Moco’s glass introducing bill to limit parking near public transit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for nanny staters. How do you go to Costco type places using public transit ?

It is easy to get to Costco on public transit. But I'm guessing what you are really asking is how you transport a lot of stuff on public transit. You don't. You either get things delivered or you use a Zip car/ride share or similar.

Question about what you mean by "nanny stater." You realize that this legislation REMOVES government requirements, rather than creates them, right?

Even if you’re not using public transit, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to use Uber to visit Costco once in a while than it is to own and maintain a car.

how do you get to work if it isn’t near public transit?

This legislation does not forbid cars or parking spaces. It allows people to make choices. If you have a job that is not near public transit, you can have a car. You can also choose to live somewhere with ample parking.

We already have these choices. Why does there need to be a bill? I can already choose not to have a car. I can already choose. To use a parking spot. I already have choices. That bill doesn’t sound like it would give me more choices. It would take away choices.

[Anonymous]

Do you really think people who live in condos are regularly shopping at Costco?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody post to the actual legislation?

Whatever it says, I'm sure it doesn't "limit parking." What it most likely does is reduce the existing mandatory minimum parking spaces in code. That does not mean there will be no parking spaces. What it means is that rules that are not needed and are FREQUENTLY granted exemptions will no longer be in place.

Found it, and I was correct:

SUMMARY OF KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
• ZTA 23-10 will exempt residential uses from the baseline parking minimums in the Zoning
Ordinance if located near transit.
• To qualify as “near transit”, the use will need to be: within ½ mile of a Metro station; within ½
mile of a Purple Line station; or within ¼ mile of an existing Bus Rapid Transit station or a Bus
Rapid Transit station that has been funded for construction in the 6-year CIP at the time of
application.
• A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 16, 2024.
https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=15982&meta_id=167865

This all sort of makes sense near metro, but the BRT is a Trojan horse for implementing this type of thing in or near neighborhoods all over the county. Mark my words, this is how MoCo will force through Thrive 2050 goals. Just run a BRT line and it’s “near mass transit.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for nanny staters. How do you go to Costco type places using public transit ?

It is easy to get to Costco on public transit. But I'm guessing what you are really asking is how you transport a lot of stuff on public transit. You don't. You either get things delivered or you use a Zip car/ride share or similar.

Question about what you mean by "nanny stater." You realize that this legislation REMOVES government requirements, rather than creates them, right?

Even if you’re not using public transit, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to use Uber to visit Costco once in a while than it is to own and maintain a car.

how do you get to work if it isn’t near public transit?

This legislation does not forbid cars or parking spaces. It allows people to make choices. If you have a job that is not near public transit, you can have a car. You can also choose to live somewhere with ample parking.

We already have these choices. Why does there need to be a bill? I can already choose not to have a car. I can already choose. To use a parking spot. I already have choices. That bill doesn’t sound like it would give me more choices. It would take away choices.

How would it take away any choices from you? Which choices would it take away?

You do not currently have the choice to buy a housing unit near Metro in a development that doesn't have the required number of parking spaces, because the county currently requires developers to provide the required number of parking spaces, whether people actually want those parking spaces or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody post to the actual legislation?

Whatever it says, I'm sure it doesn't "limit parking." What it most likely does is reduce the existing mandatory minimum parking spaces in code. That does not mean there will be no parking spaces. What it means is that rules that are not needed and are FREQUENTLY granted exemptions will no longer be in place.

Found it, and I was correct:

SUMMARY OF KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
• ZTA 23-10 will exempt residential uses from the baseline parking minimums in the Zoning
Ordinance if located near transit.
• To qualify as “near transit”, the use will need to be: within ½ mile of a Metro station; within ½
mile of a Purple Line station; or within ¼ mile of an existing Bus Rapid Transit station or a Bus
Rapid Transit station that has been funded for construction in the 6-year CIP at the time of
application.
• A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 16, 2024.
https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=15982&meta_id=167865

This all sort of makes sense near metro, but the BRT is a Trojan horse for implementing this type of thing in or near neighborhoods all over the county. Mark my words, this is how MoCo will force through Thrive 2050 goals. Just run a BRT line and it’s “near mass transit.”

BRT is mass transit, so yes, it's true, something near a BRT line is near mass transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

Yeah, I was foolish to develop the cancer that will impact my physical stamina the rest of my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for nanny staters. How do you go to Costco type places using public transit ?

It is easy to get to Costco on public transit. But I'm guessing what you are really asking is how you transport a lot of stuff on public transit. You don't. You either get things delivered or you use a Zip car/ride share or similar.

Question about what you mean by "nanny stater." You realize that this legislation REMOVES government requirements, rather than creates them, right?

Even if you’re not using public transit, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to use Uber to visit Costco once in a while than it is to own and maintain a car.

how do you get to work if it isn’t near public transit?

This legislation does not forbid cars or parking spaces. It allows people to make choices. If you have a job that is not near public transit, you can have a car. You can also choose to live somewhere with ample parking.

We already have these choices. Why does there need to be a bill? I can already choose not to have a car. I can already choose. To use a parking spot. I already have choices. That bill doesn’t sound like it would give me more choices. It would take away choices.

There is currently a requirement for the minimum number of parking spaces a residential development MUST have per unit. This number if very often higher than actual usage and often waived. The legislation eliminates that government mandate. You will now have the ADDITIONAL option of living in a place that uses less space for parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think people who live in condos are regularly shopping at Costco?

Some are, some aren't - just like people who live in attached or detached houses.

This whole "There have to be parking spaces for condos near Metro because people have to have a car because otherwise they can't shop at Costco" thing is really something, though.

[Anonymous]

How do you rush your kid to the ER at night without a car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you rush your kid to the ER at night without a car?

Call 911 for an ambulance? Or call a taxi? Or call an Uber?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you rush your kid to the ER at night without a car?

Call 911 for an ambulance? Or call a taxi? Or call an Uber?

Parent here - have done all that and so thankful not to have to deal with putting kid in car seat and sitting away from them and then wasting time parking at hospital instead of getting door to door service with options mentioned above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think people who live in condos are regularly shopping at Costco?

Uh, yes. Who the hell doesn't like Costco?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you rush your kid to the ER at night without a car?

Call 911 for an ambulance? Or call a taxi? Or call an Uber?

You have an answer for everything, don’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

If these are new condos, I assume the people purchasing them will understand that if they want parking, they will need to pay a fee at a local parking garage.

Why would you be against this? This makes perfect sense near transit. I do hope the proposal also restricts access to local parking permits if one lives in these residences.

Less dependence on cars in transit adjacent places is a great thing. I typically roll my eyes are the hard core cyclists that want bike lanes everywhere but developing new residence that do not require access to vehicles is a great thing. People can choose not to live their if it doesn’t fit their lifestyle.

TO answer your question, I repeat my post from above:

I'm not sure why someone who has lived in a neighborhood for 10 years feels they are more entitled to a street parking spot than someone who just moves in.

Wait, it's actually even dumber than that. It's that someone who lives in a residence that has been in the neighborhood for a long time (regardless of when they moved in) feels more entitled to a street parking spot than someone who liven in a newer residence (regardless of when they moved in). Just silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think people who live in condos are regularly shopping at Costco?

They surely shop at aldi once a week when they get paid and need to get to a cheaper store like aldi or hmart to stock up. Many cindi dwellers have multiple jobs so they cant spend an hour in transit on thei limited off time. Fund more frequent and safe transit first. Then eliminate parking.