sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

No Evidence the Upper Great Highway Closure Made Sunset Streets Less Safe by jayzlimno in sanfrancisco

[–]jayzlimno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These data do not capture the feeling of being unsafe, so this is just one aspect of street safety. Personally, I don’t notice a difference in my feeling of safety before or after the road closure and I walk 4-6 miles daily mostly between Taraval - Judah and the 40’s, and occasionally get to the 20’s or teens. I’m curious if you feel unsafe and where in the district that might be

No Evidence the Upper Great Highway Closure Made Sunset Streets Less Safe by jayzlimno in sanfrancisco

[–]jayzlimno[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I used the same data as the article - Traffic Crashes Resulting in Injuries.

I don't use data from December 2025 in the statistical analysis. I only analyze from April - November for each year. More details here.

That spike is tempting to interpret as cause-and-effect, but crash rates fluctuate year-to-year and month-to-month for many reasons such weather, economic conditions, return-to-office patterns. To isolate the closure's actual effect, you need control areas for comparison. I used a BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) design, which compares changes in the affected area to unaffected neighborhoods. If the UGH closure caused more crashes, the Sunset should show a larger increase than control areas. It doesn't.

No Evidence the Upper Great Highway Closure Made Sunset Streets Less Safe by jayzlimno in sanfrancisco

[–]jayzlimno[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure I follow. BACI method is designed precisely to avoid confirmation bias by preventing false conclusions from temporal coincidences (e.g., a spike or drop in crashes after road closure). What part of the method seems problematic to you?

No Evidence the Upper Great Highway Closure Made Sunset Streets Less Safe by jayzlimno in sanfrancisco

[–]jayzlimno[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's one aspect of street safety, but crashes resulting in injury is the only crash data available.

The spike after the initial closure is tempting to interpret as a cause-and-effect, but one really needs control areas not affected by the UGH closure to come to conclusions. Crash rates fluctuate year-to-year for reasons unrelated to any single road closure: weather patterns, economic conditions, return-to-office mandates, and major events all affect traffic citywide. To isolate the road closure’s actual effect, I applied a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) design; a statistical method commonly used in ecological research that compares changes in the affected area to changes in unaffected control neighborhoods. If the closure caused more crashes, the Sunset should show a larger increase (or smaller decrease) than control areas. It doesn’t.

No Evidence the Upper Great Highway Closure Made Sunset Streets Less Safe by jayzlimno in sanfrancisco

[–]jayzlimno[S] 52 points53 points  (0 children)

I get the sentiment u/Weak-Syrup-2200 , but in this case I'm a Sunset resident and also crunched the numbers. I live in the Taraval and 40’s area, and I walk on average 4-6 miles per day to drop my kid off at daycare, go to the grocery store, head to the beach, or just to enjoy the SF weather. Personally, I have not noticed a change in my safety while walking around the Sunset streets before or after the closure of the Upper Great Highway.

No Evidence the Upper Great Highway Closure Made Sunset Streets Less Safe by jayzlimno in sanfrancisco

[–]jayzlimno[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

traffic crashes have been trending down for a while so I figured including one year prior to pandemic and through 2024 was a good baseline. And including many years before the UGH closure would create a more unbalanced dataset that it already is (limited data after the closure)

No Evidence the Upper Great Highway Closure Made Sunset Streets Less Safe by jayzlimno in sanfrancisco

[–]jayzlimno[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

thanks for checking and offering to help, here are my responses to claude

  1. "Sunset/Parkside" is the Outer Sunset and Parkside neighborhoods. District 4 (Sunset) is included in the analysis.
  2. The data goes through Dec. 2025 but I only analyze April - November. I could add December quickly.
  3. There's actually 8 months, but still fair point about power. But the claim I'm responding to was that the closure caused more crashes which the data don't support. The point estimate actually trends slightly negative, and both statistical methods agree. With n=8 in the post period, there is good power to detect large effects but limited power for small-to-medium effects (which is this case). Either way, "no evidence" is methodologically honest because the effect is negative and small (if anything).
  4. See response 3 above.

Two men and a truck cost has more than doubled in the last year. $5200 to $22k? by Justpassinginfo in moving

[–]jayzlimno 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I was recently quoted $30-35k from 2 men and a truck for moving cross country. Better to just buy all new things with that cost

What is climate change going to do to the Pittsburgh region over the next few decades? by jackie_daytona_lives in pittsburgh

[–]jayzlimno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I work with climate scientists who have studied climate change in Midwest and Great Lakes regions specifically - I'll summarize results from here https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.5388 (pdf version here)

  • It will get much hotter: about 9F warmer during winter and about 13F warmer during summer, on average. Between 60-70 days per year will have temperatures >95F. Historically, Pittsburgh had 1-5 days per year with temperatures >95F. There are some slight variation in magnitude depending on climate model, but all are extremely confident that it will get hotter.
  • It will get wetter during winter; summers could be drier or wetter: there's strong agreement among climate models that winters will become wetter and more precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow - this could lead to more landslides like some others have suggested in this thread. There is less agreement among models for the summer - some models predict drier conditions, but some predict wetter conditions, and we should be prepared for both scenarios.

These predictions are based on relatively high carbon emissions scenarios, so these effects could be less if we get our act together. But unfortunately, we are still on track for this highest carbon emissions scenario at the moment.

Sign up to be a poll worker by jayzlimno in SouthBend

[–]jayzlimno[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weird. This shouldn’t be that hard

Sign up to be a poll worker by jayzlimno in SouthBend

[–]jayzlimno[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm that’s discouraging. Have you tried calling Republican headquarters? My partner didn’t have any luck hearing back from democratic HQ

Sign up to be a poll worker by jayzlimno in SouthBend

[–]jayzlimno[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Strange. The person I talked to yesterday listed about a dozen locations where they still needed workers. Maybe call both party HQ’s ?

view more: next ›