So many falsehoods here (in addition to the one you just corrected). For starters, re "[EE] prohibits any expansion of the city’s 7 bicycle boulevards, allocates little to pedestrian improvements" -- absolutely false. Show me where there is any prohibition on cycle tracks in EE. What EE does is require that we study the new cycle tracks that have gone in before we build more -- there has been none of that, so unfortunately we have no baselines to measure usage or safety. This suggests that these tracks are something of an ideological project. Cycle track backers seem very afraid of studying these things.
Re "three-fourths of Berkeley residents do not drive their cars to work" -- maybe, but less than four percent commute by bike, according to the U.S. Census American Community Survey. Yet, FF would spend up to $100 million on cycle tracks and NOT fix all of our sidewalks, which pose tripping hazards to everyone and create barriers for the disabled. Here are the figures on the sidewalk allocations of both measures from the same city report that you referenced:
FF = $ 1,971,981 per year (See table 3)
EE = $ 2,933,291 per year (See table 6)
EE is for everyone, especially pedestrians. FF is for the relatively few cyclists.
According to American Community Survey 2023 report: 6% of the city commutes by bike yet, only 1.3% of Berkeley streets are designated for cyclists to ride on. And as I noted up there, this is a circular argument. You don't fund safe routes for cyclists so that people like me don't bike, and then cite lack of cycling as evidence that we don't need to invest in cycling.
The sidewalk allocations are good, but nobody's being killed by crappy sidewalks. The cause of pedestrian injuries and deaths in Berkeley are at street crosswalks, the lack of them, or near curbs, hence "Vision Zero" [traffic-related deaths].
Measure EE allocates $1.1 mil. to only "high priority" pedestrian danger zones.
Measure FF allocates $ 3.9 mil. to street safety improvements, like the kind Measure EE is currently ridiculing in flyers.
Measure EE's campaign put this flyer out: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaJKjjUb0AMHYu3?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 championing the now dangerous Rose Street and highlighting an unmarked crosswalk where pedestrians now risk being hit as ideal. Then it ridicules the Hopkins / Alameda curb bumpers that put an end to this intersection being among the most dangerous in the city with four people and a cyclist hit.
This will be my last one. (1) Berkeley has an extensive bicycle boulevard network - quiet, safe, effective. EE would invest in improving it. Plenty of cyclists support EE because they strongly prefer it to the cycle troughs (oops, tracks). (2) Please talk to the disability community about how the condition of the sidewalks affects their daily lives and their safety (though plenty of able-bodied people have suffered serious injuries), and how the cycle tracks make that worse. Does anyone care? Also please check Oaklandside to read about the two people that became paralyzed by bad street pavement and settled with the City of Oakland for $6.5M each. Many peds and cyclists have filed claims against Berkeley for injuries on bad pavement.
I do care about sidewalks being accessible for people with disabilities and as you noted both measures fund sidewalks. But people with disabilities also cross the street and that is what Measure FF funds a lot more of. I'm unaware of any group representing people with disabilities clamoring for removing safety improvements in the last few years.
Love that old dude's dapper outfit in the bottom right.
I feel like there needs to be some ways to make walking and biking "cool" and driving "uncool" to the mass public. I don't know what those ways are, though. It's very healthy to walk and bike, maybe there's something there.
So many falsehoods here (in addition to the one you just corrected). For starters, re "[EE] prohibits any expansion of the city’s 7 bicycle boulevards, allocates little to pedestrian improvements" -- absolutely false. Show me where there is any prohibition on cycle tracks in EE. What EE does is require that we study the new cycle tracks that have gone in before we build more -- there has been none of that, so unfortunately we have no baselines to measure usage or safety. This suggests that these tracks are something of an ideological project. Cycle track backers seem very afraid of studying these things.
Re "three-fourths of Berkeley residents do not drive their cars to work" -- maybe, but less than four percent commute by bike, according to the U.S. Census American Community Survey. Yet, FF would spend up to $100 million on cycle tracks and NOT fix all of our sidewalks, which pose tripping hazards to everyone and create barriers for the disabled. Here are the figures on the sidewalk allocations of both measures from the same city report that you referenced:
FF = $ 1,971,981 per year (See table 3)
EE = $ 2,933,291 per year (See table 6)
EE is for everyone, especially pedestrians. FF is for the relatively few cyclists.
More at FixBerkeleyStreets.com. Full disclosure: I am on the steering committee.
According to American Community Survey 2023 report: 6% of the city commutes by bike yet, only 1.3% of Berkeley streets are designated for cyclists to ride on. And as I noted up there, this is a circular argument. You don't fund safe routes for cyclists so that people like me don't bike, and then cite lack of cycling as evidence that we don't need to invest in cycling.
The sidewalk allocations are good, but nobody's being killed by crappy sidewalks. The cause of pedestrian injuries and deaths in Berkeley are at street crosswalks, the lack of them, or near curbs, hence "Vision Zero" [traffic-related deaths].
Measure EE allocates $1.1 mil. to only "high priority" pedestrian danger zones.
Measure FF allocates $ 3.9 mil. to street safety improvements, like the kind Measure EE is currently ridiculing in flyers.
Measure EE's campaign put this flyer out: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GaJKjjUb0AMHYu3?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 championing the now dangerous Rose Street and highlighting an unmarked crosswalk where pedestrians now risk being hit as ideal. Then it ridicules the Hopkins / Alameda curb bumpers that put an end to this intersection being among the most dangerous in the city with four people and a cyclist hit.
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2017/06/22/berkeley-makes-safety-improvements-alameda-hopkins-intersection
And that's why the city's report concludes: "However, even considering these allocations,
[Measure FF] Initiative would still result in more overall funding for Vision Zero
Action Plan implementation and related safety plans"
This will be my last one. (1) Berkeley has an extensive bicycle boulevard network - quiet, safe, effective. EE would invest in improving it. Plenty of cyclists support EE because they strongly prefer it to the cycle troughs (oops, tracks). (2) Please talk to the disability community about how the condition of the sidewalks affects their daily lives and their safety (though plenty of able-bodied people have suffered serious injuries), and how the cycle tracks make that worse. Does anyone care? Also please check Oaklandside to read about the two people that became paralyzed by bad street pavement and settled with the City of Oakland for $6.5M each. Many peds and cyclists have filed claims against Berkeley for injuries on bad pavement.
I appreciate your comments.
I do care about sidewalks being accessible for people with disabilities and as you noted both measures fund sidewalks. But people with disabilities also cross the street and that is what Measure FF funds a lot more of. I'm unaware of any group representing people with disabilities clamoring for removing safety improvements in the last few years.
Love that old dude's dapper outfit in the bottom right.
I feel like there needs to be some ways to make walking and biking "cool" and driving "uncool" to the mass public. I don't know what those ways are, though. It's very healthy to walk and bike, maybe there's something there.