Item 10 December 9, 2009

Transcription

1 Item 10 December 9, 2009 Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division DATE: December 9, 2009 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Members of the Planning Commission Elizabeth Greene Senior Planner, Planning and Development Department BRT Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation Staff recommends: That the Planning Commission review BRT for Berkeley: A Proposal for Consideration, the City of Berkeley s staff proposal for a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project (distributed to the Commission in September 2009); Review the Transportation Commission staff report and attachments, including public comments received as of November 10, 2009 (distributed to the Commission in November 2009); Review the Transportation Commission recommendation; Review attached new material, including late communications to the Transportation Commission and materials received at or after the Transportation Commission meeting; and Make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the draft LPA and the need for additional information from AC Transit. Previously Distributed Information The Planning Commission received the draft Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) document when it was released in September. An additional copy is provided with this packet. This document has detailed information on BRT systems, the East Bay BRT proposal, and the alignment proposed by staff for discussion purposes. The Transportation Commission November 19 th staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission as Item 12 in the November 18 th Planning Commission packet. It is listed as Attachment 2, but is not physically included in this packet. It can be 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us

2 BRT Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Item 10 December 9, 2009 Page 2 of 6 found on line in the Planning Commission 11/18/09 e-packet, and on the City s BRT website, Please refer to that staff report for: General background information and steps leading to the development of the draft LPA; The purpose of an LPA; General features of the BRT system; Brief description of AC Transit s Proposed BRT system; AC Transit letter regarding the LPA process (Attachment A); Written comments from stakeholder meetings (Attachment B); Written comments received by staff by November 10, 2009 (Attachments C and D); Staff responses to questions (Attachment E); and Options for the current draft LPA (Attachment F). (Please note: Attachments to the Transportation Commission report are lettered, while attachments to this report are numbered.) General Components of the LPA Document The draft LPA document studied the portion of the proposed BRT corridor that would run through Berkeley. This corridor was divided into four sections, each with its own issues and considerations. Below is a synopsis of the recommended alignment for each section and the considerations that went into it; alternatives that were considered are discussed in the LPA document. Diagrams of the segments are attached as Attachment 3; more detailed graphics of the segments are in Chapter 2 of the LPA document. Segment 1 - Telegraph south of Dwight: Dedicated (bus-only) center lanes are recommended in this segment. Stations with raised platforms would be located alongside the dedicated lanes at Ashby, Derby and the block between Blake and Dwight. Considerations: Improved transit speed and reliability with the dedicated lanes. Loss of parking, additional congestion for the private vehicles in the remaining lanes, and possible traffic diversion into the adjacent neighborhoods. Improved pedestrian safety with reduced traffic lanes and the addition of pedestrian refuge areas. Improved conditions for cyclists. Segment 2 - Telegraph north of Dwight: Two-way traffic is proposed for the four blocks south of the UC campus. The north-bound dedicated lane would transition to a mixedflow lane (buses with regular traffic) in the eastern of the two traffic lanes. The western lane between Durant and Dwight would become a south-bound lane for buses, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles and bicycles. The block immediately adjacent to campus would remain north-bound. No bus stations would be located in this segment. Considerations: Improved transit service with the semi-dedicated south-bound lane, improved legibility (ability to easily find bus route and stops), maintenance Page 2 of 6

3 BRT Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Item 10 December 9, 2009 Page 3 of 6 of existing traffic patterns and loading spaces, changed circulation patterns with left turn prohibitions on Channing. Segement 3 - Telegraph to Shattuck: North-bound buses would continue to use Bancroft Avenue, though in a side-running dedicated lane. South-bound buses between Shattuck and Telegraph would travel up Durant, also in a side-running lane. Both of the lanes would be porous, meaning that cars could enter the lane for turns and to access street parking spaces. Bus stations with raised platforms would be located on Bancroft and Durant, just west of Telegraph Avenue. Considerations: Improved transit service with dedicated lanes. Moving the bus route from Dana to Durant makes the bus route more legible, avoids the loss of 35 parking spaces on Dana, and improves the biking environment on Dana, which is currently a bicycle lane. All but three parking spaces are maintained with this alignment; other options would have resulted in significant parking loss. Corner of Durant and Telegraph would need to be cut back to accommodate turn movements by the buses. Segment 4 - Downtown: No dedicated lanes are suggested for this portion of the route in the short term. Instead, raised stations would be located at Kittredge and Center Streets. Considerations: Significant changes for downtown make planning for this area difficult. Impact of delay through downtown Berkeley on the rest of the route. Recent LPA Activity Development of LPA process and draft document Based on City Council and Planning Commission direction, staff studied various alternatives for the route and created a draft LPA for discussion. Staff also developed and implemented a process for arriving at a final LPA, involving stakeholder meetings, public workshops and Commission meetings. The draft LPA was posted on the City s website at the beginning of September 2009, and copies were distributed to the Planning and Transportation Commissions at that time. During September and October, staff met with eight stakeholder groups to present the LPA and hear comments. A City of Berkeley workshop was scheduled for October 2009, but this was postponed when reductions in the BRT budget were considered. AC Transit has since assured the City that the environmental review process will continue, and has urged the cities involved to continue developing an LPA for inclusion in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report (FEIS/R) (Attachment A). The LPA process has resumed, but the public workshop has been replaced by two information sessions. One session was held before the November 19 th Transportation Commission meeting, and the other will be held before the December 9 th Planning Commission meeting. These two public meetings also serve as an opportunity for the community to comment on the draft LPA. Page 3 of 6

4 BRT Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Item 10 December 9, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Community outreach to date Staff met with the following eight stakeholder groups to present the LPA, answer questions and collect written comments: 1. Neighbors (Willard, LeConte, Halcyon, Bateman and CENA) 2. UC 3. Bicyclists 4. Berkeleyans for Better Transportation Options (BBTOP) 5. Disabled and Seniors 6. Environmental Groups 7. South Telegraph businesses and property owners 8. Telegraph Business Improvement District (Staff also offered to meet with a ninth group, the Downtown Business Association, but the DBA chose not to have a presentation.) Staff generally heard negative input from several of the stakeholder groups, and other groups were more willing to consider the project. The written comments from these meetings are attached to the Transportation Commission report (Attachment B). The community also had the opportunity to send comments to staff via the BRT website; these comments, along with letters received by mail and a petition circulated by Telegraph Avenue merchants and vendors, are also attached to the Transportation Commission staff report as Attachments C and D. Many of the comments received related to the LPA. In an effort to identify the most common LPA-related questions and comments from those meetings, staff reviewed all written comments received, as well as informal notes taken at the meetings. These comments were addressed in two ways: Attachment E (attached to the Transportation Commission report) is a compilation of responses to LPA-related comments and questions prepared by City staff and AC Transit staff. This attachment also includes responses developed to questions from the Willard Neighborhood Association that were submitted to staff prior to the September 24 th stakeholder meeting and distributed at that meeting. Attachment F (Attached to the Transportation Commission report) addresses four commonly heard comments (the need for short-term on-street parking on Telegraph, access to the Telegraph/Channing garage, access of private vehicles to businesses on the west side of Telegraph, and parking loss on Telegraph south of Dwight) and gives options for accommodating those concerns within the context of the proposed LPA alignment. Staff has not revised the draft LPA to address any changes suggested in the stakeholder meetings or in written correspondence. Changes will be made at the direction of the Planning Commission, with input from the Transportation Commission. Transportation Commission meeting On November 19, 2009, the Transportation Commission held a public meeting to review the draft LPA, take public comment, and make a recommendation to the Planning Page 4 of 6

5 BRT Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Item 10 December 9, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Commission. The Commission heard from 25 members of the public; a summary of the comments is included as Attachment 4. The Transportation Commission made the following recommendations to the Planning Commission: 1) That the Transportation Commission be consulted in early 2010 for additional input on the BRT alignment for the LPA; 2) That a revised process and selection criteria be developed for the LPA process 3) That the following changes be included in the LPA: (a) Two-way Bancroft and Durant, with dedicated bus lanes on Bancroft; (b) Center-running bus lanes downtown on Shattuck; (c) Consider allowing private vehicles south-bound access on Telegraph Avenue; and (d) Consider increasing pedestrian space at Telegraph and Bancroft. 4) That AC Transit be encouraged to study both a no-build and Rapid Bus Plus options as well as the LPA in the FEIS/R. The complete Transportation Commission recommendation is included as Attachment 5. Additional Public Comments Written comments that were received after November 10 th are included in Attachments 6 and 7 of this report. These should be considered along with the written comments that were included in the Transportation Commission packet as Attachments B, C and D. Next Steps The LPA process will go through the following steps: The Planning Commission will review the LPA, take public comments and recommend an LPA to the City Council. This process could involve directing staff to make changes to the LPA before referral to the Council. The City Council will review the work to date, and make a decision on an LPA. This final LPA would be sent to AC Transit by April 2010 for study in the FEIS/R for the BRT project. Once the FEIS/R is complete, the City Council will review the findings and hear additional community input. The Council will determine at that time whether to allow AC Transit to implement BRT in the City of Berkeley. Conclusion Using the information in this report, the LPA document and public comment, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the draft LPA. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration. Attachments: 1. BRT for Berkeley: A Proposal for Consideration (LPA document) Page 5 of 6

6 BRT Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Item 10 December 9, 2009 Page 6 of 6 2. (Distributed in the Planning Commission packet) November 19, 2009 Transportation Commission staff report and attachments: A. October 14, 2009 letter from AC Transit re. LPA process B. Comment cards from stakeholder meetings C. s regarding BRT and draft LPA D. Letters and petition regarding BRT and draft LPA E. Response to comments and questions F. Options for the current draft LPA (Note: Attachment 2 was distributed in the Planning Commission packet. It can be found on-line in the Planning Commission e-packet, or on the City s BRT website, 3. Diagrams of draft LPA alignment 4. Comments from the Transportation Commission meeting 5. Transportation Commission recommendation 6. Late communications distributed at the Transportation Commission meeting 7. Communications received at or after the Transportation Commission meeting Page 6 of 6

