Chapter 4.Impacts and Strategies to Address Impacts Chapter 2 described the City of Berkeley staff proposal for a Locally Preferred
Alternative for the East Bay BRT project and identified a number of impacts and
possible strategies to address those impacts. In this chapter, potential adverse
impacts of the proposed LPA are further discussed, and additional solutions are
explored. City staff are recommending consideration of a number of mitigations
beyond those proposed by AC Transit in the project DEIS/R. These issues must
be addressed by AC Transit before the City of Berkeley can give its approval for
the project to proceed.
4‐1 Summary of LPA Impacts and Mitigations While the staff-proposed LPA attempts to maximize project benefits while
minimizing impacts to the greatest possible extent, a number of likely impacts
remain. Most of these could potentially be addressed. AC Transit has already
proposed limited mitigations to traffic and parking impacts in the project
DEIS/R, which are described in the next section. Berkeley staff have proposed
additional traffic, parking and other project improvements described in the final
section of this chapter.
Significant impacts identified by staff include:

Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
Transit Service: Elimination of local service in the corridor would
reduce access for some
4-1

Traffic and Circulation:
o
Congestion would be increased at some intersections on Telegraph
and at Bancroft and Oxford
o
Restricted turn movements on Telegraph could result in more traffic
on connecting streets

Parking and Loading: Parking supply would be significantly reduced
on Telegraph south of Dwight

Bicycles: Some additional auto traffic could be diverted onto parallel
Bicycle Boulevards

Pedestrians:

