transfer to metro to get to DC or Va.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

We should build housing to support bus stop construction?

The zoning should allow for more housing around BRT stations. Which, on University, are planned to be at Amherst, Inwood, Arcola, Dennis, and Colesville (29).

No, we are ok as it is, thanks. Build housing in existing unused commercial spaces and on vacant land. You can put a bus stop every five feet if it tackles your fancy.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

Only if there is some place to take it. The core is what drives traffic.

There are places to take it. You could ride the C buses and ask people where they're going.

Those buses are pretty empty as are most ride-on buses. Ride-on services only 50k-65k trips a year. To PP’s point, they would service more trips if people could take ride-on to their jobs in MoCo instead of having to transfer to metro to get to DC or Va.

What you're saying is, "I don't take the bus, I drive." Try taking the bus.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

They have to call them stations to match up with the legislation that allows for more density. Smoke and mirrors...

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

We should build housing to support bus stop construction?

This is the point of the veiled multi-pronged development approach. If they tried to get the whole development idea approved, it would encounter too much resistance.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

Only if there is some place to take it. The core is what drives traffic.

There are places to take it. You could ride the C buses and ask people where they're going.

I know all three of the proposed BRT runs very well. Central Wheaton, Silver Spring and White Oak are the key hubs. It will thrive or die based on them not the in-between stops. All efforts to increase density and developmemt should be focused on the hubs if you want it to succeed. The ones that also happen to have metro, beltway access, and transit centers.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

We should build housing to support bus stop construction?

This is the point of the veiled multi-pronged development approach. If they tried to get the whole development idea approved, it would encounter too much resistance.

What's veiled about it? More housing to support more transit. More transit, supported by more housing. It's an explicit policy goal, and I support it.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

They have to call them stations to match up with the legislation that allows for more density. Smoke and mirrors...

I know. That's what bothers me the most. They took an important and good idea of focusing and expanded it beyond meaning.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

Only if there is some place to take it. The core is what drives traffic.

There are places to take it. You could ride the C buses and ask people where they're going.

I know all three of the proposed BRT runs very well. Central Wheaton, Silver Spring and White Oak are the key hubs. It will thrive or die based on them not the in-between stops. All efforts to increase density and developmemt should be focused on the hubs if you want it to succeed. The ones that also happen to have metro, beltway access, and transit centers.

Which is not the same as saying "I frequently ride the C buses and the Z buses." How frequently do you take the bus?

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

Only if there is some place to take it. The core is what drives traffic.

There are places to take it. You could ride the C buses and ask people where they're going.

Those buses are pretty empty as are most ride-on buses. Ride-on services only 50k-65k trips a year. To PP’s point, they would service more trips if people could take ride-on to their jobs in MoCo instead of having to transfer to metro to get to DC or Va.

What you're saying is, "I don't take the bus, I drive." Try taking the bus.

No I’m saying I’ve ridden on a lot of ride on busses (I used to have to transfer from metro, but NEVER again) and I looked up the stats, which show even lower ridership than the last time I took a bus. Try having some facts to support your assessments. You might find more viable solutions to housing, transportation, and jobs if you do.

[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:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.

Only if there is some place to take it. The core is what drives traffic.

There are places to take it. You could ride the C buses and ask people where they're going.

I know all three of the proposed BRT runs very well. Central Wheaton, Silver Spring and White Oak are the key hubs. It will thrive or die based on them not the in-between stops. All efforts to increase density and developmemt should be focused on the hubs if you want it to succeed. The ones that also happen to have metro, beltway access, and transit centers.

Which is not the same as saying "I frequently ride the C buses and the Z buses." How frequently do you take the bus?

I have lived there, I have family that lives there and I have friends that live there. I have driven there, I drive there, I have taken the bus there, I take the bus there, I have walked there and I walk there. Moreover, I also know the overseas bus systems this idea was based on so I know what it is trying to achieve.

The point of this bus line is to connect Rockville. Wheaton, Silver Spring and White Oak. It's a real multi-modal transportation idea that connects the core economic and transit centers of Montgomery County. I care that it works out. You do not seem to.