Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they want to drop the missing middle rezoning proposal and just do this one maybe that is a reasonable compromise, but upzoning everything is a bad idea. Vision zero is idiotic and unrealistic though. The goal of reducing traffic fatalities attainable, but we need to balance operational concerns with safety improvements. The only way to achieve basically zero traffic deaths would be to reduce speed limit to 15 mph everywhere. Ridiculous policy goals like vision zero will harm society more than it helps.

How many deaths do you think it's worth for you to get somewhere 5 minutes faster in your car? How about 10 minutes faster in your car? Also, is it ok for people in your family to be killed or seriously injured in a car crash, or should car crash deaths and serious injuries be limited to people in other people's families?

You are ignoring the real-world trade offs that are involved in something like vision zero. Traffic deaths will never be zero unless we reduce the speed limits to 15 mph everywhere. There are very serious and negative consequences to reducing the speed limits substantially. For example, my doctors office that is now 30 around minutes away will take me around 1 hour and 30 minutes to get to if we lower the speed limit to 15mph. Multiply increases in transportation time across all of the county residents and the amount of time wasted will be astronomical. MOCO only has 39 traffic deaths per year on average. Applying the average demographics of MOCO residents indicates the the each of these people that die in a car accident are losing about 341,871 hours of their life. So any policy that waste more than this amount of other peoples time each year for every death prevented in car accidents is not a smart policy decision. Increasing the average daily driving time by 6 minutes a day for even 10,000 county residents wastes more hours than of peoples time than the hours of life gained by a single person who does not die in a car accident. I am supportive of policies that reduce traffic deaths given that a sufficient cost-benefit analysis is conducted. But it is foolish to pretend that any of these policies provide a free lunch. There are tradeoffs with pursuing policies and the vision zero proponents are largely ignoring this.

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:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

They literally are soliciting input. The whole ostensible point of this thread is tell people about meetings where they are soliciting input.

They're checking off a box before they plow ahead with their plan they came up with in Cities:Skylines.

It sounds like you're not complaining about failure to solicit input. You're complaining about anticipated failure to get your way.

I'm complaining about their failure to actually listen to input. Soliciting and listening are two different things. These neighborhoods work fine as is. Don't disrupt the lives of middle class families for your urban dystopian fantasies

Suppose they actually listen to your input, but they still don't do what you want? Or is it only "actually listening to" if they do what you want?

I always think it's weird when people describe duplexes or apartments as dystopian fantasies, but I find it especially weird in the context of University Boulevard.

It sounds to me like you're afraid of change, and I'm sorry for that.

It’s not “on University,” that might make a little bit of sense. It’s 500 feet into the neighborhoods which could be several streets. I’d be pretty angry if I was in that zone and also angry about the schools and all of the cars parked everywhere. Oh, I forgot, they will all take the new magic bus everywhere.

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:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

They literally are soliciting input. The whole ostensible point of this thread is tell people about meetings where they are soliciting input.

They're checking off a box before they plow ahead with their plan they came up with in Cities:Skylines.

It sounds like you're not complaining about failure to solicit input. You're complaining about anticipated failure to get your way.

I'm complaining about their failure to actually listen to input. Soliciting and listening are two different things. These neighborhoods work fine as is. Don't disrupt the lives of middle class families for your urban dystopian fantasies

NP. Some people will be for this (I am and this is where I live) and some people will be against it. You not getting your way isn't the same as "not listening to input."

Anyone that has paid attention knows that this was pre decided and they have been laying the groundwork for years. Even the way that these items are studied and approved are compartmentalized so that you never see the big picture, and that keeps residents from aggregating their power. “Oh, that’s university, not near me…”

The YIMBY cult is worse than Scientology. At least the Scientologists mostly keep to themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

They literally are soliciting input. The whole ostensible point of this thread is tell people about meetings where they are soliciting input.

They're checking off a box before they plow ahead with their plan they came up with in Cities:Skylines.

It sounds like you're not complaining about failure to solicit input. You're complaining about anticipated failure to get your way.

I'm complaining about their failure to actually listen to input. Soliciting and listening are two different things. These neighborhoods work fine as is. Don't disrupt the lives of middle class families for your urban dystopian fantasies

Suppose they actually listen to your input, but they still don't do what you want? Or is it only "actually listening to" if they do what you want?

I always think it's weird when people describe duplexes or apartments as dystopian fantasies, but I find it especially weird in the context of University Boulevard.

It sounds to me like you're afraid of change, and I'm sorry for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

This seems like a boondoggle in the making. Why do so many planners insist on making a single road all things to all people? How do you make a 6+ lane through-road a complete street and a vision zero street at the same time? University is a mess currently because its trying to do too much at once.

No one is going to want to walk/bike next to hundreds of cars going 35+.

They will try to push this through and then do the same on Colesville and 500 feet in there will be duplexes and apartments, and all parking their cars in the street be air of recent MCC legislation. The schools in the area are crowded enough!

It’s sick.

Apartments! On University Boulevard! The horror!

Oh oh, the five vocal masochist YIMBY MoCo folks are here to repeatedly post to make it seem like they have lots of support.

Are you familiar with University Boulevard?

I’m not sure that people object to transportation changes just the zoning changes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

They literally are soliciting input. The whole ostensible point of this thread is tell people about meetings where they are soliciting input.

They're checking off a box before they plow ahead with their plan they came up with in Cities:Skylines.

It sounds like you're not complaining about failure to solicit input. You're complaining about anticipated failure to get your way.

