Features

Something important was missing from the recent exchange in the Daily Planet’s letters section about Office of Transportation Director Peter Hillier’s untimely departure from the Thousand Oaks Neighborhood Association’s Feb. 24 meeting on traffic and parking—namely, the “pointed questions,” as letter-writer Jerry Landis put it, that moved Mr. Hillier to declare that he had “been insulted” and to walk out.  

I was the one who posed those questions, as president of TONA and moderator of the meeting. They all dealt with the changes to Marin Avenue that the City Council approved on Jan. 25. In the name of improved safety, pedestrian islands and two through auto lanes on Marin are to be replaced by a center-lefthand turn lane and two bicycle lanes.  

Here’s what I asked:  

1. Why weren’t north Berkeley residents consulted when this project was being planned?  

The project had a public hearing at the Transportation Commission Oct. 21, the same night as TONA’s candidates forum. I called transportation staffer Heath Maddox to ask that the hearing be continued to the commission’s next meeting and followed up my call with an e-mail making the same request. To my knowledge, the e-mail was not forwarded to the commission, which on Oct. 21 unanimously approved the project.  

I’d also objected to Mr. Maddox about the lack of prior consultation with affected residents. He said that there’d been ample public input when the Berkeley Bicycle Plan had been formulated. I have since discovered that the Bicycle Plan itself says that “[w]hen planning for a specific bikeway begins, neighboring businesses and residents will be contacted to solicit their input. Public workshops will be held to gather input from the public at large.” No such workshops were held in connection with the Marin reconfiguration. Why not?  

2. Why does a project ostensibly devoted to pedestrian safety call for removing pedestrian islands?  

The Jan. 25 staff report to the City Council, signed by Mr. Hillier, asserts that “the overall benefits of the project outweigh the benefits of these islands at an intersection [Marin and Colusa] where pedestrian safety is already enhanced by the traffic signals themselves. Furthermore, the crossing distance across Marin Avenue at this intersection will remain shorter than normal because of the right-turn islands on the southeast and northwest corners.”  

I’m not persuaded that the remaining, right-turn islands shorten the distance across Marin at Colusa. To my eye, the edges of those islands are about even with the edges of the sidewalk curb. Moreover, in the hundreds if not thousands of times in the past fifteen years that I’ve crossed this intersection, I’ve often stepped up onto the median island because I couldn’t get across the street on a single green light. Without that raised concrete refuge, the trip will seem and, I believe, actually be, less safe.  

In a Jan. 4 letter to the City Council, pedestrian advocate Wendy Alfsen wrote: “The Marin modification would seem more helpful to pedestrians if one or two intersections were improved, possibly by the addition of sidewalk extensions and mid-crossing protected refuges.” Why wasn’t this alternative pursued?  

3. Why was the Albany police enforcement of “pedestrian violations” cited as evidence that law enforcement can’t reduce speeds on Marin?  

It’s generally agreed that people drive too fast on Marin. So why not try reducing speeds by ticketing speeders? According to city staff, that’s exactly what the Albany police attempted for the better part of a year, and it didn’t work. The Dec. 14 staff report to the council states: “A nine-month program of targeted enforcement on Marin Avenue in Albany yielded a .4 mph reduction in speeds, leading the Albany chief of police to recommend an engineering solution.”  

In December, I began to wonder exactly how many speeders the Albany police had ticketed. When I asked Mr. Maddox for this and other specifics, he referred me to Albany Transportation Planner Cherry Chaircharn. She didn’t have any details either. But she queried the Albany police and within a few days sent me an e-mail stating among other things that the motorists cited by the police were drivers who had failed to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.  

“Pedestrian violation enforcement,” as it’s called, is a good thing. But it’s different from ticketing speeders, and it shouldn’t have been cited by city staff to discredit speed violation enforcement on Marin. Why was it?  

4. What was the actual cause of the pedestrian fatality last summer?  

On June 2, 2004, on Marin at Modoc, a 73-year-old man was struck by a westbound vehicle in the median lane while crossing Marin southbound in the crosswalk on the east side of Modoc. He died in the hospital a week and a half later.  

Supporters of the Marin project repeatedly invoked this very sad event to demonstrate the street’s danger to pedestrians and to argue for eliminating two of its through auto lanes. On Jan. 25, Mr. Hillier told the council that “[the June 2 incident] happened to be a case where the two lanes of through movement were the primary cause of the fatality.”  

But in a memo to the Transportation Commission dated July 10, 2004, Mr. Hillier wrote: “The elderly man ran into the road….According to witnesses, [he] did not look to see the traffic approaching while crossing the street.” Mr. Hillier added: “The Berkeley Police Department did not charge the driver in this incident, noting that the pedestrian’s actions were the primary cause of the collision.”  

These two accounts appear to contradict each other. Which is accurate? If it’s the latter, why didn’t staff make that clear to the council?  

Until these and other questions about the Marin changes are answered, public doubts about the project and the officials who orchestrated and okayed it will persist.  

Zelda Bronstein is president of the Thousand Oaks Neighborhood Association. The views expressed here are her own.  

o