7 Planning Commission Item 10 - Please Note: Attachment 1 Attachment 2 BRT for Berkeley: A Proposal for Consideration (LPA document) will be delivered to Planning Commissioners only Attachment 2 was previously distributed in the Planning Commission packet. It can be found on-line in the Planning Commission e-packet, or on the City s BRT website, This document was for the November 19, 2009 Transportation Commission staff report and attachments: A. October 14, 2009 letter from AC Transit re. LPA process B. Comment cards from stakeholder meetings C. s regarding BRT and draft LPA D. Letters and petition regarding BRT and draft LPA E. Response to comments and questions F. Options for the current draft LPA 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: planning@cityofberkeley.info

8 This page left intentionally blank

9 Planning Commission Item 10, Attachment 3 Diagrams of draft LPA alignment Segment 1 Telegraph South of Dwight

10 Segment 2 Telegraph North of Dwight

11 Segment 3 Telegraph to Shattuck

12 Segment 4 - Downtown

13 Atem 10 - Attachment 4, Page Planning Commission Item 10, Attachment 4 Summarized public comments from Transportation Commission meeting 1. Supports BRT will reduce energy consumption, greenhouse gas emission, and be more efficient transportation. We need to choose an LPA for study. Wants two-way Bancroft and no two-way on Telegraph. People will stop and double park even with only one lane in each direction this won t be an issue with the Telegraph-Dana couplet. 2. President of CENA The LPA is just a justification for BRT. CENA will only support a no-build alternative. All serious environmentalists need to look at the LPA and ask if it will work here. 3. TBID Director TBID hosted a rancorous, hostile stakeholder meeting. Distributed a letter to the Commission with detailed response to the LPA and staff responses included in the packet. Has four main concerns: 1) Shouldn t change Telegraph between Dwight and Durant; 2) Major concerns about bus-only lanes in commercial districts; 3) Concerned about parking loss; and 4) Concerned about access to Telegraph/Channing garage. 4. UC Berkeley Planner Spoke on behalf of campus administration, which continues to support BRT. Urged support of BRT believes that this is part of shared City and UC goals for improved transit, accessibility and mobility in Berkeley. 5. This is a tale of two transit centers. Transit can create vacant, unfriendly areas (transit platform at the entrance to a mall in downtown Sac (Sacramento?), or can be a valuable addition that enhances a community (bus stop one block away from commercial area downtown San Rafael). 6. This is a sincere attempt, but has major issues. Do you want a stop sign on Telegraph? Do you want to divert traffic onto Russell? Lose local service? BRT = Big Reduction in Transit. Questions whether BRT will result in improved transit for local residents. Mentioned that the City needs to have a binding agreement with AC Transit for the dedicated lanes. This agreement should be part of this plan would allow the City to pull remove the dedicated lanes if they don t work. 7. Spoke on behalf of Rapid Bus Plus Coalition (formerly BBTOP). Wants Rapid Bus Plus to be the LPA. It was developed with city staff and AC Transit the new version

14 Atem 10 - Attachment 4, Page 2 is in the Commission packet. This version is different from what was described in the LPA document. Makes everybody s transit experience better, and it s able to happen now. Jim Cunradi (AC Transit) stated that proof-of-payment has the biggest impact on the speed and reliability of the system. Wants to see proof-of-payment as part of Rapid Bus Plus. Wants to fully implement Translink. 8. Urges recommendation of Rapid Bus Plus as the LPA. Summarized the public comments in the Transportation Commission packet as No to BRT. The comments in favor of BRT look identical. He wants to provide the benefits of BRT without the dedicated lanes and huge infrastructure, avoiding uncertainties, cost and disruption. Cost savings could then be applied to the rest of the AC system. It s insane to put all of this money into this corridor and have the rest of the system crumble around it. 9. Invites the Transportation Commission to consider Rapid Bus Plus as the LPA. Can be implemented now go with a winner. 10. An alternate to BRT is the existing 1 and 1R. Route-wide, there are 105 stops for the 1 bus BRT would only have 44 stops. With just a few improvements, the existing Rapid Bus could be Rapid Bus Plus and we could keep local service and apply the savings to preserve AC Transit local service. Pedestrians wouldn t have to cross traffic to get to stops, preserves loading zones and parking. Cost and damage to the neighborhoods is too high a cost. Buses should share the road. 11. Mentioned Measure G and climate change. 50% of greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation. We need to reduce oil dependence increased fuel efficiency isn t enough. Need the city to recommend a full-build LPA for AC to study so the full impact of BRT on greenhouse gases can be studied. Measure KK was defeated by 77% of the voters. 12. Co-chaired No on KK, which was about how to make transit decisions. Studying only Rapid Bus Plus would only study the no-build option versus an almost no-build option. Need to look at technical issues so we can get helpful information. Studying nothing gets us nothing. 13. Regular 1/1R bus rider. Likes stops listed in the LPA. Work on LPA so far is excellent, but looks like more study is necessary. Supports BRT not because he needs it, but to get people out of their cars. We need bus-only lanes for BRT to work. Rapid Bus Plus is a variation of the no-build option. 14. Speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club supports 1) no reductions in existing services; 2) studying BRT to the fullest. Reminded the Transportation

15 Atem 10 - Attachment 4, Page 3 Commission of past Sierra Club support of BRT cards submitted at a previous Transportation Commission meeting. Regarding the LPA, wants two options to be studied: 1) Two-way traffic on Bancroft between Shattuck and Telegraph, and 2) reversal of one-way traffic on Bancroft between Telegraph and Piedmont. 15. Craft vendor and co-chair of the Telegraph Avenue Holiday Street fair. Clarified that the petition in the Commissioner s packet was from the craft vendors. Submitted more signed petitions. Feels that she is being submerged, in the name of progress, like Chinese peasants in the path of a dam. Some vendors would have to unload ½ a block away, which is not realistic. Two-way traffic on Telegraph would be very destructive. 16. Speaking on behalf of Transform. Supports study of LPA it s the only way to know what would be better. Need to know more, not less so we can make an informed decision about the impacts. Proposed LPA has minimal impacts and creates the greatest benefit to attract riders. Buses now aren t reliable or on time they stay reliable when they have their own right-of-way. 17. Too many disconnects between this Plan and the community. Process started in 1993 and we have nothing. Won t have anything in ten more years because of a lack of funding. How much will this process cost us? There have been hundreds of meetings on this already. The basic problem is the alignment. There should be efficient links between Rockridge BART-UC campus and UC campus Amtrak station. Submitted 1997 minutes from Transportation Commission meeting regarding light rail. 18. Professor of Environmental Planning, UCB. BRT is very successful in Latin American cities because 1) poor people needing to get to industrial areas and 2) BRT has grade separation. Won t work here because there s no grade separation, most of us already have cars and we already have buses and BART. BRT is BRT-lite. Prepaid boarding doesn t seem like it would make much of a difference. Too many negative consequences he s not convinced it will work here. 19. Consider BRT as a second LPA. Cleveland doesn t have dedicated lanes where there aren t parallel streets to take the traffic we don t have parallel streets that can take traffic here. College Avenue has two lanes but is very congested. Doesn t believe claims that traffic on College can be improved by tweaking signal lights. The LPA claims that Telegraph will take more traffic with two lanes than College does now. There should be a way to convert dedicated lanes back if they don t work. 20. Opposed to BRT it s a foot in the door. BRT works for big cities, not Berkeley. It removes trees. Could have BRT from downtown Oakland to SF(stopping in

16 Atem 10 - Attachment 4, Page 4 Emeryville), or from Richmond with parking in Albany under the freeway. UC students ride the local buses you can t cut them off. Concerned about conflicts of interest on the TC, wants to know more about Transform, and wants to know more about a Nelson/Nygaard TDM grant. 21. Problems with BRT are endemic in Berkeley and Oakland. Basic problem is that people need to get around locally to do their errands need good local service. Don t need a $250 million program to transport people to other cities Rapid Bus Plus would work for those people. Take the saved money and do a good use study. Ac Transit is using 2-3 year-old ridership data woefully lacking. Doesn t want to be forced to go past her destination. 22. Support no-build alternative and Rapid Bus Plus it s what the locals prefer. BRT will only put more traffic on College. There will be more pedestrian issues, especially for the disabled and children, from having boarding stations in the middle of the street. Can accommodate mobility challenged with Rapid Bus Plus if you provide raised platforms. 23. Read letter from Karl Reeh /LeConte Neighborhood Association (late communications, 11/14/09) 24. Phony democracy citizens don t have input into the process. City staff acts as advocates for any costly system. Staff should show pro and con positions. Shouldn t present projections as facts make sure that they are presented as anticipated consequences, not known consequences. The BRT transit mode and Telegraph Avenue route were chosen in 2001 without public input. 25. Grad student at UCB commutes along the Telegraph corridor everyday. The 1/1R lines don t work very well. BRT should be studied. Thinks the LPA is a pretty good plan; please study it.

