Public Comment

Our recommendations:

• Let the street be repaved, which by itself improves conditions for cyclists.
• Do the non-controversial things (restriping, additional crosswalks and stop signs, etc.), and any safety measures that could be easily and cheaply reversed if, upon reflection, it becomes clear that something else would serve everyone better (painting sharrows, for instance).
• If possible, take care of the pedestrian safety concerns at Hopkins and Monterey, and then see whether that is enough.

To: 

The Honorable Sophie Hahn 

shahn@cityofberkeley.info 

Councilmember Hahn, 

There are a fair number of people (including the recreational and commuter bicyclists) who welcomed your idea of the amenities (particularly benches) for the neighborhood that would have come with placemaking, so hearing that you are requesting funding for them is a welcome development. 

However, there are several aspects of the current Hopkins Corridor plan that are simply unsupportable. 

The two-way bike track should be flatly rejected as way too dangerous for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike.  

For instance, few cyclists will risk turning from the two-way bicycle track through oncoming traffic onto Albina and Hopkins Ct. It’s dangerous because oncoming traffic would not be expecting it, and cyclists would have to block the bike lanes while trying to negotiate the turn. Both Hopkins Ct. and Albina, as well as Hopkins itself, are home to several children who bike with their parents, so to say this is a less than ideal situation is an understatement. 

Staff noted that it did not know anything about the volume of bicycle traffic currently carried by Hopkins.  

Since the intersection of Monterey and Hopkins is not on the city’s annual bike usage 

survey, we have taken our own counts to see what the bicycle usage is in this neighborhood. We have found that Hopkins is truly a pedestrian heavy street, not a well-used corridor for bikes. (See attachment 2) 

Those of us who are both recreational and commuter cyclists know that the biggest risk to bikers in Berkeley is the condition of the roads. Improving them is our number one priority. We find sharrows on Hopkins to be an acceptable, even better, alternative to the complicated, expensive plan that staff is proposing. We’d rather concentrate resources on improving the safety of the Hopkins/Monterey intersection, which is another huge priority for us. (See attachment 3) 

During the Zoom meetings, participants were often told that staff didn't know the answers to questions, that they shared neighborhood concerns about some things in the plans (like the two-way bike lanes and how they would safely interface with Hopkins Ct., Albina, and Gilman), but that staff was going to leave it to engineering to work out the details. 

That reminded us of the planning fiascos the city has endured in the recent past, including both redesigns of the intersection at The Alameda and Hopkins as well as the undoing of barriers on Milvia. 

It has left many of us with no confidence in this process, which seems to be driven by a well-meaning but hardcore group of bike activists. 

Bike enthusiast Ben Gerhardstein's comment in Berkeleyside about the Milvia problem exemplifies why we have concerns: “We shouldn’t be in a position of having to take out infrastructure a couple of months after it was put in,” said Ben Gerhardstein of Walk Bike Berkeley. “We fight tooth and nail to get this infrastructure put in place, and it’s not cheap,” he said. “It takes time and planning, and removing it without any kind of process is a slap in the face.” (2/3/2022) 

While Gerhardstein is correct that the city shouldn't have been in that position, in advocating for not correcting the problem immediately he seems to be blinded by his advocacy for bike lanes to the point of potentially harming patients at Alta Bates. But we agree with him on this point: if the city isn't entirely certain of what it is doing, it shouldn't do it, particularly when the cost is so high. It is too disruptive and too costly to do something and then have to remove it because it doesn't work. 

You could not have predicted what a fiasco this review process would be when you took the lead in requesting the funds to study the corridor for placemaking and safety upgrades. 

The plan no longer contains placemaking elements, and the improvement in safety is dubious at best. (Even the State of California, though not prohibiting two-way bike lanes, considers them the least safe option.) 

The most unsafe area in the corridor is the intersection of Hopkins and Monterey; it is unsafe for everyone, but mostly for pedestrians. Their safety should not be a by-product of putting in bike lanes; it should be the primary focus. 

Watching pedestrians, particularly kids, the elderly and disabled, try to dodge cars in that intersection is at times harrowing. According to the Vision Zero Plan document, drivers not yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks is the top traffic violation for severe and fatal vehicle-involved collisions in Berkeley. The proposed raised crosswalk may help. 

