Does Directional Traffic Congestion Affect Local Business Development?
A couple weeks ago, a friend made an interesting statement as we left an Oakland bar. He said that he did not support the 4th bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, bringing the current three 2-lane tunnels to four. He believes that the 4th bore is actually bad for Oakland business.
My friend stated that a 4th bore only benefits the reverse commute, meaning traffic headed into Contra Costa County and not Oakland. Therefore, by making it easier to get to cities like Walnut Creek, we are taking away business from Oakland. He was essentially making a direct correlation between directional traffic congestion and business development.
I thought a little about his statement and told him I disagreed and thought there was nothing terribly bad with the fourth bore project. We pretty much left it at that and I didn’t think much of it until today.
For some time I have been contemplating West Oakland development sites. In college, I wrote a small research paper on possible effects of gentrification in West Oakland as it related to current development. Most recently, I have talked with more than one person about developing some kind of research facility in the neighborhood. I usually pointed to a bio-medical research facility but it was never set in stone that it had to be bio. Nevertheless, I still think that it would be a great location for some new job sector to take root in Oakland. Read the rest of this entry »
This is the final post in my series “Confessions of a Third Generation Latino”
Throughout much of this series of posts has been a common theme that i would hope is fairly obvious. That is, the struggle between myself as a third-generation Mexican finding comfort and brotherhood amongst other generation of Mexicans and Latinos in general.
Because of how i grew up and the socio-economic status of my family, i never truly felt accepted by my fellow Latinos and, therefore, have never truly felt comfortable in situations when i am immersed in that culture. This was never a question of whether one view is objectively correct over the other; whether or not i represent the better or worse half of American society mixing with Latino culture. If anything, i would argue that i am far from the ideal. Generally speaking, i am a Mexican who is, by and large, not that Mexican. I don’t speak Spanish and don’t really engage in any of the traditional customs of Mexican culture. I have a decent, though not great, understanding of Mexican history but also love the history and exploration of Mexican cuisine. So who am I? Is it somehow appropriate that when I’m with a group of more “traditional” Mexicans that when i say “i’m third generation”, they give a collective “oh” as if it is somehow self-explanatory? Where are we to go from here?
Councilman Arreguin collecting signatures against Berkeley's Downtown Development Plan. Yea, we fought on that one too.
Somewhere along the line, you would think that the constant barrage of facts and studies would prove some point. Whether you are for or against something, the general train of thought is that the “correct” argument is the argument that has the most support (data, literature, etc) behind it. Bus Rapid Transit is a positive thing for the neighborhoods and cities it serves. There are numerous examples of BRT all around the country and the world. BRT is nothing new and has been around for decades. So you would think when Berkeley was asked to consider studying the construction of a fully tricked out BRT system they would take to heart all these examples and past literature and data to make an informed decision. But Berkeley has its own rules and so does Berkeley City Counciman Jesse Arreguin.
Not since John Kerry’s infamous flip-flop during the 2004 presidential campaign against George W. Bush have we seen an example of moving back and forth on the same issue as we see with Councilman Arreguin on BRT in Berkeley. Except in this case, Councilman Arreguin first didnt vote for anything, then indicated he would vote for it before finally voting against it.
Zennie Abrams’ San Francisco Blog takes a brief look at both BRT on Van Ness and in Berkeley. His point is one that was by many others, including myself. BRT has yet to provide opponents with any tangible evidence that BRT will hurt businesses.
Again, I see no example where businesses would be harmed in any way. Indeed, considering Bus traffic congestion along Telegraph Avenue and Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley, BRT’s the perfect solution to improve public transit performance.
Here is a video animation of what the Van Ness BRT will look like:
As far as Berkeley is concerned, Zennie is correct in saying that more education is needed and the Berkeley City Council vote of 4-2-2 is hardly conclusive and there is still a chance to educate the City Council on BRT. In the blog, Living in the O, Joel Ramos calls on supporters in North Oakland to push for better transit so that Berkeley’s decision will not harm those in North Oakland, who would be left out if AC Transit choses to build BRT and leave out Berkeley.
BRT supporters who live in North Oakland should see this as a “call to arms” for BRT in the Temescal, which may now be left out of the scope of the project if AC Transit decides not to build anything in Berkeley, and instead opt to turn BRT around at either Macarthur BART or at the Uptown Transit center.
To help in that fight, join a group of North Oakland BRT supporters by contacting Joel Ramos of TransForm at joel@TransFormCa.org or contact Councilmember Brunner yourself (jbrunner@oaklandnet.com) and let her know of your continued support for BRT with bike lanes and dedicated lanes in the Temescal.
Those living in Berkeley should contact our own City Councilmembers and urge them to support BRT and improve conditions on Telegraph. If you need some talking points, read my previous post on BRT in Berkeley. BRT runs directly through Kriss Worthington’s district and you can contact him atkworthington@cityofberkeley.info. Another Councilmember to contact is Jesse Arreguin, who abstained in the Council’s vote. You can reach Jesse at jarreguin@cityofberkeley.info.
Two Thursdays ago, the Berkeley City Council voted on the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) plan for AC Transit’s East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. The Council essentially had three options: 1) “Full Build”, as recommended by the city staff, which would mean dedicated lanes running up Telegraph Avenue and “island” bus stops, where passengers could board the bus in the middle of the road, much like you see in San Francisco on Market Street. 2) A “Reduced Impact Alternative” as prepared by Mayor Bates and other councilmembers, which was a watered down version of the Full Build option, but still included dedicated lanes and islands. 3) A so-called “Rapid Bus Plus” (RBP) option which, in essence, is a no-build option because it removed all dedicated lanes and made no lane reconfigurations on roads.
After impassioned, and sometimes theatrical testimony by the public, the Berkeley City Council succumbed to NIMBY pressure and rejected any elements of full-build and endorsed only option three, the so-called, “Rapid Bus Plus” plan.
Before I go into the issues of BRT, let me quickly address the importance of the LPA and why you should be upset that Berkeley has practically killed the BRT project for everyone else. In very simplified terms, the way a project like this goes is that AC Transit puts together an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on how they want the project to run. In this case, they give their preferred route for a BRT system from San Leandro to Oakland to Berkeley. This is then sent to each city for review. Each city then decides what they believe is the best alternative for their city, the LPA.