17 Item 10 - Attachment 5, Page 1

18 Item 10 - Attachment 5, Page 2

19 Item 10 - Attachment 5, Page 3

20 Item 10 - Attachment 5, Page 4

21 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 1 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS for Transportation Commission Regular Meeting November 19, 2009 Item B-1: Locally Preferred Alternative for Bus Rapid Transit 1. Kitty McLean 2. Karl Reeh, President, LeConte N.A. 3. Commissioners Bruzzone and Froehle, Transit Subcommittee- Recommendation for TC Action 4. Rapid Bus Plus Coalition Elements for Study 11/18/ comments received after November 9, Seth Goddard- 10/9/09 Metro Magazine article, Cleveland s BRT hits one year anniversary 7. Jurgen Aust TC minutes of February 20, 1997

22 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page Original Message----- From: Kitty McLean [mailto:hmclean@berkeley.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, :16 PM To: Javandel, Farid Subject: BRT (LPA) Mr. Javandel - Could you please forward this letter to the Transportation Commission. Thank you, Katharine McLean TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: I want to urge you to complete the LPA on the BRT proposal so that we really know what we're dealing with. We must make progress in our public transportation system if we are going to be able to lower our damaging emissions. The more we know, the better our choices. I also think that the points made in the Sierra Club letter should be taken very seriously. Please continue to make progress so that all of us citizens can carefully judge our options. Thank you, Kitty McLean 827 Indian Rock Ave. Berkeley

23 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 3 From: KarlReeh [mailto:karlreeh@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, November 14, :40 AM To: Javandel, Farid; Harrison, Jordan Subject: BRT: LeConte Neighborhood Assnociation Concerns Transportation Commission, c/o Mr. Farid Javandel, Planning Commission, c/o Ms. Jordan Harrison The LeConte NA Board requests that the City terminate the Berkeley BRT Proposal immediately, and direct AC Transit to terminate the EIR for this project immediately! The opposition to this project was 100% at each of the three final Berkeley BRT Proposal presentations, and at a prior presentation before a joint meeting of LeConte and Willard neighborhoods over 90% were opposed to the Berkeley BRT Proposal. Our Telegraph Avenue community would suffer greater harm from AC Transit's BRT project than any other community along the 17 mile route yet we were not consulted during preparation of the proposal. The consultants and city staff assumed that they could force us to accept whatever they proposed and they considered our concerns irrelevant. The reaction when our community saw the Berkeley BRT Proposal was one of OUTRAGE. The removal of two traffic lanes along Telegraph Avenue for the exclusive use of AC Transit buses would cause gridlock from the UC Berkeley campus to the Oakland border. Merchants, vendors, and professional offices located along Telegraph Avenue would all suffer significant loss of business, and many would be forced to close. This harm would be exacerbated with the loss of over 100 parking spaces, including ALL disabled parking spaces, along Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Traffic that now travels freely along Telegraph Avenue would seek new routes across the city causing congestion along adjacent traffic corridors, and disrupting neighborhoods that lie within. The loss of two-thirds of the local bus stops along Telegraph Avenue would discourage bus ridership, especially among the elderly and disabled. Passenger cars and trucks caught in congested traffic, forced to circle blocks in search of parking, and forced into long circuitous routes because of no-turn intersections would cause increased pollution, defeating one of the primary goals of the Berkeley BRT Proposal. And, the potential two and a half minute time savings on a bus ride from downtown Berkeley to the Oakland border by the year 2025 (if exaggerated population projections occur) does not justify destruction of our community, especially since the consultants that have been promoting this project tell us that a seven minute wait to a bus rider has been found to be insignificant. To the residents of LeConte, the Berkeley BRT Proposal is an example of Berkeley at its worst. A top down solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The Berkeley BRT Proposal should have been recognized as a failure long ago, it must now be stopped immediately! So long as the Berkeley BRT Proposal threatens our community LeConte NA will vigorously oppose this threat and will aggressively seek support from others within as well as outside Berkeley that can assist us in terminating this project. Karl Reeh, President, LeConte Neighborhood Association <<<<

24 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 4

25 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 5

26 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 6

27 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 7

28 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 8

29 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 9

30 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 10

31 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 11

32 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 12

33 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 13

34 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 14

35 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 15

36 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 16

37 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 17

38 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 18

39 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 19

40 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 20

41 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 21

42 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 22

43 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 23

44 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 24

45 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 25

46 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 26

47 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 27 Submitted by Commissioner Seth Goddard October 9, 2009 Industry News Cleveland s BRT hits one-year anniversary The HealthLine, the bus rapid transit (BRT) service operated by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA), is celebrating its first anniversary this month. The service began on Oct. 24, Michael J. Schipper, deputy general manager, engineering and project management, says that the HealthLine has met or exceeded all of RTA s expectations. Ridership: More than 3.1 million people have boarded the HealthLine s Rapid Transit Vehicles (RTVs) since the service began. This is an increase of almost 50 percent for January-August 2009, when compared to the same months in In March, for example, HealthLine ridership topped 335,000 a 75 percent increase over the 228,000 riders on the #6 bus the previous year. Economic development: Despite a weak national and local economy, Euclid Avenue is still growing. Most of the major new construction in the City of Cleveland is either on, or within a few blocks of, HealthLine service. Smoother operations: Schipper says the HealthLine has realized the reduced travel times that the design team envisioned. That, and other factors, are allowing RTA to operate the HealthLine for less than traditional bus service would cost. Customer satisfaction: RTA conducted a ridership survey last summer, and for the first six months of operation, the HealthLine had an approval rating of more than 90 percent. Riders said the travel times are reasonable, and the service is reliable and on-time. Copyright 2009 Metro Magazine. All Rights Reserved.

48 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 28

49 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 29

50 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 30

51 Item 10 - Attachment 6 Page 31

52 This page left intentionally blank

53 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page Planning Commission Item 10, Attachment 7 comments regarding BRT and LPA received between and or at the Transportation Commission meeting Traffic plan for telegraph As a new resident of Berkeley, and one who is excited about living here for a long, long time, I would like to lend 100 percent support to the traffic/parking plan on telegraph. My feeling is that it is different and potentially risky, but the rewards and potential rewards far outweigh those risks. Having lived many years in communities in New England and France with similar plans, I can only say it would be a dream to live, shop and walk daily in Berkeley weather as I did in those colder regions. Jamey Leonard TransForm letter in support of LPA Please see the attached letter, which will be given to the Transportation Commission tonight. -Joel -- We ve moved across the street! Please update your records. Our phone and fax numbers remain the same. Joel Ramos, Community Planner TransForm (Formerly TALC, the Transportation and Land Use Coalition) th Street, Suite 600, Oakland, CA ext. 318 (Staff note - TransForm PDF attachment mentioned in follows.) 1

54 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 2 2

55 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 3 Can BRT be Approved in Berkeley? (comment for Planning Commission) Can Bus Rapid Transit be Approved in Berkeley? The short answer is Yes -- if proponents can continue to keep the process on (rubber-tired) track, and if the City Council can look beyond the same-old small shouting mob that opposes anything new in town requiring actual construction. Last Thursday's Transportation Commission meeting showed the way forward. The TC agenda item was to decide what it should recommend to the Planning Commission as Berkeley's "Locally Preferred Alternative" (LPA) - the choice of the BRT route and other parameters that AC Transit will use in completing the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the whole project (which includes Oakland and San Leandro). The Planning Commission will make a final recommendation to the Council, which will select the final LPA. After the ensuing FEIR is released, all three cities can then decide precisely what project to adopt -- expected late next year. The decision on Thursday, therefore, was what version of BRT AC Transit should study in the FEIR, rather than what Berkeley will or won't build to improve bus transit on the route. City staff had prepared a draft LPA that constitutes a "full build" description -- fullfeatured BRT with some dedicated lanes on a selected route up Telegraph from the Oakland border and on into Downtown, proposed stop locations, and consideration of traffic controls and turn lanes along that route. Opponents of BRT told Transportation commissioners that they should choose instead of a full-build scenario an LPA that would be either "no-build" (kill the project immediately) or "rapid bus plus" (modest improvements to the current 1R rapid bus without any dedicated lanes or built stations). After public comment and their own discussion, Transportation commissioners unanimously voted to: 1. Endorse a full-build LPA based on the city's draft document. 2. Ask staff to improve the final version of the document by being more explicit about the tradeoffs among the consequential choices, and to explain more transparently why one choice was selected rather than another. (An example issue: running BRT in both directions on Bancroft -- not chosen -- would entail the loss of 70 parking spaces; instead BRT is to run eastbound on Durant, without loss of parking but with less convenience for the 2000 campus bus riders expected daily.) 3. Recommend that AC Transit study some alternatives in addition to the main scenario: a fuller build-out on Shattuck, two-way Bancroft, additional pedestrian space on upper Telegraph, and better access to the Channing garage. Overall, this was a strong endorsement of the BRT project. And in terms of political process it proved the most important principle to help a vigorous BRT to be approved: separate the political and personal concerns from the technical issues. 3

56 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 4 Everyone reading the draft LPA has had at least some questions, and often also a set of concerns about potential negative impacts. (I have some myself.) For example: On upper Telegraph, how will Moe's customers drop off books and how will street vendors be able to set up if traffic runs in both directions? How will riders find the southbound bus from Sproul Plaza if the closest stop is one or two blocks away? How many of today's 1/1R riders would have to travel further to catch a bus? How much more "cut-through traffic" could be generated in neighborhoods east of Telegraph and west of College? Will customers of local businesses still be able to park nearby? Will Telegraph auto traffic succumb to perpetual gridlock? There's a long -- and legitimate -- list of what needs to be studied via AC's FEIR. But as commissioner Tony Bruzzone, a transportation professional, said, "An LPA doesn't need to solve all the problems -- it never does -- but only needs to identify them. Almost all the problems can and will be solved as we work through the process. It happens on every major project." That's the key reason why BRT still looks politically viable. That part of the anti-brt crowd that has specifically-technical objections will have a chance to see if they are adequately addressed and mitigated in the final plan; and presuming that's the case their rational reasons for objecting will go away. Left standing, of course, will be our perpetual small coterie of irrational objectors. For example: those who don't want their own driving convenience compromised; those who think buses are only for poor people and that BRT will never attract new middle-class riders in the way BART has; some merchants who think their business depends on illegal double-parkers on Telegraph; those who think BRT stops count as "transit-oriented development hubs" that will override local zoning controls (not true); and of course those who want all of Berkeley to remain in our current "golden moment" of urban perfection. The Council's final choice will therefore come down to who they most believe: the community that's worked together to optimize a much-needed transit improvement, making appropriate compromises; or the usual gaggle of Citizens with Personal Issues. Though that path to our future BRT is not a certain one by any means -- just as the implementation of the community-compromise Downtown Area Plan has been sabotaged so far -- it is still very much a possible one. The Planning Commission, which will take up the Berkeley LPA on December 9, simply needs to follow Transportation's lead: save the considerations of political acceptance for next year, and help us focus on the technical questions that still need careful study. More information about the Berkeley draft LPA is [url= Alan Tobey BRT Buses?? Greetings- I wanted to offer input into this BRT schema as a rider of AC Transit & BART. I think the whole thing is very shortsighted. Forcing a generic one size fits all BRT into Streets that are already too narrow and that have different neighborhood characteristics as one goes along is poor planning. 4

