Public Comment

On Monday evening, Dec. 12, there was another Berkeley community meeting on the topic of the Hopkins Corridor. This time it was about lower Hopkins, from the Gilman split to San Pablo. But it was actually the same community meeting that we have been subjected to over and over: staff lets us know what it has decided to do, then pretends to want to hear what we think of it. Well, this time we told them, in no uncertain terms.

The background to this issue is long and a bit complicated. But suffice it to say, it is about taking an area that has been called charming and a treasured jewel of the city by just about every fawning politician, and turning it into the nightmare that is Milvia or Telegraph Ave. It would place a two-way cycle track on Hopkins, from near its top to near its bottom, through that treasured jewel of a commercial area just east of Sacramento St., where Monterey Market, Berkeley Hort, Magnani’s, and a host of other shops are located, down to another popular area at San Pablo, where Acme Bread, Kermit Lynch Wines, and Animal Farm pet store are trying to run their businesses.

And in the process, it removes almost all of the parking that currently serves those businesses, the local residents, and the vast number of people who bring their money from other cities to spend it in Berkeley. 

At the meeting, Farid Javandel, Berkeley’s Transportation Director, presented three possible scenarios for Hopkins below Gilman, which would require removal of anywhere from 13 parking spots (for a one block extension of the cycle track) to 155 spots (if it were extended almost all the way to San Pablo Ave.). He then took a survey and found that 52% of the people voting preferred a fourth option: No Change. And this was despite the fact that Walk/Bike Berkeley, the force behind the bike plan, had turned out large numbers of its members. 

(It’s pretty easy to tell who the Walk/Bike Berkeley people are. They like to say that everything about plans they favor are no brainers. We watched Javandel’s face fall when the results of the survey were announced. He looked deflated.) 

After the initial presentation, Javandel started taking questions/comments from the participants. There was one about the volume of traffic on Hopkins, which he said was about 4500 cars/day, well within the capacity of the street. The implication was that Lower Hopkins is not an overburdened street. He then made a perplexing comment, saying that this proposal was not about quantity, it was about quality. Not about the quantity of the cars, but about the quality of the bike ride? Who knows, but certainly local residents didn’t see it that way. 

Someone asked if it would be possible to put in temporary bike lanes to test out how they would actually affect traffic and parking in the area. One had to wonder why the city didn’t think of that. Javandel said it would be possible, but he didn’t seem very enthusiastic about it. 

There was a lot of discussion about how many things were yet to be considered, but the timeline for review Javandel outlined was for only one more meeting (with the Transportation and Infrastructure Commission on January 19) before the matter would be referred to the city council as an action item for a vote on January 31. 

There were some humorous moments, too, like when Javandel said that the survey results from the beginning of the meeting weren't really meaningful (they were just advisory about issues); that e-bikes would be allowed in the cycle track, with a speed limit of 20 mph, which might be lowered to 10 mph; and that the city has been in discussions with the fire department about the effect on Hopkins - a designated evacuation route in the city - but hasn't received a final sign-off on the plan yet. 

But to me, the most tickling moments came when Cal students announced that they were taking time out from their finals to participate because it was just too scary and dangerous to ride on lower Hopkins. I found it humorous because we have septua- and octogenarians in our group who ride there regularly with no problem at all. I got another good chuckle when the students said that, if only there were good bike lanes, they'd travel all the way over to Hopkins to shop (as opposed to going to the many great coffee and other shops around campus, to Berkeley Bowl, or to any grocery store that sells Acme bread, etc.). These are some of the same people Javandel had told us earlier were not likely to use bike lanes because they slow them down. 

So what was the takeaway? That this issue is as controversial today as it was when it started on upper Hopkins more than two years ago. With the enormous amount of opposition expressed - not whining opposition, but fact-based opposition coming from the elderly, the disabled, the merchants, avid cyclists, recreational cyclists, shoppers, people who have studied these issues, people who have served on relevant city commissions, people who have no alternative but to drive to the area, residents who have no alternative to parking in the area - it will be clear what disdain the city has for its residents if it doesn't hit the pause button on these 'improvements' until it seriously evaluates the many objections that have been raised and alternatives that have been suggested. The city will claim that alternatives aren't possible because of cost, all while throwing away $100K for the parking confirmation bias study that just occurred on upper Hopkins. 

Walk/Bike Berkeley has made this an ideological fight, and it has waged a single-minded war against cars. I do not fault it for that. It is an advocacy/lobbying group, and that's what lobbyists do. But the council should recognize that and acknowledge that this is also a quality-of-life fight. It can't be that our aim is to save cyclists and biking children exclusively, while throwing other, legally protected, groups that also make up our citizenry under the cycle track. We need to strike a balance. Give the idea of a bypass around the eastern commercial district an honest consideration, even if it means elimination of the two-way cycle track so desperately wanted by the bike lobby. 

With or without bike lanes, Hopkins Street needs to be repaved. There is a case to be made for splitting the repaving work from the biking infrastructure work. There has been no input from the Commissions on Aging, Disabilities, or Economic Development, for starters. Javandel has admitted that the timing of the studies that were undertaken in late November and early December were not ideal, and we have evidence that they were so poorly designed as to be useless anyway. All this hurry up is to meet a deadline for repaving. The risk of a bad plan is, at best, that it doesn't accomplish its stated purpose, and at worst, that it makes things worse than before. Our transportation department has ample evidence of this in the number of redo's that have been necessary in the last few years. It's expensive and it's dangerous to get it wrong. And there is plenty to point to in this plan that is likely to turn out wrong. 

So where do residents go from here? We go on the offensive and show the city that we mean business. We have formed a group, the Friends of Hopkins Street, and its website (FriendsofHopkins.org) is close to going active. 

We consulted with a lawyer, not for litigation purposes, but to get guidance on our legal position. She will be able to keep us focused on the most important aspects of our arguments and potentially intervene on our behalf, if needed. 

Our publicity campaign is gearing up, and we are preparing to set an example for any other small neighborhood in the city that feels it is being ramrodded by ideologues. We’d much rather be spending our time working with the city and Walk/Bike Berkeley to accomplish the goals of equity, safer streets for everyone, and better passageways for cyclists, but we have never been offered a seat at the table. You can be assured that we’re not going to be pushed out of the way, as if our concerns are of no consequence. We want to protect our small area from turning into Milvia (which some cyclists say they love, many say they hate, and is reviled by everyone else) or any one of the other streets that are no longer inviting or navigable, much less charming, treasured jewels.