Relying on the  AC transit project manager for the BRT for reliable data on something as controversal as this, is like relying on the  BART general manager  for unbiased info about the Airport Connector.

There is a major disconnect between the concerns of the merchants on Telegraph, the residents of adjoining blocks; and the advocates for the BRT.

Correct me, but I thought the normal threshold required for adeuate parking was 25% for say RPP residential parking permit purposes. Is that 25% only for residential? Is AC transit applying the 15% or the 25% test for impact on the residential adjacent areas?

Talk to the owners and managers of the trendy food places and they will tell you that whenever available parking has dropped significantly, their business volume falls off a cliff.  Tell them that in 10 to 15 years Telegraph will be a vibrant high density corrido with zillions of customers within walking distance and the people who run those restaurants and coffee shops you love so much, will tell you that they won't survive to see that.

San Leandro is 180 degree different situation re the business' along E14th. SL already has tons of offstreet parking. One or two huge parking structures are ready to break ground. In SL it's the merchants who support the BRT because it would support a pedestrian mall like atmosphere along E14th that would help their businesses because of the abundant off street parking.

-len raphael

desmond street, temescal

The biggest "fact" on which the entire case for BRT rests are the projections that Oakland's is poised for large population growth in the years to come. ABAG projections etc. This is then tied to Federal and State air pollution  mandates, and the wishes of everyone to slow global warming.

The theory, as expounded as the gospel on our dime by an ACT official a couple of weeks ago at the rezoning hearing, is that the combo of BRT and encouraging the tallest possible buildings on transit corridors will both meet the future growh needs of Oakland and reduce global warming.

Look at the recent ten year census results. Oakland was the only major CA city to lose residents.  It certainly didn't gain businesses, net of loss of major employers.

This was a boom period for the country and we actually lost people.

Doesn't that raise even teh slightest doubt in your mind about those projections and the whole strategy that increasing density dramatically along Telegraph and Bway will make any dent at all in Northern Ca's carbon footprint?

More likely it will simply shift residents who would have chosen to live in DTO to a cheaper or currently more pleasant neighborhood.

Whether those neighborhoods remain as pleasant after their density goes up is problematic. If higher density = higher crime, noise etc. then some of the attractiveness  of say Temescal and Lower Rockridge to young families goes down. ond Oakland's population and fiscal problems get worse instead of better. Global warming might even gets worse when those young families move to the burbs.

if you want to make a huge guarranteed reduction in carbon footprint, do something in the burbs.

Conversely, fix Oakland's mediocre public servics so that it attracts residents instead of driving them away.

-len raphael, temescal nimby

Len,

You seem to have a lot of preconceived notions against BRT and density without a lot of facts to base them on. If AC Transit mitigates the on-street parking loss with a lot, why will that adversely affect neighborhood businesses, especially if access is improved with the new transit service? And how does your opposition to new residents (via new development) help the businesses you claim to support? Where do you think those new residents will eat and shop? It sounds like you'd rather rely on people driving here from somewhere else and clogging our streets with their cars.

And density increases crime? You're not improving your credibility with a completely baseless claim like that. And why will new development decrease tax revenue? Where are you getting your numbers?

I'm looking forward to BRT because I'll be able to get around more quickly, and it comes along with pedestrian and bicycle improvements to boot. And I welcome investors to bring new residents to Telegraph in infill development to strengthen our commercial corridor.

-Colin, Temescal YIMBY

i like the idea of adding bike lanes to Telegraph and reducing overall traffic congestion. It's basically impossible to go from Berkeley or North Oakland to downtown or Jack London on a bike without using a main street like Telegraph, Shattuck, Broadway, MLK, or San Pablo. But it doesnt seem like BRT is a slam dunk. It would be nice if AC Transit had listened more closely to Temescal residents and businesses and addressed their concerns. It sounds like Len is skeptical that there is a disconnect between what ACT is saying and what the actual impact will be. a parking lot at International and fruitvale wont help North Oakland residents, that's for sure.

Thanks all of you for your comments.

Len: AC Transit and its consultants modeled the impacts of BRT on traffic, emissions, and parking (among other things). I understand that models have their limitations, but what other source would you recommend for a technical analysis on the project?

Also, that's 15% more parking on top of what will be used. How many empty parking spaces do you think Temescal needs?