57 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 5 The mega city sprawl that is happening will not be solved by BRT buses shoe horned into already congested streets ( Look to SF SPUR Studies). Underground subways or dedicated light rail (or elevated) trains is the future as all other metro region areas have discovered and end up installing. BRT will we outgrown before it ever gets implemented. To think BRT that intermixes with already established pockets of congestion (Telegraph Ave) will take care of the issue is very naive. I avoid Buses when I can-- they are uncomfortable - difficult to transport packages on-- and the time pressures and traffic dynamics do not make it always a safe ride or easy to exit. I have been caught twice in doors getting off the Van Hool buses and luckily passengers were there to scream at the driver to stop. I have seen the same happen to other passengers. I feel safer taking buses in Mid Town Manhattan NYC - then I do in the East Bay-- Why? They don't have the insanity of trying to make impossible schedules as our system of transit expects... and driver safety and congestion is calculated into the traffic tie ups. Transfers are built into the fair and not via extra fares. NYC has one metro pass-- one does not have to swipe the pass on exiting and the pass includes transfer times much longer then we have so you can do both a cross town or uptown/downtown or trans borough trip if one needs. Now I have to pay a fare to BART and then From BART and the cost of transit is getting prohibitive. Learn from other mega regions-- Unfortunately we are cursed with having too many Transit systems in the MIX that did not have the foresight back when. By the way-- the jobs and AFFORDABLE housing are spreading out all over the region and not contained to your downtown urban centers as you think you are planning for. And with the violence on buses and BART-- do you blame people when they choose to drive? Mary Rose Kaczorowski a Berkeley Resident In support of the LPA for BRT for further study Dear Planning Commissioners: I support approving the staff proposed Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Berkeley for further study. This action will not approve or even endorse BRT in Berkeley. Rather, it will continue the needed study of BRT for Berkeley. It will allow Berkeley residents to make an informed decision before supporting a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for BRT in Berkeley. We cannot know the true benefits or impacts of BRT without further study of this LPA. 5

58 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 6 The project s major goal is to create a BRT system that will offer enough improvements to transit to attract a significant number of new riders switching from driving their cars to using transit. Getting people onto transit is a goal that BRT has achieved wherever it has been implemented. The Berkeley LPA shows this on pages With more people taking transit, there is a reduction of cars on the road, not an increase. This corresponds to a reduction in the amount of parking needed along the corridor or in the downtown. Once we have more daily commuters taking transit, there will be less demand for workers to find free or cheap parking. This would free up parking for customers who make the occasional drive to Berkeley. Please support the approval of the LPA staff have proposed and allow Berkeley residents to learn what BRT really has to offer Berkeley. Thank you. -- Emunah Hauser Berkeley, CA BRT LPA Please forward this letter to the Berkeley Planning Commissioners for their December 9 meeting. Thank you and regards, Robert E. Johnson Dear Planning Commissioners: November 28, 2009 I strongly support approving the staff proposed Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in Berkeley for further study. With the current global concerns about climate change and greenhouse gases and Berkeley s own voterapproved mandate to reduce such gases, it is imperative that we give serious study to programs such as this which have the potential to yield substantial reductions in greenhouse gases. This action of approving the LPA will not approve or even endorse BRT in Berkeley. Rather, it will continue the needed study of BRT for Berkeley. It will allow Berkeley residents to make an informed decision before supporting a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for BRT in Berkeley. We cannot know the true benefits or impacts of BRT without further study of this LPA. The project s major goal is to create a BRT system that will offer enough improvements to transit to attract a significant number of new riders switching from driving their cars to using transit. 6

59 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 7 Getting people onto transit is a goal that BRT has achieved wherever it has been implemented. The Berkeley LPA shows this on pages With more people taking transit, there is a reduction of cars on the road, not an increase. This corresponds to a reduction in the amount of parking needed along the corridor or in the downtown. Once we have more daily commuters taking transit, there will be less demand for workers and students to find free or cheap parking. This would free up parking for customers who make the occasional drive to Berkeley. Please support the approval of the LPA staff have proposed and allow Berkeley residents to learn what BRT really has to offer Berkeley. Last November Berkeley voters overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that was clearly aimed at obstructing BRT. Please do not let the vociferous demands of a small minority sway you from proceeding on something that the vast majority of Berkeley citizens implicity support. Thank you for your kind attention to this letter, Robert E. Johnson Commissioner, Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission and Boardmember, Greenbelt Alliance 580 Grizzly Peak Blvd, Berkely CA Proposed BRT on Telegraph Dear Sir or Madam: As a long-term resident of Florence Street, a one-block street between Ashby and Russell, I foresee a negative impact on our neighborhood should the proposed plan be allowed to go forward. Residential parking, already difficult-to-impossible because of staff and visitor parking from Alta Bates, will be additionally squeezed because of the loss of parking on Telegraph. This loss of parking will also have an incalculable negative impact on the nearby small businesses that make our mixed-use neighborhood viable: the printer, the ethnic restaurants, cafes, nail shops and the like. In addition, loss of a traffic lane on Telegraph, and the ensuing slowing and congestion at the Telegraph/Ashby interesection, will increase the already frequent incidence of impatient, speeding drivers using our street as a north-bound short-cut, causing more noise and air pollution and a danger to people and animals. I have lived in my home since 1983 and anticipate the day when public transportation will be my only means of getting around. As others have pointed out, crossing through the dense and unpredictable traffic around Ashby/Telegraph to board a bus mid-street seems like a risky business, especially for children, the elderly and the disabled. I know that many residents, merchants and street vendors are opposed to these changes. Locally preferred by whom?, one might ask. 7

60 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 8 Thank you for considering my comments. Linda Lancione Moyer 2928 Florence Street, Apt. B Berkeley, CA llmoyer@comcast.net BRT & Parking To Whom It May Concern, I have been a Berkeley (Telegraph Ave.) business owner for 20 years. I am very concerned about the threat of removing 70% of the parking along Telegraph Ave. with the BRT. I do not support that at all. I remember the removal of parking with the change in the street bike lanes (3 or so yrs. ago) and then spending a great deal more of the city's money to put the parking back in place because of the hardship it caused for the businesses. This will not be any different it will be a real problem for the businesses. Please do not let this happen, do not remove parking along Telegraph Ave.. Sincerely, Beth Davidson, DC BRT IS BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT AND BERKELEY I have lived in Berkeley, on Parker Street near College Avenue, for 7 years. In that time, I have personally seen two accidents involving bicyclists and automobiles. I saw a young woman fall off her bike onto College Avenue in the first accident, and I saw a man lying in College Avenue bleeding in the second accident. In addition, I live three blocks from the intersection of Warring Street and Derby Street, where in February, five year old Zachary Cruz was run over and killed by a truck in the crosswalk on his way to an after school program. I do not want to see more traffic added to College Avenue and the other two lane residential streets in my neighborhood, and for that reason, I am opposing BRT. AC Transit estimates that 160 additional cars and trucks per hour will be added to College Avenue if two lanes are removed on Telegraph. And although they claim that pedestrian and bicyclist safety will be improved on Telegraph by removing the lanes, there will be a corresponding and possibly greater DECREASE in pedestrian and bicyclist safety on College Avenue and surrounding residential streets. There are many other things wrong with the BRT proposal: 1) With an estimated price tag of $250 million to $400 million, and a hoped for CO2 reduction of 9.2 tons per day, BRT will take between 5000 and 8000 years of operation to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as could be quickly removed by simply spending the same money on carbon offset credits, at $13.50 per ton of CO2 removed. So BRT is a horrible waste of resources which could otherwise be used to help stop global 8

61 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 9 warming. If Berkeley is serious about wanting to save the planet, we need to make intelligent decisions based on scientific facts, rather than knee jerk emotional decisions based on hearsay, propaganda, and wishful thinking. 2) For several years, I have observed the 1 and 1R buses on Telegraph, and they are basically never slowed down in any significant way by traffic, at least South of Dwight. If you spend some time walking and driving on Telegraph you will see the same thing. So giving them their own lane from the Oakland border to Dwight will have essentially zero effect on their speed, making such a lane completely worthless. 3) AC Transit talks a lot about the ridership in "the transit corridor", but my understanding is that they are including the ridership of the 51 bus, which actually has a lot of people on it, unlike the 1 and 1R buses. If two lanes are removed on Telegraph, the additional cars and trucks that are pushed onto College Avenue will slow down the 51 bus even more, and the 51 has the highest ridership of any bus line in the AC Transit system. 4) Basically no one who lives or works near Telegraph in Berkeley is in favor of BRT. If you read your own PDF files containing comments, just about the only pro BRT comments are from people who either give their address as being in another part of Berkeley or even out of town. Among the people whose addresses place them near Telegraph, almost every single one is strongly opposed to BRT. 5) BRT will mess up parking even worse in this part of Berkeley. To be responsible, AC Transit needs to replace any removed parking spaces by building parking garages, if BRT is built. These new parking garages need to be completed and in use before any construction activities occur that will negatively affect parking. This will cost a lot of money, which AC Transit likely does not have, and so there will be the tendency for them to try to push BRT through without replacing the removed parking spaces, and this should not be allowed. 6) BRT will obviously mess up traffic flow on Telegraph, and AC Transit has the obligation to mitigate this as much as possible. To some extent, this can be mitigated by building underpasses that will carry the center two lanes of Telegraph under the major cross streets, and AC Transit should be forced to pay for these, and they should be built and in use before any traffic disruptions occur, even during BRT construction. Again, there will be the tendency for AC Transit to try to push through a negligent, cut rate project without these underpasses to save money, and this should not be allowed. 7) If the underpasses are built as mitigations, there is much less reason to build BRT, because the underpasses will speed up 9

