Public Comment

Bus rapid transit (BRT) in Berkeley has become a clash of ideologies. Prophecies of doom from global warming contend with the passionate assertions of a citizen’s right to drive, and to have a parking space. The BRT was proposed originally to be an attractive alternative to driving. Finally, a large number of people who work at UC and in downtown Berkeley will be able to commute faster and more conveniently in a bus than they have been while driving their car. But to hear some people talk, BRT will just take away parking and cause more congestion. These folks can’t see themselves riding a bus, and think that none of their fellow car drivers will use the bus either. Their view is framed by the belief that traffic after BRT will be just the same as it is now, with the added annoyance of big buses taking up bus-only lanes. Other ideologues include some Telegraph merchants, who see any reduction in parking causing a decline in business. Their view is framed by the belief that all their customers will come by car. 

A related ideology is framed by the belief of some residents that public transit is only a service for the lower classes: buses are a social necessity, but are not for the middle class. Some neighborhood activists smell diesel fumes and blame it all on the buses, despite the fact that more trucks are on the road, and nearly all AC Transit buses have “clean diesel” engines (unlike many trucks). I’m a regular bus rider now, and will definitely ride Rapid Bus and eventually BRT. I dislike driving in traffic and especially don’t enjoy hunting for a parking space. When I get off my bus downtown, I am free to go about my business, while ers anxiously seek a parking space. I’m not “anti-car.” Every couple months, I use a car for hauling heavy stuff or for going on an extended trip. I belong to City Car Share, and for longer trips, use one of the car rental companies. For the vast majority of my trips around the Bay Area, I have developed a well-honed skill for riding public transit. I can quickly tell you how to get anywhere in Berkeley on a bus. So I suppose I’m yet another ideologue, framed by my belief that a transit-oriented lifestyle is good. I think the benefits of BRT include a reduction in congestion and road rage, a reduced need for downtown parking, and a reduction in emission of pollution and greenhouse gases. I think the world after BRT deployment will be happier, cleaner, and not so wasteful of non-renewable resources.  

I tend to regard loss of parking spaces as a good thing—a motivator for more people to ride BRT. The BRT on its own won’t bring about a better world. It’s just one of the things, like solar power technology, which provide an opportunity to adopt a better lifestyle. The benefits come only after a good many people actually change their lifestyle. Right now, 80 percent of the cars on the Berkeley streets carry only the driver. One BRT-load could remove 60 such cars, with everyone getting a seat on the bus. There’s a lot of carbon dioxide coming from car engines. The typical car emits its own weight in CO2 every year. Berkeley’s pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions won’t be very meaningful if we don’t do something about our cars. Here’s how I frame the BRT in Berkeley: Most people use it during rush hour. The regular riders carry a monthly pass. All UC staff and students have a pass. Most downtown businesses provide their employees with a pass. Most other riders buy a day pass covering all trips for that day. The pass stays in a pocket. When the BRT arrives at a station, everyone gets on through any door—just like on BART—and takes a seat.  

I think BRT will have some of the ambiance of the BART. It won’t feel so much like a bus. More middle class people ride BART now because of this ambiance. I expect fare inspectors to present themselves once every few days, at random stations. An inspector waiting outside each door politely inspects each rider’s pass, day-pass or whatever. The occasional violator is taken aside for a lecture and a citation. I expect to have to walk to the BRT station at Dwight; there won’t be one at Parker. I’ll ride BRT to Whole Foods. When I go to the symphony, I’ll ride BRT to MacArthur BART. I don’t think I’ll ever ride BRT from Berkeley to San Leandro. The BART will be a better option for that long a trip. But for many people, the BRT will nicely augment BART on much of its route, providing service between the BART stations, with most of the speed and ambiance of BART.  

When the Berkeley ferry comes, I hope the BRT will be extended down University and have a station at the ferry terminal. When I go to San Francisco, I might prefer the sea breeze and sunlight to riding in the rumbling darkness of the transbay tube. I recently looked at a video of a BRT in Hangjou, China. Buses were rolling rapidly both ways along the curbside bus-only lanes of a major thoroughfare. At the stations, people quickly exited and entered through all the doors. Berkeley’s BRT should run like this. We need to use proof of payment for rapid boarding, but we don’t need the bus-only lanes everywhere. We need just enough of them to be sure the BRT will beat the car traffic. Probably we don’t need a bus-only lane on Telegraph between Dwight and Bancroft, but we should have one on Bancroft, and on Telegraph south of Dwight. Personally, I don’t care about a lot of the details. As a robust senior bus rider, I can deal with whatever lane and station arrangements make other people happy, but we should make very sure that the BRT can beat the cars. 

The Wikipedia article on BRT lists 26 BRT and rapid bus systems in the United States, 11 in Canada, two in Mexico, 13 in South America (including in Mr. Penalosa’s Bogota). Europe has five in France, nine in Britain, three in the Netherlands and one in Belgium (home of the Van Hool). There are seven BRTs in China, with several more on the way. We really should get BRT on the way in Berkeley, and not be frustrated by the framing of our anti-transit ideologues. 

Steve Geller is a Berkeley resident..