o
Sidewalks would be adjacent to traffic or bus lanes at some points
o
Corners would have to be rounded off and existing sidewalk
extensions removed in a few locations
Economic and Community:
o
Reduced parking on Telegraph south of Dwight would impact
businesses relying on customers arriving by car
o
Construction would impact adjacent businesses and homes
4‐2 Traffic and Parking Impacts, and Mitigations Proposed by AC Transit In the project DEIS/R, AC Transit identified significant impacts to traffic and
parking at several locations, and proposed mitigation strategies at some of those
locations. The FEIS/R will update traffic impacts using the most up-to-date data
available and alter mitigations accordingly. The DEIS/R impacts and mitigations
are described below.
4-2.1 Traffic Impacts
While the BRT project would, by attracting thousands more users to transit,
result in fewer drivers and an overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled (by
approximately 21,000 miles per day within Alameda County, according to AC
Transit estimates),96 it would reduce automobile capacity and circulation options
at certain locations by reserving lanes for transit and restricting turn movements,
and traffic would be impacted at various locations within the broader corridor.
Some left turns would be eliminated in order to reduce the number of auto and
truck crossings of transit lanes, which both slow down buses and are potentially
unsafe. These restrictions would require some drivers to take longer routes to
their destinations, adding to traffic congestion along the way, and could result in
neighborhood “diversions” or spillover traffic. However, where turn lanes are not
provided but turns are allowed, cars and trucks waiting to turn can block traffic,
so turn restrictions can have both positive and negative impacts on congestion. In
the proposed LPA, along Telegraph south of Dwight where buses would operate
in median lanes, turn lanes are provided wherever left turns would be allowed,
reducing impacts on congestion.
96
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, Fiscal Year 2010 Small Starts Submittal, September 2008 4-2
Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show “levels of service” projected by AC Transit for the year
2025 at 23 major Berkeley intersections, both along the alignment and on
parallel streets.97 The first circle at each intersection is the level of service without
BRT, while the second is with BRT. 98 If the outline of the second, “with BRT”
circle is green and thinner, the level of service is better with BRT, and if it is red
and thicker, the level of service has been reduced.99 These patterns of congestion
were modeled by AC Transit as part of the DEIS/R.100
According to the analysis, traffic at most intersections – both along the BRT
alignment, and on parallel streets where one would expect traffic diverted from
Telegraph – would remain roughly the same with or without BRT, experiencing a
few seconds difference in delay either way. During the A.M. peak hour, no
intersection would fail to achieve the widely used urban standard of “D”.
However, during the busiest hour of the afternoon rush, some intersections
would be LOS “E” (more than 55 seconds of average delay) or “F” (more than 80
seconds) with or without BRT.
97
Intersection LOS is a ratings system based on the average length of time a driver is delayed at an intersection by red lights and traffic. 98
The maps assume AC Transit mitigations discussed later in this section.
99
Roadway levels of service (average speeds) analysis found no locations where mid‐block traffic flows would be constrained by the number of lanes; rather, any congestion would be caused by backups at intersections. 100
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, May 2007. All DEIS/R LOS analysis cited in this document is based on the alignment variation recommended for that segment; in other words, on Telegraph south of Dwight, “Base BRT” figures are used (since the “Base” alignment assumed a median transitway in this segment), on Telegraph north of Dwight “Telegraph‐Dana Couplet” figures are used (since this is the variation most similar to the recommended alternative), on Dana, Bancroft and Durant “Bancroft‐Durant Couplet” figures are used, and on Shattuck “no‐build” alternative figures are used. In most cases, these are the most conservative figures. All traffic analysis in the DEIS/R assumed two‐way traffic on both Dana and Ellsworth, as recommended by the Southside Plan, and new traffic signals on Bancroft at Dana and Ellsworth. For charts showing LOS at all analyzed intersections for all alternatives, see Appendix A‐2 of the DEIS/R. Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
4-3
FIGURE 4‐1 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 4-4
Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
FIGURE 4‐2 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
4-5
Perhaps the clearest indication of the project’s impact on traffic is the number of
cars it would displace from Telegraph onto parallel arterial streets, including
Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Adeline Street, Shattuck, and College. At a point just
north of Ashby, a combined total of 428 vehicles during the P.M. peak hour shift
from Telegraph to other arterials, or an increase of about one to three per minute
per parallel street. Only on College would there be a relatively significant increase
in traffic, 17 percent (and without the mitigations described in the next section,
the intersection of College and Ashby would have a level of service of “E”).101
Figure 3-3 shows P.M. peak hour numbers of cars on Telegraph and on parallel
streets with and without the BRT project.
FIGURE 4‐3 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON TELEGRAPH, WITH AND WITHOUT BRT MLK
+1%
Adeline
+6%
+3%
Shattuck
Telegraph
‐33%
College
+17%
Total
‐4%
0
2,000
4,000
Without BRT
101
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
With BRT
From modeling conducted by Cambridge Systematics for the DEIS/R. 4-6
Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
Additional analysis conducted for AC Transit of the potential for “neighborhood
diversions” found that even a two-lane Telegraph south of Dwight would remain
between 19 and 145 seconds faster for drivers in 2025 than cutting through
neighborhoods to either the east or west along any of eight routes that were
examined.102 Because Telegraph would continue to be the fastest and most direct
route for most trips in the corridor, diversions should be minimal. However, staff
are recommending that AC Transit conduct more extensive analysis in the final
environmental review.
4-2.2 AC Transit Traffic Mitigations
Using methodology and criteria developed by the City of Oakland and agreed to
by the City of Berkeley,103 AC Transit has proposed mitigations to reduce delay at
four intersections in Berkeley. The intersections, proposed mitigation strategies,
and the impacts of the proposed mitigations are:

Fulton and Bancroft: Maintaining a right-turn lane from westbound
Bancroft onto northbound Oxford would impact transit operations but
would reduce average P.M. peak period delay from 189 to 52 seconds
(without BRT, delay would be 25 seconds).

Adeline and Ashby: Adjustments to signal timing would reduce average
P.M. peak period delay from 93 to 60 seconds (without BRT, delay would
be 76 seconds).

Adeline and Alcatraz: Adjustments to signal timing would reduce
average P.M. peak period delay from 202 to 180 seconds (without BRT,
delay would be 199 seconds).

