Public Comment

Ignore all the diesel smoke and rumbling around AC Transit’s misnamed “Bus Rapid Transit” (BRT) proposal to take over two lanes of Telegraph Avenue, and two striking facts stand clear. 

First, as we’ll see from AC Transit’s own recent environmental study, BRT threatens real damage to Berkeley neighborhoods and businesses, yet promises almost no tangible benefits to the public. 

The only clear beneficiary is AC Transit itself, which would get a new stream of subsidies. While we all want stable transit funding, there are less-destructive ways to deliver $400 million in pork barrel. 

Second, and even more strikingly: A slightly modified plan—based on best practices elsewhere—could deliver broad benefits, with no detriments to anyone. It would also save most of that $400 million for worthier rapid-transit projects, which would do some real good for global warming and the environment. Think of that as Berkeley’s buying itself a big “carbon credit.” 

This alternative, which I’ll describe below, might be called “Rapid Bus with low-tech Proof of Payment.” But since that’s a mouthful, I’ll abbreviate it as “Rap with PoP.” 

If Berkeley’s decisionmakers are working for us—not in the service of a perennially broken bus agency, nor of some outmoded car-hating dogma—they’ll reject AC Transit’s proposed land grab, and demand a pragmatic alternative like Rap with PoP. 

What’s not right with BRT on Telegraph? AC Transit answered that question last month in its draft environmental statement (www.actransit.org/news/articledetail.wu?articleid=42622c20) 

That study shows BRT delivering only “negligible” changes in overall energy usage (page 4-152). It also shows only negligible reductions in air pollutants: just three one-hundredths of one percent, by 2025 (page 4-131). 

How would BRT affect greenhouse-gas emissions? By extrapolation, hardly at all. 

For transit riders, this BRT proposal offers only minimal benefits. It would run just one to six blocks beside the existing BART line, for its entire length. AC Transit’s preferred spacing for Berkeley BRT “stations” (a half-mile) would be almost as wide as BART’s (a mile). 

This “rapid” route isn’t even very rapid: From Berkeley’s to Oakland’s downtown, AC Transit estimates only five to seven minutes’ savings. From Berkeley down to Bayfair BART, AC Transit estimates a trip length of up to 72 minutes with BRT, versus 78 minutes without it. But on the adjacent BART line, you can already get there in just 30 minutes. BART will always beat this bus. 

So the slim upside of this Emperor’s New Bus stands revealed: It won’t save the planet, and will hardly save transit riders any time. 

What are the downsides? AC Transit’s study makes it clear that these all stem from seizing those two bus-only lanes. By shoving all the other traffic into half as many lanes, this would create artificial congestion. 

Other vehicles would idle more, pollute more, and travel less efficiently—negating all the benefits of any additional bus boardings. Every congested intersection means more wasted gasoline, more CO2, and more traffic cutting across South Berkeley neighborhoods. 

For businesses and their patrons, AC Transit threatens to kill off some 945 to 1,300 parking spaces along its whole route. If you don’t like that impact, you’ll hate its proposed “mitigation”: converting another 187 to 318 spaces into yellow-curb delivery zones or metered parking. 

BRT’s worst impacts could fall on Southside’s struggling commercial district. AC Transit’s proposals include a daytime ban on all private cars on Telegraph, north of Dwight Way. They also include blocking Bancroft Way traffic at Telegraph. 

These are not new or innovative ideas. Lots of cities in the 1970s tried such “pedestrian/transit malls” on major commercial streets. Virtually all were disasters for business, and had to be undone—sometimes at staggering cost. 

Why does AC Transit’s BRT proposal so dramatically fail the cost/benefit test? One reason is the absurdly redundant route it has chosen.  

A rational transit agency might propose BRT somewhere like Oakland’s MacArthur/I-580 corridor—an area plagued by poor BART access and very slow bus service. These are places where bus-only lanes could really convert a lot of car trips to transit trips. 

The other reason, though, is what AC Transit is doing right: the “Rapid Bus” service that AC Transit will bring to Telegraph on June 24. 

“Rapid Bus” will add express buses that make limited stops, and will allow buses to keep stoplights green until they clear intersections. These enhancements will capture most of the speed benefits realistically available to buses in this BART corridor. 

AC Transit’s Jim Cunradi told a recent audience that BRT would further speed buses by instituting “proof of payment” (PoP). Indeed, much of the world already uses PoP, which speeds boarding because riders buy tickets before they board. 

Bus drivers open all doors for entry at every stop, and waste no time processing fares, passes, or transfers. Periodically, an inspector boards to ask riders for proof that they’ve paid. 

But PoP doesn’t require the bus-only lanes, bus “stations,” or high-tech ticket-vending machines in AC Transit’s BRT proposal. Those are arbitrary components copied from particular cities. 

Across Italy, Romania, and other European countries, I’ve seen a low-tech, low-cost approach to PoP that works just fine: Riders buy transit tickets from any corner store. They board their bus or streetcar, and punch their tickets on a hole punch located near the door. That time-stamped punch is their proof of payment. 

AC Transit could readily adopt this basic approach to PoP not just on Telegraph, but across its entire fleet—speeding up the whole system, and attracting new riders. Add basic PoP to Telegraph’s forthcoming Rapid Bus enhancements, and you get “Rap with PoP.” That especially sweet combination would speed up buses without worsening congestion, aggravating parking shortages, or diverting traffic into neighborhoods. 

If Berkeley officials are looking out for the public’s good, they will accept nothing more disruptive. But if they knuckle under to AC Transit’s wasteful proposal, take that as a sign that they’re stuck back in the 1970s—a decade when it was fashionable to inconvenience motorists, even if the nagging didn’t get them out of their cars. 

With today’s global-warming threat, and tight government budgets, we can’t afford to waste $400 million on outmoded notions that offer no net environmental benefits. Every dollar wasted on a boondoggle like this is just as harmful as a gallon of gas wasted driving an oversized SUV to the store. 

Let’s reserve our taxes for where they will really improve transit options and the environment. 

Michael Katz is a Berkeley resident.