Public Comment

We read with some dismay Charles Siegel’s intemperate letter entitled “BRT and the Noisy Minority” in the Dec. 3, 2009 issue of the Daily Planet. His essential argument is that there is a “small group of naysayers” who constitute the opposition to BRT. This is simply not true. All of the neighborhood associations representing neighborhoods adversely impacted by the BRT draft plan are opposed to the current BRT plan, in addition to the Telegraph Avenue merchants and street vendors whom Mr. Siegel does mention. These neighborhood associations include the Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association (CENA), the Willard Neighborhood Association, the Bateman Neighborhood Association, and the LeConte Neighborhood Association. We attended a meeting about BRT this fall at Willard Middle School sponsored by the Berkeley Transportation Commission. At the meeting, one of the speakers asked all opposed to the BRT draft Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to stand up. My estimate is that 95 percent of the approximately 150 attendees, who filled the hall, stood up. They were indeed noisy but were a huge majority and not some small minority of naysayers.  

Following are a number of reasons why CENA believes that BRT, as it is currently envisioned in the draft LPA, makes no sense for Berkeley and particularly for the impacted neighborhoods and interests:  

1. The BRT LPA would remove traffic lanes on Telegraph between Woolsey Street and Dwight Way. 

CENA members support the improvement of public transit in the East Bay and in Berkeley but overwhelmingly oppose the Locally Preferred Alternative proposed in this draft because it recommends the removal of well-functioning mixed-use traffic lanes on Telegraph south of Dwight without any meaningful mitigations for the traffic the project will divert to Ashby Ave., College Ave., and the Warring-Derby corridor.  

Ashby, College, and the Warring-Derby corridor are already over-loaded during peak hours. Additional vehicle traffic will further degrade service on AC Transit Line 51, a very important bus line for CENA neighbors, as well as local motorists who travel these routes to conduct local business and transport family members to school and appointments.  

The draft LPA notes that AC Transit has estimated BRT would improve travel times between downtown Berkeley and Telegraph and Alcatraz over existing 1R service by approximately 2.5 minutes. We do not believe that this small gain justifies the degradation of service on another important route, one that serves so many local residents.  

In one of their public presentations to stakeholder groups, City staff cited Cleveland, Ohio’s BRT line on Euclid Avenue as a BRT success story. The comparison to Berkeley is deceptive. Cleveland’s BRT route is not and was never the preferred route for automobiles traveling between its terminal points. The main auto thoroughfares were—and continue to be—parallel streets on each side of Euclid Ave. In Berkeley, there is really no viable alternative route for autos between campus and Oakland.  

2. The BRT LPA would remove 300 parking spaces on Telegraph between Woolsey and Dwight. 

Many Berkeley residents’ shop and visit medical facilities located directly on Telegraph, and need parking for these purposes. AC Transit’s claim that it can recover approximately 100 of the approximately 300 parking spaces lost in the LPA by installing parking meters at existing parking places on the side streets next to commercial properties makes no sense. Nonsensically, AC Transit appears to believe that adding a parking meter to an existing space creates a new space. This seems to be straight out of Alice in Wonderland.  

3. The BRT LPA would remove bus stops along Telegraph in Berkeley 

If the City is truly trying to improve bus service for Berkeley residents, removing local bus stops is not the way to do it. By forcing everyone, including the elderly and disabled community to walk further to catch a bus, they will be discouraged from using the bus, regardless of any improvement BRT might make.  

4. Claims that BRT would attract thousands more new users to transit and result in fewer drivers is pure speculation. 

As Telegraph is developed with mixed-use projects, the number of drivers could also conceivably increase, especially if AC Transit continues its long-term trend in degradation of service. The idea that these projects will be occupied by car-free families is pure speculation, unless the projects are forced to provide free or subsidized public transportation.  

5. The BRT would increase traffic congestion on Telegraph. 

The draft LPA asserts that increased future truck and automobile traffic on Telegraph will impede buses due to the “significant increase in traffic that has been projected,” thus requiring dedication of the two center lanes to BRT. That is inverted logic. The LPA ignores the far greater truck and automobile traffic congestion that single traffic lanes on Telegraph would create, both on Telegraph and other streets in the area, by removing 50 percent of the Telegraph roadbed from public use.  

6. BRT and the Environment. 

The draft LPA does not mention the fact that BRT will not reduce greenhouse gases. Its only reference is to the Berkeley Climate Action Plan. AC Transit’s BRT plan does say it will reduce air born pollutants by a very small fraction—less than 2 percent. The environmentalists and the Sierra Club ignore this fact and go on blindly pushing for approval of the project. With the probable gridlock on Telegraph avenue, greenhouse gases will actually increase instead of decrease. 

As currently presented, the LPA is deceptive. It notes that the proposed BRT route is close to the parallel BART line but compares a $2.00 AC Transit fare with a $3.05 BART fare over the same route, suggesting that fare difference as a positive feature favoring BRT. However, as noted elsewhere in the LPA, AC Transit expects to get 22 percent of its BRT revenue from the fare box. BART gets 60 percent. Thus the cost of the ride—as opposed to the fare—is $5.08 for BART versus $9.09 for BRT—the direct opposite of the impression that the LPA attempts to give. The taxpayer-paid subsidy-per-ride on BRT would be $4.01 greater than the subsidy for BART.  

BRT, at least as envisioned in the current Locally Preferred Alternative draft, is a bad idea for all these reasons. In contrast, “Rapid Bus Plus,” which Mr. Siegel disparages without any basis in fact, indeed has the potential to be a much more flexible and economical alternative, with virtually none of the negative impacts of BRT. Rapid Bus Plus would not remove traffic lanes, it would not increase congestion on Telegraph on surrounding streets, it would not remove parking spaces, and it would preserve the existing bus stops along the Telegraph corridor. And it would require a much smaller capital investment and much smaller maintenance costs.  

Mark Humbert and Dean Metzger are members of the Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association.