College and Ashby: Addition of a left-turn lane from southbound College
onto eastbound Ashby would reduce P.M. peak period average delay from
61 to 32 seconds (without BRT, delay would be 49 seconds). This
measure would require removal of some parking spaces.
4-2.3 Parking Impacts
When weekday afternoon parking occupancy levels along the various alignments
proposed for BRT and on the blocks near Telegraph south of Dwight were
observed by AC Transit as part of the DEIS/R,104 they were found to be below 85
percent, a level widely considered by planners to be “optimal,” and at which
roughly one space out of every seven (or about one per block face) is available at
any given moment. By reducing auto usage, the project would reduce demand for
parking. Under some alternatives, however, the project could significantly reduce
parking supply, and availability would likely fall below this optimal point.
Moreover, to the extent that traffic grows, so will demand for parking.
102
Cambridge Systematics presentation to City of Berkeley staff, December 20, 2007 103
This methodology is detailed in Section 3.2.3.2 of the DEIS/R, but essentially calls for mitigation where the project would have a significant negative impact, where the intersection’s level of service would be very low, and where mitigation would not significantly impact neighboring homes or businesses or other users of the street. 104
Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, AC Transit East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, May 2007 . Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
4-7
Parking impacts are highly localized and dependent on project design, so they are
discussed in detail on a segment-by-segment basis in the Chapter 2, the
description of the proposed LPA. Figure 3-4 summarizes existing on-street
parking supply and occupancy levels for each segment. Occupancy was observed
during preparation of the DEIS/R, between 2003 and 2005, on weekday
afternoons when demand is typically highest105. Within a half-block to a block of
Telegraph south of Dwight, the proposed LPA would result in removal of a
number of spaces nearly equivalent to the amount found available on a weekday
afternoon, so strategies to address this impact have been proposed by both AC
Transit and Berkeley staff.
FIGURE 4‐4 EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY AND OCCUPANCY BY SEGMENT 700
Number of Spaces
600
500
400
75% Occupied
300
200
100
82% Occupied
76% Occupied
0
Downtown (1)
Unmetered Spaces
Southside (2)
Metered Spaces
Telegraph S of Dwight (3)
Occupied Spaces
105
Observations were conducted between noon and 5 p.m. “whenever possible” and included all curbside spaces, including loading, disabled and other restricted spaces. Direct observations were supplemented using aerial photographs taken during peak periods in 2003. 4-8
Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
4-2.4 AC Transit Parking Mitigations
Along Telegraph south of Dwight, AC Transit has proposed to manage demand
for parking by converting 65 to 70 currently unmetered spaces on cross streets to
metered spaces. Conversion would be limited to spaces on or near Telegraph
fronting commercial properties. City staff, however, are proposing additional
parking demand management strategies, as discussed in the following section.
4‐3 Additional Mitigation Strategies Proposed by Berkeley Staff for Further Analysis In addition to the mitigations proposed by AC Transit in the project DEIS/R, City
staff have identified a number of potential strategies that might serve to reduce or
eliminate the impacts identified in the first section of this chapter, as well as to
improve the project in other ways. These strategies are being recommended both
to Berkeley officials and to citizens for consideration in development of an LPA,
as well as to AC Transit staff. It should be made clear that staff is not necessarily
endorsing any of these strategies; rather, it is simply recommending
consideration of a broader toolkit of potential project improvements.

Transit Service: Elimination of local service along the BRT alignment
would result in removal of several local bus stops. Most of these stops are
no more than a few hundred feet from a proposed BRT stop; only along
Bancroft and Durant would there be a significant “gap” between BRT
stops. Because additional stops would reduce BRT speed and reliability,
impacting all riders, staff is not recommending that stops be added.
However, stops at Ellsworth – midway between Telegraph and Shattuck
– or at other locations should be further evaluated.