62 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 10 the 1 and the 1R bus, possibly more than dedicated lanes would. 8) Much of AC Transit's current financial difficulties are the direct result of running the nearly empty 1 and 1R buses up and down Telegraph every 7 minutes. If you look at the cost of running those buses, it is in the same ballpark as their operating deficit. Increasing the bus frequency to every 5 minutes for BRT will further strain AC Transit's finances, and at some point they may need to face the facts and greatly reduce service along Telegraph. If BRT is built, then the dedicated lanes will be even more of a waste if service is reduced to every 15, 20, or even 30 minutes along the route. To summarize, BRT is basically a worthless project with a lot of negative effects and few benefits. It won't help the environment, it will make congestion worse, it won't speed up bus service, it will move the bus stops further apart, it will damage AC Transit's finances, it won't increase ridership very much, it will make the neighborhoods more dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Any City of Berkeley employee who participates in forcing BRT onto this neighborhood over our legitimate objections will be personally responsible for any future pedestrian or bicyclist fatalities here. Above and beyond the fact that BRT is a senseless waste of money that will damage the environment and the neighborhood, if it is pushed through and then more children die here, killed by cars or trucks that should have been on Telegraph, then the City of Berkeley employees will bear the moral responsibility for those deaths. Just saying that they are "following orders" does not absolve them of personal responsibility. The people who live in this neighborhood have been very clear in stating their nearly unanimous opposition to BRT, specifically to dedicated bus lanes on Telegraph. The City of Berkeley can either act responsibly and defer to the people who live here, or the City can force this disaster on us over our objections. If it is forced on us, then if another child is run over in a crosswalk here, I, for one, plan to be very vocal about pointing out the individuals who are responsible for the death. I don't see much difference between taking a gun and shooting a child to death and making negligent planning decisions that get them crushed to death by an automobile, either way they are dead and the person(s) who pulled the trigger or contributed to the decision is/are responsible. If you look at what other cities in America are doing with BRT projects, you will see that they are being very careful to not make congestion worse by removing traffic lanes that have been in use for decades. Generally, they set up temporary dedicated bus lanes for a period of time, to determine how it affects congestion in the neighboring areas. They also accept and even encourage community input before decisions are made to permanently reroute traffic. None of these things are being done here, which casts the entire BRT project and the professionalism of the City of Berkeley planning staff in a very inappropriate light. It is good that Berkeley wants to help the environment, but making flawed decisions that hurt everyone, in the interest of doing SOMETHING in a panic will not help the situation. BRT seems to be motivated by vague thoughts that public 10

63 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 11 transit is always good for the environment, rather than a thorough analysis showing that this BRT project would be good for the environment. If you look at the real data, you will see that this BRT project is basically worthless, to the environment, to bus riders, to taxpayers, to neighborhood businesses and residents. Russ Tilleman 2670 Parker Street Berkeley Planning Commission LPA for BRT Dear Jordan, Please print the attached letter and distribute it in the Planning Commission packet. Thanks much, Sarah December 2, 2009 Dear Planning Commissioners, As a resident along the project corridor, I request that you please recommend a full-build alternative as Berkeley s Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). A full-build alternative is most consistent with the goals and objectives of Berkeley s General Plan and Climate Action Plan. In 2001, the City Council voted unanimously to pass a resolution of support for this project, noting the City s Transit First policy that supports the creation of exclusive lanes. 1 The fundamental difficulty with bus transit today is that in practice cities treat a bus, with passengers, at an equal level of priority as a single occupancy vehicle. Increasing the speed and frequency of transit is critical for transit to have a chance of competing with the private automobile. There has been some confusion regarding what it means for the City to select a Locally Preferred Alternative for study by AC Transit in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report (FEIS/R). Selection of an LPA does not constitute approval of an alignment for the East Bay BRT project in Berkeley. It simply allows for detailed study of the impacts of the proposed project through the FEIS/R process. We cannot know what the impacts are and cannot identify mitigations until the FEIS/R is completed. Personally, I m disappointed in the staff recommendation for the Downtown and Southside segments for the Locally Preferred Alternative. To say that many Downtown circulation options are still being studied and therefore we can t do anything is okay; but to say that we can t even study dedicated lanes Downtown doesn t make sense to me. How we allocate public space sends a strong message about how we want people to get around Berkeley. U.S. Cities that are 1 Resolution No. 61,170-N.S. 11

64 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 12 receiving acclaim and sustainable transportation awards are being recognized because they are taking away space from the private automobile and restoring it to people, transit, and bicycles. In the not so distant past, Downtown Berkeley had dedicated lanes for transit and a thriving business district, during a time when many more traveled by transit and walking. I have lived in Berkeley for over 11 years, and in the Southside neighborhood for over 6 years. I participated in the creation of the Southside Plan over a decade ago, and continue to participate as it remains uncompleted. In 2007, the Planning Commission endorsed a recommendation from its Southside Plan subcommittee to select Alternative 2, Conversion of Bancroft and Durant to two-way, as the preferred alternative. 2 Converting Bancroft and Durant to two-way streets has the potential to calm traffic, reduce pedestrian injuries, improve bicycle circulation, and improve transit s performance and ease of use. Therefore I was surprised to see staff recommend that Bancroft and Durant remain one-way streets in the proposed LPA. Please reaffirm the Planning Commission s support for study of two-way Bancroft and Durant and add support for two-way dedicated bus lanes on Bancroft as you formulate your recommendation for a LPA for BRT. On a final note, I would like to share that some individuals have misrepresented the public sentiment at the recent Transportation Commission meeting (11/19). 16 speakers spoke against BRT, while 8 speakers spoke in support of BRT. Many speakers on either side represented larger constituencies including environmental groups, neighborhood associations, and UC-Berkeley. Other individuals seem to have confused democracy with mob rule, writing that that Transportation Commission is undemocratic because it doesn t do whatever they wish. This type of thinking is a threat to true democracy. The foundations of democracy are freedom and equality, with all citizens equal before the law and having equal access to power. A mob, however massive, and regardless of claims to speak for the people, may or may not be representative of the (often silent) majority in a large society. It may be composed of a specific segment of the population interested in a specific issue, and drawn from a limited geographical space or it may be a representative popular majority. Mob rule can lead to the government acting in the interest of special interests rather than the whole community. There are many other interests that have been underrepresented to date, such as bus riders, students, Southside residents, and residents in the greater city outside the project area, who have consistently voted to tax themselves to support robust transit options. In closing, as you make your decision regarding which LPA should be studied in the FEIS/R, please remember that studying nothing gets us nothing and that a No-Build alternative and Rapid Bus Plus are already being studied by AC Transit. We need a robust transit alternative in the mix so we can make a fully-informed decision when the FEIS/R is complete. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sarah Syed 2 Attachment B History of Southside Plan Transportation Alternatives, Southside Plan EIR Process Planning Commission hearing, June 17,

65 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page Channing Way #1 Berkeley, CA ssyed@sonic.net FW: AC Transit BRT Dear Mr. Marks and Ms. Greene- Attached please find my comments on AC Transit's BRT proposal; I recently re-sent them to Jordan Harrison for the Planning Commission's consideration, but I would appreciate your review and consideration of them as well. One is a letter, and the other consists of comments on the Draft EIR. Thank you for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions, or if there is any other way I can be of assistance. Thank you, PETER V. ALLEN Commentary on AC Transit s Bur Rapid Transit From Peter Allen, 3041 Hillegass Ave. Berkeley, CA artstove@hotmail.com AC Transit s proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) is a bad idea. Here is why: First, the project provides no real benefits. According to AC Transit s own Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the project will only cause a small reduction in automobile usage (p. 4-28), provide no reduction in 13

66 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 14 energy consumption (p ), and it will poach riders from BART (p. 3-31). Second, because it turns traffic lanes into bus-only lanes, it will cause more traffic congestion, especially on nearby streets. Just in south Berkeley and north Oakland, AC Transit admits that the project will make traffic worse on Telegraph near Dwight, College near Dwight, Adeline near Alcatraz, and Telegraph near Alcatraz, and at the intersections of Adeline & Ashby, Adeline & Alcatraz, College & Ashby, College & Claremont, and Telegraph & Alcatraz (EIR pp. 3-53, 3-61 and 62). The EIR does not even consider the impacts of this additional traffic on the Hillegass Bicycle Boulevard or pedestrians in areas such as Elmwood and Rockridge. The BRT project is bad for both bicyclists and pedestrians, but AC Transit has failed to acknowledge this impact. Third, because of the bus-only lanes and fancy bus stations, lots of parking disappears. Just between Dwight Way and Woolsey, the project would result in the removal of approximately spaces on Telegraph. This is about 73-75% of the parking on Telegraph in this area, and 25% of parking in the area when you include Telegraphaccessible cross streets. (p ). AC Transit proposes to reduce the impact of this by converting spaces on cross streets near Telegraph to metered parking. (p ) In other words, the parking for businesses on Telegraph has been shifted to nearby residential areas. This loss of parking is bad for both businesses and residents. The idea that faster buses and fancy stations will magically draw people out of their cars for a rail-like experience (but without any trains) is a fantasy. Finally, there is already a rail-like transportation system along this same corridor it is called BART, and it actually has trains. BRT may be fine in some places, but plopping it down on top of an existing rail system is 14

67 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 15 wasteful and duplicative. AC Transit should be working to better connect outlying areas to BART, rather than trying to steal riders from BART. If AC Transit took more pride in helping the community than it does in getting fancy new infrastructure, it would lower fares and hire more drivers to run more (and smaller, more energy-efficient) buses more frequently and on more routes. This would provide more economic benefit to the community, help low-income transit users more, and get more people out of cars. AC Transit s BRT proposal is in the wrong place. It will harm neighborhoods, businesses, bicyclists, pedestrians, and BART, and will provide no significant environmental benefits. Berkeley should say NO to this example of pork-barrel spending. It s just not kosher. Comments of Peter V. Allen on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit Project, June 14, 2007 Summary The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the AC Transit bus rapid transit (BRT) project is deficient. It is based upon stale data and analyses, does not address greenhouse gas impacts of the project, does not consider feasible, costeffective, and environmentally-preferable alternatives, engages in piecemealing of a larger project, and does not address the impact of bus fares on project objectives. In addition, the EIR s analysis has serious omissions in the areas of vehicular traffic, non-motorized transportation, parking, air quality, noise and vibration, and energy. The EIR needs to be revised and recirculated, or the project cannot be approved. Stale data, greenhouse gases, and light rail alternatives 15

