Yes, a different poster (me) than the one you called a liar said they had a different experience (that's still with the property being locked frequently).

Hope that clears it up for you.

But they'll want 10!

There will be one more when they demolish this. They just are being clever by calling it "hardscaping."

Cool, they should sell them to someone. It's a unique, historic, dense block of incredible housing that someone could absolutely profit off of redeveloping even if they have to underpin and brace.

100% gonna be a parking lot

The majority of the time I walk or bike by it is locked. Admittedly it's only once or twice a week. So no, they're not lying.

Sure, do it everywhere but McHenry.

I guess this is splitting hairs a bit too, fair. They definitely did a bit better on round 2 vs the 1770s resettlements I was referencing.

The verse is not wrong in a retconned sense that Black Loyalists were doomed, for the British/Canadians were happy to abandon them in corners of Nova Scotia to starve and fend off racist whites, but yes the verse is bad and while I enjoy this country's anthem I do wish we'd formally codify it as the first part alone.

Are you referring to the British, given it was their bombs and rockets attacking a city?

We lost all credibility when the National Park Service flew the Fort McHenry flag at half mast for the death of the queen. I mean what.

It's not though?

Not permitted. However the city had a site visit with the operator months ago that the operator does not mention in his quote and they are adjusting the design to include a formal loading zone. This was shared with the reporter.

Fully built out, Harbor Point was projected to produce an additional ~700 trips an hour during peak conditions. Assuming pre-pandemic traffic volumes on Central AND that pre-pandemic traffic estimate, the road with the road diet will be far from capacity even in the most congested hours. Suggesting this is somehow a traffic disaster is a joke any reporter should have seen through.

No they don't.

25 was the state law lowest minimum for Baltimore streets until this October when legislation Baltimore City DOT pushed for with Bikemore was enacted to allow us to set our own speed limits based on typology in the city complete streets manual.

I don't think anyone wants to yell but the only time we've ever had any long DOT promised installation ever occur in my community it was because we threatened to sue or complained loudly enough someone finally listened.

Trying to work collaboratively? Yeah. My community is doing that right now and is about to lose a $50k grant DOT wrote a letter of support for because DOT is over a year late on even answering emails when they were supposed to install their part of the grant already.

So, it's going to have to come down to being loud and mad again.

Sent

You should also reach out to Kelly Cross in Old Goucher. He has brought Chuck to talk in Old Goucher at least once, maybe twice before.

When your councilperson yells at DOT as consistently as Dorsey does to get this stuff installed. That's the only reason this is happening.

Add 29th Street Tavern (I would ask them to fry hard). I don't expect it to be at the top but they are generally reliable if I don't desire the slightly longer trek to iBar.

Dorsey is too, it's literally what his Abundant Housing Act is about. Which notably- Costello did not co-sponsor.

His grandmother (who raised him) died. Seems fair to take a few weeks off. I'd probably swap him with McCray in this lineup.

If you want to repeal the Maryland Bikeways program that was passed through the House of Delegates 136-0 and the Senate 45-0, go for it!

I don't really see it as purely recreational. With the mileage between stops on the light rail a colocated trail could be a tremendous first and last mile connector between stations and employment and housing.

>In a city with such huge struggles, is funding recreation stuff like this really a smart priority? >

This is a county study. The city trail already goes to within yards of Lake Roland.

>How many more busses could the money for this buy? >

Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.

>How many bus shelters could be built? >

Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.

>How many more fare inspectors could be hired for the light rail? >

Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.

>How many more repair personnel could be hired for the school system? >

Zero, this is funded with restricted state bikeways funding, as outlined in the article.

>I'd think those are all far more pressing and useful needs than linking some recreational trails up.

The economic benefits of linking trails up is discussed in the article, and they are far greater than the cost (which is, as noted, paid for with restricted funds for biking that would otherwise go to other jurisdictions).

> >Don't get me wrong, it'd be a nice thing, but in the list of regional priorities, it just seems odd to focus on unless some compelling opportunity exists for it (like a rail line who's right of way would be needed for it is being abandoned).

As outlined in the piece, the abandoned ROW of the NCR extends further south than the trail does now, and is then utilized by the light rail, which has adjacent unused ROW. The compelling opportunity you want to exist...exists.