Reply to MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

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

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

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

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

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

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

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.[/quote]

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

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

I support abolishing required parking minimums.[/quote]

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

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

However, you're making two big assumptions.

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

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

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

Those things are wrong based on what, your personal anecdote?[/quote]

Why do you think either of these beliefs are correct?

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

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

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

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

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

Why should our transportation policy enable people's love of driving? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics