“Preferable” is a subjective term, and not a dimension that really bears much emphasis unless it’s accompanied by data.

Subway and light rail are not remotely in the same category.

It used to be awesome. I think there are some funding shortfalls, and a spat with the original contractor (Veolia?). For a long time the schedule was completely unreliable and live tracking was totally broken. Hopefully it has improved since then, but I rarely see those buses these days. Transit app would be worth checking.

Buses provide an extremely good step in that direction, without the costs or liabilities of rail, and with much faster implementation. So many people here just insist that trains are magic and anything other than that is a pale shadow of a solution.

EDIT: buses also allow for greater route flexibility over time (additions, changes).

So….I’m being downvoted for being an exclusively bike and public transport user? Cool. Makes total sense.

Express buses would accomplish this just as easily.

I don’t have a vehicle and haven’t for a decade. I take buses less since coronavirus (prefer biking) but for many years have taken buses twice a day for commuting across the city and for other purposes as well (grocery shopping, etc. — both MTA and Circulator), with light rail and subway trips as well, depending on destination. I have also previously taken commuter buses out to Columbia in years past.

EDIT: Also a frequent MARC train rider — I buy tickets by the 20 pack.

Buses provide an extremely good step in that direction, without the costs or liabilities of rail, and with much faster implementation. So many people here just insist that trains are magic and anything other than that is a pale shadow of a solution.

EDIT: buses also allow for greater route flexibility over time (additions, changes).

To everyone downvoting this comment, you are providing no counter argument or contrary data.

Nope. In and of itself, this graphic actually doesn’t have much information or value.

Sure but virtually all of the densely populated areas not served by rail here have substantial bus service. You can certainly critique the speed and frequency of those buses and the quality of their Inter-connectedness (we need more of them, and more express busses), but the argument for large rail investment over simply better buses has never been convincing.

Unless you’re talking about subway additions or all surface rail lines having light preemption, this isn’t really an argument that’s being made in good faith. And even then you’re talking about astronomical investment and infrastructure additions.

Uhhhh….Cathedral/Maryland (right next to Charles) already has a two-lane separate bike lane at least all the way from Pratt to at least Homewood. Other bike lanes take it up from those termini.

And just to be clear, there’s already a lot of bars and restaurants that are empty on Charles Street. I don’t see a need for added restaurant/bar capacity anywhere on the Charles corridor.

I really don’t see the value add at all.

Point taken; thanks.

And to be clear, I have no issue with the (claimed) assertion that the majority of the members of that community tend to live in the county rather than the city. It’s only nominally relevant to the question at hand, and I am generally in favor of people from the county having some relationship to the city, whatever the form that may take, and vice versa for city residents. The city/county distinction is rather arbitrary in Baltimore.

Hey, apologies — I read into your comment too much. Edited my comment partially to reflect that. Thanks.

I already couched the explanation within the Christian tradition and the examples I mention speak to the dual religious-ethnic focus of similar communities.

And while I think you already mean this, I think it’s more apt to say that they have a “religious” or “ethics-religious” obligation, not a generally ethical obligation, but I’m starting to split hairs ;-)

Extremely helpful comment. I’d been searching for this.

This is before my time here, so can’t comment specifically. I will only offer that they also provide substantial services and refuge to homeless folks through their facility on the other end of the block. It’s a different kind of benefit, and perhaps things don’t really net out in that way, but it bothers me less.

This is a Greek Orthodox Church, with a specific focus on that specific community. They don’t have any more specific obligation to serve people located nearby than a Korean Presbyterian church in Lagos or an African AME church in Reykjavik would. And that’s just staying within the generally Christian sense of a religious community.

I think the bigger (and only) issue is that it’s a tax exempt institution that appears to primarily serve people outside the city, and wishes to make architectural/zoning changes to buildings that are completely separate from infrastructure critical to the functioning of the institution itself, and the changes (at least seem to) negatively impact the neighborhood without providing any tangible benefit. That’s it.

One thing to also keep in mind — if we value the Greek Church structure itself historically, somebody has to maintain it, and those funds have to come from somewhere…

To everyone talking about affordable housing — it’s unlikely these buildings themselves would provide affordable housing if rehabbed; the benefit would come from increasing the total supply of housing in the immediate vicinity.

(edited partially in light of kermelie’s comments below)