I am interested in Berkeley's behavior with regard to streetlights. I have not been able to find anything in Berkeley's Climate Action Plan about strategies for reducing the huge costs and greenhouse gas contributions of streetlights.

What is Berkeley doing to curtail energy use and costs associated with streetlights?

Also, have you heard of the company Streetlight Intelligence Inc.?

Apparently Calgary, Canada, like Berkeley, has a " progressive climate action plan." Please see http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2008/23/c7586.html

Thanks for your time and attention.

First--thanks for the great work that has gone into this plan. I'd like to suggest an additional Implementing Action. It is currently extremely difficult to get a grey water system approved in the City of Berkeley. We obviously have a public interest in regulating what ends up in the water table, so we need to have oversight of this, but if the regulations are too restrictive, too complicated, and too onerous, people will set these things up illegally, and we're going to have a big ugly and toxic mess on our hands. The drier things get, the more desperate people will be to take matters into their own hands. It is already starting to happen. The City has got to examine this. Do not be satisfied with simply sticking with the codes the way they are. This is the time to make codes serve the true public interest: it has to be do-able, workable and enforceable. Another dry winter, and we will see hoses start sprouting out of every back window.

The Berkeley Oil Independence Task Force deeply appreciates the efforts of city staff and other contributors to the draft Climate Action Plan. On the whole, the Task Force is in strong agreement with the goals and recommendations set forth in the plan and, in particular, with the nearly car-free vision articulated in Chapter 3. The Task Force offers a few suggestions for the final CAP:

1. The CAP includes a brief discussion of local food security in the context of its peak oil overview. Local, sustainably-produced food is not only a peak oil issue—agriculture is one of the top contributors to global warming, and Berkeley residents can dramatically reduce their emissions by eating more local, organic, unprocessed, plant-based foods. As such, the issue of food warrants its own chapter. For a start, the CAP might reference the dormant Berkeley Food Policy. Another excellent resource is the San Francisco Foodshed Assessment just released by the American Farmland Trust and SAGE.

2. Double up on public education efforts by including peak oil and gas awareness in the new residents welcome package and other educational outreach materials.

3. The proposed fee for plastic shopping bags can be effective, but why not simply ban plastic bags as San Francisco has done? Whatever the case, fee or ban, the Task Force recommends extending the deterrent to paper bags as well, so that cloth bags become the norm. Another quick and effective consumer behavior fix would be a towel surcharge at the YMCA and other gyms (so as to encourage patrons to bring their own towels).

4. The City can reduce waste and save money by canceling any and all of its bottled water contracts.

5. The proposed Transportation Services Fee can be an effective way of deterring wasteful consumption and raising revenue, though it is not apparent from the CAP in what manner such a fee would be imposed. The Task Force supports user fees on excessive fossil fuel consumption (electricity, gasoline, propane, etc.) so long as safeguards are in place to ensure that low-income residents are given free energy-efficiency products and services and are fully or partially exempt from taxes and fees.

6. The East Bay Green Corridor, in concept, offers the Bay Area a unique opportunity to relocalize its agricultural and manufacturing industries. The Task Force urges Berkeley to take a strong leadership role in giving teeth to this idea and recommends that the CAP include target dates and goals for implementation of the Green Corridor.

7. In light of the anticipated short time-frame for peak oil and gas, the Task Force believes that updates to this plan should be made every two years.

On page 179 the CAP has these goals for transportation for the disabled:

"Continue to enhance mobility options for people with disabilities by

expanding existing paratransit, car share, and taxi services."

While these are appropriate goals for the city, only the car share alternative would have any positive impact on reaching our GHG reduction goals. Taxis and paratransit are no better environmentally than privates autos, and may be worse. The best way for our disabled community to make a positive contribution is to use "mainstream" transportation options as much as possible -- regular transit service.

For that to happen well, transit systems should provide "universal access" (roll-on/roll-off boarding for wheelchairs and stepless entry for the mobility impaired). This is far better than the minimal "ADA-compliant" system of awkward lifts that delay buses on their routes.

