Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

Golden One said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

Typical nonsensical Berkeley move. Their dream is probably to ban all cars in Berkeley to help alleviate
climate change. With all the permanent street barricades currently in place, it's already hard to get around on the streets around the campus. This move will just exacerbate the mobility problem.

---

What would we expect? It's Berkeley. I just wonder what took them so long. Another city like SF, now being transformed into a city for bicycles, and to heck with pedestrians and drivers of cars.

SFCityBear said:

---

What would we expect? It's Berkeley. I just wonder what took them so long. Another city like SF, now being transformed into a city for bicycles, and to heck with pedestrians and drivers of cars.

---

I ride my bike and drive my car very carefully in the downtown parts of Berkeley (and I hate the barricades). But I won't do either on the streets of San Francisco. I do find Berkeley a pleasant place to walk and the hills are great for cycling.

I do not own a car. Bicycle, foot and public transportation are fine for me.
But it does seem that the amount of space given to bicycles is, at least in the short/medium term, disproportionate. The lanes, protected lanes and spaces for rented bicycles have doubled or tripled in the last few years.
The traffic engineers in cities everywhere seem to have agreed that making driving miserable is the way to minimize it.

OneTopOneChickenApple said:

---

stu said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

What would we expect? It's Berkeley. I just wonder what took them so long. Another city like SF, now being transformed into a city for bicycles, and to heck with pedestrians and drivers of cars.

---

I ride my bike and drive my car very carefully in the downtown parts of Berkeley (and I hate the barricades). But I won't do either on the streets of San Francisco. I do find Berkeley a pleasant place to walk and the hills are great for cycling.

---

Those barricades that direct traffic onto Ashby Ave. and College Ave. are ridiculous. They turn those residential side streets into semi-private roads. It's a classic example of NIMBYism - "I don't want cars on my street, so I'll force them onto someone else's." The irony is that the barricades cause more pollution by causing congestion, without encouraging more bike use.

And don't get me started on all those forced right turns.

---

Never mind that the barricades are life-threatening when emergency vehicles have to drive halfway around the city to get to a barricaded street.

I was going to suggest that this should be on the OT board, but then it hit me that getting too and from the games is spot on.

However, notwithstanding Golden One's concern that Berkeley is attempting to ban all cars for environmental reasons, I must point out that I have been avoiding Telegraph for at least three decades, because it has been a pedestrian circus for a lot longer than any barricade concerns. For the four or five blocks leading to Bancroft, Telegraph has been a vehicular slog anyway.

Is anyone really still taking those last four blocks of Telegraph in their cars on a regular basis? If so, I can suggest other routes.

If they close Telegraph you would have to go up Durant make a-left on Bowditch to get on Bancroft. Sometimes I park on Bancroft nearHaas for basketball games. If you get there early, you can pay for an hour and park until after the game. Also need to do this to make a left on Dana, where I have often parked.

I understand that saying referred to a journey of a thousand li (a little over 300 miles). After a thousand steps you'd still be on Telegraph Ave.

Dear stu: i bow to your incomparable wisdom.

BeachedBear said:

---

I must point out that I have been avoiding Telegraph for at least three decades, because it has been a pedestrian circus for a lot longer than any barricade concerns. For the four or five blocks leading to Bancroft, Telegraph has been a vehicular slog anyway.

---

same here. I cannot imagine a reason to drive up telegraph. I think closing it just recognizes the futility of cars on that stretch and makes lemonade out of lemons. With imagination, investment and (the tricky one) enforcement, telegraph could make a nice pedestrian mall. I would block cross traffic on Durant and Channing as well. You can just go around.

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

I opt for canals with locks and surfing chutes on upper Bancroft.

Golden One said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

Typical nonsensical Berkeley move. Their dream is probably to ban all cars in Berkeley to help alleviate
climate change. With all the permanent street barricades currently in place, it's already hard to get around on the streets around the campus. This move will just exacerbate the mobility problem.

---

Commenting on Climate Change in this context is ridiculous. Creating a "pedestrian only" part of a street happens all over the country, and is often helpful to businesses as well as overall pedestrian traffic. Ask Santa Monica or Denver.
Oh, and I hope that driving a block or two further doesn't stress you out too much.

Grafton Street, Dublin:

You can reroute and barricade and one-way-street traffic all you want, but the biggest problem is that Berkeley was largely built as a city for one-car families and pedestrian students. Look at how many homes have a single garage. Of course, one-car families are a relic of the past. Then you add in the fact that with rent control, many apartments which once housed pedestrian students were turned into condominiums owned by car-owning professionals. And those remaining rentals which once housed 2-4 students now house 4-8 students, which of course bring more vehicles.

joe amos yaks said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

I opt for canals with locks and surfing chutes on upper Bancroft.

