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: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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 people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

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?

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!

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

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

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.

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: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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 people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

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?

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!

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

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

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: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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 people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

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?

A lot of people in the area are furries, but are there enough that we should be basing policy on their choices?

Honestly there are probably more furries than bus riders.

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: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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.

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

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. 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. But you have to let the market decide, right?

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.

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: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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 people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

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?

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about bus vs. car. Not much talk about other infrastructure -- school & utility capacity, etc., the higher burden of modifying these in communities already built to current detached SFH zoning vs. building them to need with greenfield development, and the low probability of their being addressed by the county in a timely manner, given the deficiencies that the county has allowed to accumulate over the past 30-40 years.

Lots of talk about a need to ensure housing. Not a lot of talk about that being a regional issue, one for which a policy of increased density without infrastructure pursued by one jurisdiction to the detriment of its citizenry will afford free-ridership to the citizenry of other jurisdictions.

Repeated references to examples from cities where density increases have been permitted. Not much acknowledgement that those are the urban areas, themselves, that considered/adopted those policies as an approach for their whole region. No references to success stories for the residing citizenry from suburban density increases pursued independently by a single suburban jurisdiction.

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: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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 people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

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?

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!

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: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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 people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

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?

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: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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 people are not going to ride the bus frequently regardless of what idiotic policy ideas implemented by the planning department.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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.

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

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. 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. But you have to let the market decide, right?

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.

I think you're making a lot of leaps here about what I am assuming. My statement is true if people prefer driving as the least bad alternative. That's far from assuming people love driving. There's strong demand for parking, to the point that units would not be marketable to the higher income households that are targeted by new development without dedicated parking.

So if they are presented with a better alternative, they may start taking it, right?

Yes, of course. That’s obviously implicit in what I said.

But a better alternative is not just a transportation problem. It’s also a jobs problem. (Funny how the county’s vision for 15-minute living never includes jobs.) As long as the job growth is concentrated in Tysons and the Dulles corridor, there’s going to be very strong demand for parking and driving in MoCo. We are decades away from having a good mass transit solution for getting people from MoCo to Tysons/Dulles but we could attract jobs and rebuild the county’s economy much faster than that. Until then, people will prefer driving.

There are other draws for driving — such as recreation facilities not being served by quality mass transit — but jobs are really the primary driving factor.

There is this weird notion that people want to work within 15 minutes. In one sense, yes, of course. But why would anyone limit their job searches to within 15 minutes of their homes. I understand retail workers maybe, because they are everywhere. But DMV has great jobs everywhere. If a better job requires an extra 15-30 minutes to get there, I course will apply and I would not move.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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.

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

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. 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. But you have to let the market decide, right?

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.

I think you're making a lot of leaps here about what I am assuming. My statement is true if people prefer driving as the least bad alternative. That's far from assuming people love driving. There's strong demand for parking, to the point that units would not be marketable to the higher income households that are targeted by new development without dedicated parking.

So if they are presented with a better alternative, they may start taking it, right?

Yes, of course. That’s obviously implicit in what I said.

But a better alternative is not just a transportation problem. It’s also a jobs problem. (Funny how the county’s vision for 15-minute living never includes jobs.) As long as the job growth is concentrated in Tysons and the Dulles corridor, there’s going to be very strong demand for parking and driving in MoCo. We are decades away from having a good mass transit solution for getting people from MoCo to Tysons/Dulles but we could attract jobs and rebuild the county’s economy much faster than that. Until then, people will prefer driving.

There are other draws for driving — such as recreation facilities not being served by quality mass transit — but jobs are really the primary driving factor.

DP. You're right, it's not just a transportation problem, it's also a land use problem.

Most of the trips that most people make are not the commute to work. Transportation policy focuses on the commute to work and ignores all other trips. If people who currently use their cars for everything, including the drive to work, continued to drive to work but switched to a different mode for their other trips, we would already be in a much better place.

YIMBYs love quoting this fact and it’s true when you measure the number of trips. But a lot of people spend 10 hours or more a week commuting to and from work and the only way they can get there in that amount of time is by car so it’s not really relevant to how people live. If you need a car for work, you need a car and a place to park it so all of the parking that developers build is a reaction to that. Very few people spend 10 hours driving to errands over a week.

The world would be a better place if people could walk or bike for other trips but it’s hard to get the kind of retail density you need to enable that without a lot of high-paying white collar jobs in the neighborhood. With those jobs in the neighborhood, retailers have traffic throughout the day so you can get more retailers in the neighborhood. That MoCo’s jobless urbanism was going to result in neither the housing nor the retail to enable any version of 15-minute living for all but a small number of people was obvious from the time they started on it.

