Mt Vernon or Bolton Hill (not much for shops in Bolton Hill, but it is near mt vernon that does have shops).

Bolton Hill is a great neighborhood. there is a block where half of it was turned into a park and closed to through traffic. my dream is that this city becomes less car-dominated and more places like that can exist where people can just relax and enjoy sitting on a bench. I bike over to On The Hill and then go to that block to eat.

but to answer your question: I think you hear about the crime there because most of the time it is very quiet and peaceful. in reality, there is campus security around from MICA which helps keep some of the riff-raff out, but there is always going to be some BS. the best thing is to just try to go out less when there aren't other people out and about. when driving, if someone seems to be watching you/your car in a shady way, circle the block or park elsewhere.

yeah, it's crazy how bad many city government systems are (not just baltimore). the US Conference of Mayors should really pool together to contract the creation of tools for handling basic city functions. or maybe the federal government should do it.

I've had to deal with this. I ended up just paying them because the process for getting them cleared was so hard. I had to snail-mail a request for a police report... like, you can't even request over the phone or online. not sure if it has changed since, but what a pain.

I think there are a couple of local ceramics/clayworks art studios around. I've only ever seen them at flea market type things, but there are probably ways to go to the studio to shop or to find a local shot that carries them.

Are the ingredients some cheese and some port wine?

the priority of things for our light rail is:

1. frequency and reliability. 15min headway is too long for anyone to take it seriously as a mode of transit. it becomes "transit of last resort" when the wait is that long. this is made even worse by the low reliability. I've waited 10min for a train that the sign said was getting closer... then nothing. take out phone, see that the light rail is fucked up today (with no indication at the station), and just call an Uber because now I don't have time to go take the bus. it's stupid. now, I bike or scooter everywhere within the city and either drive or Uber if I'm going outside the city or to the airport.
2. comfort and cleanliness. if people feel like it's sketchy/unsafe or dirty, they will be less inclined to use it. this shows in transit survey after transit survey throughout the US, but transit agencies struggle to do anything about it, as it would basically require a security guard on every train, which isn't in the budget.
3. good first/last mile connections. MTA is really bad at getting people to/from the light rail. buses are unreliable and infrequent, and they refuse to subsidize rental bikes/scooters.

I think we should be keeping an eye on Siemens' driverless trams. if we can remove the requirement for a driver, we can run them more frequently AND put security on the trains/trams. not sure if we can really do much about the track maintenance problems that frequently put it out of service. we can separate the RoW a bit more and install gates across the roadway to reduce the collisions with cars, which could help a bit.

that said, I really think it is a mistake for the US to build surface level transit. our politicians don't have the backbone to give it true priority over cars like is needed to make it frequent and fast, so it will always suck.

also, if I recall correctly, our metro and our light rail have the same track gauge. we should turn both the light rail and our metro into a fully-automated tram, each with a 3min-5min headway. sharing the same rolling stock would help reduce maintenance costs and larger vehicle orders generally get a much better deal from the manufacturers

In addition to the red line, MTA really needs to work on first/last mile. Subsidizing rental bike/scooters rental would be a good start

again, it't not an either-or situation. I don't know why I have to keep explaining this. for trips within the city, scooters and bikes are better. if you're commuting to DC, then bikes and scooters make a good first/last mile mode. traditional transit and bike/scooters complement each other.

you can try to ignore that I was talking about within Baltimore and be a douche for no reason if you want, but it's hardly useful to anything but feeding your own ego. honestly, what value do you get in intentionally misinterpreting what I said? does it actually make you feel good? I do't understand. please explain it to me.

you're right, I don't take Baltimore's transit because I don't work in DC and I own a bike, which means I can get anywhere in the city easier, faster, and cheaper than taking transit. if I do need to go to DC, I either bring my bike or I rent a scooter when I get there because a bike or scooter still outperforms DC's transit for trips of less than about 8 miles (depending on the route).

so I'll ask again, if you think there is no value at all in bikes or scooters, please, lets wager and have a race WITHIN BALTIMORE CITY. we can throw darts at a map and race between, say, 4-5 locations.

