I hike with a FT60 too; it's simple and robust. It'll handle San Bruno mountain except for right along the top ridgeline. Walking 20 meters downhill will let it work again. That mountain is just a crazy bubble of RF.

I use two techniques to figure out if the handheld I'm carrying will work. First, if the S meter reads at S9 but the squelch isn't opening, then it's overloaded. The second is to call into a clearly viable and local repeater. Failing to open the repeater is a pretty good sign of overload.

I'm hopeful. This measure forces visibility of progress and allows any regular citizen to sue the city if they try to weasel out. I can't imagine a city politician taking a position of "we're going to fight this ridiculous lawsuit about not installing a wider sidewalk for as long as it takes." That's a real bad look, especially given this measure passed 65% for, 35% against. It would be political suicide.

Go for ankle straps over vests. It's far more important for the reflective materials to be moving than the amount of body coverage you have.

GCN recently covered this topic with interviews of optometry and psychology professors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33GpfTWdk8U

The class system is designed for these arguments. I'm fine with class 2 in lanes and paths, but now we can discuss ebikes and where they belong without confusion. And regulators for parks, towns, etc can make it very clear in their signage.

Wow, that's not great. You have my condolences and I hope you manage to convince your city to put some money into a frontage road or path of some sort. I've seen some pretty nice rail trails and the like in very small communities, but they take a lot of work and time.

You're probably at the edge of the bus line. There's a usually very empty bus every 30 minutes just a block away from me. I took that bus a few times and realized that my neighborhood is the turn around for it. Most of the folk on it have gotten off by the time it loops through.

This situation of empty busses at houses makes sense too. Why would a bus be full at the edge of town? It needs passengers first and they won't accumulate until the bus is near populated spots like downtown. And why would a city pay for empty busses when they could route them in better areas?

There's evidence they are being used as an alternative to more polluting modes: https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-280-million-electric-bikes-and-mopeds-are-cutting-demand-for-oil-far-more-than-electric-cars-213870

One thing most often missed with bike-curious people, like yourself, miss is that the roads taken by bike are usually not the ones you'd drive.

A car route is often a poor choice when riding a bike. Avoiding fast moving cars means avoiding those dangerous areas. Pedestrians die because they don't have an alternative (parked across the road, or it's near home, school, etc).

For example, I'm at a friend's place and I rode my bike here. The path I take is through slower neighborhoods and dedicated trails. If I drove my car, I'd take a very different route.

My advice is to think of some regular trips you make; work, shopping, or otherwise. Then use Google or Strava or other mapping software to see what their suggested bike routes are. You may be surprised at what's available. I know I was when I started biking more regularly.

Also there are health benefits. If you're not exercising every day, then commuting for 5 days by bike absolutely will improve your health. I've lost a ton of weight. Take a look at how deadly heart disease is for folks without regular "walking 20 minutes a day" exercise is.

Yep, the park includes the parking lot, but it's a different not POTA or SOTA park on the east side up the hills. Though there is a summit not too far away (W6/CC-072 San Bruno Mountain) that's challenging for another reason: it's littered with FM and TV broadcast towers. I've never tried to SOTA it, but I bought a 2m bandpass filter for my handheld for when I'm out hiking it. It's a pastime listening to folks on 146.52 calling CQ but unable to hear the 10 people trying to respond. It's such an easy peak to get to but so many folk fail because their radio's frontend becomes overloaded.

This exercise is definitely an excuse for more ham stuff. If I can squeeze out an additional 3db over what I have, then it'll be worth it.

I haven't built a feedline match before. That may be worthwhile just for the experience in building such.

Indeed, many of my wire antennas work with NVIS. I rarely do nighttime radio, so my 40m work is generally localized. My EFHW with a 40m fundamental in L / V ish configuration at 10m height and 20 to 50 watts of power does a great job, 59 reports locally and up to 600km away. I even played around with attaching a wire to the top end of my telescoping vertical to make an inverted L specifically for pulling out the vertical's null and into NVIS operation.

Perhaps the park is more about being an excuse in expanding my antenna collection because my EFHW maxes out around 50w SSB, but I'm not going to complain. Who doesn't want more antennas?

I'm looking at K-6450, but it's not the only POTA that's a cove. There's plenty of small beaches up and down the coast that are surrounded by cliffs and mountains. I hope our discussion can help others looking at similarly difficult POTA parks.

My first experience with this beach was when I took my radio with my 1/4w vertical for some simple play and SWLing because I wanted to avoid local QRM. That trip was successful in removing the QRM and nearly all bands were quiet from any eastward activity and nearly silent from north-south stations despite decent band conditions. Afterwards I checked POTA to see if the beach was a valid park, which it was, and noted how few people have activated it. That makes sense as depending on DX for activation is a difficult proposition. I suspect those who did activate probably did so from the parking lot (better power budgets and a larger sky view), went on a weekend for higher band activity, knew how to maximize local propagation, and/or used digital to deal with very weak signals.

Hence why I'm looking at NVIS options. If I can setup the best portable NVIS that I can muster, then that antenna with my beach DXing setup should cover the contacts needed to active the park.

As for the planned spot to operate from, this time I'll try working from the cliff tops instead of on the sand. There are trees that I can use and is not a crowded location (the beach is popular, not the cliffs). I don't want anyone tripping over poles or long wires after all.

I did consider a OCFD but the multiband feature didn't seem worthwhile over a monoband dipole or multiband fan dipole.

Thinking about it again, perhaps it is worthy. If the fundamental is 40m, then I should get dipole performance with an interesting radiation pattern on the second harmonic (20m). If I deploy as a sloper, then perhaps I can get an OK 20m DX setup and decent 40m NVIS out of it. Good timing of the activation right could mean I can capture VK stations without pulling out my 1/4w vertical.