Finally, I wasn't around when BART was built, but I've heard that at the time it created a lot of the problems you discuss. Looking at pictures of Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco with the streets all torn up, it's hard not to sympathize with a business owner concerned about the construction. But now, how would we all get to Downtown Oakland or San Francisco without BART?

BRT won't be nearly as bad as BART. It will sting for a few years, sure, but a lot of BRT supporters realize that if we don't start now, it will only get harder and more expensive to do later.

Erik: Agreed, and I apologize if I wasn't more clear. Each of those locations will have a parking strain, and AC Transit is reponsible for alleviating shortages within a set reasonable walking distance (the official distance escapes me, but it's much less than a mile for sure).

• Colin, explain to me where AC Transit is going to get sufficient money to replace the lost on-street parking by buying and building parking lots. Will the Feds allow any of their money to be used for parking? San Leandro used existing funding for it’s ample off street parking..

  ACT will come up with a miniscule amount of money for offstreet parking and argue that it’s adequate based on their own “traffic management demand studies”.  They really don’t give a hoot about survival of the local businesses or the impact on parking in the neighborhoods.

  Show the merchants and the residents that ACT has committed the money to build offstreet parking comparable to San Leandro’s and all the opposition will disappear instantly.

  “And how does your opposition to new residents (via new development) help the businesses you claim to support? Where do you think those new residents will eat and shop? It sounds like you'd rather rely on people driving here from somewhere else and clogging our streets with their cars.”

  My short answer is yes.

  Colin, one of the blind sides of smart growth advocates in Oakland,  and city planners in general, is ignorace of muni finances. They repeat Jerry Brown’s 10k mistake of assuming that if you increase the residential population, the city’s finances can only improve.

  Even if JB hoped for retailers had come to DTO, the city only directly gets a fraction of 1 penny in out of every sales taxable dollar spent in Oakland (shared with Alameda County). 7 cents goes to the state. Another ¼ of a cent goes to the County. And another 1.5 cents goes for special district taxes such as BART. 

  Property tax revenue that goes to Oakland’s general fund is also a fraction of the total property tax collected here. Most of the ad valorem property tax (after the RDAgency takes its large chunk) goes to the OUSD, not the General Fund. Another large chunk of the ad valorem tax goes to pay the horrendous bond debt that Oakland has taken on; then there are the parcel taxes which are all restricted in use. Despite having the highest effective property tax in Northern Ca, Oakland is broke and getting broker.

  The point of all that is that yes, if a city is going to try to pay for decent public services and it has a large percentage of poor residents, it can’t do it by increasing its residential population and attracting  a bunch of restaurants and nail salons to service them.  A buddy of mine who served many years on the council of a neighboring city told me how his budget people ran the numbers and concluded that his city netted money in the first three years or so of a resident because of transfer taxes and permit fees, but progressively fell into the negative as it had to spend money to service the new residents.

  Cities want exactly what NYC, SF,  Emeryville, SJ  have: zillions of commuters and tourists who don’t need all the expensive services that residents expect. They want business that pay business taxes, very high sales taxes, and property taxes. Not residents.  If the best we can do is make Oakland a bedroom community for SF and Emeryville with great restaurants, then you will have to find ways to get revenue sharing from SF and Emeryville, because the property and sales tax revenue won’t support us in the style we’re not accustomed to.

-len raphael, Temescal nimby and cpa

Colin: "And density increases crime? You're not improving your credibility with a completely baseless claim like that."

--

Yes "the eyes on the street" theory of crime reduction probably is valid in cities with adequate police staffing. 

In Manhattan, when bystanders see someone getting mugged, the cops arrive quickly.

In Rio or Manila, I don't think so.

A few months ago at the check cashing place at Tele and 51st, about 11am, a guy attempted to crowbar his way into the cashier's back door when customers where in the front office.  The cashier locked the front door trapping the customers and called the cops. The burglar continued to pry for another 10 minutes then left.  Cops didn't arrive for almost 30 minutes.

For all the vibrant density of DTO and the Lake Merritt area, street crime rates are much higher than Temescal or Rockridge (actually, I'm bluffing here so check the stats and tell me if i'm wrong). I would bet the street crime rates in SF downtown are also very high.

Unless you expect bystanders to physcially restrain muggers (as they did for a friend of mine in DTO a couple of months ago), installing a bunch of CTV and staffing the monitors 24x7 would be a much more cost effective way to get eyes on the street because those eyes don't demand city services.