If you’re supporting the status quo approach to land use in MoCo for environmental reasons you need to focus on what land use can do to promote job growth — along with other economic tools. If jobs come, housing and retail will follow, and car dependency will diminish. Otherwise, start lobbying for a more walkable Tysons because you’ll make more progress in achieving your goal.

It sure is. Also, when the car is parked, it's not contributing to the car traffic that the other posters are raising alarms about.

It is actually not hard at all to get retail density without a lot of high-paying white collar jobs in the neighborhood. There are plenty of examples right now, right here in Montgomery County. It's just that most of this retail density is unfortunately accompanied by overly large parking lots. And it's also in areas where posters in the typical DCUM demographics don't go.

As with housing, the retail density has parking because it’s necessary to make the location work. There aren’t enough people within 15 minutes to support the retail unless you add car trips into the transportation mix. You’ve proven my point but you seem to keep wanting to try jobless urbanism. It’s not going to work, so shrinkflation and stagflation will continue to rule the housing market, making everything worse for everybody.

Not that much parking. Unless you're saying the location can't work for retail unless it has a parking lot that's never more than half or two thirds full? But that would be a silly thing to say. Thing about all of the neighborhood shopping centers with grocery stores. Have you ever seen those parking lots be full? They're not even full on the day before Thanksgiving. Meanwhile people who walk to the store, or take the bus to the store, are invisible. Builders don't know, store owners don't know (except Megamart), you don't know.

We've been building for cars, so we get cars, so we see cars, so we have to keep building for cars...

Believe me: They know. Developers’ ROI is based on how effectively they monetize land, so those who waste space on underutilized parking don’t attract new capital and won’t be in business for long. Demographics has gotten really sophisticated at predicting pattern of life. Same for retailers. It’s all about location and optimizing land use at good locations. You may not know, but they know.

No, they don't know. They think they know. That's not the same thing.

And even if they did know, that doesn't do anything about the large empty parking lots that already exist.

If they think they know but are frequently wrong then they will go out of business. They haven’t gone out of business, so they probably are right most of the time.

A lot of these large empty parking lots exist because the location is failing. I’m thinking of places like Hillandale and Viers Mill Village where disposable income in the immediate has fallen in real terms. The parking lot isn’t empty because more people are taking the bus. The parking lot is empty because fewer people are going there.

Part of the problem with cars is that if people have one they’re probably going to use it and they’re going to think of their pattern of life in terms of where they can get in car. You try to take wins in eliminating short trips but you’re not eliminating most of the time people spend in cars or the reason for owning a car. You’re shooting for a rec league participation trophy when we need to be trying to win the World Cup. Why do you resist job growth so much?

That's a big assumption right there.

Since you mention Hillandale and Viers Mill Village, though - yes, from what I see, those are shopping centers where a lot of people arrive by not-car.

Why do you think job growth is the solution to bad transportation and land use policies? And what policies do you want the county to adopt to encourage job growth?

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:

Anonymous wrote: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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.

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

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. 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. But you have to let the market decide, right?

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.

I think you're making a lot of leaps here about what I am assuming. My statement is true if people prefer driving as the least bad alternative. That's far from assuming people love driving. There's strong demand for parking, to the point that units would not be marketable to the higher income households that are targeted by new development without dedicated parking.

So if they are presented with a better alternative, they may start taking it, right?

Yes, of course. That’s obviously implicit in what I said.

But a better alternative is not just a transportation problem. It’s also a jobs problem. (Funny how the county’s vision for 15-minute living never includes jobs.) As long as the job growth is concentrated in Tysons and the Dulles corridor, there’s going to be very strong demand for parking and driving in MoCo. We are decades away from having a good mass transit solution for getting people from MoCo to Tysons/Dulles but we could attract jobs and rebuild the county’s economy much faster than that. Until then, people will prefer driving.

There are other draws for driving — such as recreation facilities not being served by quality mass transit — but jobs are really the primary driving factor.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

Real world data shows that improving transit increases transit usage.

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.

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

I support abolishing required parking minimums.

The county already abolished parking minimums. 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. But you have to let the market decide, right?

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.

I think you're making a lot of leaps here about what I am assuming. My statement is true if people prefer driving as the least bad alternative. That's far from assuming people love driving. There's strong demand for parking, to the point that units would not be marketable to the higher income households that are targeted by new development without dedicated parking.

