I don't understand the comment, though. are you in opposition to their concept because it's EVs or in favor of it because it's EVs?

Well what is an acceptable level of efficiency? There are lots of systems that aren't perfectly efficient. Every Metro or light rail train or bus has different efficiency.

Like, is the St Louis light rail acceptably efficient? What about the Washington DC metro? Are either of these two inefficient?

I don't think "ghosted" is the right term for being told "no" and then moving on.

well, all of the places he supposedly "ghosted" actually just said "no". the WSJ is just making shit up.

what do you mean by "efficient" and how many people per EV car/van do you think would become efficient?

>I've ridden them before and the app gives you guidance regarding a safe place to put them.

there isn't a wall in most places, like in OP's photo. they're put up on one edge of the wide sidewalk where there is clearly still space to walk, bike, or wheel past. OP's photo isn't showing any blockage or anything, just some that have fallen over.

>The original post was about scooters. While I agree that people driving their cars recklessly is indeed a major problem that should have been addressed years ago, it doesn't then mean that the scooter issue is something to just let go either.

it's disproportionate, though. people are more upset, more active, post more, and pressure politicians more about scooters falling over than about people killing cyclists. certainly all of society's problems should be fixed, but in this case the focus on a minor problem is actually pulling focus away from a bigger problem.

>At the end of the day if you follow the money trail it will lead you to politicians who are getting their palms greased.

so the social media posts should be "2 wheel transport bad!". it should be "why did the politicians allow single-kickstand scooters and disallow dual-kickstand scooters?"

you have to park them on the sidewalk. most of the city does not have dedicated locations.

but you're fighting the lesser enemy in service of the greater enemy. in the many years of riding, I've ever had to dismount my bike to go around them. how many times have you had to dismount for them? I feel like the number is probably low but I do not ride for a living, so I don't want to presume. they are certainly annoying, but I think far too much attention gets paid to the minor annoyance while people die due to the real problem.

if anything, people should be upset that the company with the dual-kickstand didn't get license to operate here anymore and one with a single kickstand did.

I bike a lot and I don't think I've ever had a situation where the bike lane was blocked. some in the bike lane? sure, but never even close to blocked.

Cars are a much bigger nuisance

deeper tread that you would find on hiking shoes mostly just gives you the ability to not slip in mud as much. for rocks or slopes, I don't think they give any more grip

they were definitely in fine condition for a long time. google photography shows they were not collapsed brick in the back until recently. someone probably sat on them, as Baltimore deadbeat homeowners do, hoping property values would go up. then they probably donated to make the tax write-off. the church was fine with just letting them collapse because the ~90k they've paid over the years is well worth it for a nice empty lot they can use to bring in more revenue for weddings.

people get so upset about this while disregarding so many other real problems in the city. a fast, green, and cheap form of transportation that can help up become less car-dominated shouldn't be the enemy. if anything, people should be upset about the city choosing this company and getting rid of Lime, which has a better kickstand. if they're going to regulate the market, they should be doing a better job.

someone else mentioned that wall in the back has collapsed, which certainly does complicate things from when I wrote this. I still think it could be saved, but once a wall goes, it's much harder because you have to get a structural engineering company to make sure it's safe to work on. if it's not safe to work on, it's much harder. I'm so irritated that the church would let them get that far gone.

for shoes, I find that properly fit/arched running shoes make the best hiking shoes. hiking-specific shoes or boots are typically for keeping water out but aren't really better for regular hiking as they can often be heavy and breathe poorly.

if they really aren't, the church should be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for being a public nuisance because we all know that if they sold them, they would have been turned into apartments or homes and been salvaged decades ago. that is a high rent part of town and it's obvious they intentionally let them fall apart.

Fuck em. They can get a real job or put some of their significant pay into an IRA

I say the church should auction them off. if they're really too far gone, nobody will bid. but we all know the church is full of shit and someone would definitely want these and be able to renovate and reinforce them. it's not actually that expensive to reinforce Baltimore row houses.

these should absolutely not be torn down. the Loyola School one was different, though. they only wanted to demolish the rear part that was already a later addition. they also wanted to do it to make a school for low income and immigrant children, which is a much better cause than an empty plot of grass.

I'm about as anti-NIMBY as it gets, but this is complete horse shit. those buildings would go for hundreds of thousands of dollars each and a developer would make them structurally sound and sell or rent them, preserving the nicer than average architecture. cutting out a bunch of buildings from the center of a block and putting ugly concrete block along the occupied ones will be a net negative to everyone.

how about the church auctions them off. if nobody bids on them, they can tear them down.

they can sell them. they could partner with a developer to renovate them and rent them out. there is no reason to tear them down. these houses would be snatched up in a heartbeat if they were to sell them. they would have 20 years ago and they would be today. they church isn't required to let them fall apart, that was a choice they made, and there is still time to save the buildings if they would just sell them.

I have rehabbed houses and seen many rehabbed. these are totally salvageable. row-houses in fed hill have gotten their basements dug, foundations underpinned, stripped to the brick, floors raised, new stairs put in, new roof, all new plumbing, all new electrical, exterior walls strapped and more for less than $200k. these places would definitely be worth more than that if they had the same treatment. calling them structurally unsound is bullshit because it's actually quite easy to reinforce walls and foundations and to repoint bricks.

then sell all but one and work on that one. I would gladly pay $100k for one of those, even if it meant major renovations inside.

CHAP has failures in both directions.

yeah, I think also reforming the way schools are run would be important, but that's a very hard thing to do well. maybe some gradual shift to charter schools but being careful to avoid the problems that some private schools run into due to inequalities in who gets in

>No jobs, bad schools, bad housing situation.

the problem is that the voters won't support any politician actually solving the problems.

you want jobs? make the city more tourist friendly, which means getting rid of squeegee workers, dirtbikers, and heavily policing the tourist areas.

we can't even get our politicians to stop building massive low-income housing blocks that have been proven to be a bad approach for the better part of a century because think housing supply is a problem when the reality is that poor public safety causes our current housing stock to fall into abandonment and disrepair. if you want to fix affordable housing, make people feel safe and it will solve itself. but new strategies for policing are constantly pushed back on by voters.

certainly most people who grow up in bad situations don't turn into killers. it takes less than 1 in 1,000 to create problems for a city. I'm not sure how you find the bad apples and separate them without doing unjust things. I suppose you can arrest more folks for lower level crimes before they become killers and try to reform when with more time in jail/prison/rehab/mental hospital, but arresting more and jailing more isn't a popular idea right now.