I say no

Not enough people ride the bus to justify this.

I say no

too many planners filling billable time leads to bad ideas like this one. lay them off now.

I say yes

I love riding the 1 R and 72 R buses: they are so fast and pleasant to ride.

I say no

Terrible idea with no net gain for air, and many downsides.

I say no

Those of us who use AC Transit know that frequency is the problem, not speed. AC Transit and local city governments know it will be easier for them to get money for a Telegraph Avenue "improvement" rather than to subsidize greater bus frequency over a long enough period of time to change commuters habits.

This is a misguided boondoggle that will only make Berkeley an angrier place as commuters are forced to spend more time than ever trying to get from A to B. A far better solution would be encourage walking via strategic rezoning so that A and B are right next to each other - No need to get in either a car or a bus.

I say no

Telegraph isn't wide enough. Fix what's wrong with AC Transit : fiscal mismanagement, meandering, nonsensical routes, drivers' hostility to passengers, inefficiency and glacial speeds. Then maybe we can talk about communities sacrificing one of the handful of major thoroughfares you can actually use to get anywhere in Berkeley.

I say no

Even fully built, the BRT system won't approach the speed of BART trains. AC Transit should skip the massive infrastructure projects and the closing of lanes and focus on simpler bus improvements: signal priority for buses, getting TransLink working, improved stop locations.

I say yes

Berkeley is leading the Bay Area in the fight against Global Warming. We can make an example out of this BRT program and implement it in other cities when they realize it is an efficient and environmentally sustainable way to travel. For those that complain traffic will spill over to their residential neighborhoods; traffic is going to increase no matter what. Getting people out of their cars into other modes of transportation is the answer. Bus-Only lanes will result in much more reliable scheduling and faster travel time.

I say yes

This represents a big improvement in public transit in the East Bay by allowing buses to move faster and easier than autos.

I say yes

Berkeley should support Bus Rapid Transit but must insist that the system be designed to fit our City. Berkeley should develop the design and alignment for BRT that will enhance transit service at the same time it helps revitalize the Downtown and Telegraph areas. Enhancing public transportation is very important but it must be balanced with other needs in our struggling commercial districts. Dedicated lanes for buses will work well for most of the proposed route but may not be be appropriate on Telegraph between Dwight Way and Bancroft or in some parts of Shattuck in Downtown where there are complex issues of how to use the public right of way as part of revitalization efforts.
Berkeley must also think longer term than A/C Transit and consider how this first proposed route should be designed to eventually be part of a larger system serving more Berkeley designations.

I say no

The latest article in the East Bay Express http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/the_buses_from_hell/Content?oid=627762 is very telling about the state of affairs at AC Transit. Even if the bus-only lanes are approved there does not seem to be much confidence in a successful implementation.

I say no

I shop on Telegraph; this will make it impossible to park OR drive on Telegraph. It will destroy small businesses on Telegraph, since buses will be rolling through and won't stop; riders who want to shop will have to walk back from the bus stop (through, frankly, some dangerous neighborhoods). Also it will be impossible to make a left turn across the street into the few business parking lots that exist. And it WILL divert auto traffic onto the side streets: the left turn issue guarantees it.

The way to increase bus ridership is to add back the small-ridership routes AC Transit has been cutting back over the last few years. We don't need "more bus lanes", we just need more buses. This is just a way to "put in" light rail without actually paying for the light rail infrastructure.

I say no

Will the guess of increased ridership of 6,000 per day outweigh the unnecessary diversion of traffic onto neighborhood streets? I doubt it.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that when you look at the poll including *only* registered Berkeley voters, the result swings pretty dramatically--toward no?

I say no

This would make a bottleneck out of Telegraph and force a lot of traffic onto the side streets.

I say yes

Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit is a great idea, it improves public transit by making the bus operate more like a train with faster times, more predictable arrivals, and all-round higher quality service. Although it will decrease a lane, it will decrease traffic because when you can fit 50 people on one bus, causing far less congestion than 50 people in private autos. We need changes in our community that allow us to drive less, pollute less, and get around quickly. Support this!

I say no

I recommend that the planned rapid bus lanes be blocked for three days before governmental decisions are made on this issue. The parking places to be removed would be blocked as well. The resulting insight following such an experimtne would guide decision making.
The cost of setting up the blockades would be some thousands of dollars, but constructing a massive gridlock project would create a nightmare.
Elizabeth Evans

I say yes

We must make transit more competitive with the private automobile to attract more "choice riders." Berkeleyans are rational actors, and need more fast, comfortable and convenient transit options if expect them to choose transit.

Berkeley and AC Transit can work together to mitigate community concerns and to maximize transit ridership from this important regional transit investment.

The community investment represented by BRT has a great potential to result in a virtuous cycle, with AC reaping additional revenues due to increased patronage of AC Transit by Berkeley residents.

A Joint Benefits package should be designed as mitigation for project impacts to address the
following goals:

(1) Increase local patronage of BRT and other AC services by reducing fare barriers
(2) Increase local access to and mobility between the Downtown and Southside Business Districts to support a vibrant local economy
(3) Reduce traffic impacts of BRT, such as automobile traffic diversion into neighborhoods by increasing automobile trips that switch to BRT

AC Transit should work closely with City stakeholders and the Transportation and Planning Commissions to establish a Joint Benefits Package to be adopted in tandem with selection of a preferred alternative.

Candidates for inclusion in a Joint Benefits Package could include but are not limited to:

. Neighborhood Eco Pass
. Shopper shuttle/Fare Free Zone
. Eco Pass for Downtown Employers
. Bicycle Boulevard and Pedestrian streetscape improvements

Given the significant diversions of transit patrons from other AC Transit lines and BART service in the BRT corridor, AC Transit should establish a direct transit marketing and trip matching program along the project corridor, such as Travel Choice, to attract additional riders to transit. Local service to feed BRT and BART must not be neglected.

AC should encourage DC Berkeley to fund similar outreach efforts to maximize awareness of faculty, staff, and students of available transit options. AC should analyze new fare scenarios, including impacts on transit ridership, with a goal of adopting fare policy to further increase projected new regionwide transit trips due to the East Bay BRT project.

The East Bay BRT Project should lay the groundwork for an extension down University Avenue and should not plan and design as if Center/Shattuck is the ultimate terminus.

AC Transit should collaborate with the City and stakeholders to craft a vision of a Shattuck Avenue as a great street. A great street would rationalize transportation circulation and reduce auto vehicular capacity in favor of world-class pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities.

AC Transit should evaluate a night stop policy for the Combined BRT and Local Service Option. After a certain hour, a BRT vehicle would stop at any block when requested, as long as it is safe to do so. This will minimize passenger walking distance which will make the journey safer and more convenient.

thanks,

I say yes

Improving public transport and reducing the number of car trips to Berkeley is the only way that Berkeley can hope to achieve its greenhouse gas reduction goals.

I say yes

I feel that the bus-only lanes will improve the throughput of PEOPLE on Telegraph Avenue which should be the ultimate goal of any and all transportation plans. Currently there are four car lanes; reducing this to three seems reasonable especially considering that the city could run one lane in each direction all the time and reserve the third lane to run in the peak direction (varying by the time of day and the peak direction of flow).

I say maybe

What is going to happen when trucks need to stop to make deliveries? How about when the vendors on telegraph need to take down their tables, which they often do. Now they block one lane, causing a whole lot of traffic. What will happen if there is only one lane for personal traffic?