A recent snapshot of an especially "alert" SF driver making their way through the city has reignited a familiar debate — one that never seems to go anywhere productive. Should we have fewer cars? More transit? Better bike lanes? Wider sidewalks? The answer from City Hall, as usual, is to spend money studying the question while the streets get worse.

Here's the thing nobody at the SFMTA wants to admit: San Francisco is a city that depends on vehicle traffic. Your favorite restaurant doesn't teleport ingredients from the Central Valley. Your online orders don't materialize from thin air. As one local put it, "How do you think your slop bowls and matcha lattes are getting from outside the city to your doorstep?"

And yet, the city's approach to street safety has been a masterclass in contradictions. We slash public transit funding year after year while simultaneously lecturing residents about driving less. We redesign corridors to slow traffic, then wonder why congestion — and the honking and pollution that come with it — gets worse. One SF resident nailed the absurdity: "So your solution to the noise, honking, and pollution is to increase congestion so all of that will worsen?"

Meanwhile, some residents who chose to live on high-volume streets like Franklin or Van Ness act stunned that trucks exist. Another local offered some blunt advice: "If you looked at an apartment on Franklin Street and decided to rent it, that's on you."

The real issue isn't that cars are evil or that transit is perfect. It's that San Francisco refuses to make hard choices and fund what actually works. Smart urban design and well-funded transit aren't free — they require fiscal discipline and honest prioritization, two things our city budget has never been accused of having.

Stay alert out there, SF. Clearly, nobody else is.