Greater Greater Washington

Breakfast links: Smarter smarter growth


Photo by alykat on Flickr.
Serious about TOD for PG: CSG and Prince George's ACT, released its "Smart Growth Platform 2010 for Prince George's County" outlining the County's significant economic development opportunities, including creating walkable communities around its 15 Metro stations, focusing new development in the Developed Tier, and conserving land in the Rural Tier.

Adding insult to injury: Police respond to a crash that leaves a rollerblader unconscious with three skull fractures, a broken cheek, three cracked ribs, and a broken pelvis by leaving the victim a ticket without talking to her. (We wish they wouldn't keep using the word "accident.") (TBD, David Alpert)

With a little dedication...: BART has an $8.5 million surplus because of unexpectedly high sales tax receipts. Why doesn't WMATA have dedicated funding again? (San Francisco Chronicle, AW)

Pinching pennies: Based on the current average national gas price, which AAA reports to be $2.78 per gallon on 8/10/10, taking public transit and living without a car will save a DC resident, on average, $9,115 annually and $760 per month. (APTA, Steve G.)

Unparalleled parking: The PARK(ing) Day site has been given a face lift in advance of the five-year anniversary of Rebar's original PARK(ing) project. Anyone here planning on PARK(ing) locally on Friday, September 17?

Eat the city: As interest in urban agriculture continues to grow, we have an opportunity to think about cities in new, yet historically based, ways that offer the potential for social, economic, and spatial "recalibration." (ArchitectureBoston)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.
Jaime Fearer worked in the book industry for over 10 years before pursuing a graduate planning degree, and she is a community planner in Greenbelt, MD. When she first moved to NE DC, she ran stop, blog, and roll. Jaime now lives in Trinidad DC, where she serves on the neighborhood association痴 board. 

Comments

Add a comment »

The roller blader said she was roller blading in the street. Just incredible ...

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 8:58 am • linkreport

Is it illegal to rollerblade in the street?

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 9:11 am • linkreport

Reading the account of the rollerblader now. Such police incompetence! As an accident victim similarly treated, I sympathize with her. Still reading ...

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 9:20 am • linkreport

@Jazzy, Is it illegal to rollerblade in the street?

Yes ... A roller blader is a pedestrian. Pedestrian rules apply.

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 9:39 am • linkreport

While the cop most certainly could have handled this with much more sensitivity, I'm just shocked that the focus of this story is on this aspect, and not on the fact that this person was illegally out in the middle of traffic ... endangering not only herself, but others.

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 9:41 am • linkreport

And people who want to spend all day sitting in a parking space ... Don't they have to go to work like the rest of us? Don't they realize how foolish they're going to look sitting in a parking space ... ?

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 9:48 am • linkreport

Is it illegal to be a pedestrian in the street?

by Miriam on Aug 13, 2010 9:53 am • linkreport

It's not quite urban agriculture, but I was kind of shocked to see that Montgomery County won't let you keep chickens in your yard. I recently moved up there, and we've got way more yard than we care to have, and a lot of it is going to be turned into raised garden beds in the spring. I wonder what their rationale is?

by Thrillhouse on Aug 13, 2010 9:54 am • linkreport

So BART had a small surplus which at the end of the day is meaningless. The existence of a surplus doesn't in any way make the case for dedicated taxes. FY 2010 and the WMATA operating deficit were the creation of the WMATA Board which approved a vastly over optimistic revenue projection in the face of an economic downturn. In most operating years since it's formation, WMATA has managed to budget and manage expenses to return a surplus at yearend. The capital requirements are a separate and larger issue.

by Interested on Aug 13, 2010 9:58 am • linkreport

@Miriam, Is it illegal to be a pedestrian in the street?

Yes. If there are sidewalks in an area, then a pedestrian cannot legally use the street to travel other than at intersections or at marked crosswalks.

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 10:02 am • linkreport

The APTA calculation is way off.

The biggest "cost" they are counting is depreciation. That is an accounting gimmick, and not a real cost.

They also include finance charges, which, if you have a paid off car, aren't included.

They give no indication of how they calculate mileage; clearly drivers in say DC will drive less than drivers in Loundon County.

Interesting, they don't include parking, which probably is the largest single expense of many DC area drivers. I pay $100 a month, and that is reasonable. Far more than my insurance, gas, and maintenance expenses.

