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

> but it’s not something that can be easily curtailed by just “adding more law enforcement”

this is exactly what I'm talking about. people keep thinking of this as a 1-dimensional problem of more/less of our existing law enforcement. it does not have to be. I even enumerated 2 simple things that could make a big impact (Tile trackers and license plate scanners), that are not simply "more police" but could make an impact.

>problems are systemic to citizens of this city being put down by government malfeasance, redlining, and lack of opportunity resulting from those prior two issues. This requires a large change through education (the schools need improvement, that’s obvious) and government incentive (potentially UBI) to encourage a shift in attitude that will take the course of decades.

I don't disagree, but those things need tax revenue and time. that's kind of the point. people want things like UBI and better schools but don't think about how little things like dirt bikers, or squeegee kids, or carjackers, driving away jobs and tax revenue.

while turnover of businesses is always going to happen, Baltimore city residents spend far too little time thinking about economics. if the city isn't a place people want to live and work, it will die. there is a "survivor bias" with us current residents. we, by nature of still being here, have accepted a certain amount of lawlessness and BS, so we tend to dismiss people's fears and annoyance with such things. however, we aren't the majority case. most people in the US don't want to live with the BS that happens in baltimore and will avoid the city, which includes people who work at large companies and make decisions about where their offices are located. the tax revenue lost by a squeegee kid shooting someone is astronomical. every carjacking is another huge loss. every gang shooting is a huge loss. if we want programs to help folks pull themselves out of poverty, we need tax revenue. it seems like folks are ok with the human tragedies that result from the BS in this city with people shot in carjackings or from squeegee kids, but even if you don't care about the victims of crimes, at least think about the economics of the situation and the revenue the city loses.

as unpopular is law enforcement is, it's a requirement for being a place where people live and work. we need to stop thinking about policing as a 1-dimensional line from "more shitty police or less shitty police" but start thinking about how to have better, more auditable, more effective police combined with evidence-based diversion, bond, and parole programs. the fact that we're not putting up more license plate scanners is a disgrace; that's the kind of police budget item that isn't corrupt. the fact that we won't try out a Tile program for tracking cars is ridiculous considering how little it would cost and how it puts the power in citizens' hands instead of the police's. there are actions we can take, but we're not taking them. we need a sense of urgency and we need a sense of "I'm not sure this will work, but lets give it a try"

I still don't think people should ride the wrong way on the street, but really any street with the room should automatically get a reverse-direction bike lane with bollards.

>Well, that is because scooters and bikes are also the fastest and most dangerous modes of transportation on sidewalks. A pedestrian, even in a wheelchair, has very little ability to hurt other people due to their movement. Bikes can and do kill people, so they require more regulation (just like cars have even more regulations than bikes because they are even more dangerous).

this is about parking of scooters, not them riding on sidewalks.

but if we want to have that conversation, mobility of handicapped folks AND safety of pedestrians, AND safety of bikes/scooters are improved if build some bike lanes.

>The problem with bikes and scooters is they try to enjoy the privileges of pedestrians while ignoring the fact that they have to obey traffic laws too.

that is exactly the point. bikes and scooters ARE like being a pedestrian and should be able to go both ways on any street. imagine if every sidewalk along a 1-way street could only be walked in one direction.

what you're saying is equivalent to: "I hate that people walk north on the sidewalk next to St. Paul street. why can't they just go over to Calvert sidewalks to walk north". it's ridiculous to force people walking to have to walk in the direction of cars. one-way streets only exist because of the shitty space efficiency and danger of cars.

just like pedestrians shouldn't have to walk only in one direction along the sidewalk, bikes/scooters should have a lane to go in both direction on each street.

our culture is so "Stockholm-syndromed" from cars that people just assume the car infrastructure is true, right, just, and handed down by god, and everything else must conform to them, and giving up single-digit percent of road space so that people don't have to do crazy circuitous routes to follow the dumbass car layout is unthinkable.

bikes and scooters don't need 1-way streets, just like pedestrians don't need 1-way sidewalks. one-way streets are a dumbass requirement because cars are a dumbass way to get around a city. the infrastructure should be updated so that people can use any other mode aside from a polluting, dangerous, lazy-boy on wheels. nobody is even asking to get rid of cars... just single-digit of space. that's it. but it's unthinkable...

what percentage of the Baltimore city DOT budget goes to bike lanes?

cool, thanks for updating me.

how did the no parking zones work? were they enforced? were there signs?

it's a problem of a really useful mode of transportation but the city infrastructure being totally car dominant. want to guess how much of the Amsterdam sidewalk/street infrastructure is set aside for bikes? one of, if not THE, world bike mecca is 7% dedicated bike infrastructure. 7%. people ride scooters the wrong way up the street because there is nowhere to ride them properly.