---

They are already doing this in Germany, in Munich:

SFCityBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

I opt for canals with locks and surfing chutes on upper Bancroft.

---

They are already doing this in Germany, in Munich:

---

Yes. Been there. Done that in 2006.

Underground subway

oskidunker said:

---

Underground subway

---

It's been 53 years since the original Star Trek premiered, and still no transporter beam. Outrageous!

UrsaMajor said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Underground subway

---

It's been 53 years since the original Star Trek premiered, and still no transporter beam. Outrageous!

---

Isn't there an app for that? It uses google maps and the flashlight on your phone.

joe amos yaks said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

I opt for canals with locks and surfing chutes on upper Bancroft.

---

They are already doing this in Germany, in Munich:

---

Yes. Been there. Done that in 2006.

---

Hey, very cool.

Good. All heavy pedestrian commercial zones should be car free.

concernedparent said:

---

Good. All heavy pedestrian commercial zones should be car free.

---

As all heavy surfing zones should be.

helltopay1 said:

---

Now, if only telegraph ave would ban the city of Berkeley . Journey of a thousand steps begins with thge first step.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

Typical nonsensical Berkeley move. Their dream is probably to ban all cars in Berkeley to help alleviate
climate change. With all the permanent street barricades currently in place, it's already hard to get around on the streets around the campus. This move will just exacerbate the mobility problem.

---

All over the world in urban areas they are going through the same process. Propose a downtown pedestrian zone. People who have no understanding of traffic and foot traffic patterns scream bloody murder. Pedestrian zone implemented. Everyone better off. Business booms. Everyone says pedestrian zone best thing they ever did. Calling it nonsensical or attributing it to Berkeley wackiness is ignoring how common this is all over the world.

The last few blocks of Telegraph, or at least the last 2, should have been made a pedestrian zone long ago. The sidewalks are jammed and the traffic flow is terrible.

The barricades situation is different. Berkeley's placements of barricades has been a nightmare for decades and do seem to be more based on who has the political juice to get traffic pushed off their streets rather than any actual traffic plan.

---

It's truly incredible how myopic Americans are about urban planning (or anything really). The best cities in the world are not only creating pedestrian zones, but have been fighting back against and trying to undo car street dominance for decades.

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

Typical nonsensical Berkeley move. Their dream is probably to ban all cars in Berkeley to help alleviate
climate change. With all the permanent street barricades currently in place, it's already hard to get around on the streets around the campus. This move will just exacerbate the mobility problem.

---

All over the world in urban areas they are going through the same process. Propose a downtown pedestrian zone. People who have no understanding of traffic and foot traffic patterns scream bloody murder. Pedestrian zone implemented. Everyone better off. Business booms. Everyone says pedestrian zone best thing they ever did. Calling it nonsensical or attributing it to Berkeley wackiness is ignoring how common this is all over the world.

The last few blocks of Telegraph, or at least the last 2, should have been made a pedestrian zone long ago. The sidewalks are jammed and the traffic flow is terrible.

The barricades situation is different. Berkeley's placements of barricades has been a nightmare for decades and do seem to be more based on who has the political juice to get traffic pushed off their streets rather than any actual traffic plan.

---

The businesses on Center screamed that making it pedestrian only would ruin their business. Of course, not only was this nonsense, it was the exact opposite of reality, since most of the businesses are restaurants and rely on foot traffic. As for Telegraph, I'd go with the last 3 blocks, that way you have Dwight one way East and Haste one way West to get across.

OaktownBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

Could be problematic since Bancroft is one way going down. Jump on the bandwagon!

---

Typical nonsensical Berkeley move. Their dream is probably to ban all cars in Berkeley to help alleviate
climate change. With all the permanent street barricades currently in place, it's already hard to get around on the streets around the campus. This move will just exacerbate the mobility problem.

---

All over the world in urban areas they are going through the same process. Propose a downtown pedestrian zone. People who have no understanding of traffic and foot traffic patterns scream bloody murder. Pedestrian zone implemented. Everyone better off. Business booms. Everyone says pedestrian zone best thing they ever did. Calling it nonsensical or attributing it to Berkeley wackiness is ignoring how common this is all over the world.

The last few blocks of Telegraph, or at least the last 2, should have been made a pedestrian zone long ago. The sidewalks are jammed and the traffic flow is terrible.

The barricades situation is different. Berkeley's placements of barricades has been a nightmare for decades and do seem to be more based on who has the political juice to get traffic pushed off their streets rather than any actual traffic plan.