68 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 16 AC Transit selected bus rapid transit as its preferred alternative on August 2, (EIR section 1.3.1, p. 1-22, and section 2.1.4, p. 2-3.) It rejected other alternatives at that time, including light rail transit. (Id.) The analysis leading to the August 2, 2001 decision began in (EIR, section 2.1.1, p. 2-1.) Much has changed since August 2, In evaluating the relative cost-effectiveness of alternatives, AC Transit must consider them in the context of a carbon tax or carbon cap-and-trade regime. This was not done in Before AC Transit decides to deploy a fleet of fossil-fueled buses, as opposed to electric-powered light rail, it must consider the costs of each in the reasonably foreseeable future. When this analysis is performed using current information and forecasts, light rail becomes more cost effective than it was in In addition, the EIR does not reflect the requirements of AB 32 (Health and Safety Code sections et. seq.) 5, addressing global warming and limits on carbon emissions. Again, if this were taken into consideration, it would make light rail more attractive than the addition of peak buses. (EIR, section , pp. 3-17, 3-22 and 23.) The EIR s exclusion of light rail as an alternative is unreasonable, and inconsistent with CEQA Guideline (a) through (c) and (f). AC Transit should consider light rail alternatives to the BRT proposal. The greenhouse gas issue shows that the EIR is based on stale analysis and data, and that the choice of alternatives was also made based on stale alternatives and data. Many other aspects of the EIR may be based on stale analysis and data, and accordingly may also be deficient. 6 The EIR should be comprehensively reviewed, updated, and revised to ensure that it is based on current data and analysis. Piecemealing 3 The analysis leading to the August 2, 2001 decision began in (EIR, section 2.1.1, p. 2-1.) 4 This is particularly true if light rail is powered by electricity from renewable sources. 5 This law went into effect September 27, 2006, so the EIR could have taken into consideration. The EIR is deficient for not doing so. 6 While it is impossible to determine the extent of this problem from the EIR itself, there are other indications that the EIR is based upon stale data, such as its misidentification of the current Trinity Chapel, of Trinity United Methodist Church, as a Church of Christ (2320 Dana Street, Berkeley, EIR p. 4-47) and its misidentification of the current Escuela Bilingue Internacional as St. Augustine School (410 Alcatraz, Oakland, EIR, P.4-42). 16

69 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 17 AC Transit chose BRT as its preferred alternative in 2001 with the understanding that light rail transit (LRT) should be considered as a long-term goal and that design and construction of BRT should not preclude conversion to LRT in the future. (EIR section , p. 2-3.) 7 Given that LRT is a goal of AC Transit, and the design and construction of BRT are to consider conversion to LRT, the conversion to LRT should be examined in the EIR, either under future transit services (section 3.1.2) or cumulative impacts (section 5.4). The EIR s failure to examine LRT is improper piecemealing. The EIR should be revised and to incorporate the environmental impacts of light rail. Other alternatives The EIR claims that a significant part of the attraction of the BRT project are the station amenities, such as ticket vending machines, arrival information, shelters, benches, and boarding platforms. (EIR, section , pp and 20.) The EIR does not evaluate whether the upgraded stations, without the bus-only lanes (but with advanced traffic signal controls), would meet the project objectives. This station-only alternative would be less expensive than the chosen Build Alternatives, would mitigate traffic impacts, and should be considered. (CEQA Guideline (a), (c), and (f).) The EIR states that the project will result in increased patronage due to improved transit travel time, improved service frequency, improved reliability, and improved amenities and convenience. (EIR section , p ) The EIR neglects to analyze the effect upon patronage levels as a result of changes in fares. Current fares for local and express service are $1.75, or $0.85 for youth, senior, and disabled passengers. Transfers cost an additional $0.25. These fares are expensive. Patronage levels could likely be improved by merely lowering fares; if the effect of lowering fares is less expensive than the proposed capital improvements, this could be quite cost effective, and would particularly help serve minority and low-income populations. (See EIR section re Environmental Justice.) The EIR should analyze a reduced-fare no-build alternative. 8 (CEQA Guideline (a), (c), and (f). 7 The EIR does not appear to define long-term. 8 The EIR does not indicate if AC Transit intends to raise fares or not, but only identifies existing fare levels. An increase in fares would reduce, if not eliminate, the already questionable benefits of the project, and would cast doubt upon all of the EIR s patronage estimates. The cost-effectiveness of the project cannot be analyzed absent a discussion of fare levels, or better yet, a guarantee of no fare increase. 17

70 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 18 Vehicular traffic One of the most deficient areas in the EIR is in its analysis of impacts on vehicular traffic. Specifically, the EIR only looked at major roadways (see, EIR section 3.2, pp and 33) and failed to analyze reasonably foreseeable adverse traffic impacts on other streets. For example, Benvenue and Hillegass between Alcatraz and Dwight run parallel to the proposed BRT route, and are closer to the proposed BRT route than College Avenue. Because of Berkeley s traffic barriers, there are no other north-south routes between Telegraph and College. 9 Hillegass and Benvenue have already become alternate routes for drivers attempting to circumvent traffic congestion on College and Ashby. It is reasonably foreseeable that the BRT project will increase vehicular traffic on Hillegass and Benvenue. The EIR itself states that the project has vehicular traffic impacts due to diversion of traffic to other, typically parallel roadways. (EIR section , p ) Impacts on Benvenue and Hillegass are particularly foreseeable, given that the EIR finds traffic impacts on streets that parallel Hillegass and Benvenue on both sides: Telegraph near Dwight, College near Dwight, and Telegraph near Alcatraz, and at the intersections of College & Ashby, College & Claremont, and Telegraph & Alcatraz. (EIR pp. 3-53, 3-61 and 62.) 10 Nevertheless, the EIR did not analyze vehicular traffic impacts on Hillegass and Benvenue. Without that analysis the EIR is incomplete and legally deficient. Non-motorized transportation The EIR correctly identifies Elmwood and Rockridge as centers of pedestrian activity. (EIR Table 3.3-1, p. 3-78, section , pp and 81.) The Elmwood and Rockridge commercial areas are both centered on College Avenue. The EIR identifies increased traffic and congestion at the intersections of College & Ashby (Elmwood) and College & Claremont (Rockridge). 9 In fact, only by using both Benvenue and Hillegass can drivers navigate the entire way between Alcatraz and Dwight. 10 The EIR also acknowledges that increased traffic on major roadways results in traffic spillover onto local residential streets. (EIR, section 4.2.2, p ) 18

71 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 19 The EIR fails to analyze adverse impacts on pedestrians in Elmwood and Rockridge resulting from the increase in traffic on College Avenue. 11 The EIR only analyzes pedestrian impacts on the transitway itself, and finds environmental benefit from the reduced volume of traffic on Telegraph. (EIR, section , p ) Claiming environmental benefits for pedestrians from reduced traffic on Telegraph, while ignoring adverse impacts on pedestrians from increased traffic on other streets is misleading, and fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA. (See, CEQA Guideline ) Similarly, the EIR identifies the Hillegass/Bowditch Bicycle Boulevard (EIR, section , p. 3-83), but fails to consider the impacts of increased automobile traffic on that designated bicycle route. By focusing only on the transitway, the EIR claims environmental benefits for bicycling, while ignoring adverse impacts on bicycling on other streets (including bike routes) resulting from increased traffic volumes. (EIR, section , p ) Again, this is both misleading and inconsistent with CEQA. (See, CEQA Guideline ) Parking The EIR notes that in Area 3 (Telegraph between Dwight and Woolsey) a residential parking permit requirement was implemented to address limited parking availability for residents and their guests in the neighborhood. (EIR, section , p ) Nevertheless, in order to mitigate the very significant reduction in commercial parking on Telegraph that would be caused by the project, the EIR proposes to convert residential parking on side streets to metered parking to serve commercial uses on Telegraph. (EIR, section , p ) This mitigation measure creates an adverse impact that is not analyzed as required by CEQA Guideline (a)(1)(D). Air Quality 11 Even though elsewhere the EIR identifies increased carbon monoxide concentrations at the corner of College and Claremont. Air quality at College and Ashby does not appear to have been analyzed. (EIR, Tables and 9, p and 133.) 19

72 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 20 The EIR fails to analyze potential adverse air impacts at sensitive receptor sites, such as Alta Bates Hospital and Willard School. These locations, in addition to pedestrian-heavy areas such as Elmwood and Rockridge, could suffer from reduced air quality as a result of increased traffic on alternate routes. The EIR fails to analyze potential adverse air impacts on the Hillegass/Bowditch Bicycle Boulevard and the Elmwood commercial district, despite its own finding of increased traffic congestion at the intersection of College and Ashby. (The EIR does identify an adverse air quality impact at the intersection of College and Claremont. EIR Tables and 9, pp and 133.) Noise and Vibration The EIR generally fails to consider increased noise and vibration resulting from increased traffic on nearby streets. (EIR, section ) 12 The EIR claims reduced impacts from noise as a result of reduced traffic on the transitway itself, but again largely neglects to consider the noise impact of increased traffic congestion on nearby streets. Energy The EIR finds that the project results in essentially no net change in energy use, and accordingly has no adverse effect (or environmental benefit) on energy use. (EIR section , p ) However, the EIR fails to consider the energy use involved in the construction of the project, including the energy used to manufacture the materials for the new stations and buses, and the energy used in fabricating, assembling, finishing, and delivering the new stations and buses. These are potentially significant impacts that need to be analyzed. Conclusion 12 The one exception is Bancroft Way, where the EIR acknowledges that traffic would be displaced to parallel streets.. 20

