More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news! Thanks for letting me know.

The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.

Some of that is ok, but the BRT is stupid and the residents should be looking to line up their lawyers ASAP.

Lots of immigrants along University. I think they are just trying to get through long working hours to survive. They're not going to be calling lawyers about BRT.

That’s why they’re doing this here first.

You mean, because there are a lot of people who use the bus and will benefit from more frequent buses that don't get stuck in car traffic?

You think just because they’re lower middle class immigrants that they cannot afford to buy a car? That’s racist and demonstrates that you have spent very little time around there. Every home has 4 cars parked out front.

Yes, and? It is also true that a lot of people currently use the buses that run on University Boulevard. It's a high-ridership route. I don't know how it can be racist to state the fact that a lot of people use the C buses and RideOn 8 and 9 - including people who can't afford a car, people who can't drive (kids, many old people, many disabled people), and even people who have a car and can drive but nonetheless find the bus more convenient for a particular trip. It's not like, if your household has a car, you have to use that car every time you go anywhere.

Provide the data. Double that either would rank among the top 20 routes in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news! Thanks for letting me know.

The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.

Some of that is ok, but the BRT is stupid and the residents should be looking to line up their lawyers ASAP.

Lots of immigrants along University. I think they are just trying to get through long working hours to survive. They're not going to be calling lawyers about BRT.

Someone in this thread appears to be working for the planning commission and has no idea of this area and location? Are you saying this is a poor area so you are pushing this through? Have you even discussed with local residents?

[Anonymous]

This is going to look like “Wump World” soon
https://www.billpeet.net/billpeetdotnet/pages/IMAGES/wumpcoverrough300.jpg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news! Thanks for letting me know.

The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.

Some of that is ok, but the BRT is stupid and the residents should be looking to line up their lawyers ASAP.

Lots of immigrants along University. I think they are just trying to get through long working hours to survive. They're not going to be calling lawyers about BRT.

Someone in this thread appears to be working for the planning commission and has no idea of this area and location? Are you saying this is a poor area so you are pushing this through? Have you even discussed with local residents?

It’s quite disturbing, honestly. It’s not even a poor area. They are working hard though to try and make what has become naturally occurring affordable housing more expensive. Meanwhile, Planning totally ignores actual poor areas like Aspen Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news! Thanks for letting me know.

The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.

Some of that is ok, but the BRT is stupid and the residents should be looking to line up their lawyers ASAP.

Lots of immigrants along University. I think they are just trying to get through long working hours to survive. They're not going to be calling lawyers about BRT.

That’s why they’re doing this here first.

You mean, because there are a lot of people who use the bus and will benefit from more frequent buses that don't get stuck in car traffic?

You think just because they’re lower middle class immigrants that they cannot afford to buy a car? That’s racist and demonstrates that you have spent very little time around there. Every home has 4 cars parked out front.

Yes, and? It is also true that a lot of people currently use the buses that run on University Boulevard. It's a high-ridership route. I don't know how it can be racist to state the fact that a lot of people use the C buses and RideOn 8 and 9 - including people who can't afford a car, people who can't drive (kids, many old people, many disabled people), and even people who have a car and can drive but nonetheless find the bus more convenient for a particular trip. It's not like, if your household has a car, you have to use that car every time you go anywhere.

Provide the data. Double that either would rank among the top 20 routes in the county.

Find it yourself, or don't, I don't care. Or hey, here's an idea: use the bus yourself!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But why have facts when you can just push the same policies everywhere regardless of the differences in each locale? Density, multimodal transit, bike lanes = good. Cars, SFH, any space that isn’t housing = devil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news! Thanks for letting me know.

The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.

Some of that is ok, but the BRT is stupid and the residents should be looking to line up their lawyers ASAP.

Lots of immigrants along University. I think they are just trying to get through long working hours to survive. They're not going to be calling lawyers about BRT.

