Individuals' Views

From: "shirley dean"
Subject: Comments at the 4/9 PC and TC meeting
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:04:46 -0700

Everyone,
Several of you have asked for a copy of my remarks at the Jt. Meeting of the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission on 4/9/08. As follows:

My name is Shirley Dean. Now that the details regarding Bus Rapid Transit are known, I support the April 4th Berkeleyans for Better Transportation Options letter. I urge you to recommend that the Council reject the proposal for BRT with designated lanes and decline to designate a locally preferred alternative.

Let's be clear. EVERYONE in this room is an advocate for public transit. What separates us are the details about how best to spend $400 million public dollars for effective public transit that best achieves cleaner air; and further, that in connecting Berkeley and San Leandro, we should not negatively impact either our businesses, particularly our small businesses, or our existing residential neighborhoods.

Let;s also be clear about the NO-BUILD Alternative. It sounds like that means don't do anything. Not true! NO-BUILD refers to NOT constructing from 31 to 51, 9 to 10 foot wide, 13 inches high, 60 to 120 foot long concrete island spaced every one-quarter to one-half mile in the middle of the street. NO-BUILD REALLY means that INSTEAD of building concrete islands, put the money into an enhanced rapid bus transit system. We believe that such a system should have signal prioritization, pre-paid fares, no-fare-increase transfers, schedules fully coordinated with BART and local service, free transit zones, discounted multiple ride tickets for youths, seniors and low income people, Eco-Passes, comfortable bus shelters with rider-friendly computerized information and use of hybrid electric buses. This is the NO-BUILD alternative that we advocate and urge you to recommend. This fully enhanced rapid bus transit system has never been completely compared to BRT with dedicated lan!
es.

Let's also be clear, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement states that all BRT dedicated lane build alternatives result in increased congestion and the displacement of around 1,000 on-street parking spaces. AC Transit says they will replace these parking spaces ONLY if THEY determine that demand exceeds supply and that congestion will be mitigated by people taking the bus. You don't have to be an expert to understand the impact on the many small businesses that depend on on-street parking to keep their doors open and to understand that drivers CAN and WILL filter through residential neighborhoods to avoid the congestion. No origin and destination studies have EVER BEEN COMPLETED so NO ONE KNOWS where drivers want to go and how many will take and bus and how many will drive through residential neighborhood streets.

I close by urging the Planning Commission recommend that the Council reject the BRT proposal with dedicated lanes, decline to designate a locally preferred route within that proposal and instead adopt the No-Build full enhanced rapid bus transit system that has been described.

-Shirley Dean