Traffic and Circulation: As with parking, the BRT project would serve
to reduce traffic overall. However, it would also reduce roadway capacity
in places, increasing congestion at a number of specific locations. AC
Transit has proposed mitigations, including turn lanes and signal retiming, to reduce congestion at four Berkeley intersections. Staff
supports these measures, including a right-turn pocket from westbound
Bancroft onto northbound Oxford. In addition, staff recommends:

Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
o
AC Transit should provide a more detailed detour/diversion analysis
in the FEIS/R, including potential impacts to bicycle routes within
the corridor (primarily the Hillegass-Bowditch Bicycle Boulevard).
o
To limit diversion of traffic onto neighborhood streets, AC Transit
should fund and the City should manage a neighborhood traffic
monitoring program in the corridor, including a reserve fund for
installation of additional traffic-control devices as necessary.
o
Additional transportation demand management measures, such as
expansion of AC Transit’s Easy Pass program, might reduce demand
for both roadway and parking spaces.
o
Traffic signal systems might be upgraded to “best practices” for
managing and detecting all users of the street, including autos,
transit vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Parking and Loading: The proposed LPA would have significant
adverse effects on parking supply in one segment, along Telegraph south
4-9
of Dwight. These impacts would be mitigated to some extent by the
project itself, as improved transit would reduce demand for parking.
However, auto trips are projected to grow with or without BRT. City staff
are concerned that the mitigation proposed by AC Transit – installation
of meters at 65 to 70 parking permit spaces just off of Telegraph – will be
inadequate to mitigate the impact. City staff therefore recommend that
this proposed mitigation be supplemented by other measures, including
additional parking demand management strategies designed to make
more efficient use of existing supply both along Telegraph south of
Dwight and in other locations. Additional parking mitigation strategies
might include:
4-10
o
A parking monitoring program that would track parking occupancy
over time and evaluate the need for further parking interventions.
o
Removal of left-turn lanes at one or more of the following locations
along Telegraph south of Dwight: at Blake, Stuart and/or Russell. As
currently designed, each turn lane would displace between seven and
ten curbside parking spaces.
o
Entering into short- or long-term leases for additional spaces in offstreet lots and garages. Many existing parking spaces in the BRT
corridor are currently reserved for private use but could potentially
be made available for public parking.
o
Where feasible, negotiation of shared parking arrangements with
developers. In a typical shared parking arrangement, spaces are
available for public use during part of the day, often during the
daytime, and reserved for private use the rest of the time – for
example, by residents of a condominium building after 6 p.m. AC
Transit could lease spaces for part-time public use, or a sharedparking arrangement could be made a condition of proposed
developments.
o
An improved wayfinding system of signs directing motorists to
available parking. This could include real-time electronic displays
indicating current numbers of spaces available in lots and garages.
o
Policy and other measures to encourage expansion of carsharing
programs, including additional pods in neighborhood commercial
districts. Carshare programs are especially effective at allowing
households to sell cars used only occasionally, thus reducing parking
demand.
o
Changes to parking meter policies, potentially including rate
adjustments accompanied by extensions or elimination of time limits
(for example, rate increases would help to ensure turnover, and
“meter feeding” anxiety could be reduced without greatly impacting
availability).
o
“Real-time,” “demand-responsive” or “market-rate” pricing of
meters. Adjusting meter rates to reflect variable demand at different
times of day would serve to maintain the target level of 15 percent
Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
availability at all times, and to spread peak parking demand to
“shoulder” or off-peak periods.
o
Installation of “pay-and-display” meters in residential parking
permit areas. These meters would issue temporary parking permits,
allowing resident permit-holders to continue to park for free (except
the annual cost of a permit) while charging non-permit holders.
o
A “parking benefit district” might be formed to invest revenues from
visitor parking in community enhancements including repaving,
traffic calming, graffiti abatement, parking enforcement, and
beautification.
o
Reforms to the City’s Residential Preferential Parking (RPP)
program, potentially including limits on or higher fees for multiple
cars within the same household, or higher fees for all cars.
o
A parking “cash-out” ordinance expanding on the state law requiring
employers to offer a monthly cash payment to workers in lieu of
providing a parking space, thereby reducing the parking needs of
employers and encouraging employees to commute by transit or
other modes.
o
An ordinance requiring “unbundling” of the costs of parking spaces
in new residential developments from the costs of the housing units
themselves, allowing buyers to purchase or lease parking spaces
separately if they so wished – or not to do so.