The BART system already provides universal access today, and Bus Rapid Transit will do so in the future if we approve such projects.

To encourage that, the CAP should include a policy statement such as:

"Encourage our disabled community to make more use of energy-efficient regular transit service (instead of just energy-inefficient paratransit and taxis) by ensuring that all future transit upgrades include universal-access boarding."

On p. 33 the CAP says we should "direct any new development to locations that are close to transit and have retail and other services within walking distance."

On p. 34 the CAP says "Locating compact residential development and neighborhood-serving retail development along the same transit corridors represents an integrated strategy for reducing VMT and increasing other mobility options. More retail options provide residents, workers, and transit riders with more convenient access to services, while more residents and workers translate into more customers for local stores and services."

These are both good ideas, but in addition to new residential density NEAR improved transit, we also need new neighborhood-oriented retail near existing housing that is NOT well served by transit.

Let's call that "pedestrian-oriented shopping" within reach of EXISTING residential neighborhoods -- and decouple it from any necessary connection to existing transit. Areas without good transit are much more likely to require auto trips for shopping, increasing VMT.

Two current good examples: the Monterey Market area on Hopkins and the Westbrae district on Gilman between Peralta and Cornell. Both have only minimal transit service in the form of the infrequent Route 9 bus.

The Monterey Market area is thriving with a diversified set of food-oriented businesses and a large set of walk-in (as well as many drive-in) customers. The Westbrae area is clearly underdeveloped: anchored by two restaurants, an organic grocery and two takeout bakeries, it also features two out-of-place auto repair stores and an actual undeveloped 1800 sf commercial lot. Westbrae has the potential to become another pedestrian-serving retail/mixed-use hub meeting daily needs for about 4,000 residents within walking distance who are not likely to have good transit service in the near future.

The CAP should, therefore, emphasize "infill walk-in retail" without regard to transit corridors. The following policy statement would help that:

"In order to improve the livability of EXISTING walkable residential neighborhoods that do not enjoy major transit service, and in the process reduce VMT,

1. favor the development of in-fill neighborhood retail oriented to basic daily needs, especially where good transit is unavailable.

2. Especially favor the return of neighborhood-scale groceries on the model of the Westbrae Natural Grocery, along with "corner food stores," rather than building more large-scale auto-oriented supermarkets.

3. Look for opportunities to provide at least some non-auto-dependent food shopping -- such as farmers markets or coop food delivery plans -- to our hills districts."

In the 20s, 30s and 40s, when Berkeley enjoyed actual good transit service to and through many residential neigborhoods in our foothill and hillside districts , the City developed an extensive network of pedestrian pathways that are still in place today (www.berkeleypaths.org).

These paths were built to provide "vertical" and mostly east-west access from residential neighborhoods to the transit lines (which mostly ran north-south), and were designed to serve as pedestrian feeder routes to active transit nodes. It was much more efficient to walk a block or two up- or down-hill than several blocks to the nearest major street corner.

In more recent years, such transit as still serves the hills pretty thoroughly ignores the path network in favor of traditional stops at major intersections -- almost always at corners.

The CAP should include a policy that favors the return of "paths-oriented transit" to the hills, with stops oriented to mid-block path junctions rather than to street intersections. This would usefully decrease the distance many residents would need to walk to get to a transit stop, increase ridership, and reduce VMT.

I'm disappointed that the current draft of the Berkeley Climate Action Plan has only brief mention of street tree planting, on pp. 116-117.

Tree planting is one of the easier ways for Berkeley to reduce its carbon footprint. As we all know, lots of other aspects of the Climate Action Plan will be more difficult, such as getting people out of their cars. Berkeley's current Urban Forestry program has the goal of planting 500 trees per year, and it's currently lagging behind that rate. Even so, Berkeley's goal is proportionately smaller than those of other cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. I propose that the CAP state explicitly that Berkeley's street tree planting program should be expanded.