I'll give it a quick model and perhaps find myself winding a 4:1 balun. :)

I too live in a state that's eliminating stagnating regulation, which in turn is causing my town and neighboring towns to catch up with extreme housing demands. I imagine we both will experience an awkward phase as some lots get updated buildings next to lots that haven't seen construction in 60+ years.

I view my recent experience as long needed development. There's no way a developer would plunge that much money into a building if they didn't believe they could sell the apartments/condos. I'd watch to see how fast they sell out, if they haven't already. Consider investing in nearby development if the complex sells quick. Maybe also consider moving further down the train line if you're looking for a less dense neighborhood.

Totally! And SF is a place that's been deploying more bicycle infrastructure and instructing their police to not enforce rolling stops, since at least from 2015! Our car brained governor is stopping such progress, so the battle continues. At least SF residents are holding their ground and voting to keep places like the great highway and JFK drive car-free.

To be fair, the article is trash. There's details in other publications, like Reuters:

"Waymo said its vehicle was at a complete stop at a four-way intersection when a large truck crossed the intersection in its direction. At its turn to proceed, the Waymo car moved forward.

However, the cyclist, who was obscured by the truck which the cyclist was following, took a left turn into the Waymo vehicle's path. When the cyclist was fully visible, the Waymo's vehicle braked heavily, but wasn't able to avoid the collision, the company said."

Drafting through an intersection is not very safe (I really should stop doing it myself) because of this exact visibility problem. Heck, it seems our cyclist friend cut left because they couldn't see the waymo car either.

Watch out when crossing busy intersections, folk! Cars are bulky and opaque. Yield when encountering busy intersections.

In this incident there was a passenger in the car. They were not injured.

The rolling taxis problem is still a thing though. I know there's lots for these self-driving cars to hang out in, but even that means a return trip back to base is without passengers.

Locking up is a great way to get some piece of mind. Another way is insurance! It's not too expensive compared to an expensive bike. You can also setup your own "insurance" by opening a savings account/index funds/rotating CoDs with some money and deposit a monthly value of your choice (gas money saved per month, what private insurance would be, or as a general savings goal).

IMHO, scooters are so inexpensive that it's not a huge deal to buy a new one when it's stolen. This is true for ebikes too, though it can be a little more painful. Try comparing such a loss to how much you're paying for transportation and you'll find that a bike isn't the biggest slice of that pie. Use that knowledge to relish the thought with your coffee after not paying for gas or a parking meter.

That's a fair position to take, and thank you for debating. Have an upvote!

I don't think park-and-ride should be made artificially cheap or free because that causes demand to drive to the town edges. Regional transit is needed and is already competing with subsidized highways. We don't need more subsidies that induce even more regional car demand!

Besides, even with charging for the lost costs, park-and-ride is going to be cheaper over inner-city parking. Let me clarify my point of the cost of a garage: the cost of building a garage includes materials, maintenance, enforcement, and land value. City edge land is cheap to the point that park-and-ride probably won't be built as a garage but as a lot. Engineered buildings are expensive and usually only make sense when the land value is very high. I suspect it's only a million or two to build a paved, ~200 spot park-and-ride, which would place daily spot pricing on the order of $1.50 to $2.50 a day. That's pretty cheap compared to privately owned garaged parking in major cities (> $25 a day).

My pricing beef orbits around how often city garages are heavily subsidized. I'll make a real-life example from a nearby city of 64,000 people. They built a garage adjacent to their downtown for $12 million. Amortizing that over 15 years and the number of spaces puts the minimum revenue per spot at $8.98 per day. What is the city's going rate for parking? $40 per month for a permit and $1.25 an hour with 9 hours of enforcement. Only the hourly rate at 100% occupancy, which this lot is not generating, meets just the construction costs, let alone figuring out discount rate and property taxes.

And speaking of taxes, I expect publicly built parking lots and garages to also pay for their taxable rate, even if it's just an accounting trick by the city to price their lots. Running local property taxes as a land value tax would go a long way towards properly pricing the value of public garages. LVT would also discourage parking in the city center, where land is expensive, in favor of parking on the city edge, where land is cheap. Just another trick which drives down park-and-ride pricing and discourages city-center parking.

There are good parking garages and bad parking garages. What makes a good parking garage? I'd say good garages must be:

• Located away from attractions and venues. The garage should not operate as a way to funnel cars into a popular area but rather as a way to store cars for those unfortunate enough to be unable to arrive by alternative means.
• Located close to public transit. The garage should operate as a gateway into a local community, hence should have access to bike paths, trains and trams, buses, etc to carry their passengers into a community.
• Be priced to cover the garage cost. Garages are expensive and the hourly/daily fees with average occupancy should pay for the garage in 10 to 15 years.
• A tool to remove on-street parking and minimum parking requirements.

Bad garages are ones that break the good rules. They are:

• Are free or too cheap to pay off their construction cost and land value in a reasonable time period.
• Located inside downtown areas.
• A method to increase the capacity of car storage in downtowns.

It's also possible for a good garage to become a bad one. Say a small town installs a parking lot on the edge of town, but then the town grows. That lot should be removed due to the increased land value it occupies. The new medium sized town can consider adding a parking lot or garage again, but certainly not in their popular, profitable, and active downtown.

Yeah, it's a hit or miss kind of thing. Some folk have zero issues with them. Also the nice thing with derailleurs is their cheap access to the huge gear range and count of cassettes.

Still, one of NJB's talking points in his love letter to the omafiets is the lack of a derailleur. I'm taking that as a hard requirement of finding a US equivalent bike.