Bicyclists: To address potential traffic impacts on Bicycle Boulevards
and other bike routes (Hillegass-Bowditch, Channing, Dana), these
streets should be included in traffic diversion analysis conducted for the
FEIS/R.

Pedestrians: Where sidewalks would be located immediately adjacent
to traffic or bus lanes and where existing trees and street furniture may
not provide adequate protection for pedestrians, staff is recommending
that AC Transit consider installation of bollards, additional street
furniture such as bicycle racks, or new trees.

Economic and Community
o
While staff has not yet developed specific mitigation strategies, it
recommends that AC Transit explore additional mitigations beyond
those proposed in the DEIS/R to limit the economic impacts on
businesses of BRT construction.
o
Prior to the FEIS/R, AC Transit should identify potential locations
for bus layover in downtown Berkeley. While it will be necessary to
provide a layover location for BRT buses somewhere near the end of
the line in downtown Berkeley, impacts should be minimized to the
greatest extent possible.
In addition to these strategies to address impacts, staff has proposed a number of
additional improvements to the project that are not directly related to impacts.
These measures are designed to increase project benefits, rather than reduce
Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
4-11
negative effects, or to clarify elements of the project that were not fully addressed
in the DEIS/R.
4-12

Economic and Community: AC Transit has proposed to continue
operation of its existing diesel buses. While the project would still result
in an overall reduction in carbon emissions, the City should advocate
before the agency’s next procurement cycle that it purchase the lowestemission vehicles possible. The FEIS/R should consider all available
vehicle technologies and estimate relative costs and reductions in
harmful pollutants (including greenhouse gases).

Comprehensive Planning and Streetscape: As pedestrian access
will be central to the success of the project, it would be in AC Transit’s
long-term interest to promote investment in sidewalk amenities
including street furniture, trees and other elements designed to enhance
the pedestrian environment. Therefore, City staff are proposing that AC
Transit partner with Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro in the Corridor
Enhancement Project, an effort managed by the Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency. The object of the project will be to
identify and evaluate potential enhancements to the basic BRT project, as
well as funding sources separate from those used to construct and
operate the EBBRT project. The process would be separate from but
related to the BRT planning process, and would be concerned with a
number of issues that are not currently addressed by the BRT proposal,
such as:
o
Streetscape: In order to improve pedestrian access to BRT service,
improvements to sidewalks, the downtown BART plaza, crosswalks,
street lighting, street furniture, signage, and drainage (including
sustainable design features such as eco-swales) should be studied.
o
Street Maintenance : While AC Transit will take responsibility for
maintenance of transit lanes, funding sources may be available to
assist in maintenance of the remainder of the streets on which BRT
would operate.
o
Land Use Planning: Areas that might be studied include supportive
zoning for “priority development areas” adjacent to BRT stops
(including transportation demand management and parking
requirements); multimodal level of service standards; parking in-lieu
and traffic impact fees; and “opportunity sites.”
o
Multimodal Mobility: A number of policy and design issues related
to access to the BRT project might be addressed. These include: rider
incentives such as Easy Passes and a fare-free zone; transit
connectivity; TDM measures for major local employers such as UC,
the City and Alta Bates (potentially including a pre-tax transit
benefits ordinance); improvements to pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, such as bicycle parking and wayfinding signage for
pedestrians; traffic calming measures; traffic signal improvements,
including retiming; potential street network reconfigurations, such
as the proposal to make Shattuck a two-way street on the west side of
Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
Berkeley Square; and parking demand management strategies,
including those addressed in the previous section.
The potential improvements to the project proposed by Berkeley staff and
identified in this chapter represent staff’s initial thinking on the matter. During
the upcoming community discussion, there will be opportunities for members of
the public and officials to identify and develop additional strategies, and to
provide input on the measures already proposed
Bus Rapid Transit for Berkeley
4-13