Summary
AC Transit proposes to upgrade transit service in downtown Berkeley and the city's south side. This is part of an upgrade to an 18-mile corridor from downtown Berkeley and the UC campus in the north, through downtown Oakland, to Bay Fair BART/Bay Fair Mall in the south. The main objective is to improve access to major employment and educational centers along AC Transit's busiest routes.
This project would create bus-only lanes and light rail-type stations along the route. Stations would be placed at 1/3 to 1/2 mile intervals. Two of the four lanes on Telegraph Avenue would be closed to auto traffic in Berkeley, and left turns would be restricted to intersections with traffic signal control.
AC Transit is currently preparing an EIR/EIS (Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Study) for this project. The Draft EIR presents Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) options and outlines how the project may affect streets near the BRT route. The release date for the Draft EIR is unknown, but will probably occur within the next few months.
Once the Draft EIR is released, AC Transit will gather public comments for 30-60 days. Berkeley City Council, city commissions, and the citizenry at large all have an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, AC Transit must incorporate those comments, and the transit agency's responses, into the Final EIR. The full EIR process and the summary flowchart are available on the CEQA site. For this project, the "Lead Agency" shown on the flow chart would be AC Transit, with the City of Berkeley serving as one of the "Responsible Agencies."
The Berkeley Transportation and Planning Commissions will submit their findings to the City Council, who may forward those findings with or without modification to AC Transit. Neither the commissions nor City Council are under any obligation to hold formal public hearings on BRT.
At present, many parts of the proposal remain unknown. For citizens to make an informed choice, the hearings should answer such questions as:
- Does the EIR study all traffic impacts, such as the impact of restricting left turns entering and leaving Telegraph Avenue?
- Does it study the impact on traffic on nearby streets such as College and the highly congested route along Piedmont-Warring-Derby-Claremont?
- Does the EIR study the possibility of "bus preferred" rather than "bus only" lanes-lanes that have no barrier separating them from auto lanes, so that cars may use them when no buses are present?
- Of the projected 11,300 net new daily boardings due to BRT, what portion will actually be from people who currently drive?
- By how much will this actually decrease greenhouse gas emissions?
- AC Transit projects that BRT would increase access to jobs for residents living along its corridor, many of whom are living in poverty. How many people would BRT actually connect with new jobs?
- By how much will BRT improve reliability in the bus schedule?
- AC Transit projects that BRT will decrease bus transit time approximately 33%. For example, the transit time between UC Campus and downtown Oakland will be reduced about 10 minutes. How many riders will actually ride the bus between UC Campus and downtown Oakland, given that BART services a comparable route? And for shorter routes, will a 33% decrease be sufficient to attract new riders?
- Can BRT focus growth along the route, relieving development pressure on open space? What kind of growth can we expect in Berkeley, with and without BRT?
- What are the plans to replace the 150 Berkeley parking spaces which BRT will eliminate?
- Arguments have been made that traffic congestion will increase due to the closure of two lanes on Telegraph, but will decrease due to drivers switching to BRT. What will be the net effect?
- Will BRT harm or help the business community along Telegraph near campus by giving transit preference over auto access to the business district?
- For each of these questions, does the EIR compare the impact of the full BRT with that of a limited 'Rapid Bus' system where buses are given priority at traffic signals, but not dedicated lanes?
Note regarding this Kitchen Democracy issue
This Kitchen Democracy question asks whether BRT hearings should be held. Once the EIR is released, we plan to host another question, probing aspects of the BRT proposal described in that document.
Summary written by Kitchen Democracy
Documents
- Summary Report prepared for Alameda Contra Costa Transit District File size: 1.7MB
- Alignment and reconstruction options for Berkeley South Side File size: 0.4MB
- May 11 meeting of Willard Neighborhood Association File size: 0.2MB
- Berkeley slides from presentation by Jim Cunradi File size (large file): 7.8MB
- Whom to contact to advocate for or against BRT File size: 0.4MB
Jim Cunradi
Project Manager, AC Transit
Dear Berkeley Resident:
On May 11 I participated in a neighborhood meeting organized by the Willard Neighborhood Association where the community gathered to discuss the Bus Rapid Transit project. I felt it was a productive discussion, hopefully one of many I will have the opportunity to contribute to.
Nearly 100 residents attended, and there were many good questions submitted on cards by residents. In fact, there wasn't enough time for all questions to be posed.
Thanks to the Willard Neighborhood Association and Kitchen Democracy, we saved all the unasked questions: you can read the questions and my answers an a separate page.
The following is a brief summary of the regulatory process the project will follow:
- AC Transit releases the Draft EIS/EIR. The document should describe the project including project alternatives, and fully disclose all environmental and social impacts. The document should describe how the project is intended to be funded and any financial risks that may be encountered.
- AC Transit holds public hearings and takes comments from the public and from other government agencies.
- AC Transit responds in writing to all the comments. Based on the comments, we modify the analysis or even the project itself as part of our response. This process of technical analysis and public/agency comments also identifies the locally preferred alternative (LPA) that will eventually become the project that gets built.
- AC Transit releases a Final EIS/EIR that focuses on the LPA and updates any changes in the project, environmental impacts or funding.
- The project is certified by AC Transit for the CEQA (CAlifornia Environmental Quality Act) portion, while the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) certifies the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) portion.
- A record of decision (ROD) is issued that releases construction funds and gives AC Transit the go-ahead to design and build the project.
Again, I wish to thank you all for participating in this community project, and look forward to future productive dialog.
Sincerely,
Jim Cunradi
Marie Bowman
Berkeley Alliance of Neighborhood Associations
Dear Berkeley Resident,
Federal and State laws (NEPA, CEQA & ADA) have set up a process for us to be able to have our voices heard — whether we are for or against a project.