Here are some ideas that don't necessarily need mention in the CAP but would support an expansion in tree planting:

-- A nonprofit foundation such as San Francisco's Friends of the Urban Forest could be created to help raise additional funds.

-- Improvement in public outreach. Many Berkeley residents are unaware of the Urban Forestry program. Anytime someone buys a house that has no street tree, the city should send them information about the availability of trees.

-- Developer fees, dedicated to street tree planting.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the amount of detail in this part of the city's plan. But two issues occur to me.

1. BRT is an example of favoring public transportation over "regular" multi-lane thoroughfares. If this trend continues, how are drivers supposed to manage? Suppliers of food and other items for sale in farmers markets and stores are included in that category, as are car-share drivers. It seems certain that hybrid and zero-emission vehicles will get snatched up as soon as they become cheaper and more widely available. But how will they fare on the streets of Berkeley?

I watched a travel show recently, and noticed that the European city featured had both pedestrian-friendly areas and really wide thoroughfares for vehicles.

2. Personal vehicles will be around for a long time. I'd love to buy a Smart Car, but I live in a multi-story dwelling (no place to plug in). Has the city explored the idea of making metered electric-charging stations available for apartment-type dwellers? I'm not saying the city would necessarily pay for such stations--although such stations might conceivably benefit the city, as in providing power to the grid.

Thanks for listening.

Jean Hohl

The discussion in the CAP of ways we might extend good transit to the hills (and other under-served areas) has so far focused on two alternatives; “official” (AC Transit or city-sponsored/owned) shuttle buses (perhaps on an on-demand basis), and more flexible use of taxis for individual riders. We should also consider allowing an additional private-sector solution: jitney service from entrepreneurial providers.

A jitney would be an officially licensed, inspected and insured vehicle with a commercially-licensed driver, such as a 12-passenger van, owned and operated by an individual private operator. The key point is that jitneys would be allowed to CHOOSE THEIR OWN ROUTES, set their own schedules, and solicit their own business – in a way that optimizes their economic return. So a jitney operator might, for example, develop a business around late-night service from downtown to specific hills routes/destinations, or around delivery of a regular clientele between the hills and the Ashby or North Berkeley BART station for the morning and evening commutes. But no official "demand studies" – or massive EIR in advance – would be required.

The “genius of competitive markets” would probably provide transit service far superior to anything that could be officially designed by transit bureaucrats, engineers or accountants.

The Climate Action Plan makes a convincing case for placing high priority on increasing the supply of housing near transit in order to reduce carbon emissions, improve public health, and support a viable downtown and neighborhood commercial districts. I fully support the Plan’s recommended policies and actions (such as those beginning on p. 33, Chp. 3) to encourage development of housing, retail services, and employment in areas of Berkeley best served by transit.

As the Plan points out, living near transit is the single largest influence on vehicle miles traveled, and therefore increasing housing options near transit is a highly effective tool to reduce carbon emissions. But transit routes are limited by topography, there are only three rail stations in Berkeley, and there are finite opportunities for increasing density within walking distance of transit. Steps need to be taken to, in effect, bring existing residents including those in the hills within easier reach of BART.

The plan recommends expanding capacity and service of taxi fleets (p. 48), but at the same time the plan suggests studying potential new services, such as shuttle buses (p. 37 and p. 45). Instead of studying something new and untested, I suggest putting the highest priority on building on infrastructure that already exists, which is the city’s existing taxi fleet. Taxis already provide on-demand service for anyone, including residents of the hills.

Taxis represent an opportunity for reduction of greenhouse gases in two ways. First, the city already regulates taxi service and controls factors such as rates that are charged and the number of vehicles that can provide taxi service. Taxi service has the advantage of being provided by private enterprise, including many individual entrepreneurs.

Secondly, taxis are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Altogether, autos produce nearly half of Berkeley’s greenhouse gases, according to the Climate Action Plan. Taxis tend to be high emitters of greenhouse gases. The EPA rates the gas mileage of an older model Ford Crown Victoria, a typical taxi, at about 15 miles per gallon; actual mileage may be as low as 8 miles per gallon (according to a former Berkeley taxi operator). Thus, one or two taxi trips around Berkeley may produce as many as 20 pounds of carbon or other greenhouse gases. Berkeley allows 120 or more taxis to operate in the city.

