Why Is Berkeley Fighting Mass Transit?

Not Berkeley (0.00 / 0)

It's worth observing that it isn't "Berkeley" which is opposed to this but "some neighbors and merchants".

The same thing is going on in San Francisco where some Geary Blvd. merchants are trying to recall Jake McGoldrick because he supports Geary BRT.  They are having a hissyfit because Geary BRT would require removing some parking on Geary.

55,000 people use the Geary Buses every day and they are slow and really overcrowded.

---

by: ortcutt @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 15:03:03 PM CDT

The sad thing is (8.00 / 2)

Folks like these have typically been able to convince the city of Berkeley to follow them in their anti-transit, anti-density crusades. The recall attempt on McGoldrick is absurd - if there's a part of the City that needs BRT it's Geary - but those forces haven't typically had the same level of success in SF that these folks have had in Berkeley.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 15:16:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I feel like opposition to density is tragically... (0.00 / 0)

common among liberals of a certain age.  I was almost flabbergasted by Tim Redmond's and the SFBG's irrational opposition to the Transbay Tower.  What, are we trying to preserve the neighborhood character of 1st and Mission?!?

---

by: ortcutt @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 16:12:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

In the SFBG's case, it goes back to the early 1970s and their opposition to highrises downtown - "Manhattanization" as they called it. Bruce Brugmann and others put together a book in 1971 called The Ultimate Highrise (I know the UCB library has several copies) that laid out a compelling case against these highrises, especially in their effect on the tax rolls (they sucked up more in city services than they brought in). This included opposition to the Transamerica Pyramid - and they weren't alone; there was a LOT of opposition to that building when it was unveiled and began construction.

Over the next 15 years the SFBG led a fight to get limits imposed on highrises downtown, culminating in Prop M in 1986. All that informs Redmond's current stance on downtown highrises - they see things like the Transbay Tower as a kind of corporate giveaway, a blight on the city.

And I think you're right that it is generational - folks who discovered SF and Berkeley in the '60s and '70s tended to want to maintain the kind of urban landscape that attracted them to those cities in the first place, even though what they found in 1970 was itself the product of several waves of massive change.

The only reasonable argument against the building boom currently taking place in SF is affordability - that these condo skyscrapers aren't helping anyone in SF who still needs affordable housing. But the arguments that were popular in the '70s and '80s are falling by the wayside as more people gamble that the laws of supply and demand will eventually work out in favor of affordability. And of course, as we now see, there is a major environmental benefit to density that should, IMO, tip the scales in its favor.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 16:45:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Giveaway? (0.00 / 0)

The developers are proposing paying the Transbay Joint Powers Authority $350 Million for the site.  Somehow I fail to see how even Tim Redmond and Bruce Brugmann can consider that a giveaway.  That's not a small chunk of change for a few acres of real estate.

---

by: ortcutt @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 19:02:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I don't speak for them (0.00 / 0)

I know Tim Redmond reads this site and I hope he comes by to add his thoughts. What I've tried to explain is my understanding of his and Brugmann's views, especially the origins of this 35-year long campaign against highrises.

Redmond has a good article here about SF political history over the last 40 years. Much of it matches up with my own thoughts, which I'm currently trying to lay out in the form of a PhD dissertation. The battle over urban space has been at the core of SF politics, *especially* the progressivism that emerged there in the '60s and '70s.

Ironically, Redmond cited my pro-density "Redefining the California Dream for the 21st Century" in his anti-Transbay Towers post back in August. He calls my ideas "fascinating" which doesn't say a whole lot, but suggests that he isn't exactly a Luddite on the topic.

This may indeed be a generational battle, or a battle about urban space in which generations help inform positions. I believe that density is the only way out of California's looming crises. But that should not mean all density is good. Affordability is key and I am unconvinced that the market and supply and demand will provide it. Redmond may also have a point that commercial office space isn't the best use for the Transbay site. I'm willing to accept it - hopefully lure something like Chevron back from San Ramon - but we are right to debate this stuff.

And yeah, $350 million is nothing to sneeze at. If the price is a huge commercial tower, that works for me.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 19:22:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is tragic and true (8.00 / 1)

I grew up in rural West Marin county, the son of hippies in an archetype hippie enclave.  I never even met a Republican until I went to college.  Mom works in Democratic politics, and Dad is a dedicated Kossack who sees sustainability and global warming as the defining issues of this century.

Yet, my dad drives a humongous pickup truck, even for long trips.  My mom commutes over an hour and a half a day.  They both heat their houses with wood-burning fireplaces.  And they don't know how to defend it when I confront them about their hypocrisy.

Is the stubbornness of older generations of liberals just a matter of old dogs and new tricks?  Or is there really something about their ideology that brings this about?