I'm complaining about their failure to actually listen to input. Soliciting and listening are two different things. These neighborhoods work fine as is. Don't disrupt the lives of middle class families for your urban dystopian fantasies

NP. Some people will be for this (I am and this is where I live) and some people will be against it. You not getting your way isn't the same as "not listening to input."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

They literally are soliciting input. The whole ostensible point of this thread is tell people about meetings where they are soliciting input.

They're checking off a box before they plow ahead with their plan they came up with in Cities:Skylines.

It sounds like you're not complaining about failure to solicit input. You're complaining about anticipated failure to get your way.

I'm complaining about their failure to actually listen to input. Soliciting and listening are two different things. These neighborhoods work fine as is. Don't disrupt the lives of middle class families for your urban dystopian fantasies

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

They literally are soliciting input. The whole ostensible point of this thread is tell people about meetings where they are soliciting input.

They're checking off a box before they plow ahead with their plan they came up with in Cities:Skylines.

It sounds like you're not complaining about failure to solicit input. You're complaining about anticipated failure to get your way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

They literally are soliciting input. The whole ostensible point of this thread is tell people about meetings where they are soliciting input.

They're checking off a box before they plow ahead with their plan they came up with in Cities:Skylines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

I look forward to checking back in with you in a couple years when this turns into an inevitable ghetto to see you defend it.

A lot of University Blvd is already "the ghetto."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

This seems like a boondoggle in the making. Why do so many planners insist on making a single road all things to all people? How do you make a 6+ lane through-road a complete street and a vision zero street at the same time? University is a mess currently because its trying to do too much at once.

No one is going to want to walk/bike next to hundreds of cars going 35+.

How do you make a 6+ lane through-road into a complete street and vision zero street? Like this: https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets

Plenty of people are currently, right now, walking/biking next to hundreds of cars going 35+ - with narrow sidewalks, uncomfortable public transportation stops, and dangerous crossings. As you say, University Boulevard is a through road. There aren't really any good alternatives. So that's why it needs to work for everybody.

Complete Streets is actually a terrible concept. I've never seen a Complete Street of any real size that works. Its all soundbite and no substance.

Only two things work: 1. Separating unlike transportation modes as much as possible, and limiting their interactions. 2. Make everyone share the same space at the speed of the most vulnerable road user.

#1 is why things like the beltway work better than University, and why Metro Rail beats Metro Bus and why the North East Corridor trains actually work, but Amtrak is never on time elsewhere. Its also why people bike more on trails than on busy roads.

#2 is what you get in a woonerf or in some of those developments without sidewalks. Its also the logic behind "20 is plenty"

The problem with the University area is that it was built in a suburban "fish bone" design, which funnels almost all traffic onto University. You can't fix that design problem with the solutions presented. Either leave it alone, or do a bigger project to redesign the entire corridor.

Alternatively, do what you can to make things better, recognizing that it won't be perfect, but also recognizing that "less bad" is an improvement over "bad."

University Boulevard right now is terrible for everyone. There's no reason we should have to accept that, especially not when there are plenty of ways to improve it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

They literally are soliciting input. The whole ostensible point of this thread is tell people about meetings where they are soliciting input.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

This seems like a boondoggle in the making. Why do so many planners insist on making a single road all things to all people? How do you make a 6+ lane through-road a complete street and a vision zero street at the same time? University is a mess currently because its trying to do too much at once.

No one is going to want to walk/bike next to hundreds of cars going 35+.

How do you make a 6+ lane through-road into a complete street and vision zero street? Like this: https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets

Plenty of people are currently, right now, walking/biking next to hundreds of cars going 35+ - with narrow sidewalks, uncomfortable public transportation stops, and dangerous crossings. As you say, University Boulevard is a through road. There aren't really any good alternatives. So that's why it needs to work for everybody.

Complete Streets is actually a terrible concept. I've never seen a Complete Street of any real size that works. Its all soundbite and no substance.

Only two things work: 1. Separating unlike transportation modes as much as possible, and limiting their interactions. 2. Make everyone share the same space at the speed of the most vulnerable road user.

#1 is why things like the beltway work better than University, and why Metro Rail beats Metro Bus and why the North East Corridor trains actually work, but Amtrak is never on time elsewhere. Its also why people bike more on trails than on busy roads.

#2 is what you get in a woonerf or in some of those developments without sidewalks. Its also the logic behind "20 is plenty"

The problem with the University area is that it was built in a suburban "fish bone" design, which funnels almost all traffic onto University. You can't fix that design problem with the solutions presented. Either leave it alone, or do a bigger project to redesign the entire corridor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Go move to a city then. I moved to the suburbs for a reason.

and the reason is?

Because I like having space and not living on top of people. Let people who want to live in SFH do that in peace. Stop pretending you know what's best for everyone.

Nobody is going to take your house away from you. You can stop worrying.

No they'll just throw an apartment building up next to me

Well, then you will have two choices. Choice 1: stay. Choice 2: sell and move somewhere else. I don't think the county's housing policy should be based on your desire to not live next to a building that has apartments.

So they shouldn't solicit input from people who this will impact most? That's the kind of top down governing I've come to expect from this county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

This seems like a boondoggle in the making. Why do so many planners insist on making a single road all things to all people? How do you make a 6+ lane through-road a complete street and a vision zero street at the same time? University is a mess currently because its trying to do too much at once.

No one is going to want to walk/bike next to hundreds of cars going 35+.

They will try to push this through and then do the same on Colesville and 500 feet in there will be duplexes and apartments, and all parking their cars in the street be air of recent MCC legislation. The schools in the area are crowded enough!

It’s sick.

Apartments! On University Boulevard! The horror!

Oh oh, the five vocal masochist YIMBY MoCo folks are here to repeatedly post to make it seem like they have lots of support.

Are you familiar with University Boulevard?