Strange, for Washington they highlight how unlimited MetroRail passes are not a good deal.

So, on both sides of the equation there are some serious flaws.

by charlie on Aug 13, 2010 10:09 am • linkreport

whatever the rules state on 'rollerbladers' is, it makes more sense to be in the street. in college I used to skate between classes(I say skate because I am from MI and that's what you do in hockey and street hockey). when I was on the sidewalks I almost always had near misses or minor run ins with pedestrians. I always felt better in the streets or wider trails. not to mention all the bumps and trip hazards on DC sidewalks. and I frequently passed cyclists. in my mind its more akin to cycling than walking, and if thats they case they should be subject to cycling regulations.

and no matter what the regulations are, that was handled horribly.

here's hoping she's back on her feet (and skates if she's up to it) soon!

by dano on Aug 13, 2010 10:11 am • linkreport

This is an extremely thorny subject but I don't think the police should really be issuing citations against people who have been hit by cars. Except maybe in the rare case that they intentionally tried to commit suicide or something (on purpose). A citation is not what will deter them from jaywalking again. Almost dying and then paying five-figure medical and liability payments is what will deter them. All the citation does is leave one more person with a negative impression of law enforcement, which they really do not need these days. And no I do not think it is the same as a car where you are much more likely to be DOING the damage than receiving it. It's the same reason DUI is much more severe punishment than drunk in public. With a car you do much more damage.

I'm sure they can and will find a reason to keep doing it that appeases enough people. I just think it is an uneccesary overreach in that particular situation.

by matt on Aug 13, 2010 10:13 am • linkreport

@Lance I don't believe it's illegal to rollerblade in the street. Can you provide a citation?

by jcm on Aug 13, 2010 10:15 am • linkreport

Re: Dedicated taxes

Dedicated taxes are fine, the problem I have is that they are cyclical. When times are good, the encourage transit agencies to expand service, approve union contracts that are generous, and have a more relaxed attitude on cost controls. When recessions arrive, the loss in revenue leads to larger fare increases combined with service cuts.

The DC region is unique during this recession, in that the local governments were able to increase funding for Metro, while many other governments had to cut service and/or raise fares.

There's nothing that would require the dedicated revenue to be in addition to existing revenues, either. Money is fungible. If we get a half-cent sales tax for Metro, the governments will look at the funding picture and will cut back on their contributions. The board and local governments have a desired level of service, and they're funding it.

by Michael Perkins on Aug 13, 2010 10:16 am • linkreport

@charlie: how do they highlight unlimited passes not being a good deal? I didn't see that.

by Michael Perkins on Aug 13, 2010 10:21 am • linkreport

@Michael Perkins

The conclusion is implicit in APTA's assumptions that users a) buy an unlimited pass, and the fact that b) WMATA's unlimited passes are so expensive that they are not worth it for most passengers.

Thus, DC is low on the overall ranking due to the relative lack of value of WMATA's passes.

by Alex B. on Aug 13, 2010 10:29 am • linkreport

I am not sure why "sensitivity" is required. Had this person crossed the street against the light in a car and had hit someone, not only would everyone be demanding the most expensive ticket possible, but a beheading down on the Mall...let alone is rollerblading in the street even legal in DC? I don't think so.

It is unfortunate that this girl got so injured as a result of her decision to flaunt traffic laws, but her situation should be the perfect example of what happens when people decide they are the sole arbiter of what traffic laws they should follow and when.

by nookie on Aug 13, 2010 10:30 am • linkreport

@MPerkins; as you have highlighted, the current pass situation is NOT optimal. Their measurement of how much public transport is based on a pass, not on actual usage. So, although their numbers are opaque, for rail either the 7 day short pass or the unlimited pass. Both are overpriced and under deliver. Did they have to throw in a bus pass to balance it out?

I think that is why DC ranks so low on their list -- in reality for people living in the "Inner Core" and working for the feds their transit costs would be far lower than the estimate.

So, as I said before, very unrealistic numbers on both side of the equation.

by charlie on Aug 13, 2010 10:34 am • linkreport

Almost dying and then paying five-figure medical and liability payments is what will deter them.

Unless of course it wasn't / isn't their fault.