Yes We Kang

---

by: I voted for Kodos @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 17:54:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's when they came of age (0.00 / 0)

By and large - meaning this does NOT hold true for everyone in this group - those who came of age in the 1950s, 1960s, or even the 1970s entered a world in which cheap oil was simply a given. The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 should have been a corrective, but they were easily dismissed as the product of politics. A sense that what was found in the 1960s and 1970s was either natural, normal, or sustainable - instead of being the product of a specific place and time in history, that cannot last, that must be open to change.

Those attitudes can transcend ideology. It's why Berkeley claims to be liberal, but when it comes to land use, often behaves like an Orange County suburb.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 18:21:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For 100 years Berkeley has had the density of a street car suburb not an "Orange County suburb" (4.00 / 1)

I thought Caltics was part of the Reality Based Community.

Let's look at BRT as an expensive and not very cost effective part of a transportation system. Check out what Wolfgang Homburger wrote in the Berkeley Daily Planet 2 weeks ago:

What, then, might be done in this corridor? Modest investment to further improve Route 1R is warranted; the 72R Project on San Pablo Avenue is a good guide to follow. Use low-floor buses exclusively and equip them and traffic signal controllers with preemption hardware. Make such other traffic engineering improvements as will assist buses to pass chronic bottlenecks-this will also benefit local buses. Install next-bus-arrival signs at selected stops. Introduce Proof-of-Payment fares, so that all doors of buses can be used by entering as well as exiting passengers, thus reducing time stopped at each bus station. And delete the exclusive roadway and its center-of-the-road stations from the project.

If, after this limited BRT program has been fully implemented, the experience with Route 1R is satisfactory, some of the money saved can then be used for other projects; e.g., BRT in the MacArthur Boulevard corridor, an extension of Route 1R to Amtrak at Third Street and University Avenue. Such a program would fit the most cost-effective components of BRT to the demand and geography of the inner East Bay, would cause minimum disruption to commerce and traffic in the corridors that BRT traverses, would be much more likely to be fully funded, and would meet most of the goals that the project addressed at the outset. And-perhaps most important of all-there would be no reason for opposing it.

Since most of the cost of a bus trip is the driver's time, I would go further than Homburger and have everyone use a bus pass on all routes. If every business supplied a $10/month pass to every employee, it would replace the money AC Transit gets at the fare box. You could even sell the program to car drivers by explaining that they would be bribing other drivers to take the bus.

The AC Transit proposal would cost half a billion dollars. If we took that money to fund much more frequent buses on all routes, transfers would be quicker. That way a typical commute trip would be much faster. Now, unless your home and job are both on the same route, you can wait up to a half hour for a transfer -- making the whole trip much longer.

I could, but won't, go on much longer. Follow the link to the rest of Homburger's analysis.

Tom Hunt, former Berkeley Transportation Commissioner

---

by: Tom Hunt @ Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 20:31:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Welcome (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for posting here - this is a very useful comment you've left for us.

Although Berkeley is less dense than some Orange County suburbs such as Santa Ana, my point was instead that despite Berkeley's urban location and characteristics, in recent decades its attitude toward greater urban density and mass transit has at times resembled that of an OC suburb - and that Berkeley must do better.

I think there are two kinds of debate going on about BRT - one that asks whether it would hurt Berkeley, especially the Telegraph/Southside neighborhood, and the second that asks whether this BRT project is the best use of AC Transit's monies.

It was the first kind of debate that I was addressing here. I don't believe that the arguments that the BRT project would worsen traffic or hurt businesses are credible - as Homburger explains, merchants freak out whenever a single space is lost. I've yet to see a study that shows these fears are realistic. I'd add that the traffic situation on Telegraph is already so bad that BRT could only help by providing a useful alternative to driving - the side streets in Southside are already flooded with traffic (hence the one-way streets and other traffic calming measures that have been in place for several decades there). And the available parking that is already in place has done little to arrest the decline of Telegraph. I don't see how BRT would be worse for Telegraph than the status quo.

On the second kind of debate - which Homburger's article was most focused on - I think there is a lot of room for debate about whether $400 million for 1R is the best use of AC Transit's funds. AC Transit suffered greatly in the '90s and the early '00s from state budget cuts and I don't believe those cuts have ever been fully restored. Your point about transfers is also a very good one.

On the other hand, BRT has many advantages over standard bus service - namely its own guideway. As streets like Telegraph, Warring, College, and University are congested, adding more buses to those roads alone isn't going to guarantee quick and reliable service. Transit users like buses that are quicker, whose schedules are not mere suggestions. I am not convinced by the arguments that BART already serves this corridor - the stations are not always close by International/E. 14th or Telegraph, and the six or seven blocks between the two corridors sometimes means the difference between driving and taking BART. Plus the BRT plan offers more stops closer to merchants and housing than BART does.