how spaced out are the corrals? scooters and bikes are the greenest, fastest, and all-around best mode of transportation within a city. I think people and the DOT over-react to minor violations while ignoring many other sidewalk issues. I have never seen a person on a wheelchair riding down the sidewalk next to the maryland ave bike lane; they ALWAYS ride in the bike lane because the sidewalks are not very passable just from trees, broken concrete, etc.. as a cyclist, I think that's great that we can have better bike infrastructure AND help handicapped folks get around easier.

if you really want to make the city more friendly to people with disabilities, build more bike lanes and subsidize scooter/bike rentals so everything isn't so car-dominant and pedestrian/ADA/cyclist unfriendly.

>Poor infrastructure design leads to rulebreaking. Being forced to stop and wait at a red light while there is no cross-traffic is a failure of infrastructure design. Every ticket written for running a red light is a failure of infrastructure design. A driver wouldn't
>
>be able to run a red light if a light only turned red to permit cross-traffic.

I disagree. first, as I noted above, Manhattan has constant cross traffic but people violate the red lights constantly. second, I'm pretty confident that people will try to squeeze through a light that just turned red regardless of whether there was cross traffic (as OP points out, having to not proceed on their green light because there are people in the intersection running the red). the infrastructure could maybe help some, but the cases where people pull up to the light, there is no cross traffic at all, then drive through the red are not the problem cases (most of the time). the problem cases are people flying through red lights after the other direction turned green and wants to go, or as happens at an intersection near me, people go when it turns green and get t-boned or clipped by people thinking they can make it because it just turned red and most of the time the traffic that has the green will wait for them. that kind of accident isn't solved by the timing of the lights, it's solved by behavioral correction.

>I'm doing no such thing lol. We're in a thread talking about people who run red lights. One reason people run red lights is because they're waiting while there is no cross traffic. Breaking the rules a little bit leads to breaking the rules a lot which leads to the chaos we have in our roads today. The only thing that will stop that without better infrastructure design is impounding offending vehicles, because rich people don't give a shit about tickets and poor people can't afford to pay tickets.

I appreciate that you're not a car-brain. however, even busy places like Manhattan have people violating red lights constantly. it's not a question of whether or not there is cross traffic, it's that there are no consequences for breaking the rules, as you point out. though, I think you under-estimate how many people would fix their behavior if they were ticketed. certainly not everyone, but many.

you're assuming the goal of traffic timing is to maximize the speed of the people on the street. that isn't necessarily the case. you're also assuming that you don't have to design for the 1% case where there is some traffic diversion or something. without sensors, timing has to be done in a way that isn't optimal for normal conditions so that it's not a total shit-show in the rare case. sensors are great but very expensive to build and maintain.

the reality is that car-centric city design is just stupid and a waste of time. more cars and faster cars never made any location better. culs de sac exist specifically because people like cars for themselves but hate everyone elses' cars. if we're contemplating spending a fortune adding and maintaining sensors, we should first just build bike lanes everywhere and officially allow the Idaho stop. everyone will get to where they are going faster, greener, and with less expense. cars should take a back seat.

there is no "properly time lights". it's an over-constrained system, meaning you get 1, maybe 2 streets in the whole city that can be timed well and the rest of the city will have to be out of synch.

I think the neighborhood is pretty cool. can't speak too much for night time but I would certainly feel safe there, and there are lots of MICA art students there that walk around at night. the neighborhood certainly isn't going to be as vibrant as a DC neighborhood just because of the size/money of the population in DC. it's like comparing somewhere in DC to Manhattan. I think the most important thing is whether or not you have any friends around. riding the Marc train just to see your friends will be a bit of a drag. though, I think baltimore residents are more friendly overall (except while driving) so I'm sure you'd be able to meet people here.

this is what I call sprawl-oriented transit. or boomer-transit. basically, the idea is "fuck the city, I want to work there and benefit from the density, ports, etc.. but I want all infrastructure spending to support folks in the suburbs".

even the red line is pretty sprawl-oriented, but it's better than nothing.

but also, the map isn't that helpful because it's not taking into account things like the gigantic park in one area might drop the overall density, or it might ignore that there are large towers near the tracks but lower density or industrial areas in the segment.

here is a better map that has finer detail/granularity, I just wish it zoomed in better
https://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#10/39.2976/-76.5253

you might want to try to have a conversation with a local cop about what they would need to see in order to actually do something. like, is there any way to convince them that it actually is meth. maybe bringing in large quantities of certain chemicals or something. you may be able to capture this with some hidden security camera.

in the meantime, do you have access to the basement? you can put some plastic all along the walls and floor to try to stop the smell from getting into your house.