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 10:35 am • linkreport

And small correction: they do include the price of parking, but only for downtown business parking. That is usually subsidies by employer. And residential parking costs (the $100 figure I tossed around) isn't included.

My advice: keep an older car, and try to not drive to work if you work in the city.

by charlie on Aug 13, 2010 10:37 am • linkreport

@ Lance. It is truly amazing what you will spout off about with no understanding. Go here: http://skatedc.org/ for information about rollerblading in DC.

Laws governing rollerblading are patchwork in this area. Some jurisdictions treat rollerbladers as cyclists, while others classify them as pedestrians. It is legal in DC to rollerblade in the street, and you will be ticketed as a cyclist if you blade on sidewalks downtown.

In Northern VA, it is illegal to blade in the streets, and you will be ticketed for jaywalking.

The Washington Area Rollerbladers conduct three group skates a week in DC, with upwards of 50 skaters in good weather. THe Metro police sometimes send accompanying bike police. THe schedule for the skates is available in the link above.

by CJ on Aug 13, 2010 10:39 am • linkreport

@ Jazzy
Well yeah, then they REALLY shouldn't get a ticket.

Also, I didn't think this needed to be specified but in light of recent comments I should clarify that I do NOT support public beheadings. Especially not for traffic violations. Thank you.

by matt on Aug 13, 2010 10:40 am • linkreport

Actually, Lance is right and I'm wrong. Skating in the street is in fact illegal. Here's the relevant regulation:

1211 OPERATION OF MISCELLANEOUS VEHICLES
1211.1 No person upon rollerskates, skateboard, or riding by means of a sled, coaster,
toy vehicle, sidewalk bicycle, or similar device shall go upon any roadway
except when crossing a roadway in a crosswalk. When crossing a roadway, such
person shall be granted all the rights and shall be subject to all the duties
applicable to pedestrians. This subsect ion shall not apply to any street set aside
as a play street by the Mayor or the Council.

It may be that the version I'm looking at is out of date, though, since it also specifies mandatory bike registration, which is no longer required.

by jcm on Aug 13, 2010 10:45 am • linkreport

CJ, I clicked on that site but could not find a link to tell me about the laws.

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 10:45 am • linkreport

The issue of rollerblader classification is a real one. The average speed of skating is slower than cycling, and the learning curve to get to street skating proficiency is long. Additionally, bladers and cyclists do not share infrastructure well because blading is a lateral movement which takes up around four feet of road space, and involvement of blades with bicycle wheels is common.

Bladers, when proficient, are more maneuverable than cyclists (but will always have longer stopping distances), and can move within pedestrians more easily. However, the rate of movement and perception of the blader makes this less than ideal for pedestrians.

The standard police response is to lump bladers in with cyclists or with pedestrians, when they are not really either.

by CJ on Aug 13, 2010 10:46 am • linkreport

CJ, I agree that rollerbladers should probably rollerblade in the street rather than the sidewalk. Someone said it's illegal on the sidewalk. Someone else said it's illegal in the roadway. So wouldn't that mean that effectively rollerblading is illegal?

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 10:48 am • linkreport

Almost every day, a pedestrian jumps in front of my bike on my way to work at the intersection of 2nd & Mass NE, against a do-not-walk signal, typically in full view of a USCP officer.

I've never seen a ticket issued, nor have I ever seen drivers ticketed for making left turns directly in front of me (resulting in a few *very* close calls and quite a bit of profanity).

So, yeah. This cyclist would like to see an evenhanded enforcement of the law. Pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, and watercraft all need to be held accountable for their actions.

(Yes, watercraft. MPD does a surprisingly thorough job of patrolling the area's rivers, and isn't afraid to issue citations.)

by andrew on Aug 13, 2010 10:54 am • linkreport

All these claims of hypocrisy that say "if it were a car and not a pedestrian/cyclist, you would be outraged" are nonsense. People who are operating multi-ton machines at high speeds have a greater responsibility not to collide with others than those who are not operating such machines. This is because a collision between a human being and motor vehicle has a high risk of causing serious injury or death to the human. These facts are obvious to anyone with a basic moral compass.

by Phil on Aug 13, 2010 10:59 am • linkreport

Trying to find relevant pages on the dc.gov site, I came across collision stats with peds until 2008

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1240,q,557665,mpdcNav_GID,1552,mpdcNav,|.asp

