If your real concern is about zoning, then address that issue directly. Though zoning is clearly related to transit improvement, there’s no automatic correlation. So if it’s high rises you don’t want, take that to the council. Don’t kill BRT just because you don’t want to see tall buildings.

Part of the reason Berkeley is such a nice place to live, is its human scale. And tower building is only good for congestion, air pollution and expensive property. So unless your invested in real estate, beanhead you dont want that to happen. Berkeley has 130% more density then dumple headded oaktown, so why dont you put the big buildings in you Knuckleheaded bongtown.

And for the record snuffly, every one but the random uninformed folk that come along with every public process, know the simple straightforward and relevant facts the beck has been so helpful to state. Beck is cool, becks facts are appreciated, but they do not relate to the real problems that carry water in this town. Berkeley is in a fight for its heart an soul with the developers, and the developers have devised a shiney new greenscam skinn that makes the seems so sincere. But density doesnt produce green ness, think about it bunnyrabbit. When you think of green? do you think of sky scrappers??? no bongledor you think of solar panels, alti transit, bikes, insulation, ennergy efficient light bulbs, farmers markets, etc.

Well well pumpkin head green scam, ties BRT to increased density, and Berkeley doesn’t want it. Berkeley wants real open process, so we can get the issues out on the table, and address them, cause then we get the sweet cool future, and happy city we deserve.
You my Grasshoper would do well to listen closely, and learn.

And for Dodsworth, well you just dont know nutthin,
He speaks clear to the issue, not just spinning politricks,
and people like him. As fer KK, dodsworth has never endorsed it bc KK doesnt place these same restrictions on parking and roadway construction.

Snuffly suckabongs, yer the incoherent one.
“theres apples in the trees, we’ve got all that we need.
You don’t have to wait until you die,
you don’t have to waait until you die”

good evening and good night.

Come on man, that guy hasn’t got a prayer. He’s incoherent, has no organization, and he’s got this blurry eyed, dopey presence that makes you wonder what exactly he’s on. About the only assets he has for Berkeley politicking are youthful good looks and dreds.

Vote no on KK.

Just because Becks and her blogger friends have the facts on their side… means they have the goddamn FACTS on their side. BRT will be a huge asset to the east bay.

A lil’ history for you green geek fascists. Berkeley delayed the implementation of Bart by about 5 years to come up with a better plan. And they did. They raised a ballot measure to pay for the undergrounding of BART. The undergrounding of BART prevented the environmental rascism of putting more noise, shadows, and obstructrutions in poor communities. And most of the BART line at that time was on the other side of the color line. I don’t see how you can speak with so much sass when you have a transit structure that in West Oakland that is deafening at four blocks away. That’s real hearing damage along the entire length of the West Oakland BART run. BART doesn’t do that to any other community in its entire Bay Area Map, and That is real old fashion negro law.

So if Berkeley wants to hold up the process of implementing a dedicated lane at the final length of the BRT system, back the hell off you cracker ass idiots. Most of the ridership along the span is not in Berkeley, so not having dedicated lanes in Berkeley would not effect most rides and riders. And we could explore options like just ending the dedicated lanes for the final leg, north of Dwight Ave.

And I am actually personally interested in having bus only lanes on the final length of telegraph, but I will fight you authoritarians to the end if it comes to more “green” scam being pushed down Berkeley’s throats.

If you want more real data and analysis check out this dudes blog. He’s running for Berkeley City Council,
he green & not mean
http://asadodsworth.blogspot.com/

Your plan would have buses running every 3-12 minutes, and stopping directly in the right lane (because of the “bus” bulb-out). Because the left-lane of Telegraph is frequently used by cars doing left-turns, the end result is: lots of dangerous passing, if not total gridlock due to both lanes being blocked to automobile through-traffic.

Joyce Roy

what we should do is open up the car lane to bicycle traffic, which means closing down that lane to car traffic.

simple. elegant. inexpensive. will make transit run faster. will decrease pollution. will promote sustainability. will promote transit. will increase livability. etc.

if we’re gonna do BRT, we should care enough to do it right. get rid of the cars.

The council has moved to put in permanent dedicated lanes and are looking for funding, see: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/08/wilshire-bus-la.html

I am also glad you emphasized the increased safety and pedestrian friendliness of Telegraph with BRT. That is one of the major reasons I support BRT, and I don’t think we talk about it enough.