From: johnwu@netcom.com (John M. Wu)
Subject: Re: Proposed Transportation Projects for Berkeley
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 10:08:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.044309.20506@pbhye.PacBell.COM> mjvande@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>Proposed Resolution:
>
>The Transportation Commission Recommends to the City Council that
>it be the policy of the City to reduce the total amount and speed
>of motor vehicle traffic within the City, and not to institute
>measures that would tend to increase, encourage, or subsidize any
>increase in motor vehicle traffic volume or speed.
>
>Proposed Resolution:
>
>The Transportation Commission Recommends to the City Council that
>it be the policy of the City to protect residential areas of the
>City as much as possible from motor vehicle traffic, applying
>traffic calming techniques wherever feasible to keep motor vehicle
>traffic volume and speed within residential neighborhoods at a
>minimum.
>
>Capital Improvement Recommendations:
>
>Plan only projects that benefit pedestrians, bicyclists, and public
>transit. In particular:
>
>1. Apply for street trees to beautify all the streets of Berkeley,
>to counteract the pollution caused by motor vehicles, and to be
>used as traffic calming devices (in planters within the street,
>e.g. in the center of intersections, to create traffic circles).

As far as beautifying streets are concerned, I don't care if my center
divider looks real nice and pretty.  Cars made within the last few
years don't cause all that much pollution.  Just yank those polluting
20-year-old cars off our roads.

And what is the purpose of creating traffic circles?  Can someone
enlighten me here?

[...]

>
>7. Get funds to improve transit in Berkeley, to be administered by
>A/C Transit. Use the funds to create transit options to lure people
>out of their cars (e.g. to improve BART access, to reduce the need
>to provide BART parking). 

Encourage people to USE AC Transit.  Heck, it may be faster to get to
work on the bus than going to BART, waiting for BART, walking to
destination.   BART cannot take people everywhere.  That's why we need
to encourage the use of fairly complete bus systems like AC Transit.
Leaders like company execs and city council members should set an 
example to the rest of the population by using mass transit. 
 
>Provide a stop announcement system for
>buses, such as exists on Japanese buses (the driver triggers a tape
>recording that announces the upcoming stop). 

IMHO, bus drivers should be trained NOW to announce stops.

>Provide bike racks for
>buses that pass through Berkeley.

If you can find space for them, fine.  But are you going to put bike racks
on sidewalks?   If so, make sure they don't block the sidewalk or else I'll
step on Mr. Rogers lawn to get around the obstacle.

 Provide traffic signal overrides
>for the buses that pass through Berkeley, so that buses never have
>to wait long for a red light. 

In an ideal world, I would like that to even the playing field between
automobilies and buses.  But you could really screw things up like having
ten buses go by every 20 sec. thus causing a long backup on the waiting
street.  But yeah, I like to see a bus driver zap a remote control to change
a red to green a few seconds before the light.

>Increase bus service in Berkeley,
>e.g. by decreasing headways on the major lines and discovering
>other needed lines.

Let me dig out my AC transit system map.  To me, AC transit has fairly
good coverage around Berkeley and some of the other parts of East Bay.
Also, expect for a very few lines at peak hours, I don't think we need to
increase bus service (frequency) until ridership increases.

>8. Create "bus bulbs" at bus stops, so that buses don't have to
>pull out of their lane to pick up passengers. Experiment with one
>main route first, to see the effect on bus headways and bicyclists.

This sounds really stupid.  Bicyclists are going to have trouble since they
have to enter traffic lanes to avoid them.  I thought we were encouraging
bikes with those racks.   

>9. Extend parking fees to the whole city, e.g. by means of the RPP.
>Increase parking fees in order to reduce traffic in Berkeley. Use
>air quality measurements in Berkeley to find out the desired
>maximum level of traffic.

[...]

>11. Give repaving priority to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
>routes. Where feasible, pave with concrete rather than asphalt,
>which is a toxic petroleum product.

The tires on my bike and car prefer asphalt.  If your concrete can
act like asphalt, then fine.  Otherwise, concrete becomes a safety
hazard.  And I don't want to see badly maintained roads endangering
motorists including buses.

>12. Stop all City parking construction projects, e.g. the Center
>Street Garage, Marina Parking lot, Downtown Garage, and West
>Berkeley Parking Garage. This is exactly the opposite of what we
>should be doing!

I agree 100% here.  Then again, if they do start constructing, it's very
unfair for the city to just yank its permission.  It will cost the city
dearly in lawsuits.  Use suggestion #9 to fight parking lots already in
construction or existing.

[...]
>
>14. Investigate and implement a gas tax in Berkeley, with the
>proceeds to be used to improve pedestrian, bicycle, rail, and bus
>transportation in Berkeley.

No good.  I can drive to Oakland and defeat your stupid local tax.  What
we need is a national gas tax for above purposes nationwide.  But I like
the basic premise that automobile users should have their heavily subsidized
use of the roads pay for using the roads.
 
-- 
John M. Wu                "And if a double decker bus, crashes into us
johnwu@netcom.com          to die by your side, is such a heavenly way to die"
jmw@ocf.berkeley.edu         - There Is A Light That Never Goes Out
#include <flameprotect.h>
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,la.general,oc.general