However, the danger felt at the intersection is not so much about being seen in the crosswalk; it is about finding an opening to even enter it. And it is the slow trickle of pedestrians that frustrates drivers, who then dangerously nose into the crosswalks to try to find their own opportunities to pass through the intersection. 

Bicyclists who do not make any attempt to stop at the intersection are equally of concern, particularly to the elderly. 

Based on our bike traffic counts, bikers who blow through the intersection do not make up a very significant portion of the bike traffic, but they definitely exist, and their presence is not predictable. 

Early last year, in late March or early April, you tweeted: “I do not support removing parking from the shops and also am asking staff to slow down this process and do the thorough and balanced study that was referred to them…My intent was to make sure all interests were consulted, listened to, and carefully balanced. I am not in support of a plan that puts bike lanes above all other options and takes away important support for our businesses and residents, nor a rushed and cursory process.” 

Pandemic restrictions have not made this easy for staff, but they are not a reasonable excuse for continuing to push forward a plan that has so little neighborhood support. 

The final three Zoom meetings provided equal time to discuss each of the segments of the corridor, as if each one faced the same number and intensity of issues. Yet only the lower segment (McGee to Gilman) is fraught with major planning difficulties and conflicts between all the involved constituents (bikers, pedestrians, drivers, merchants, residents). 

The discussion period was too short to address all the questions, and asking people to write to staff to re-ask them deprived the other participants of hearing the answers. Moreover, many have complained that, though they followed through by contacting staff, their questions were never answered. 

While removal of parking is certainly not the only issue for the merchants and residents of the lower portion of the corridor, it is nevertheless, a concern. 

Staff has yet to answer the question of how many parking spots will be lost (by our count, it is a minimum of 35); nor has it suggested what residents who use those spots are supposed to do as an alternative. The summary of the advantages of the design concepts says that most parking spots in front of the commercial block are retained, as if Monterey Market is not part of the commercial area. All parking spots on both sides of Hopkins north of Monterey Market are eliminated. 

In addition, all parking spots are eliminated from both sides of Hopkins the rest of the way down to Gilman. We were told that there were only three residences that didn’t have off-street parking on all of Hopkins, even though we know that one apartment building alone (at the corner of Hopkins and Hopkins Ct.) has 8 units and NO off-street parking at all. 

There are many other apartments and condos on Hopkins, some having less than one parking spot per unit and none having more. Some of those apartments have two and three bedrooms and likely house more than one adult, leading to the possibility that they are multiple vehicle households. Where was the consideration of this in the staff report? 

There is just too much misinformation and missing information for anyone to be able to make an informed decision about the appropriateness of this plan. It simply isn’t ready for prime time yet, so we are asking that at the upcoming council meeting you again request that the project be slowed down. 

The city has no data to indicate that Hopkins is or ever will be a major bike route. 

The major thrust seems to be due to its having been included in the Vision Zero plan, along with its having been designated as a corridor in the Berkeley Bike Plan. But, despite assertions to the contrary, it’s only because of an exceedingly loose definition that it can be classified as an area with a high rate of serious accidents. 

We can find no supporting documentation in any of the studies submitted by staff that actually shows the number of serious and fatal bicycle accidents the city claims. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary in the Transportation Information Mapping System (TIMS) information provided. 

There is no analysis by staff of whether bike lanes would have had any effect in preventing the few accidents that did occur, and the one fatality, which occurred at the Monterey/Hopkins intersection, was of a pedestrian and did not include a bicycle at all. This supports our claim that the major need on Hopkins is a rework of that intersection, with an emphasis on pedestrian safety first and foremost. 

Hopkins is a major car route and pedestrian area, and it has the exact same needs as other residential areas, plus additional needs because of its commercial area. Changes should not be made to the exclusive detriment of those two constituencies.  

We are including the results of our bike count, taken April 5-7, which mimics the counts taken each fall on other intersections in the city. You will be able to see from that what a busy pedestrian area this area is, and how it is one of the lowest bicycle usage areas measured in the city. 

We want to reiterate that residents are not opposed to changes to the corridor. But we want them to actually reflect the needs of the people who live here and shop here, and not just the needs of a few people who pass through the area during a few short hours a day, or the perceived needs of others who are singularly focused on one thing. 

Our recommendations: 

Repave the road as scheduled. 

Add the obvious amenities (new striping, stop signs, handicap parking, etc.). 

Postpone other enhancements until it is clear that they are needed and will do more good than harm. 

Thank you.