Someone in this thread appears to be working for the planning commission and has no idea of this area and location? Are you saying this is a poor area so you are pushing this through? Have you even discussed with local residents?

It’s quite disturbing, honestly. It’s not even a poor area. They are working hard though to try and make what has become naturally occurring affordable housing more expensive. Meanwhile, Planning totally ignores actual poor areas like Aspen Hill.

Plus a lot of the area is middle class and can hire attorneys if they aren’t attornirs themselves, AND this isn’t just a single corridor issue. It’s a county issue. If they do this on University they will just push on to the next corridor plan. Then the next. The county is counting on the fact that people elsewhere in MoCo won’t care about a plan in another part of the county. Any defense against it needs to be holistic.

[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.

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.

This is so weird. You just want density for density’s sake.

[Anonymous]

I just don’t understand the more housing when I see all the new condos/apartments/townhomes in Rockville, 20906 (Silver Spring new apartments?), downtown Silver Spring constant relentless building. There seems no rhyme or aesthetics to it?

So why the push for this housing here now? Just do the sidewalks, bike paths, and BRT. We do not need more dense housing near Blair (already bursting at the seams with students).

[Anonymous]

It’s not even that I’m against it, it’s that they won’t paint a clear picture and hold meetings where one can’t see the others online or even how many are in attendance, chat is disabled, questions aren’t shown unless approved/answered/, polls are given and one has less than a minute to process the info and answer, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the more housing when I see all the new condos/apartments/townhomes in Rockville, 20906 (Silver Spring new apartments?), downtown Silver Spring constant relentless building. There seems no rhyme or aesthetics to it?

So why the push for this housing here now? Just do the sidewalks, bike paths, and BRT. We do not need more dense housing near Blair (already bursting at the seams with students).

Very little of the area involved here is zoned for Blair.

[Anonymous]

The 4Corners plan is.

[Anonymous]

The 4Corners plan is. Unless our neighborhood is being rezoned to Northwood of which many would be unaware.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great news! Thanks for letting me know.

The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.

Some of that is ok, but the BRT is stupid and the residents should be looking to line up their lawyers ASAP.

Lots of immigrants along University. I think they are just trying to get through long working hours to survive. They're not going to be calling lawyers about BRT.

That’s why they’re doing this here first.

You mean, because there are a lot of people who use the bus and will benefit from more frequent buses that don't get stuck in car traffic?

You think just because they’re lower middle class immigrants that they cannot afford to buy a car? That’s racist and demonstrates that you have spent very little time around there. Every home has 4 cars parked out front.

Yes, and? It is also true that a lot of people currently use the buses that run on University Boulevard. It's a high-ridership route. I don't know how it can be racist to state the fact that a lot of people use the C buses and RideOn 8 and 9 - including people who can't afford a car, people who can't drive (kids, many old people, many disabled people), and even people who have a car and can drive but nonetheless find the bus more convenient for a particular trip. It's not like, if your household has a car, you have to use that car every time you go anywhere.

Provide the data. Double that either would rank among the top 20 routes in the county.

Find it yourself, or don't, I don't care. Or hey, here's an idea: use the bus yourself!

You’re the one claiming that these are heavily utilized bus routes and you don’t have any proof snd refuse to provide any proof?

So you just lied? What are you trying to accomplish with this lying about a zoning plan in an area that you don’t live in and don’t even know and understand who lives there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t understand the more housing when I see all the new condos/apartments/townhomes in Rockville, 20906 (Silver Spring new apartments?), downtown Silver Spring constant relentless building. There seems no rhyme or aesthetics to it?

So why the push for this housing here now? Just do the sidewalks, bike paths, and BRT. We do not need more dense housing near Blair (already bursting at the seams with students).

Very little of the area involved here is zoned for Blair.

It's all DCC, though, and DCC is overbooked. Projections show it will be overbooked in 5 years, too, even after the additional Northwood capacity comes online. And that isn't even considering overcrowding at area elementaries. And all of that is without this additional density.