Why should bikes/scooters break even? If people prefer them to transit, we should subsidize them like buses. A monthly charm pass actually costs about $300-350.

Also, I'm not saying we should replace buses with scooters/bikes, we can have both.

Also, if you don't think bikes/scooters are good transportation, would you like to wager on a race? Throw some darts at a map of Baltimore city and see who gets to each location the fastest, you on transit and me on a bike.

Unfortunately, it's a catch 22 where people don't want to build bike lane because they don't see people biking, but people don't like to bike without any separation. Subsidizing scooters and bike will help by letting the brave people have easy transportation

short rides cost more because there is a fixed fee to start. an 8min ride would be a much shorter distance than the average bus trip. also, many of those companies offer subscriptions that offer a handful of free rides per day. if memory serves, one of them was $16. compare that to the unsubsidized cost of a monthly transit pass of about $300-$350.

​

the problem with the docked bikes is that they're more expensive to manage and not as convenient because they aren't as distributed. docked can work somewhat ok as long as an efficient company is running it. the city running it would be multiple times more expensive. simply not worth it, especially given that it's so unlikely that it would be done well.

FYI, the buses in Baltimore cost about $3 per passenger mile.

If they were subsidized like buses, they would be more energy efficient and faster.

Which rental mobility scooters are available?

The city should really just subsidize rental bikes and scooters. Some of the rental companies offer 3 wheeled seated scooters, so you can just sit and press the GO button. It would be cheaper than the buses.

It's still good, and I would think highly of it had I not known how good it used to be

Putin is the return of Soviet style leadership, not a departure

It was doomed from the start. It basically depended on everyone being honest and altruistic at all times. The moment you have people elevating loyal followers or exercising their power for personal or factional gain, then the leadership will naturally move more factional and more sycophantic

homelessness, violence, and a police/SAO that won't do anything about low level crimes and this is what you get.

in Baltimore, food trucks cannot operate between midnight and 6am, and they cannot operate within 300ft of anywhere that sells food. stupid rules.

the fuck is wrong with you? of course stand your ground is bullshit. if you can get away, you should get away. castle doctrine is fine, but stand-your-ground is fucking moronic.

>The answer to "why is a Danish company moving its US HQ to Times Square?" is only "free Tile trackers!"

first off, I said that relocations happen often, but that we have to think about making sure the city is a place where people want to live and work since we don't know the motivations of moving, which may include the perception of the city by prospective employees.

second, I gave multiple examples of things we should be considering, not one, and I did not imply that the examples I gave were an exhaustive list.

>if you got slapped on the back at the wrong moment during a TED talk in 2014 or so.

is lacking any explanation, and the the implied explanation wouldn't even make any sense. if you want to illustrate a point, explain the point and support it, don't just make flippant allusions and expect it to be taken as a serious and coherent argument. well, if you're arguing just to hear your own argument, then that is fine. if you want to have a discussion or to add any value, then form a coherent argument with your reply.

>The NYC property's going to be 1/3 the size of their square footage in Baltimore.

and you give no explanation as to why the size of the space should matter so much. are you saying that baltimore has no office space for rent that is 1/3rd of the size of their current offices? you don't explain, so it makes no sense.

>Given what the last 2-3 years have been like specifically in terms of commercial real estate, it's reasonable to think this would be playing out the same way even if we'd built out the entire Baltimore metro network and most people were commuting in via transit

I don't think you can make that assumption. if it was easier, safer, and more pleasant to work in the city, I think companies would be more inclined to have offices here. you just state that for "real estate reasons" the demand for baltimore office space would have nothing to do with transit and imply that it would have nothing to do with the city's reputation, public safety, or general livability/workability of the city. I don't think that makes sense because I think it should be obvious that those things do have an impact, and you did not explain why the real estate market would obviate those factors.

so, each of your points don't make sense. maybe you can make them make sense, but as-stated, they're not adding anything to the conversation.

none of what you said makes any sense.

we don't put as much money into our tourist districts or as much effort into making sure the criminals stay out of the tourist areas. cities with good tourism make more of an effort to keep armed squeegeers and dirtbikers out of the core tourist district.

there is a difference between thinking about their own budgets vs thinking about how a city can add jobs and tax revenue.