Improving taxi service would not only reduce carbon emissions, but also reduce operating costs for the entrepreneurs who operate the vehicles and increase their total business. I suggest the following measures, which could be supported by new fees and other revenue sources, such as those noted on p. 38:

• Assist taxi operators to replace old vehicles with new low-carbon models, perhaps hybrids at first and later electric vehicles.

• As a supplement to the provision of subsidized transit passes (p. 44), consider offering taxi vouchers for reduced fares.

• Assist taxi operators with an improved dispatch system, so that riders can count on a pickup at their home to take them to BART.

• Improve marketing, so riders know who to call for service and what to expect.

• Train drivers so they can easily find addresses in the hills.

• Consider installing bike racks on taxis.

In the Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Implementation Table on p. 59, steps to improve taxi service should be moved to the short-term rather than the medium-term or long-term column, while the proposed step of studying shuttle buses (p. 57) should be moved from short-term to long-term.

In Chp. 3, p. 41, the Climate Action Plan discusses the choice of residents to use transit over a private automobile, but fails to note that use of a mode other than the private automobile is a necessity and not a choice for a significant number of persons. The National Household Travel Survey conducted by the federal Department of Transportation in 2001-02 found that despite the high number of vehicles nationwide (1.9 vehicles versus 1.8 drivers per household), 8 percent of households have no vehicle at all, and 12 percent of persons 15 and over are non-drivers. The CAP should recognize that better transit service and reliable taxi service provide a basic level of service for many residents, rather than simply a choice. Improved transportation options serve not only non-drivers and non-vehicle-owners, but also support the decision of some drivers to give up a vehicle altogether.

The implementing actions to increase bicycling and walking (Chp. 3, p. 50) might include an effort to encourage Berkeley residents to re-think what constitutes a “walkable distance.” The conventional wisdom is that about ten or maybe fifteen minutes is the maximum that people will spend walking from home or their parked car to shopping or a transit station. Although shoppers might walk around Fourth Street for, say, an hour or two, they might never think of walking the half hour that it would take to get from, say, Solano Avenue to downtown. Marketing efforts should help residents to recalibrate their sense of what is a conveniently walkable distance, while perhaps pointing out the irony of, for instance, joining a gym or exercise group and then driving there in a car, while walking is good exercise and free, too.

I fully concur with recommended steps to improve AC Transit service, including development of Bus Rapid Transit (Chp. 3, p. 43). Without significant improvements in the speed and reliability of transit service, it will not seem to be a valid alternative to the private automobile. I also agree that a regional transit pass system should be a near-term action (Transportation Implementation Table, p. 57). The MTC has been working toward this goal for years it seems; why is it not operational yet? By contrast, in Los Angeles the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has implemented simple passes that enable users to easily transfer among heavy rail, light rail, and bus services. Just tap the card on the reader when boarding, and go. It could not be simpler, and it beats by a long shot the Bay Area’s so-far muddled attempts at cross-system transfers.

In Chp. 4, p. 68, rather than emphasize photovoltaics in the Berkeley FIRST program, a bigger return on investment might be made through assistance for energy efficiency measures, such as insulation and furnace replacement. Installation of photovoltaics will reduce electricity use, but for natural gas-heated homes, energy efficiency measures would reduce natural gas-related carbon emissions, and those seem to be significantly larger than those associated with electricity use.