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 10:59 am • linkreport

Why do these discussions always get sidetracked into whether a victim was on the street, sidewalk, crosswalk, or other place? The real issue is that someone slammed a motor vehicle into a rollblader. The harm that occurred is not one that involves the finer points of rollerblading law at all. It is the serious injuries suffered by the victim, and that's why the police treatment of this situation as citation opportunity is outrageous.

by aaa on Aug 13, 2010 11:14 am • linkreport

Re: PARK(ing) Day in DC

http://www.parkingdaydc.org

by Justin Young on Aug 13, 2010 11:16 am • linkreport

@ Jazzy - sorry, I gave the link to WAR for information about skating in DC. If there's still a blading prohibition on the books or DC, it is certainly never enforced. The citations received by bladers in DC conform to cycling norms. You can skate on sidewalks, and in the street. THe ony citation I am aware of was to a skater commuting downtown, and on the sidewalk.

And I don't mean to make street skating sound like a cut and dried issue, because it's not. Police practice is rarely uniform. For instance, there's a Friday night social skate that circles the Mall, but park police prohibit blading in areas. Those areas change according to who you talk to. Freedom plaza is always off limits, because aggressive skaters and boarders used to grind there.

DC police are a paragon of conformity compared to police in other jurisdictions.

by CJ on Aug 13, 2010 11:22 am • linkreport

@ aaa Actually, from the description of the story, it seems clear the rollerblader slammed into the motor vehicle. This seems germane.

by jcm on Aug 13, 2010 11:48 am • linkreport

What the law is matters to me partly if not mostly because of what the penalty is, which (to me) goes to deterrence.

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 12:03 pm • linkreport

@matt This is an extremely thorny subject but I don't think the police should really be issuing citations against people who have been hit by cars.

The citation is necessary in order to ensure that the driver she banged into doesn't end up picking up the bill for the skaters' illegal actions. (It's proof to the insurance company that the skater was in the wrong.)

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 12:11 pm • linkreport

@jcm @Lance I don't believe it's illegal to rollerblade in the street. Can you provide a citation?

there's the citation which the cop issued the roller blader as validation that this is illegal.

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 12:12 pm • linkreport

I think it's premature of you to come to that conclusion, Lance (that "she was in the wrong").

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 12:12 pm • linkreport

Jesus, Lance - everyone knows that this is a notoriously wimpy area when it comes to penalizing drivers for killing or maiming pedestrians. As far as I'm concerned your definition of "citation" is uttered in the worst kind of faith possible.

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 12:14 pm • linkreport

@CJ, I assure you that if I see a person in skates on the street ... they will get the full measure of my car horn ...

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 12:15 pm • linkreport

@jcm, Thanks for finding the section of the law that speaks to where skaters may skate.

I would think it would be 'common sense' that a person with wheels on their feet has no business playing in the streets where many ton vehicles are driving around ... But I'm starting to realize that common sense isn't as common as one would expect ...

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 12:25 pm • linkreport

After reading the article,it sounds like she ran into the van. The police could've handled it better,but if this is the case,then she should be cited. If you are to blame of getting yourself injured,then you don't have the right to sue someone else to make them pay for it.

@CJ - from my search of the DDOT site,it appears the above section is still current;ie,skating the in the street is illegal. I'm not going to hash it out with you as to whether or not bladers belong in the street,but realize the ramifications if this is the law. If you're breaking the law,and get injured,even if it's the fault of the other party,there's a good chance you won't have a legal leg to stand on. Note the article said she had approached two lawyers,and both refused to take her case.

by dynaryder on Aug 13, 2010 12:27 pm • linkreport

from the article (about a cyclist):

Such was the case with Cindy, a cyclist who asked that her last name not be used since she never paid her citation. She was hit by a car in Georgetown in 2003 in an accident she says was more the driverテや冱 fault than her own. Cindy rolled through a stop sign while the driver across the intersection made a left turn with no signal. She blacked out briefly and woke up sobbing in the driverテや冱 arms. While in the back of an ambulance a D.C. officer asked her what happened.

She said, テや廬 donテや冲 know. I guess I went through the stop sign.テや That concluded the interview. The officer handed her a $50 ticket, which she ignored. テや廬 thought it was ludicrous,テや she says.