So if they are presented with a better alternative, they may start taking it, right?

Yes, of course. That’s obviously implicit in what I said.

But a better alternative is not just a transportation problem. It’s also a jobs problem. (Funny how the county’s vision for 15-minute living never includes jobs.) As long as the job growth is concentrated in Tysons and the Dulles corridor, there’s going to be very strong demand for parking and driving in MoCo. We are decades away from having a good mass transit solution for getting people from MoCo to Tysons/Dulles but we could attract jobs and rebuild the county’s economy much faster than that. Until then, people will prefer driving.

There are other draws for driving — such as recreation facilities not being served by quality mass transit — but jobs are really the primary driving factor.

DP. You're right, it's not just a transportation problem, it's also a land use problem.

Most of the trips that most people make are not the commute to work. Transportation policy focuses on the commute to work and ignores all other trips. If people who currently use their cars for everything, including the drive to work, continued to drive to work but switched to a different mode for their other trips, we would already be in a much better place.

YIMBYs love quoting this fact and it’s true when you measure the number of trips. But a lot of people spend 10 hours or more a week commuting to and from work and the only way they can get there in that amount of time is by car so it’s not really relevant to how people live. If you need a car for work, you need a car and a place to park it so all of the parking that developers build is a reaction to that. Very few people spend 10 hours driving to errands over a week.

The world would be a better place if people could walk or bike for other trips but it’s hard to get the kind of retail density you need to enable that without a lot of high-paying white collar jobs in the neighborhood. With those jobs in the neighborhood, retailers have traffic throughout the day so you can get more retailers in the neighborhood. That MoCo’s jobless urbanism was going to result in neither the housing nor the retail to enable any version of 15-minute living for all but a small number of people was obvious from the time they started on it.

If you’re supporting the status quo approach to land use in MoCo for environmental reasons you need to focus on what land use can do to promote job growth — along with other economic tools. If jobs come, housing and retail will follow, and car dependency will diminish. Otherwise, start lobbying for a more walkable Tysons because you’ll make more progress in achieving your goal.

It sure is. Also, when the car is parked, it's not contributing to the car traffic that the other posters are raising alarms about.

It is actually not hard at all to get retail density without a lot of high-paying white collar jobs in the neighborhood. There are plenty of examples right now, right here in Montgomery County. It's just that most of this retail density is unfortunately accompanied by overly large parking lots. And it's also in areas where posters in the typical DCUM demographics don't go.

As with housing, the retail density has parking because it’s necessary to make the location work. There aren’t enough people within 15 minutes to support the retail unless you add car trips into the transportation mix. You’ve proven my point but you seem to keep wanting to try jobless urbanism. It’s not going to work, so shrinkflation and stagflation will continue to rule the housing market, making everything worse for everybody.

Not that much parking. Unless you're saying the location can't work for retail unless it has a parking lot that's never more than half or two thirds full? But that would be a silly thing to say. Thing about all of the neighborhood shopping centers with grocery stores. Have you ever seen those parking lots be full? They're not even full on the day before Thanksgiving. Meanwhile people who walk to the store, or take the bus to the store, are invisible. Builders don't know, store owners don't know (except Megamart), you don't know.

We've been building for cars, so we get cars, so we see cars, so we have to keep building for cars...

Believe me: They know. Developers’ ROI is based on how effectively they monetize land, so those who waste space on underutilized parking don’t attract new capital and won’t be in business for long. Demographics has gotten really sophisticated at predicting pattern of life. Same for retailers. It’s all about location and optimizing land use at good locations. You may not know, but they know.

No, they don't know. They think they know. That's not the same thing.

And even if they did know, that doesn't do anything about the large empty parking lots that already exist.

If they think they know but are frequently wrong then they will go out of business. They haven’t gone out of business, so they probably are right most of the time.

A lot of these large empty parking lots exist because the location is failing. I’m thinking of places like Hillandale and Viers Mill Village where disposable income in the immediate has fallen in real terms. The parking lot isn’t empty because more people are taking the bus. The parking lot is empty because fewer people are going there.

Part of the problem with cars is that if people have one they’re probably going to use it and they’re going to think of their pattern of life in terms of where they can get in car. You try to take wins in eliminating short trips but you’re not eliminating most of the time people spend in cars or the reason for owning a car. You’re shooting for a rec league participation trophy when we need to be trying to win the World Cup. Why do you resist job growth so much?