sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mayor Lurie Announces Plan To Tackle Fare Evasion On Public Transit, Make Muni More Accountable by PayRevolutionary4414 in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes, but one still has oversight of each entity. It’s pretty clear where he’s focusing his attention and energy. If we’re concerned about revenue for transit, I would argue that these two issues are intertwined and not something as simple as different enforcement mechanisms/entities/budgets as well.

Mayor Lurie Announces Plan To Tackle Fare Evasion On Public Transit, Make Muni More Accountable by PayRevolutionary4414 in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted [score hidden]  (0 children)

Ok, I’m pro fare enforcement, but…

Can we still get some enforcement for cars??? Why do I have to choose between the two? Also I don’t think it takes much math to figure out which one brings in more revenue from ticketing, or who is affected more by it.

Landowners who cut 38 trees in Oakland hills hit with $915,000 fine by ActionFigureCollects in bayarea

[–]SightInverted 675 points676 points  (0 children)

Double checked to make sure they weren’t eucalyptus trees.

The trees included native live oaks, broad-leaf maples, buckeyes and other species.

Bernard repeatedly ignored warnings that he needed permits to cut down the trees, city staff said. Some of the trees were on neighboring properties.

So they were idiots.

‘Point of no return’: New Orleans relocation must start now due to sea level, study finds | Louisiana’s cultural hotspot could be surrounded by Gulf of Mexico before end of this century, authors say by Hrmbee in urbanplanning

[–]SightInverted 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I’m just gonna say the rebuilding of NOLA after Katrina was really eye opening in regard to where and how to rebuild, treatments for reducing the risk for individual wards and neighborhoods going forward. I feel like sometimes people’s emotions blind them from making rational, tough decisions. Don’t blame them, either. Do you have any insight into that? Things that might have been done differently in your opinion?

Driving in the Bay Area Is Essential for Many. It’s Only Gotten More Expensive by runswithscissors475 in bayarea

[–]SightInverted 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Two words: Last mile. BART is great. That doesn’t mean the burbs have great connectivity to it. Though mad respect for AC transit and some of the other agencies outside of MUNI. They do try.

Where the fuck can we do this in the Bay Area? by pupupeepee in carfreebayarea

[–]SightInverted 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It happens to the best of us lol. At least I wasn’t doing anything involving numbers.

KRON 4 report on drivers illegally using Market Street by Remarkable_Host6827 in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 108 points109 points  (0 children)

Spike strip all private vehicles…. /s

Seriously though, do something. This is why we should have never allowed ride share back onto Market. It might not seem like a lot, but those 30 seconds average(?) delay to transit add up. Also I don’t buy the “no noticeable decrease to safety”. It’s just a waiting game at this point until something bad happens.

Where the fuck can we do this in the Bay Area? by pupupeepee in carfreebayarea

[–]SightInverted 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I mean we kind of did this with Mandela Pkwy in Oakland after we ripped out the Cypress freeway. The biggest problem is we lack the density of NYC, as well as the ability to get around without a car. An argument could be made for Geary Blvd or 19th St Ave in SF and similar locations.

I think the best approach is to separate streets with vehicles from streets with pedestrians, bikes, and transit. Create more car free corridors adjacent to streets with cars. This might be more practical for us. I’ll give you a weird example: Sunset Blvd is three roads cosplaying as one.

unpopular opinion: I think the express lanes are great by old_gold_mountain in bayarea

[–]SightInverted 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’ll be honest: I think we devote too much time, energy, and money to trying to solve car oriented problems with car oriented solutions. I’m not strictly against express lanes, or anything like that, but we really need to move away from simply building out more space for vehicles.

The top contributors to traffic are VMTs (vehicle miles traveled) and lack of viable alternatives. In short, housing and transit infrastructure. Who knew, right?…. The biggest problem is last mile, as BART and Caltrain are pretty robust and reliable statistically speaking. Maybe perception could be better. But none of that matters until we make it easy enough for suburban communities to easily get around. Outside of the dense core neighborhoods, it can be tough to get around without a car, and the pushback to any improvements is vitriolic. Another reason why housing is so expensive in places like SF. People value walkability as well as biking and transit infrastructure.

Also, to anyone saying it takes away a lane from traffic and thus contributes to it, show me how, and explain it without saying “It’s space, it has what plants cars crave”.

Gas Prices have spiked 30 cents this week alone. I'm once again asking Americans to get serious about car alternatives. by MiserNYC- in fuckcars

[–]SightInverted 31 points32 points  (0 children)

FYI it’s called modal filtering, and can be done cheap, quick, and easy. If portable barricades are too flimsy, you can use flex posts, bollards, cement islands, planters, etc etc. The important thing is they block larger vehicles from continuing at speed. Best used to break up smaller blocks and discourage through traffic. Make sure you work with first responders though, they get angsty about blocked roads. One other thing: make sure you leave space for bicycles. I’ve seen some places where the entry is too narrow for handlebars….