73 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 21 The draft EIR has serious deficiencies, and must be revised and recirculated, or the project must not be approved. BRT/ Transit 4 Berkeley To Berkeley planning Commission and all this concerns, We need good Transit for Berkeley, but BRT is not it! The BRT belongs in big cities like Downtown Oakland and SF, and on freeways--long, flat, well-cared-for roads, so the big fast buses can zip smoothly along bypassing congestion thereby encouraging commutors to ride the bus, and relax, read the news, save time. BRT does not fit or work in Berkeley being implemented via the RAPID BUS strategy, is destroying our once good local bus transit-->the "All in One Plan" replaces needed Local buses and eliminates most local stops except for those at Nodes (major intersections, generally disgustingly polluted and often dangerous). BRT is further planning by the Powers that Be, to destroy our green walkable Merrilie Mitchellvillage in order to control it for selfish purposes. Submitted by Merrilee Mitchell Comments on the City of Berkeley s LPA for Bus Rapid Transit To the members of the Planning Commission: Attached and below are my thoughts about the city's proposed locally preferred alternative for BRT, and the upcoming meetings. Doug Buckwald Comments on upcoming BRT meetings (Doug Buckwald, September 22, 2009) 21

74 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 22 I have examined the city s newly-released draft of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for Bus Rapid Transit in Berkeley. On the whole, it is a very disappointing document, both in the problematic traffic choices that were made, as well as the extent of damage it represents to the Southside. The Big Picture: Southside to take almost all BRT detriments The first thing one notices in the city s draft LPA is that the concerns expressed by businesses and residents downtown have been heeded. There will be no bus-only lanes downtown. The BRT buses will travel in mixed-use traffic lanes just as they do now, and will stop at the curb along the right side of the road. No traffic lanes will be removed, and no new traffic bottlenecks will be created. Local buses will still circulate in the downtown, giving passengers valuable choices in transit. And, virtually all of the downtown on-street parking spaces will be retained. However, in the Southside, it s a very different story. Most of the concerns expressed by businesses and residents here have been ignored. We are expected to endure all of the economic disruption and traffic mayhem that was outlined in AC Transit s original proposal, including the loss of 50% of our public roadway on Telegraph Avenue to make way for BRT-only lanes, and the loss of a great deal of the on-street parking along Telegraph. This will mean more parking problems in our neighborhoods as well, because that s where the displaced drivers will park. In short, while most of us living in the Southside will receive little or no benefit from the project, we are expected to bear almost all of the detriments. This follows a long-time pattern of city decisions that have forced the Southside to accept an increasingly degraded quality of life. I think it is time for us to say enough is enough. We should completely reject this obviously unfair proposal. If downtown is to be protected from BRT s detriments, then the Southside must be protected, too. Huge costs for minimal gain Let s examine the questionable logic our city staff has used: They do not recommend putting BRT buses in dedicated bus lanes downtown where they would do the most good in helping avoid traffic congestion, but they do want to put dedicated bus lanes on Telegraph Avenue (from Woolsey Street to Dwight Way) where the buses already travel at a brisk rate of speed usually at the posted speed limit or more. Thus, the city is recommending the maximum expense to remove traffic lanes and construct the elaborate BRT infrastructure only in the area that will offer the least savings in bus travel time. This does not seem to be a prudent course of action particularly when the project in question is so expensive and disruptive. Development trigger: The real reason for BRT 22

75 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 23 It seems apparent to me that the city s staff s plan is the result of behind-the-scenes political pressure. One thing is quite clear: the staff put the bus-only lanes exactly where they would help the developers the most. Downtown already has a major transit station (BART) so the dedicated bus lanes and BRT infrastructure are not needed as a development trigger. But on Telegraph, the BRT system with dedicated lanes and stations is essential to allow major new development to occur. In Berkeley, BRT is nothing but a development project masquerading as a transportation project. Many people are not aware that the legislation making it possible for developers to override local controls on development near transit corridors is already in place, and funding channels have been set up to favor high-density, high-rise development. If BRT is implemented, this massive redevelopment scheme will be implemented and will permanently degrade the quality of life in the entire Southside community. That is what s at stake here, nothing less. And this redevelopment scheme is being snuck in through the back door of the bus, if you will, in a very dishonest way. There should be vigorous discussions about the implications of BRT right now, not when it is already a fait accompli. More manipulative meetings There is an old saying among automobile salesmen: If you can get the customer to start discussing the options, you ve already sold the car. That is exactly why AC Transit has scheduled so many public meetings in which citizens are directed to accept the basic assumption that BRT will be built they only want us to talk about how it should be built. That is also why they have embraced the concept of locally preferred alternatives: They want to promote substantial buy-in at city staff level to their proposal before letting the public really have the chance to comment on it as a whole. They are counting on creating so much momentum that the project will be unstoppable. And now we are offered several more public meetings in which we are apparently not supposed to comment on entire BRT project, but just on the details of the city s proposal. If we limit our comments in this fashion, we are playing right into the city s hands. AC Transit and our city officials will be ecstatic if we hold off our most basic concerns until they finally decide to let us talk about them. Why? Because by then, AC Transit will be making the final deals with the power brokers and preparing the construction contracts. It will be TOO LATE. Our little two-minute speeches at the one official public hearing we will be granted will be about as effective as gnats trying to fly through a hurricane. And we d best prepare to be amazed at how fast the city will try to get BRT approved after AC Transit gives them a final package to vote on. It does not matter if we are right in what we are saying about BRT or not. In politics, it is not opinions that matter, it is power. They think they have the power to ram this through. They are itching to pull the development trigger. 23

76 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 24 Do they have the power to ram this through? Well, maybe. But we still have a very reasonable chance to stop this project, because it is so utterly misconceived and inappropriate for our community. One thing is for sure, though, if we let them continue to manipulate us, they will ram it through. So everybody should speak up loud and clear. Don t let yourselves be intimidated and told what you can and cannot say. If you have fundamental concerns about BRT, make sure to express them, and the sooner the better. It seems to me that the public should set the agenda for the public meetings, not the BRT advocates, as has been the case so far. They are clearly playing for time. The longer they can keep the public out of the decision-making process, the harder it will be for us to change anything. Stand up and voice your concerns about the bus-only lanes and the fundamental problems they would present to our Southside neighborhoods. I not only think this is a valid topic at every BRT meeting, I think it is the most important topic. The details of a project like this can always be worked out if there is general agreement on basic principles. The basic principles must be discussed first, however. Actually, this proactive approach seems to have worked quite well for Berkeley s downtown interests. They succeeded in getting the downtown bus-only lanes taken out of the proposal. If it worked for downtown, we can do it for the Southside. Is it too much to hope that the downtown businesses will help the merchants on Telegraph achieve similar success? Shared goals This is a very critical time in the BRT debate. It is essential for all of us to keep our focus on shared goals and maintain our unity of purpose. We all have to take care of each other. That s the only way we have a chance. I emphatically agree with those who have sent s urging that we concentrate our efforts to oppose BRT s exclusive bus-only lanes on Telegraph and in downtown Berkeley. I think this should be our locally preferred alternative. An enhanced Rapid Bus would do just as well in Berkeley, especially now that the time savings of bus-only lanes downtown is off the table. AC Transit should put the bus-only lanes for BRT where citizens actually want them. Places where people are convinced that this major sacrifice of public money and public property is worth it. Where citizens have been given all the facts and have been allowed to discuss the key issues and still believe that this major change will really meet their transportation needs without harming their communities. 24

77 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 25 That s how this issue is being handled in places like San Leandro. In response to business and residential concerns, their city council declared years ago that there would be no dedicated lanes throughout their downtown, and they have stuck to that position. They are now waiting to hear the opinions of their citizens about the possibility of having dedicated lanes in other parts of the city before they will put forth any version of a locally preferred alternative. To me, that seems like a reasonable approach. Their city leaders want to find out if the citizens really want to buy the car first before discussing the options. Dirty work: subverting democratic participation The advocates of BRT and high-rise development understand that there is significant public opposition to their plans. So they have used typical strategies to limit meaningful public input, including making key decisions at unpublicized insider meetings and holding sham public meetings to let the public discuss minor details of their plans. Defying basic logic, they say that the basic questions must be discussed later. For them, later will come only when they believe it is too late to stop the project. The advocates of BRT have also consistently relied upon divide and conquer tactics to push their agenda. They have appealed directly to certain community groups to enlist their support, but have failed to address the interests of the community as a whole. Some of the more notorious so-called smart growth advocacy groups have been more than willing to assist the city in this divisive effort, expecting to benefit from the city s largesse in other ways. And truth be told, the city s proposed LPA may be viewed as a kind of divide and conquer strategy, too. The city certainly expects to get buy-in from the downtown interests in supporting their proposal, and they want to isolate the Southside businesses and residents. Major BRT public relations campaign is headed our way There are very powerful interests behind BRT, who stand to make huge profits off of this massive taxpayer gift. There is unquestionably a major PR blitz in support of BRT being prepared by the so-called smart growth advocates and the affiliated pro-development advocacy groups. They have misrepresented the facts and misquoted statistics frequently so far in this controversy, and we should expect more of the same from them as they try to force this scheme on us. They will expend huge resources to put out glossy promotional pieces that make emotional appeals (just like the polar bear ad during the Measure KK campaign). They will send out their glib spokespeople to try to mislead the public about the real issues at stake. They will enlist the unions, particularly in the building trades, to campaign for this. We can count on UC Berkeley putting all of its institutional muscle behind BRT, because it has visions of expanding the student housing zone far down Telegraph Avenue. 25