Still, I do believe there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this second kind of debate and it's worth hashing out which is the most effective use of scarce dollars. What I think is important is to ensure that Berkeley doesn't reject BRT because of outmoded and unsupported ideas about the supposedly inherent flaws of BRT or density. Berkeley DOES need to encourage alternative forms of transportation. Everyone should be able to agree to that, and that was the goal of this particular post. Exactly what form those alternatives take - BRT, better AC Transit bus routing and scheduling - is still open to debate, as it should be.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 00:13:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Santa Ana more dense? (0.00 / 0)

Where did you get the density data for Berkeley and Santa Ana? Take a look at California Transit-Oriented Development Database.  The neighborhood I've lived in for 40 years is on the Caltrans map but Santa Ana isn't.

The Downtown Berkeley BART station area is a long way away from sprawl:

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

	Station Area	Surrounding Area	Sprawl Conditions
Average Vehicles   per Household	1.07	1.55	2.31
Average Annual Auto   Mileage per Household	10,381	14,537	24,235

---

by: Tom Hunt @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 15:02:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2000 Census (8.00 / 1)

Persons per sq mi:

Berkeley: 9,823.3

Santa Ana: 12,451.9

There are parts of OC that have similar densities - much of Anaheim, for example, but its overall density is less because the sprawling Anaheim Hills are included.

My point here is not to say - nor has it ever been to claim - that Berkeley's urban landscape is exactly like that of an Orange County suburb. What I am trying to point out is that too often Berkeley's thinking about urban space has resembled that of an OC suburb in its hostility to density and transit. BART was a great accomplishment, but as you surely know, there were many in Berkeley who wanted to block it outright. Happily that did not occur - but the Telegraph corridor WOULD make a very good location for transit-oriented development. Is it worth spending $400 million for it and not for other AC Transit improvements? I'm not ready to say yes and my comments here haven't been intended to settle that particular debate yet.

It should be noted that Santa Ana has approved an urban plan that includes transit-oriented development near its urban core.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 15:53:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mass Transit in Berkeley? (0.00 / 0)

If successful, do you realize how many used Volvos that would throw onto the market? 

---

by: chris in sacto @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:34:07 AM CDT

We need a rating for... (0.00 / 0)

"Thanks, I needed a good laugh like that first thing in the morning."

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:06:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Berkeley is not Transit-Oriented (8.00 / 1)

While downtown Berkeley (near Downtown Berkeley BART) is dense, most of Berkeley is spread out.  It would be nice if transit could take you where you need to go (grocery stores, haircuts, etc) but AC Transit is SO inconsistent that few people who own cars choose the bus.

I'm uncertain of my opinion on BRT along Telegraph from Oakland until you get to Dwight.  I suppose they could remove the parking and people might be ok. 

The problem is the few blocks between Dwight and the UC Berkeley campus.  There Telegraph becomes a one way with two lanes and curbs that prevent additional lanes from being built.  This means you have a single lane for all traffic.  Today one lane is often blocked by vehicles loading or unloading for businesses and street vendors- I can only imagine how terrible this will be when it is reduced to one lane.  And you think people won't drive in the bus lane when the car lane is blocked?

I agree the whole anti-density thing in Berkeley is really bad.  I am shocked that there is little to no new apartment/condo development near North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations.  But BRT will not work where they want it to work.  Expanding the rapid bus without the separate lane would be a better solution.

---

by: MikeD @ Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 11:30:48 AM CDT

As I remember it (0.00 / 0)

There was a protracted political struggle to even get those new apartment developments located between Downtown Berkeley BART and the UC campus built 10 or so years ago.

In the city's defense, they are actively working to bring transit-oriented development to the Ashby BART station and have done so for several years. The North Berkeley station is another natural site for TOD.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 13:49:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

North Berkeley BART TOD (0.00 / 0)

I'm a little schoked that the North Berkeley location went for so long with zero development.  There in one large apartment building a short walk away at Acton and University (Acton Courtyard, built by Panormaic, now owned by Equity Residential).

A city like Berkeley should have density around the BART stations that then thins out as you get farther from them.  Some people prefer the convenience of living by transit and will live in density, others can drive there to park and ride.

But Berkeley is like Orange County in trying to preserve a lower density lifestyle.  I don't think BRT would actually permit much density to develop where it should- BART is the key for density bc of access to SF.

---

by: MikeD @ Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 15:27:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mary Orem's Bias (8.00 / 1)

Mary Orem is the opponent of BRT quoted in this article.  As an example of her bias, here is a quote from a letter she wrote to the local newspaper about parking in downtown Berkeley:

"what sits under Union Square is a large, relatively low priced parking garage. As a result of this, Union Square is the one part of San Francisco where I am willing to shop."

So, she absolutely refuses to use the excellent public transportation between Berkeley and SF when she goes shopping.

In the age of global warming, it is tragic that people like this have any influence in the supposedly progressive city of Berkeley. 

---

by: charlesnsiegel @ Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 12:22:33 PM CDT