 |
| Bus Rapid Transit - are you ready to pay 5 new taxes for ...this? |
A supporter of the task force posted a comment on my article, saying the task force shouldn't be expected to listen to citizens until 3:00 AM. But Wednesday night, the D.C. Council did just that.
 |
| BRT will have its own lane, and take a car lane away from you on some of MoCo's most-congested roads, reducing automobile capacity by 33% on those routes |
Now, of course, the sensible thing to do in either jurisdiction would be to hold a second hearing, to accommodate the number of residents who wish to comment.
But what a great contrast. On the same day the task force shut off the phone lines, and shut out citizens to ensure a short evening for themselves (and let's be realistic, to limit the number of negative citizen comments, and make the opposition to the Independent Transit Authority and Bus Rapid Transit appear to be smaller than it is), the D.C. Council put in an all-nighter.
Embarrassing.
28 comments:
The City Paper article notes that the City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and councilmember Vincent Orange didn't bother to show up at all, and the rest essentially made cameo appearances.
"BRT will have its own lane, and take a car lane away from you on some of MoCo's most congested roads, reducing automobile capacity by 33% on those routes."
It's rather silly to cite the loss of capacity for single-occupant car trips, without citing the increase in capacity for trips by passengers riding the buses.
"Bus Rapid Transit - are you ready to pay 5 new taxes for...this?"
Why not show the type of bus that is actually proposed to be used on the BRT system?
What does this accomplish that written statements don't?
@ 8:29 AM - Much more opportunity for melodrama, histrionics and self-affirmation of uniquesnowflakeness.
So you're applauding DC for keeping up residents to 3am?
Why do you hate Dyer's Nighttime Economy, 8:47 AM?
How come Dyer didn't complain about that meeting starting at 5 PM?
Much easier to ignore written letters than angry citizens showing up in person.
I can see why they want letters instead.
Dyer, how many of the council members were there vs their "staff"
"Much easier to ignore written letters than angry citizens showing up in person."
Oh, really? What's to guarantee that the "angry citizens" won't be ignored after the meeting is over?
9:51: Not only was that in no way "breaking news", but your troll comnent was a desperate spam. Don't go to bed before the King.
Looks like the Task Force trolls landed here on your page Robert. How sad for them that they have no life. Thanks for the comparison with DC. That says everything.
What a waste of time. Glad their council members were barely there. Staffers are more than capable of compiling citizen comments and summarizing for the administration.
If every single citizen wanted to speak would you hear each and every one no matter how long it took? And repeat on every topic?
Normally meetings like this don't draw so many speakers that they need to restrict it. This topic is hotly contested, and that's why the list of speakers is so long. The council should consider if it's worth moving forward on this, given the huge amount of opposition.
Now that's a good practical point. Although there seem to be many controversial issues lately. They all seem to have high amounts of opposition.
What is everything that it says? That we should have longer sessions with just staffers instead of councilmembers? sure.
I don't understand what point Dyer is trying to make with the first photo.
Is he trying to suggest that only Mexicans ride buses?
6:53.stop spreading your misery on here, what an awful thing to say!
@ 9:41 PM - Your mascara is running, Tammy Fay.
7:29: The math doesn't support your argument. Taking a lane for BRT reduces capacity by 33%. BRT advocates have wildly, and overoptimistically claimed 16% of drivers will switch to BRT. But for the sake of argument, accept their fantasy number.
Then do the math - you've lost 33%, and gained 16% back. After spending all that BRT money, even under the most successful ridership scenario, you still end up with far *less* capacity than if you had done nothing.
Nuts, right?
BRT is just a regular bus, like the photos here show. They promised they would be rail-like sleek vehicles. Then the truth was exposed when they did a publicity stunt at the 2014 county fair, where the BRT vehicle was revealed to be...just a regular articulated Metro bus. You know, the kind people refuse to ride today.
"It's rather silly to cite the loss of capacity for single-occupant car trips, without citing the increase in capacity for trips by passengers riding the buses."
And when did you or any officials pushing this project relinquish driving your cars in order to take advantage of the bus instead?
Let me guess. You didn't. And there is always a reason why. You simply assume nebulous "others" will relinquish driving to take advantage of the bus. Of extra walking and waiting in winter. Of no coffeeholders. of no custom heater, privacy, comfort, convenience, independence, prowess.
Yes, some commute by bus due to traffic or being unusually close to necessary travel points via bus. Or due to necessity. To imagine that forcing increased traffic by car will suddenly cause flocks of drivers to opt instead for the bus is at best naive.
@ 5:29 PM: "BRT is just a regular bus, like the photos here show. They promised they would be rail-like sleek vehicles. Then the truth was exposed when they did a publicity stunt at the 2014 county fair, where the BRT vehicle was revealed to be...just a regular articulated Metro bus."
Each time I read another one of your straw men, I think that you couldn't possibly get any lamer... then you keep proving me wrong by exceeding your previous illogic and hyperbole.
@ 8:17 AM: "And when did you or any officials pushing this project relinquish driving your cars in order to take advantage of the bus instead?"
I "relinquish" my car on a regular basis. I walk, bike, take the bus or take the subway to most destinations.
"To imagine that forcing increased traffic by car will suddenly cause flocks of drivers to opt instead for the bus is at best naive."
You missed the point entirely. The reason that the bus lanes are being created is so that the buses won't be stuck behind all the single-occupant cars, and thus can move faster.
Fix Metro's dozens of problems first and then we can see if we need BRT.
Improved service on Metro will help the Wisconsin Avenue and Georgia Avenue corridors. But it will do nothing for the many other corridors that are part of the BRT proposal.
8:29: The problem is, if there aren't enough people aboard these fast-moving buses, giving them an existing car lane on a congested highway will make traffic worse, not better.
Your use of multimodal transportation is indeed to be commended. I, too, utilize Metro when my destination is on the Red Line in the District. I do think we have to be careful in taking a transit-only approach when the reality is still automobiles as thr primary transportation mode.
The bulk of Metro users are receiving public or private subsidies, and it appears to be an effective approach. Providing free transit is something that needs to be discussed if we are serious about getting more cars off the road. And even with that, the time factor or lack of connectivity will keep driving the most logical mode for many.
Does MoCo have any ability to fix metro's of problems?
Post a Comment