Ariel Méndez

Australians to get at least three hours a day of free solar power – even if they don’t have solar panels Labor announces ‘solar sharer’ program for households in NSW, south-east Queensland and South Australia

“Australian households in three states will be promised access to at least three hours a day of free solar power, regardless of whether they have rooftop panels”

Part of the effort to shift peak demand, and looks like prices overall have still increased in AUS. www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...

If you ever visited California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, you probably remember seeing Claude.

A common complaint I hear is "nobody will bike for every trip" even though nobody is saying that!

(Personally, I would love to be cycling like the Dutch over-65s well into my over-80s years.)

The "natural gas should be a choice" argument doesn't seem to recognize that choosing no gas isn't really an option. One of the biggest expenses is trenching and burying neighborhood gas lines. Somebody else is already making that decision.

Simultaneously reassuring and depressing to see other cities struggle when it comes to transportation.

Places have this figured out. We can do this.

Figure 1. FAR Illustration (Image Credit: Julie Campoli, Visualizing Density). Image shows three buildings in purple that provide FAR (floor to area ratio) 1. The first covers 100% of the lot, 2nd covers 50%, and 3rd covers 25%. Second line shows FAR 2 with same lot coverages.

When you mention high "FAR," I often think "lot coverage" instead. Because nice skinny buildings with lots of open space can be high FAR, but they can't be high lot coverage.

So which is better to focus on? FAR or lot coverage? Or is it some mix of both?

Traffic is already an issue when household vehicles are driving 5% of the time (and parked 95% of the time). Now imagine that they are driving 50% of the time. Sure, maybe less parking demand, but the vehicles are now just in the travel lanes instead. Big traffic problems!

😝/😢

Great photo, Sean!

Some people will say extra lanes are the solution, probably because they can't believe that anything other than driving is even possible.

A microcosm of every city's transportation problems!

Great work on this, thank you.

Points out A) kids are injured at roughly similar rates between eBikes and pedal bikes and

B) we can't really draw conclusions across age cohorts or eBikes without knowing how frequently each cohort is riding each type of bike.

Donate • Oregon Capital Chronicle Oregon Capital Chronicle is a nonprofit news operation that depends on people like you to support high-quality journalism that can be provided to Oregonians at no cost. By donating with a…

Has the Capital Chronicle helped you keep up with Oregon news? We're trying to raise $20,000 by the end of the year to continue our work. No ads. No paywall. No fear or favor.

Agreed except for the connected street grid part. I’m fine with diverters, modal filters, and the occasional street that is a park instead of a car street. People love them! Too much grid = too much pavement, too much driving.

bsky.app/profile/amen...

This seems pretty fundamental - greenfield and area/master plans are just totally different than an evolutionary growth that yield pretty good historical results.

Question is how do we get better results now because it feels like we’re missing the mark.

I think the challenge is different for area/master plans than already existing neighborhoods.

Zoning could be improved for existing neighborhoods, but I’m not sure zoning is the impediment to walkable area/master plans.

For sure! But are there any examples where relaxed zoning has led to contemporary walkable greenfield development? Seems like NWX is the closest local example (and that took 20+ years and still faced many setbacks).

I’m not so sure. If we set aside 100 acres where developers could build whatever they wanted, you don’t think they would build 100% housing?

Ok @profanity.accountant what’s the tally?

My sense is the people that signed don’t realize they’ve just cut winter plowing, maintenance, transit, and basic safety measures. Going to be a rough year.

The legislature *could* pass something else, but it would have to be substantially different than HB 3991.

Looks like the latest Bulletin editorial inspired some cars vs bikes emails to council.

Often missed is that more people riding bikes = less traffic.

I had high hopes that the subject “Bikes Rule” would be about how awesome bikes are, but it was not to be…

I’ve been looking into charging Bend visitors (who don’t pay property taxes, our transportation utility fee, and no sales tax) a different rate to park. Residents would get a discounted rate. Preliminary modeling and legal analysis look promising. Would love to get your input on it!

Thanks for this (and for teaching me a new concept - anthropodenialism. The idea animals cannot have human-like emotions and vice-versa).

It is overly aggressive for sure.

Don’t say no to a balsamic vinegar tour of you can find one. Amazing experience!

Yeah, that actually could be the goal for this admin…

Seems common in other countries to charge non-residents a higher rate. I bet visitors are happy to pay a little extra to keep the National Park Service going.

It costs so much to take them down, put them up, take them down… I bet businesses (and customers) would love to keep them up.

Sounds like lots of good things are happening and I’m sure it’s not by accident!

Was it lack of space for two-lane roundabouts or something else that led to trying single lane roundabouts?

Bend now has over 50 roundabouts but we are seeing a move towards 2-lane ones whenever there is space and it’s awful.

Some people think Reed Market Lane should be widened to 4 lanes. What if we did this, instead?

And if you think this is unrealistic, is it realistic to think Bend can accommodate 50% more drivers in the next 20 years?

Better transit, land use, safer walking, wheeling, and biking. We have a choice.

A screenshot of an ad for a men’s tank top that says “I HATE THIS MAP”

Now I have another reason to pick up this tank top I saw on Marketplace!

To be clear, the map is bad not just because it gives partisan advantage, but because it divides the county by arbitrary lines that must be redrawn a minimum of every decade. There are better ways to ensure representation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project say the maps give Republicans an advantage, even though there are more Democrats countywide.

It’s worth asking what problem were the two Republican county commissioners trying to solve with this process? bendbulletin-or.newsmemory.com?publink=106d...