Large complex projects become better projects as the community provides input. Both Federal and State environmental protection regulations require that there be a designated "lead agency" in charge of reviewing the project. For the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, the Federal lead agency is the Federal Transit Administration. The State lead agency is Alameda County Transit. However these aren't the only agencies that we can communicate with. Our City through the Council will provide input to ACT.
The old saying "two heads are better than one" is true. I would encourage everyone with ideas about the project to submit comments — in favor or against — because I believe more comments will lead to a better project. Don't assume that these agencies know everything there is to know about the project's impacts on our urban environment. What is "common knowledge" to you isn't necessarily common knowledge. People who live in the area can often foresee consequences that the agency personnel have missed. AC Transit will respond to every question and/or letter. Federal and State agencies will respond to written communication. The more you get involved, the more you will understand how citizen participation influences public decision-making.
Shirley Dean
Former Mayor of Berkeley
Summary of presentation on the CEQA process delivered to the Willard Neighborhood Association meeting on May 11, 2006
(The complete presentation is available on a separate page)
The project formally started with a two-part discretionary decision by the AC Transit Board
- to select Bus Rapid Transit as the preferred alternative for the Telegraph/International/E. 14th corridor and
- early implementation of an Enhanced Bus-type system.
This allowed preparation for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The two basic purposes of environmental review under CEQA are
- to inform the decision making process, and
- to provide opportunities for comment.
The first step is the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) done by the lead agency. If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact on the environment an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.
When the Draft EIR (DEIR) is completed, the lead agency is required to give public notice of the availability of a DEIR. CEQA requires that the lead agency request comments on the DEIR from affected agencies including any city or county within which the project is proposed. The lead agency is required to include in the final EIR (FEIR) responses to comments, which describe how any significant effects identified in the comments will be handled.
CEQA allows a final EIR to be submitted directly for approval to the AC Transit Board of Directors. The lead agency must file a copy of the certified final EIR with the planning agency of any city or county where significant environmental effects may occur and to each responsible agency. Formal public hearings are not required by CEQA at any stage of the environmental review process. CEQA encourages agencies to include environmental review when the agency holds a hearing on its decision to approve a project. In Berkeley, it is expected that our Transportation Commission and Planning Commission will send comments to the City Council who will consider them along with those of the staff and make the decision on what our official City comments will include. The Commissions and Council may or may not hold a public hearing. It is vitally important that the Transportation and Planning Commissions and City Council hear the voices of residents when they consider this matter.
(The complete presentation is available on a separate page)
Kriss Worthington
Councilmember, District 7
Kriss Worthington has been invited to contribute to this page. His contribution will be posted as soon as Kitchen Democracy receives it.
George Beier
President, Willard Neighborhood Association
Speaking on his own behalf
There are many aspects of AC Transit's bus proposals that I find compelling. It is a good idea to get people out of cars and onto mass transit. Mass transit decreases our reliance on fossil fuels and increases the transit-oriented development on our arterial streets, which reduces the pressure to develop our remaining open space.
Rapid Bus
The "Rapid Bus" proposal will put transponders on buses which will keep traffic signals "green" and allow buses to pass through intersections more easily. The Rapid Bus proposal will also put timed traffic signals on Telegraph Avenue to speed the flow of traffic. I am in favor of this proposal. A similar system installed on San Pablo Avenue has proven popular with riders. Although overall ridership is down on the AC Transit system, the ridership on the San Pablo Avenue Rapid Bus lines is down less than ridership on the overall system, suggesting that the Rapid Bus has been successful in attracting ridership.
Bus Rapid Transit
The Berkeley portion of the Bus Rapid Transit proposal will put dedicated bus lanes on Telegraph Avenue, Bancroft Way, Shattuck Avenue, and Durant Avenue. Car lanes will be removed to make way for the dedicated bus lanes. The proposal also calls for a bus-only "transit mall" north of Dwight Way.
The dedicated lanes should make the bus system more reliable, considerably faster, and significantly increase ridership. It also seems likely that automobile traffic on Telegraph Avenue will become significantly more congested.
The increased automobile congestion on Telegraph could have two serious side affects. First, drivers will seek alternate routes to Telegraph Avenue. Colby, Benvenue and Hillegass could receive considerably more car traffic as north- and south-bound drivers seek to avoid Telegraph. In addition, north-bound drivers on Telegraph will not be permitted to continue past Dwight Way, forcing either a right turn on Dwight or a left turn on Derby, Parker, Carleton, or Blake.
A second side effect of the dedicated lanes / transit mall system could be to depress commercial activity on Telegraph Avenue which already has a commercial vacancy rate approaching 15% and has just lost its signature store, Cody's Books. Despite available mass transit, many shoppers still drive to the Telegraph Avenue area and park at the Sather Gate garage. This will be considerably more difficult in the short term with the advent of the dedicated lane / transit mall proposal. (Over the long term, however, commercial activity could actually improve as high-speed buses transport shoppers from an increasingly dense and populated Telegraph Avenue.)
I still have much to learn regarding transit opportunities in this corridor. My interests include the post-installation evaluation of the transponder-enhanced Rapid Bus improvements and the possibility of a light rail system. I would also like to see the option of a "bus-preferred" system, where cars share bus lanes and yield to buses, explored.
Currently before us for discussion, however, is the proposal for the dedicated-lane system. I remain very concerned about the effects of increased congestion on Telegraph Avenue. AC Transit has indicated to me that they expect to be able to provide signification mitigations for the congestion. I look forward to reading the discussion presented in the draft EIR. Until them I am concerned that the drawbacks of increased traffic congestion, resultant surface street traffic and reduced commercial activity appear to outweigh the benefits of increased ridership, oil independence and transit-oriented development.
George Beier