I find it interesting that she admits to taking an action that carries a $50 fine, but calls it 'ludicrous'. Is she special? Is the $50 fine only intended for others?

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 12:33 pm • linkreport

@Lance
So, write a report saying that a pedestrian walked into traffic, and the driver was not at fault. And cite eyewitnesses that testify to this. Which is what they did. That should be enough. How much do we need to bend over backwards for the driver whose poor bumper was dented by her skull?

I know they CAN do it, and probably will continue to. But there are many things police CAN write tickets for but choose not to, because of negative reaction from the public. My point is that this should be one of those things.

by matt on Aug 13, 2010 12:51 pm • linkreport

@matt, I think the rationale behind the ticket is to keep the skater from suing the driver ... or at least from winning in court should they decide to go ahead and sue. It's too easy to turn blame around ... as evidenced by the article linked to and some of the comments on here.

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 12:56 pm • linkreport

@Lance "I assure you that if I see a person in skates on the street ... they will get the full measure of my car horn ..."

Will you also use your horn to express your displeasure with motorists who speed, make illegal right-on-red turns (where prohibited), roll through stop signs, fail to yield to pedestrians, block crosswalks, etc? Or is your horn reserved for roller bladers skating in the street (and jay-walkers and 'scofflaw cyclists')?

by jj on Aug 13, 2010 1:04 pm • linkreport

@ Lance
Yes I understand that they are worried about liability. So, write a report saying that a pedestrian walked into traffic, and the driver was not at fault. And cite eyewitnesses that testify to this. Which is what they did.

A cop is not a lawyer. They are quick to point this out to you when it is convenient for them. They do not need to be going above and beyond in order to aid someone's legal defense.

by matt on Aug 13, 2010 1:08 pm • linkreport

what's really troubling about the rollerblader's situation (and the similar situations mentioned in the longer article) is that it seems like MPD will only cite jaywalkers if they happen to cause an accident.

sure, technically, this woman was breaking a law when she was injured, but perhaps if DC had a history of actually punishing jaywalkers (and rollerbladers in the street i suppose, and cyclists who run red lights, for that matter), then there might be some disincentive for these dangerous behaviors.

the very fact that nobody here knows whether rollerblading on the streets is legal or not seems to indicate that knowledge of the law isn't a disincentive on its own. for another example, most people out there are well aware that jaywalking/crossing against the light is illegal, but that doesn't stop anyone. enforcement should be a higher priority when trying to change these behaviors, and should be a bigger part of these discussions.

by danny5k on Aug 13, 2010 1:10 pm • linkreport

@ dynaryder - I actually don't disagree, and most bladers wont. We recognize that liability can be assigned to us whether we blade in the street or on the sidewalk, pretty much at the discretion of police. That we are afforded some protection by the policies of the District doesn't change the fact that they are discretionary policies.

The outcome of that uncertainty is that we don't know what happened in this case. The rider may have been following traffic laws and was cut off by a turning car. She may have been crossing against a light and hit a legally turning vehicle. The citation is only evidence of the latter if we believe that MPD citations are impartially issued, applying road rules written for autos and cyclists.

Or we can go with Lance's position. A women commuting to work on Rollerblades could be classified as a person without common sense, playing in the road, utilizing a mode of transportation that should be illegal as such.

by CJ on Aug 13, 2010 1:13 pm • linkreport

@jj ... no, they'll all get the full measure of my horn. especially the ones that roll through stop signs ... I don't like them any better than you do ...

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 1:33 pm • linkreport

btw, I was being sacarstic about the rolling stop sign ... just like I was about the skaters in the road. Of course I wouldn't blare my horn at them ... unless they were doing something arrogant like purposely taking a lane on a busy thoroughfare. But given that'd I guess most skaters on the road would be in a back street or maybe down by the Mall ... using their common sense ... I don't see myself having a reason to blow my horn at them.

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 1:42 pm • linkreport

From the article:

But in fact, the ticketing of an unconscious pedestrian or cyclist has been known to happen in Washington. In a town where at least one pedestrian or cyclist is struck by a vehicle every day on average, that sometimes means wrapping up an investigation before consulting the party who was hit. Earlier this year, an employee for the Daily Caller who had been struck by a car downtown on M Street NW was ticketed while sedated at the emergency room.

