Latest news with #un-Berkeley

San Francisco Chronicle​

Letters: Don't overlook these negative impacts from Bay Area casual carpooling

Regarding 'Some commuters want to bring back the Bay Area's casual carpool. Here's when' (Bay Area, June 24): It's important to differentiate the 'casual' practice from actual carpooling. In the 50-some years of taking on an extra rider or two to skirt the Bay Bridge back-up, drivers have congested traffic in HOV lanes and skimmed fare-paying riders from AC Transit's transbay service. Before COVID, the line serving San Francisco from my neighborhood had fewer than half as many buses scheduled for the morning commute as there were returning in the afternoon. Carpools are great for people who are heading to the same off-the-transit-grid destination, who share resources, and who are granted parking or a stipend for making the effort to minimize one driver per car commuting. Casual carpooling promotes personal car driving and is, essentially, a fare-jumping tactic for would-be transit riders. Cynthia Ahart Wood, Oakland Upzoning is un-Berkeley YIMBY arguments misstate the excesses of the proposed Middle Housing upzoning. It will encourage dense, taller market-rate rentals (5 to 7 units per lot). The increased bulk is counter to the intimate scale and openness that people seek out in Berkeley. The outcome of the proposed upzoning will make land even more expensive; the rosy vision of equity building for economically disadvantaged residents, as touted by Owens, will not happen. We don't need this gentrifying upzoning. Previous zoning regulations can provide more cost-accessible infill housing. Huge numbers of high-rise developments have been built or approved; we can reach our quota of state-required units without adopting extreme infill upzoning. For the Chronicle to disingenuously advance the developer-serving YIMBY arguments is a real disservice. Peggy Radel, Berkeley Attack may unleash Iran The U.S.-Israel strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have inspired two opposing narratives. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton calls them a decisive blow, potentially triggering the end of the Iranian regime. He envisions a crumbling theocracy, weakened by unrest and economic strain, and believes the attacks may finally eliminate a looming nuclear threat. But Carnegie Foundation's nuclear policy expert, James M. Acton, offers a more sobering assessment: Iran's program is damaged, not destroyed. Its stockpile of highly enriched uranium was likely moved beforehand; its scientists and technical infrastructure remain intact. Iran could easily reconstitute its program within a year, or sooner. More troubling, Acton warns the strikes may push Iran to abandon its long-held threshold status and build a bomb. The message to Tehran is stark: strategic ambiguity no longer ensures security. Worse, the attacks risk unraveling global nonproliferation norms, especially as Iran further reduces cooperation with the IAEA. Military action cannot erase expertise. Small, hidden facilities could soon replace bombed-out ones. If diplomacy is not revived, the strikes may mark a dangerous miscalculation. We've seen this movie before — in Iraq and Libya. If Acton is correct, the ending may not bring resolution, but an emboldened nuclear adversary. Andrew D. Forsyth, Berkeley Create real fixes Regarding 'Adding freeway lanes doesn't fix traffic. Why does California keep wasting billions on it?' (Open Forum, June 24): I have heard that building wider freeways is like loosening your belt to solve your obesity problem. The difficulty stems from how much our state government is siloed, making it hard to share resources to most effectively come up with solutions to problems that cut across departmental boundaries. As the op-ed points out, affordable housing, highways, public transit and climate change adaptation must all be factored into a truly holistic solution.