Bus Rapid Transit, redux

A few months ago, I blogged about the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal in the East Bay, and Sierra Club support for it. Today I went for the first time to a Berkeley planning commission meeting. Though the meeting focused on a bunch of different issues, most of the speakers had opinions on BRT. Most of them were opposed. The opposition was coming a lot from neighbors to Telegraph Ave. (living on Hillegrass Street). They are afraid, that people will drive around Telegraph, and cut through Hillegras when Telegraph gets more congested after a BRT lane is installed (question: how about some speed bumps?) It was an interesting meeting. I finally met a lot of the people I have been reading and hearing about for some months. This was good. I am always impressed (or ...?) in Berkeley, how many people will sacrifice an evening of their time, to speak out on an issue, that is not even going to be decided for months.

On the way home, I ate at my favorite "dive" on Telegraph, naan n curry. Then I took the bus home on Telegraph Ave. (I had to walk 1 mile from the No. Berkeley Sr. Ctr. to Telegraph, and then again 1 mile from 40th and Telegraph to my apartment in North Oakland). The bus was half full - it was the new "rapid." I had to wait about 20 minutes for it (at 9.30 p.m.) It was a pretty quick ride down Telegraph - though there was hardly any automobile traffic.

It is always sobering, to see the people that rely on AC Transit at night time (not the commuters like me). There were some people that obviously can't afford to drive. I agree with those, who argue that AC Transit should be trying to improve the frequency of service on all routes, not just on BRT. However, I believe that a large part of the BRT money is coming from sources, that would otherwise not be available for transit improvement. I need to check on this. Too bad, the governor is currently shifting money away from public transit.

4/26 Berkeley teach-in on bio-fuels

On Thursday I visited the beautiful University of California-Berkeley campus again to attend a "teach in". Not knowing what to expect, I arrived a little late and had to go sleuthing around for a way in at LeConte Hall (grid c5 in the map). I came via the faculty club, the so it was the back of the hall, which is locked in the evening.

The teach-in was very interesting. It was put together by a local activist group that call themselves the Green Century Institute. Contrary to my expectation, it was not a bunch of Berkeley types shouting "down with Big Oil!" Two of the speakers I'd previously met (Richard Register and John Harte). The others - Prof. Tad Patzek and a priest living in Brazil, gave very convincing arguments as to why biofuels is never going to be the answer to our energy needs.

First off, Prof. Patzek gave some basic arithmetic arguments pertaining to our energy consumption and the potential of biofuels. The overall potential of biofuels, even if we were to plant all the tillable acreage (farmland) available with the most productive biofuel plant (probably a variety of corn), would still only cover something like 30% of our current energy needs. Professor Harte made the point that solar arrays set up all over the west (for instance on the current weapons proving grounds owned by the government) would be able to fulfill our needs. Richard Register showed us photographs from his world travels including many innovative concepts for greening of cities. His basic point, though, and this is also a basic "Peak Oil" argument, is that our present suburban and car-based lifestyle is in for a deep shock at some point in the next 20-40 years. I agree with this argument.

Afterwards there were some students and activists who lined up at the mic to ask questions of the speakers. As usual, the "questions" (actually many were political statements) were more numerous than there was time to answer. Well that's no surprise.

Going forward I will edit this post to include links to audio and video fiiles of the speakers at the teach-in. Hopefully some of you are able to see it that way.