78 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 26 Democratic machine insiders like State Assemblymember Nancy Skinner and State Senator Loni Hancock will step forward with their endorsements, just like they did in the recent campaign to oppose the petition drive to rescind the flawed Downtown Plan. We have to be ready for this. Protect the whole community This is not the time to start singling our any particular group for protection at the expense of others, or at the expense of the whole community. We are all in this together. Residents and businesses will all suffer major detriments. The merchants on Telegraph north of Dwight Way deserve our support just as the merchants on Telegraph to the south of Dwight do, too. They both stand right in the crosshairs of AC Transit now, and they would suffer significant harm if BRT is built. The merchants south of Dwight would permanently lose almost all of their on-street parking, as well as face months (or years) of disruptions caused by major construction and then face unending traffic congestion from the bottleneck that would be created at the intersection of Dwight and Telegraph. There would be major delays at Dwight and Telegraph because the city proposes to channel two lanes of northbound traffic (including the BRT buses, all trucks and cars) into one single northbound lane at that point. They need to do this because, in the city s proposal, Telegraph Avenue would become a two-way street between Dwight Way and Durant Avenue, to allow the BRT buses to return to Telegraph by going east up Durant and turning right (or south) onto Telegraph. Trucks and bicycles would also be allowed to use this southbound lane. The merchants north of Dwight would contend with Telegraph turned into a confusing mix of two-way traffic between Dwight and Durant, and back again into one-way traffic north of Durant in order to accommodate the BRT buses returning from Shattuck by heading east on Durant and then turning south onto Telegraph. This will effectively turn Telegraph s business district into the bus mall that was long feared, with the added disadvantage of having a mixed-use lane permanently choked with cars and trucks trying to get through the single-lane bottleneck. It is the worst of both worlds! This idea is so convoluted and problematic that it has, I believe, little chance of being implemented. The merchants on Telegraph are understandably dismayed, and some are even expressing anger. But the fact that city staff supported such an unwieldy proposal speaks to the central problem: There is no way to route BRT through the densely-populated and compactly built Southside without doing great damage. AC Transit s original proposed bus-only transit mall would have been a disaster, and the city s plan is just as bad, if not worse. Other problems with the city s proposal for BRT in Berkeley 26

79 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 27 Other suggestions made by the city involve the use of semi-restricted BRT lanes, basically either (1) porous side-running BRT lanes that allow significant automobile incursions so that drivers can access driveways and parking spaces and make right turns into parking lots or at cross streets (suggested for Bancroft Way and part of Durant) or (b) partially-dedicated BRT lanes that allow use by trucks, buses and bicycles, but not private automobiles (suggested for part of Durant and part of Telegraph). It is worth noting that these lanes will not provide the efficient, unhindered course that most BRT proponents have said is essential to improve bus service. In fact, the potential conflicts in these semi-restricted lanes between BRT buses and various other vehicles will possibly lead to unsafe conditions, and will certainly result in slower bus travel because automobiles and trucks must move into the right lane well before they plan to turn so they can accomplish the maneuver with reasonable safety. You cannot have cars abruptly cutting across a BRT lane to get to an open parking space. Also, you cannot have cars slowing and stopping in the middle lane as they wait for an opening in the right lane to move over. And because the partially-dedicated lanes of type (b) would include trucks and bicycles in the mix, the traffic flow would be slower than in dedicated lanes. It is interesting that AC Transit chose not to let the local buses use the BRT lanes because they felt this would slow up the BRT buses too much. But in the case of Berkeley, our planners have decided to allow vehicles that are every bit as slow as the local buses access to the BRT lanes. If this is the case, why not let us have the local bus service then? (Note about the terminology used above: Porous side-running lanes and partiallydedicated lanes BRT lanes are my terms for these unnamed roadway variations suggested in the city s report.) Problems with the intersection at Dwight and Telegraph The other major problem with the city s proposal is the intersection at Dwight Way and Telegraph. This is a very busy intersection of two important thoroughfares. As mentioned above, the city proposes to choke Telegraph into one single lane north of the intersection, and combine the buses and trucks and cars all together in this lane. This change would create significant congestion at the intersection, so without a doubt much of the northbound Telegraph traffic would turn east before Dwight to avoid the mess and head straight into the neighborhoods. Unfortunately, because the drivers would really want to head north, they would make their way through our neighborhood streets in a serpentine fashion, because there is no direct route to campus from there. The southbound bus, truck, and bicycle traffic that would head through this intersection would present additional problems. First, the BRT station is supposed to be located on the Dwight triangle. So, the southbound BRT buses would stop immediately after the 27

80 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 28 intersection. There is barely enough room for one 60 foot long articulated bus to stop there without blocking the intersection. Also trucks heading south in the same lane would have drive past the bus stop and then move over into the right mixed-use lane as soon as possible. At the same time, bicyclists would have to cross over the mixed-use lane to get to the bike lane. On top of all that, there would be a significant increase in the number of pedestrians walking to and from the BRT stop (crossing both Dwight and Telegraph) throughout the day, and particularly at commute hours. And there would be a free right turn lane from Dwight to Telegraph allowing cars to keep moving into the mixed-use lane heading south on Telegraph. All of this complex maneuvering would take place within a very short distance. I think this plan is would present significant hazards to bus drivers, automobile drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists alike. Does anybody really want to reduce the use of automobiles? It seems to me that a transportation project with the massive funding that BRT requires should, at the very least, alleviate one and preferably more of our major traffic problems. I think anybody who is really serious about getting people out of their cars ought to agree with this premise. The major traffic problems in our city can all be tied to the activities of UC Berkeley. Every day, tie-ups result from (1) commuters coming from Highway 24 into Berkeley on the Derby-Warring corridor in the morning and leaving in the evening; (2) commuters coming down University Avenue from Interstate 880 in the morning and leaving in the evening; and (3) drivers throughout the day who must travel on the perpetually-crowded roads to the east and west of the UC campus to travel between the northern and southern parts of our city. The BRT project would do nothing to alleviate the traffic from Highway 24 or Interstate 880 and it would make the task of driving around the UC campus even more difficult. So, BRT will not improve any of these major traffic problems. Just the opposite: it will create new traffic problems. And that means more pollution from idling cars and diesel trucks, more lost productivity, and more frustration among our citizenry and almost certainly more businesses failing as fewer people come into our city to shop or dine. This is all acceptable to those in our city who have declared war on the car. They want to make automobile drivers angry, and they do not care if they have other viable transportation options or not. They tend to use euphemisms like road diet and traffic calming to hide what is really going on: the appropriation of public space by a small minority of citizens who have the luxury of not needing to use automobiles, and have an expectation that others can easily change their behavior without being offered any realistic alternatives. This kind of unsympathetic approach is going to create a tremendous amount of ill will in the Berkeley community. What should we do? 28

81 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 29 I think that if we continue to play along with this charade, tinkering with the city s locally preferred alternative, AC Transit has us right where they want us. We will simply be horse-trading meaningless little concessions and losing the overall battle. But, on the other hand, if all the neighborhoods in the Southside Le Conte, Willard, Claremont-Elmwood, Bateman, and Halcyon stood together with a unanimous voice and said we oppose BRT s exclusive bus lanes period, then we might stand a chance. Let s get back to basics. The plain truth is that the vast majority of the people in our neighborhoods who are aware of the essential facts of this proposal are strongly against it. The city is counting on the ignorance of all the other people in our city who are not paying attention to this impending massive project, and they think they can shove it through before these people become aware. But this approach of trying to keep people in the dark will eventually backfire on them. If the BRT plan goes through as a big GOTCHA, I believe there will be fierce anger when people finally wake up to what has happened. Public service So what we all are really trying to do is save the city from making the huge mistake of going ahead with a project that is not a good fit for our city and will engender tremendous ill will and waste hundreds of millions of dollars. In that sense, it is a valuable public service we are performing. We must step up and take control of our community transportation resources for the good of all of us. But right now, at the very least, we have to act to prevent things from getting any worse. It is long past time that we put a stop to this misbegotten BRT proposal. Stopping it now is the fiscally responsible thing to do, the environmentally responsible thing to do, and the politically responsible thing to do. We need to begin working as soon as possible to develop a responsible community-based transit system that will meet the needs of the people of our city. This is how democracy is supposed to work, after all. I think it pretty much comes down to this: BRT will be crammed down our throats unless we all stand up together with one loud clear voice and say NO! We will no longer sacrifice the quality of life in our neighborhoods to enrich a few greedy developers. After all, one thing has always been true: The only way to defeat divide-and-conquer is to unite and conquer. 29

82 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 30 PROPOSAL: Balanced presentations about BRT at Planning Commission Proposal for more balanced information about AC Transit's BRT project Dear Planning Commissioners, After witnessing the one-sided presentations by City staff regarding Bus Rapid Transit at a number of public meetings (including the last Transportation Commission meeting), I have come to the conclusion that this approach does not serve the interests of responsible decision making. I believe that there should be a better balance of viewpoints offered on this topic to provide the information you need to make the best decision you can about the City's preferred direction on BRT now. There is ample precedent for what I am going to propose. If an applicant comes to the Planning Department with a project, for example, and there is subsequent opposition to that proposal, the matter is heard before the Zoning Adjustments Board and often the City Council. At these hearings, the applicant and the appellant are given equal amounts of time to present their cases. And after that, the public is allowed to comment. In the case of BRT, the above analogy should be applied. AC Transit is coming into the community with a proposal for a big project--not one that will block the views of a single neighbor or remove a few on-street parking spaces--but one that will literally impact the lives of thousands of people every single day if it is implemented. Therefore, I believe it is even more important to handle this matter in a way that affords you the best possible information to serve as the basis for your decision. Here is what I propose for the December 9, 2009 Planning Commission meeting about BRT: Allow expert testimony from both opponents and proponents before the members of the public offer their comments. In fact, this would be quite easy to do (without even changing the agenda) if you will simply allow individuals to yield their time to others, and aggregate this time in advance, so that there will be no distracting interruptions and will allow for continuity in the non-city experts' presentation. These conditions would match what has always been allowed to the pro-brt City staff speakers at such events. I have already taken the initiative to contact the following experts in transportation and planning: Robert Cervero Pravin Varaiya Wolfgang Homburger Matt Kondolf I am hoping that these knowledgeable individuals will be able to attend, but I also have others in mind if there is a need. I hope that you will see the benefits of allowing a more balanced format in the consideration of AC Transit's BRT proposal at the next Planning Commission meeting. I think this approach would assist you in your deliberations about a very important project that will 30

83 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 31 affect Berkeley residents and visitors for many years to come. Respectfully, Doug Buckwald 31

84 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 32

85 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 33

86 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 34

87 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 35

88 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 36

89 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 37

90 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 38

91 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 39

92 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 40

93 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 41

94 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 42

95 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 43

96 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 44

97 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 45

98 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 46

99 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 47

100 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 48

101 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 49

102 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 50

103 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 51

104 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 52

105 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 53

106 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 54

107 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 55

108 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 56

109 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 57

110 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 58

111 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 59

112 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 60

113 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 61

114 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 62

115 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 63

116 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 64

117 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 65

118 Item 10 - Attachment 7, Page 66