---

I'm not arguing against pedestrian malls, but the K Street Mall in Sacramento which banned cars in 1969, has been a notable failure. They've tried various changes/upgrades over the years and maybe the new Golden 1 arena will be the addition that breaths some permanent life into the mall. Of course, downtown Sacramento is different from Telegraph. For one thing, when it's 100deg on a summer afternoon, nobody wants to walk around down there. But one similarity is that, like Telegraph, there are too many vacant storefronts, and just shutting down auto access is not by itself likely to address that problem.

There are about 8 parking spaces on Telegraph after Dwight to campus and I've never considered parking there. Is this an issue?

I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.

My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.

We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.

I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.

I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.

My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.

Sounds like a speech from the Oscars. Really?

SFCityBear said:

---

I live in San Francisco, and I wish we were more like Berkeley, as it relates to this matter of closing a couple blocks of Telegraph to cars. When San Francisco closes a street like Market Street to cars, we aren't doing that for the pedestrians. We are doing it for the bicyclists. In the grand scheme of things related to transportation in my city, the bicyclist is at the top of the food chain, with cars secondary, motorized scooters and skateboards third, and pedestrians a very distant fourth. The most vulnerable segment of the population and the least protected from harm. Sidewalks used to be the territory of the pedestrian, but today, bicyclists, scooter drivers and skateboarders think they own them.

My city has different objectives in their recent traffic planning. One is to make it really hard to use a car in the city, and make it really easy to travel by bicycle. This involves taking over portions of streets for dedicated bike paths, and not enforcing any vehicle code violations which bicyclists commit. With bicyclists allowed to violate any rules of the road, this makes it harder for drivers of cars to predict what the bicyclist will do, and it makes it harder for him to drive on the same road with them, and it makes it harder for pedestrians to walk on a sidewalk, with the unexpected event of a bicyclist, scooter driver or skateboarder illegally coming toward them at speeds faster than they can sometimes get out of the way. Ever been hit by a bicycle? It hurts. I have to disclose that I was an avid bicyclist for years, and was manager of a bike shop.

We also make it harder to drive by putting speed bumps on as many streets a possible, co-opting parking spaces to make a mini-park in the street, or just removing a parking space to plant a single tree in the street. We redesign streets by putting an island in the middle for an entire block, and planting a row of trees, which makes the lanes narrower and more difficult to drive in.

I once lived in Palo Alto, which is a small city which favors bicycles. When I lived there, they had more bikes per capita (and more bike thefts per capita) than just about any city in the state. Maybe Davis had more. They had bike lanes, but didn't need too many, because they let all the cylclists ride on the sidewalks. It is a suburban town, so there are plenty of driveways with cut outs at the curb which made for a smooth transition riding a bike from the road up onto the sidewalk. Which leads me to the third objective in San Francisco, which is to put a little handicap ramp at the corners of every intersection in the city. My father used to say, "If you want a job for life, then go work for the city, digging up streets." So these little ramps are great for the handicapped, but they are a hazard for those who don't watch where they are walking. And if you are handicapped and get around on a scooter, if you don't line up your scooter exactly right with the ramp, you can tip over and break a hip like a fellow Cal Alum classmate of mine did a few years ago. And the ramps at the corners make it so easy for bicyclists to glide from the road to the sidewalk, where they aren't allowed ride. What the city has also done for the handicapped is at streetcar stops around the city, they have constructed huge concrete ramps in the roadway, which are so high that they block a car driver's view of a pedestrian who might be crossing the street. Also very dangerous for the pedestrian.

I remember my dad telling me once of a high school classmate of his who came to visit him in his office, someone he hadn't seen in 40 years. He was a really nice guy, but my dad said unfortunately, he was the dumbest guy in his class. My dad asked what he did for a living, and he said he was Chief of Traffic Planning in San Francisco.

My city records a number of pedestrian deaths every year, mostly hit by cars, but a couple years ago, two pedestrians were killed when struck by bicycles. There are many pedestrians injured each year by cars, bicyclists and probably scooters as well. So I would be highly in favor of the Telegraph Avenue plan, if it were truly for pedestrians, and ban cars, bicycles, and any motorized transportation, and for goodness sakes, enforce it.

---

I don't know where the idea that Market Street is being closed for bicyclists came from, but it just isn't true. The main reason was to facilitate Muni. The second reason was to cut down on the traffic fatalities mostly to pedestrians. They are also going to widen the sidewalks for pedestrians.

I am no friend to bicyclists. Frankly, I hate them. But that just isn't the reason for the new policy.

As for the handicap ramps, I'm pretty sure that is state law. It is definitely not a San Francisco thing.

cal83dls79 said:

---

There are about 8 parking spaces on Telegraph after Dwight to campus and I've never considered parking there. Is this an issue?

---

I've been able to park in the loading zone spaces on Telegraph when they open up at 6pm on Thursday night game days.