As Wiseman awaited reconstructive surgery on her face, her mother requested the police report in the days following the accident. According to the report, a van making a right on red off Connecticut Avenue onto R Street NW hit Wiseman in the crosswalk. Wiseman had collided with the vanテや冱 passenger side, テや彡ausing damage to its right rear fender.テや

Wiseman couldnテや冲 recall any of it but says the report didnテや冲 jibe with her routine. A regular Rollerblader for 15 years, she insists she always Rollerblades in the street. テや廬テや冦 never in the sidewalk,テや she says. テや廬tテや冱 literally not possibleテや to skate anywhere but in the road, considering all the foot traffic on that strip.

Dynarider, you say that the article states she ran into the van. Where?

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 1:53 pm • linkreport

Umm, Jazzy, you yourself pasted it above.. Bottom of your second paragraph.

"Wiseman had collided with the vanテや冱 passenger side, テや彡ausing damage to its right rear fender.テや"

by nookie on Aug 13, 2010 5:53 pm • linkreport

Um Nookie, look at preceding sentence

According to the report, a van making a right on red off Connecticut Avenue onto R Street NW hit Wiseman in the crosswalk.

Admittedly the subsequent sentence, the one you quoted, is ambiguous. But given the one I just quoted, I take it to mean AS A RESULT OF THE VAN HITTING THE ROLLERBLADER.

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 6:02 pm • linkreport

@Jazzy, I'm reading it 180 degrees differently from you. I'm reading what is says 'Wiseman had collided with the vanテや冱 passenger side, causing damage to its right rear fender." ... i.e., Wiseman 'took the action' ... i.e., 'collided' ...

Bottom line is that no matter how it happened, Wiseman was illegally in the road and should be responsible for all costs related to the accident she caused.

by Lance on Aug 13, 2010 7:17 pm • linkreport

Lance,

You sure are:

According to the report, a van making a right on red off Connecticut Avenue onto R Street NW hit Wiseman in the crosswalk.

HIT WISEMAN.

by Jazzy on Aug 13, 2010 7:20 pm • linkreport

So some people are annoyed that cops gave a ticket to someone for something that was merely "technically illegal"?

Sort of like when drivers complain about being ticketed for going only a few miles over the speed limit because it's only "technically illegal".

Bottom line: The MPD citation has more to do with potential future civil liability issues for the driver than anything else.

But it is fascinating to read these discussions where there's only black/white law when it comes to drivers, but all sorts of ambiguous shades of gray for pedestrians, cyclists, rollerbladers, uncicylists, handstand-walkers, and basically anyone other than a driver.

by Fritz on Aug 13, 2010 7:57 pm • linkreport

Regarding the laws on skating. Both Virginia and DC have essentially the same law, which is part of an old model statute that many states have long had regarding "toy vehicles" before inline skates became popular. DC police rarely if ever enforce this law with WAR skates; by contrast Arlington police often restrict those skates to the sidewalk.

Maryland law is very different. Although it does not explicitly mention skates, the definition of vehicle includes almost anything with wheels--and there are statutes requiring hemlmets for certain skates on roadways, leaving the impression that skating on roadways is legal.

New Jersey and New York treat skaters as cyclists. Competent skaters are typically 8-15 mph on level pavement, putting their speeds in the range of a slow to average cyclist. Hence treating them as pedestrians has a variety of safety problems similar to the wrong-way (left side) bike rider and the sidewalk hazard.

Skating in DC is generally fairly safe, but alot of skaters are oblivious to the basic bike-safety rules

by Jim Titus on Aug 13, 2010 11:33 pm • linkreport

Where is the Rural Tier exactly?

by Zac on Aug 14, 2010 8:35 pm • linkreport

Zac: Price George's County is divided into three " development tiers" for planning and policy purposes: the developed tier (mostly inside the Beltway and adjacent to DC and Montgomery Co.); the developing tier (the bulk of the County, sandwiched b/w the developed and rural tiers); and the rural tier (much of which is the rural and farm land along the Patuxent in So. Prince George's County).

There's actually a decent summary of what the rural tier is on Wikipedia.

The best visual representation of the three tiers I could find right now is on p. 5(25) of this PDF, "The Future of Agriculture in Prince George's."

by Jaime Fearer on Aug 15, 2010 11:53 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or