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][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]

It doesn’t increase usage enough to matter. There is basically nowhere in the US outside of Manhattan and a few other densely populated areas where people ride public transit for 50% or more of their trips. Manhattan has a population density that is 35x that of MOCO. Montgomery county will never have a population density to support the public transit utilization goals you want and this this policy goal is guaranteed to fail. The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents.It is  a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and [b]people are not going to ride the bus frequently[/b] regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department. [/quote]

People right now, currently, right here in Montgomery County, ride the bus frequently. People who are county residents! Or do you think that people who ride the bus frequently aren't people? [/quote]

DP.  This response clearly ignores the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, which would have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims.

In so doing, it sets up a strawman that the prior poster has such great prejudice clouding their judgement as to consider those riding the bus to be subhuman.  With plenty of constituencies that might consider themselves bus-rider-adjacent, in spirit if not in fact, the ground is fertile for such misrepresentation to dissuade those from fuller consideration of the point made, along with any aligned view.

Bravo, politico![/quote]

[b]You tell me what "people are not going to ride the bus frequently" means, then.[/b]

Here's the full sentence: "It is a magical belief because MOCO will never be Manhattan and [i]people are not going to ride the bus frequently [/i]regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department."[/quote]

It's sad that you deflect with this when the answer was stated in the first sentence of the post you question.

Again, well done, politico.[/quote]

How is it deflection? The PP literally said "people are not going to ride the bus frequently." Not most people, not the great majority of people, not people I know, not me and my friends. People.

And a few sentences later, the PP says "The only thing it will succeed at is destroying the quality of life for county residents."

It seems quite clear that, for the PP, only some people/county residents count as people/county residents.[/quote]

[b]You double down, here, on feigned daftness, trying to distract from the point.[/b]  For the benefit of others, as you seem intent on such avoidance, I'll reiterate the meaning you sought in your prior post, but clearly do not wish to acknowledge:

"the context of the prior post, and prior discussion, [would] have nearly all readers interpret that bolded phrase as meaning the great majority of people in MoCo are unlikely to choose to take the bus with the frequency that would be required to serve as a meaningful support for the currently proposed changes to zoning aimed at increased densities that appear intertwined with increased bus-transportation policy aims."[/quote]

Different people can have different opinions on what is "the point."

[u]Your[/u] point, I think, is made up of these components:

1. You don't take the bus, you don't plan to take the bus in the future, and you think other people like you don't/won't take the bus.
2. Therefore, potential residents of the potential new housing will drive.
3. When lots of people drive on the same roads at the same time, there is car traffic congestion.
4. Car traffic congestion is bad.
5. Therefore, there shouldn't be the potential new housing.[/quote]

Either you would be thinking incorrectly, then, or, more likely, given your immediate follow up post and the fact that you did not even bother to address the meaning quoted [i]for which you asked[/i], you would be presenting another strawman to avoid others' points with the hope of detracting from them for casual readers.

Your 1 doesn't apply.  Your 2 is incomplete hyperbole.  Your 3 is obvious.  Your 4 is slanted.  Your 5 draws a simplistic conclusion, the thrust of which might be reached in any case, if presented in a more nuanced manner and with more legitimately presented supports (transportation concern among them, but far from the only one).

All just more logically fallacious argument.  Again, the meaning proffered to your own question was:

Happy hunting, politico![/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