PROBLEM: Excessive Travel Prohibitions on Grade Separations in Berkeley SYNPOSIS: In 1952 the City of Berkeley prohibited bicycling, and in certain circumstances, walking and having animals (even if "tethered") on "grade separations" in Berkeley. Grade separations are defined quite broadly to include "every structure by means of which any street passes over or under any stationary rails or tracks or another street". (Ord. 3262-NS 1.7, 1952) As a result, it appears that in truth a large portion of everyday activities in Berkeley are illegal. Under the B.M.C. sections 14.28.010, 14.28.020, 14.28.030 covering bicycles, pedestrians, and animals, it is considered illegal ride a bicycle, and possibly to walk or to walk a dog on a leash, on the following "grade separations": a) The new bicycle/pedestrian bridge to the marina b) The Ohlone Greenway c) The Solano Tunnel d) The tunnel under I-80 on the Gilman Street bike route (if there is no designated or constructed place to walk there, then pedestrians are prohibited as well) e) Everyplace where there is an underground or overground BART track, including Shattuck Avenue f) The Ashby underpass g) The Marin Circle h) The University overpass The new bicycle/pedestrian bridge to the Berkeley Marina is considered a "highway" or "street" under a recent position from the City Attorney, as it will be a place "publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel" under CVC 590. The City Attorney has taken the position that use of the term "vehicle" under the Vehicle Code refers to all traffic and includes bicycles and indeed, pedestrians. PROPOSAL: Rescind the sections of the B.M.C. chapter on grade separations 14.28.010, 14.28.020, 14.28.030 covering bicycles, pedestrians, and animals. These laws prohibiting walking, bicycling, and animals on grade separations are antiquated and serve little purpose. They were enacted in 1952 before the creation of the BART system, the I-80 freeway, and the new bicycle and pedestrian bridge to the Marina, and could not have anticipated how widespread grade separations would be in Berkeley. Furthermore, these laws are not necessary for the regulation of traffic, as the Vehicle Code provides ample provision to prohibit or regulate traffic in tunnels and overpasses, such as in CVC 21109(a): 21109. (a) Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regulating vehicular and pedestrian traffic in subways, tubes, and tunnels or upon bridges or viaducts. The City Council may therefore selectively regulate traffic on the University overpass or Solano tunnel under State Law, with no need to reinvent these three sections of the B.M.C. chapter on grade separations. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Rescinding these antiquated sections presents an excellent opportunity to improve the function and access to our grade separations. 1) Solano Tunnel: The Solano Tunnel prohibition presents an unnecessary and unreasonable obstacle for bicyclists, and degrades already poor pedestrian and wheelchair access. At present, bicyclists and pedestrians (including people who use wheelchairs) share an inadequately narrow walkway. In fact that walkway may be too narrow to fit a wheelchair. Additionally, it is both unclear and unsafe for northbound bicyclists to comply with the direction to walk on the narrow, raised sidewalk. The sidewalk cannot be used by most bicycles with trailers, and alternate routes are maze-like, unmarked, and involve climbing significant grades (which can be especially difficult for those pulling trailer loads). Furthermore, alternate routes place bicyclists on bicycle-unfriendly streets such as Marin Avenue and The Alameda. Finally, the tunnel is very short and is a direct connection between the bicycle lanes of Sutter and the primary destination of the Solano Avenue retail district. It would greatly benefit Berkeley's bicyclists to have the ability to choose use of the Solano Tunnel safely and legally. The prohibition of bicycling in the Solano Tunnel should be rescinded and the City should consider whether to place a flashing sign warning of "bicycle in tunnel". Such signs are in use in this country, such as along the Pacific Coast bicycle route in Oregon. Bicyclists pedal up to the sign which is adjacent to the roadway, and press a button before entering the tunnel. The sign flashes for an adequate length of time for a bicyclist to complete the journey through the tunnel. In this case, the City would not need to re-prohibit the Solano Tunnel. 2) University Avenue overpass: Because the City is providing the excellent new access which will open up the Berkeley Marina to people who use wheelchairs, people who cannot climb stairs, people who cannot carry bicycles or strollers, bicycling or car-free families with small children, and bicyclists who use trailers, the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to use the University Avenue overpass is significantly diminished. The only bicyclists who will use the University Avenue overpass are those who prefer a direct and speedy route over I-80, and those who do not know of the availability of the new bridge. The City could choose at this time to open the University Avenue overpass to bicyclists so that the small minority of strong cyclists who continue to use the University Overpass will not be criminalized. In any event, the directions to the bike route and to the new bike bridge should be very clear at all points leading to the University overpass, to reduce unintentional bicyclist use of the overpass. Signage should also be placed warning to "Watch for Bicycles" whether or not the prohibition is lifted. In this case, the City would not need to re-prohibit the University overpass, and would simply need to place signage that should be placed anyways. CONCLUSION: The antiquated local Berkeley ordinance regarding grade separations must be changed as soon as possible so as to reflect a Berkeley which cares about bicycle, pedestrian and animal traffic. It would be particularly embarrasing for the City to hold a grand opening of the new bridge to the marina yet be unable to legally use the bridge. Furthermore, these unreasonable laws may leave open the possibilty of misuse for harassment purposes, which would harm our fragile democracy and could open the City to liability. [fin]