In addition to the Climate Action Pledge (Chp. 7, p. 123), I suggest offering a pledge opportunity for drivers of fossil-fuel-powered vehicles to reduce their gasoline usage by some percentage. The burning of gasoline and diesel fuel produces by far the largest slice of the greenhouse gas emissions pie shown on p. 20 of the plan; a 10, 20, or 30 percent reduction in personal use of these fuels would therefore have a much greater impact than an individual’s pledge to, say, dry their laundry in the sun, or recycle more. An additional pledge opportunity should be offered, therefore, for those who drive a vehicle. Simply keep track for a few months of how many gallons of fuel are purchased, and then pledge to reduce use by, say, 25 percent the first year and then 10 percent annually in subsequent years. Since needs vary, perhaps each household can choose its own target. Assist those taking the challenge by offering a simple chart to keep track of gallons used, and incidentally, dollars saved. Those who meet their goals might, say, march together in the “How Berkeley Can You Be” Parade and follow it up with some kind of celebration, lunch with the mayor, or whatever.

If implemented in the strictest way, this proposed measure may seem a bit draconian, but I believe that it may be quite necessary to really achieve real sustainability.

The City should have a new element of building code that requires that any new parking lots or parking spaces that are created be covered in some fashion with a surface that utilizes the solar energy that would otherwise fall on pavement or cars. [Photons that, after all, would only serve to deteriorate the paint jobs on the cars.] The utilization of the solar photons can be through photovoltaic panels, living roof (gardens or parks), or other suitable surface that makes reasonable use of solar energy.

Effectively, expanses of open air parking should be prohibited.

Concurrent with this should be a program with financial mechanisms, e.g. similar to Berkeley First, to encourage and fund retrofit of existing parking areas to utilize the solar energy potential of those areas.

I commend the transportation elements for the Climate Action Plan that include increased use of public transit, ride share, bicycling,and walking. One area that could stand improvement is on p. 49 Goal #7 to "Encourage the use of low-carbon vehicles and fuels." In particular, more could be done to take advantage of the benefits of electric vehicle (EV) use. The only element in the plan that I could find about EVs was to "Evaluate opportunities to create additional free parking and charging stations for electric vehicles..." and "Include information about electric vehicles in broader marketing campaign."

I think we can do more. Given that fossil fuel powered vehicles are ultimately unsustainable and harmful to our well being, it behooves us to strive for non-fossil fuel vehicles and one of the simplest tried and true technologies available here and now is in fact electric propulsion: electric motors and batteries. This type of vehicle lends itself to complete sustainability if electric charging systems are by alternative electric energy technologies (sun, wind, geothermal, etc.). However, even if recharged by fossil fuel power systems, electric vehicles are several times more efficient than fossil fuel powered vehicles.

Seeing as how the major automobile companies are failing to provide choices to consumers that include this simple technology, the City should take more strident steps to encourage and promote the use of electric vehicles. Possible strategies for this include:

--Tax advantages for electric car dealerships and for electric car purchasers.

--Establishing favorable financing programs for purchase of electric vehicles (similar to the concept of Berkeley First).

--Encouraging and promoting projects that result in the conversion of existing internal combustion engine vehicles to electric power. One possible path could be through partnerships of automobile maintenance shops with vocational education programs (e.g. high school and community college) to create systems for providing opportunities for car owners to bring in their internal combustion vehicles and PAY to have them converted to electric vehicles, while providing education and job opportunities.

Very comprehensive and thoughtful.

Most of the suggested actions seem do-able.

At some point some prioritization would be helpful.

Highlighting those actions that would have the largest impacts would be useful.

Good work!

Here are a couple of other ways electric vehicles could be encouraged in Berkeley:

-- Free parking for electric vehicles anywhere and at all times on city streets and in city parking facilities.

-- Designation of some parking places at extremely busy destinations (downtown, Shattuck Ave. outside Berkeley Bowl, Fourth Street, etc.) and in some city parking structures as "Electric vehicle parking only".

-- Modification of traffic barriers (and the Berkeley traffic code) to allow through passage by NEV's (neighborhood electric vehicles).

-- Designation of specific streets as "NEV routes", similar to bike routes. Such routes would have traffic signals at intersections with heavily-traveled car routes (Ashby, Sacramento, San Pablo, etc.) so that it would be possible to move easily and safely around Berkeley in a NEV.

-- Waive building permit fees for the installation of solar panels to be used to power a NEV.