Page One

A group of local politicians were gridlocked Wednesday in talks with UC Berkeley officials about what is being called a traffic “crisis” at the university.  

During and afternoon press conference, City Councilmember Kriss Worthington, state Assembly candidate Loni Hancock and college students were all calling on the university to provide its employees with AC Transit passes. 

They also called for cheap parking for low-income employees and more safe places to lock up bicycles. 

“We’re going to force the university to do the right thing,” said Tanya Smith of the University Professional and Technical Employees union. 

Nadesan Permaul, UC Berkeley’s director of transportation, acknowledged the parking and traffic issues, but he defended the university’s current transportation program, noting that only 51 percent of faculty and staff drive alone to campus. The remaining 49 percent either car pool, walk, use public transportation or reach the university some other way, Permaul said. 

AC Transit passes would be too expensive to implement unless the university staff agreed to pay for the passes themselves, he added. 

Still, Hancock argued that UC Berkeley, UCLA and the city provides their staff with local transit passes and Cal can do the same.  

“I know it’s tight fiscal times,” said Hancock, who emphasized the environmental benefits of public transportation, “but if all these other places can do it, we can do it too.” 

But, Permaul said UCLA, with 22,000 revenue-generating parking spaces, has more funding at its disposal than UC Berkeley, with 7,100 parking spots. 

In respons, Worthington suggested the university should use 

mitigation funds attached to its Northeast Quadrant construction 

project, and several other projects in the pipeline, to pay for the 

transit passes. Mitigation funds are designed to lessen the impacts of a 

project on a local community, and the city and university are currently 

in negotiations over Northeast Quadrant funds. 

Marie Felde, director of media relations for UC Berkeley, said the 

environmental impact report for the Northeast Quadrant project, which 

will include the enlargement and replacement of several buildings on 

campus, found that the project will not have any significant impact on 

traffic. 

As a result, Felde said, the university isn't negotiating over a transit 

pass, or any other traffic-related issues, as part of mitigation talks. 

But, she noted that UC Berkeley is generally interested in working with 

the city to reduce traffic. 

Worthington said the university may not be legally required to spend 

Northeast Quadrant mitigation dollars on transit passes, but he said 

they should still consider it. 

"If they had a logical, good neighbor policy, and if they cared about 

their employees and their neighbors," he said, "it would make perfect 

sense (to pay for the passes)." 

Worthington said the mitigation dollars might only pay for passes for a 

year or two, but he said a pilot program would be important to get the 

ball rolling. After that, he said, employees could pay for the passes. 

The councilmember also made a plug for more safe places to lock up 

bicycles, arguing that some people have stopped riding to campus because 

of repeated theft. "It's a nice ride, but only if you can ride home 

too," he said. 

Permaul said the university has sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars 

into bicycle racks, subsidized locks and bike paths. 

Coalition members also made a push for sliding scale parking fees for 

faculty and staff. Fees currently stand at $71 per month. 

"No problem if the university decides it doesn't want to build any 

parking for awhile," Permaul retorted. The director of transportation 

said the university needs 3,500 to 4,000 more parking spaces, according 

to a study conducted two years ago. 

Permaul said UC Berkeley does not intend to build all those spots, but 

is looking to construct 500 to 600 in the coming years. The university 

will need to maintain its current parking fee revenues to meet this 

goal, he said, and if it gave low-income workers a break, higher-income 

staff would need to pay "exorbitant" fees.