I wish I could be more help.

yeah, that would work much better than what we have

while I hate both Mosbys, if we're going to try to undertake such an effort, I would rather push for ranked-choice open primaries (or at least ranked-choice partisan primaries) for mayor and city council. in theory, we can do both, but I think in practice it's hard to motivate people. in the long term I think we would be better off with ranked-choice.

my preference aside, I think you would need some kind of controversy to get signatures, otherwise people will be like "meh, no thanks"

no, I'm wondering if you had an electric van/bus service driving on regular streets (run by the transit agency or a private company), what efficiency level would be acceptable? say the EV van/bus could be as energy efficient as a typical bus at X number of passengers and as efficient as a typical light rail at Y number of passenger, should the service be used in a scenario where it will average X through the day of operation, or should the service only be implemented in places where it can average Y throughout the day?

I ask because we may get to a point in the coming years where buses can become autonomous and thus the size can be varied by cities (without having to worry about the driver cost), so that more frequent but less efficient buses/vans can be used for a route, or less frequent but more efficient buses/vans can be used.

to give another scenario:

you have two bus/van services

1. arrives every 5 minutes, averages 5 passengers per vehicle
2. arrives every 10 minutes, averages 10 passengers per vehicle.

obviously the 2nd option uses half as much energy per passenger moved, but the difference between 5min and 10min headways can be a big deciding factor in whether or not people ride transit. so 5min headway may get more people to stop driving their cars and take the bus instead. so maybe the scenario changes to:

1. arrives every 5min, averages 8 passengers per vehicle
2. arrives every 10min, averages 10 passengers per vehicle

now, the 1st option is still less energy-efficient per passenger, but it is stopping people from driving their own cars, which has benefits in terms of energy consumption bus also in other indirect ways like pollution, traffic noise, parking that could be turned into green-space or bike lanes, etc.

I don't want to lean too much on a single example, but I'm having a hard time being clear without doing so.

example: IF self driving cars are available (like in Phoenix but even more plentiful), people could use them instead of private vehicles. if they are battery-electric, they would have ok energy consumption. so what if the self-driving EV had space for more people, like a mini-bus or van-like vehicle? well, at some point there are a number of passengers where an EV van/car/mini-bus becomes more efficient than a diesel bus, and there is a point where it is more efficient than a tram, and a point where it is more efficient than a metro.

in such a scenario, would cars or vans be acceptable? like, say you had 4 people in a single EV car, dividing the energy consumption 4 ways.

can we say "take the average efficiency of decent quality bus line, and any number of passengers per EV that gives that efficiency or better, that should be pursued". or should we have a higher bar than the average bus? like maybe the average light rail line or average tram?

wasn't really expecting exact figures.

but when talking about a city like Las Vegas, we can make decisions about different modes. like, what ridership level are buses ok? what ridership level are light rail lines ok? the energy efficiency of a tram may be lower than the energy efficiency of an elevated rail line but above a bus. but there is obviously a ridership factor, so 1 person on a tram is obviously more energy than 1 person in a car.

>Put it this way - if you were designing the transportation network for a planet of 8 billion from scratch, would you choose to assign each individual a 1.5M * 4M 2 tonne vehicle which will need to be stored when not in use nearby to the individual where ever they travel, which travels at a dangerous speed in close proximity to peoples homes by low skilled and often tired and distracted operators?

no, but there is a point where it is acceptable.

like, how about 2 people carpooled per vehicle? what about 4? what about 10?
what if the vehicle didn't need to be parked at your house but could come pick you up? what about Diesel buses vs Battery-electric buses?

like, regular city Diesel buses are just OK in energy efficiency. are they acceptable efficiency or should they not be run?

I'm trying to get an idea of what you (and anyone else who might like to chime in) think is acceptable efficiency and should be built vs unacceptable efficiency and should not be built.

I have my own thoughts on the subject, but I like to ask others so that I can not live in my own bubble where I think my values are the "right" values. I do transit advocacy and want to avoid "losing touch" with what a typical person thinks about the subject.

ohh, sorry. I spend to much time in the "EV" subreddit. EV meaning battery-electric cars/trucks/vans. I should have been clearer. sometimes you get used to a shorthand or jargon and forget that others may not use the term that way.

let me rephrase: I don't understand the comment because it seemed like you're saying it's transportation that isn't energy-efficient, but it's certainly more energy efficient than some things by virtue of being battery-electric with regenerative braking, etc. thus, I was trying to figure out how you draw the line for acceptably efficient. like, diesel buses are not very efficient at all, so do you think we should we use buses or not? or maybe only in high ridership routes? what about people car-pooling in gasoline cars?

I'm just trying to get a gauge on what you mean.