-len raphael, temescal

The fallacy of the 'more eyes on the street".  A friend of mine works in  the most vibrant restaurant section of DTO. Several months ago, during the most crowded time of the evening, a drunk asian gang banger cold cocked him for no reason at all, and disappeared into the crowds. a bouncer at nearby restaurant picked up my friend. Not a cop to be seen.

Or take Temescal side streets at 930 at night. Nary a sole to be seen except a few people walking their dogs. Compare that to say Montclair or Piedmont or Orinda at same hour.   Temescal has hecka higher density than those areas. Easily half the parcels have at least two living units and plenty have more.

There would plenty more people on the streets if the perception of high street crime were lower.  Simply adding more people to the area won't intrinsically change that perception.

For sure, if you ask me where i'd rather be walking alone at night, on busy Latino section of International Blvd, or the streets near Oakland West Bart Station, I'll take International Blvd.  But there's also a different dynamic going on along those stretches of E14th beyond mere density. My hunch is that the residents there would much more proactive upon seeing a street crime than your typcial Rockridge burgher. i've heard of residents surrounded by kids and knocked down on College Ave day time, and only a shopkeeper came out to rescue the person.

-len raphael, temescal nimby

I simply don't understand the alarm about loss of parking.  

I spend a lot of time in Temescal. I go there during the day to shop, I go there during the evening and on weekends to dine.  I usually drive.  I have never had trouble parking.  

Sometimes, at peak hours, I've had to park up to two blocks away from the store or restaurant I'm visiting.  In most large cities, this would be considered unbelievably convenient, abundant parking.  

There is simply no merit what-so-ever to claims that there will be a parking crisis in Temescal if BRT is built.

The statistics used by NIMBYs are wantonly misleading. As highlighted in the article, the most commonly quoted stat is a number of lost spaces that applys only on a few blocks of Telegraph.  There are three or four blocks on either side of Telegraph in Temescal that won't lose a single spot, and most of Telegraph itself will only be slightly affected.

Multiple claims from the NIMBYs can be verified empiracly to be totally untrue... I think it's fair enough to dismiss their other theories based on this.  People who don't believe in reality shouldn't be trusted as sources of information.  

Max, the concerns of the merchants and the residents who live precisely in the areas you park are that what works adequately now, won't after a combo of the loss of spaces by BRT plus new  development coming online.

it's not a parking mecca. It's about the same as Lakeshore

if/when the owner of the Walgreen's lot restricted it's use to customers of that strip mall, parking would be much tighter than Lakeshore.

You don't notice it, but a good portion of those three blocks off Telegraph are multi unit housing without off street parking. Residents of many of those streets already get BART commuters.

As the new MacArthur Transit Village is built, the parking pressures will get worse to the extent only 1 parking slot wb constructed for every unit. 40% of the first phase affordable housing units will be 3 bedroom units. All of the parking slots are floating. ie. an occupant could claim they don't need to pay for parking even though they or friends/family will need parking.

Talk to the merchants privately and report back. They have  much better grasp of their customers' transportation habits than any of us.

Your best argument is the one Ruth used: it's necessary for the merchants and their customers to suffer now so that in the long run we're all better off.

-len raphael, temescal

Just talking today with a business buddy from San Leandro. San Leandro governent seems to have reached the same conclusion that Hercules (and probably a bunch of other cities have):

They are discouraging all new residential units, including TOD, in favor of businesses that generate tax revenue and jobs.

They’re going after high density high tech, not high density residential.

We on the other hand would be grateful for just a politically correct big box retail with their low paying jobs and relatively low tax generation, and low income TOD. Short term thinking.


San Leandro version of a BART Transit Villlage is to discourage residential housing around stations and encourage development of high tax revenue value business's where the workers BART in and then leave each day. 

The way we're going about, we're trying to add new residents who at best will  commute rapidly and efficiently to SF, San Leandro, Berekey, WC, and SJ and spend their paychecks on Amazon and in Emeryville and SF.  We get stuck with the high costs of a bedroom community and those cities get the tax bucks.   Unless ABAG is predicting consolidation of cities on a vast scale, we'll be digging our own muni finance hole deeper by following the ABAG vision.

-len raphael, temescal