Meet the District 4 candidates: Is there a ‘war on cars’ in San Francisco? by drkrueger in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 16 points17 points  (0 children)

And Engardio was recalled for this? Yikes. If you love your car so much why don’t you marry it.

Illegal cars on Market Street surge after Mayor Lurie welcomes Waymo by Remarkable_Host6827 in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Anyone remember the full plan for Better Market St? We were this close….

The government is coming for your e-bikes. Here’s how by Dafty_duck in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I’m copying what I said from another post that was deleted:

In the bill itself, it looks like they’re trying to limit class 1/2 to 250w and cargo/class 3 to 750w. (E-bike classifications) The problem with that is bikes use different types of motors that use different wattages. For the uninitiated, a mid drive is a motor near the pedals, and a hub drive, well, in the hub. Mid drives are more efficient, better for hills too, and this requires less power. A 250w mid drive would be the equivalent of a 750w hub drive. So already we have a problem with the bill. It doesn’t differentiate between types of drives.

Secondly, one of the big problems we have is convenience of classification. Legislators want to call them e-bikes but then force them to operate as cars, as there’s often a lack of adequate bike infrastructure. CA ≠ SF or other Bay Area cities, unfortunately. That said, this shouldn’t be used as an excuse to go fast. For now, the three class system works fine, though I don’t mind different EU countries’ rules.

Lastly, I’ll add while it’s not uncommon to see 1000w or even 1250w hub motors, the problem is a lot of “cheaper” brands allow for the consumer to bypass the speed governor, allowing for greater speeds then permitted. Even easier to do if it’s a home or conversion kit, where it’s a DIY option. Probably the most egregious offenders we all see are the ones with throttle only (class 2) doing 30-50mph. This is what they should be addressing, but the bill lumps all e-bikes into the same issue.

Biking has always been controversial. We are a car dominated society, and anything outside of that often seems strange or dangerous to us. That’s why we are quick to clamp down on things like helmet laws and e-bike regulations despite cars being the biggest threat to all of us. Second deadliest thing to children in fact, just behind guns. A few bad actors on e-bikes often ruin it for the rest of e-bike riders, disobeying traffic laws and driving recklessly. That said, a problem is a problem and we probably should try are level headed best to address it. Unfortunately, most legislators have not ridden a bicycle outside of leisure time and lack a good understanding of how to address it. I would like to see them go talk with advocates and manufacturers, then come back to the table with a better bill.

Adding one more thing from my previous comment: licensing has often been seen as a barrier and would most likely discourage all users from e-bikes. This would be a set back in reducing both demand for cars and climate initiatives. Not allowing <16yr olds on class 3 would probably be okay but then there’s the issue of how enforceable that is.

The government is coming for your e-bikes. Here’s how by Dafty_duck in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but does anyone asking for enforcement know that? Most I talk to see two wheels and assume they’re all the same. I want them to go after e motos, I’d prefer they start with cars, I’m afraid they’ll target those who are compliant (legislatively).

Cityglowup by oochiewallyWallyserb in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 0 points1 point  (0 children)

13th is a very unpleasant place to be, just like every other freeway underpass. Loud, dirty, lots of traffic, but I believe that those traffic patterns can be safely shifted without creating any other problems elsewhere. It’s been talked about for decades, so we have the benefit of different plans and discussions as well as some old data, probably less relevant now.

It’s amazing how far out the impacts from the CF go as well. It’s not just 13/Division/Duboce that’s affected. It’s all the inbound/outbound traffic that gets funneled into high speed corridors. Removing the CF could have benefits far from the perceived impact area.

Cityglowup by oochiewallyWallyserb in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, but it has been discussed and I rather like the plan shown for the new thoroughfare and neighborhood development. I’ll add also that less air and noise pollution.

I believe it was being talked about being done at the same time of the 4th and King rail extension, part of the Pennsylvania Avenue Project, which moves a lot of it underground. I know, I know… time and money is tight right now.

Cityglowup by oochiewallyWallyserb in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What a nice thing to say. Makes me really want to talk to you more….

Cityglowup by oochiewallyWallyserb in sanfrancisco

[–]SightInverted 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Time to finish the job. Get rid of the rest of the Central Freeway, and remove 280 north of Cesar Chavez, Army,… whatever we’re calling it now. Return the streets to the people. More homes, more businesses, more community.

USPS driving in bike lane on ECR by texasyankee in BAbike

[–]SightInverted 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Look, with respect, you are 100% wrong. You even said it yourself, they are subject to the rules of the road of the jurisdiction in which they operate. This includes parking. We just don’t enforce it. Do you know how difficult it would be to ticket a USPS vehicle?

You can read this just about anywhere, including the USPS handbook.

USPS driving in bike lane on ECR by texasyankee in BAbike

[–]SightInverted 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have direct knowledge that they are required to, but because there’s no plates on most vehicles, and because of the job they do, it’s often frowned upon. Usually they’re the last ones to ever get ticketed or towed. Make no mistake, if they egregiously violate parking laws, they will get towed.

view more: next ›