S13 21-0454 Subject: Improvements To Telegraph Avenue From 20th Street To 29th Street
From: Transportation Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution To Modify Telegraph Avenue From 20th Street To 29th Street With Enhanced Buffered Bike Lanes With Curb Management And To Adopt California Environmental Quality Act Findings
I strongly support the return to buffered bike lanes. I prefer to ride at a moderate pace around 15 mph or so. However in the dedicated curbside bike lane, I would need to ride slowly, with heighten alert approaching intersections with short range visibility of cross traffic. It had been an annoyance having to navigate debris, and with particular attention to avoiding the inevitable spots of broken glass shards. These hazard spots are beyond the reach of street sweeping trucks, and tend to persist neglected. This is why I instead always ride in the vehicle traffic lane, at around 20 mph, which is sustainable for less than the mile duration between my residence street Sycamore and Grand Ave.
I strongly oppose removing the protected bike lanes. I shop and commute along telegraph and will use a car, the bus, or my bike to get there. Replacing the protected bike lanes with buffered will make it more chaotic and dangerous regardless of your method of transportation. The buffered lanes will inevitably be used for double parking (just look at telegraph below 20th) and when they aren't they will allow for driving at dangerous speeds that gets people killed. Please improve the protected bike lanes, don't regress to a design everyone knows will fail.
As someone who cycles to work and has been hit by cars twice, please keep the bike lanes protected. A buffered bike lane still allows cars to pull into the lane. The name on this agenda item and the organizing against this motion by Oakland First Fridays have been misleading. Buffered bike lanes are not as safe as protected bike lanes. If oakland wants to be a leader on the fight against climate change and be a walkable / active transit oriented city, the protected bike lane should remain.
I support having buffered bike lanes on Telegraph. I support keeping cyclist safe. Why not direct cyclists to streets with less traffic and congestion and keep everyone safe?
Respecting the sentiments and perspective from experienced cyclists that feel endangered when commuting on buffered lanes, my wish is for Oakland to envision a solution that can bring the city into the 22nd Century and set an example for cities around the world... retractable curbs. This vision would allow the KONO district to resume their festivities, such as First Fridays, in an effort to fortify & foster a safer and closer knit commUNITY.
I live on 25th street, right off Telegraph, and support the buffered bike lines. The current arrangement seems confusing to everyone except cyclists, and cyclists still have to deal with cars pulling into the bike lane (I do cycle regularly). Which still happens regularly. I don't own a car, but when I do use a car share, I tend to avoid having to turn onto Telegraph from my street, because it is difficult to see oncoming traffic without blocking the bike lane and or pedestrians. I also love First Friday and would hate to see that negatively impacted by emplaced concrete or further hardening of the bollards -- which are really ugly.
As a long time bicycle commuter, I've been regularly cycling on Telegraph Ave. for 21 years for transportation and shopping. I never had an issue riding Telegraph Ave. until the separated cycleway went in. Due to the poor sight lines it has created, I had several near miss incidents with motorists turning right into driveways or narrow cross streets which required me to slam on my brakes to avoid colliding with them. I also find the protected cycleway is too narrow to safely pass other cyclists and it tends to collect debris. It also prevents me from making a left turn to get to a business across the street due to the wall of parked vehicles to my left.
As a result of these issues I now legally ride in the traffic lane on Telegraph Ave. which slows down motorists behind me and can upset them resulting in honking or yelling at me from time to time. Thus I request the City Council vote to remove the protected cycleway and replace it with buffered bike lanes. For further information on the safety issues the protected cycleway on Telegraph has created, I urge all City Council members to view this video before voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7obAT9LxQM
I am a cyclist from Columbus, Ohio who would like to comment on the proposal to convert Telegraph Ave from a "protected" (formal name separated) bike lane to a buffered bike lane. I have ridden in Oakland only once when my brother and I were bicycling from SF to Seattle. I would like to share my analysis of a separated bike lane to support my concern about the safety of separated bike lanes. Ours is a 2-way separated bike lane on the right side of a 1-way street. We experience right hooks, right crosses, drive outs and drive acrosses (from the opposite side). I expect that yours also experiences left crosses. My analysis lists the crash report narratives in the 5 years since our bike lane was constructed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nipFKhMJeGlMblxDTybx9Ly-c3r0Icc5/view?usp=sharing
I write to the council to strongly oppose this motion. This action is a step backwards and deprives Oaklanders who bike and walk of safe travel through an important inter-neighborhood corridor. OakDOT has an approved, environmentally cleared and funded permanent curb protected bike lane project which should be what we are approving today instead of this proposal.
I remember the old bike lanes on Telegraph and how I feared for my life every time I biked in them. I remember the rampant double parking, and the dangers of cars crossing over the line either for parking or generally weaving all over the road. I also know how much more safe I feel now biking on the protected lane, which is the only reason I go to Telegraph for shopping and groceries and nightlife.
I have been hit by cars 8 times in my life, 5 times as a cyclist, 4 times in "Buffered" or "Regular" bike lanes. To remove a safe convenient and essential protected corridor from Oaklanders who go by bike is insulting to every Oaklander who has suffered traffic violence. The proposal before council can only be called transportation malpractice and endangers the lives of those of us who depend on our bikes to get around.
I strongly oppose this proposal and ask the council to recommit Oakland to the approved, funded and environmentally cleared protected bike lanes. Protected bike lanes must be maintained on Telegraph.
I am in support of the protected bike lanes. I frequently bike on Telegraph and feel unsafe on parts of the road that do not have a clear bike lane. From someone who has been hit by a car in the East Bay, the blocked bike lane make me feel a lot safer and allow for a nice ride and safer commute to and from work. It would be a backwards step to spend money on removing something that works when the money could go to make other improvements. I believe that the City Council should vote to keep the concrete-protected bike lanes on Telegraph. Keep our streets and families safe!
Please approve the recommendation by OakDOT to replace the parking separated bike lanes with buffered bike lanes. The current design is dangerous. Consider actual safety data in your decision and not conjecture. Bicycle and pedestrian collision data from 2017 to 2020 shows that the Telegraph/KONO corridor has the highest per mile bike and ped collision rates relative to other commercial bike and ped corridors in north Oakland, over 2.5 times more dangerous. Telegraph/KONO is 3 times more dangerous for bicyclists and almost 4 times more dangerous for pedestrians compared to Telegraph from 30th Street to Alcatraz – this is a serious equity issue. The statement that the parking separated bike lanes are a safe alternative is false and not based on fact. The collision data are here: https://tims.berkeley.edu/. In 2017, Telegraph from 16th Street to 29th Street accounted for 43% of all parking violations on bikeways in the entire city. Those data are here: https://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=8b9340cb451d44048f765a61e4edd303. Significant parking issues with buffered bike lanes is a contrived issue and not based on fact. Do not memorialize a dangerous design in concrete. Improve visibility and safety for bikes. Repurpose the concrete to create curb bulb outs to improve safety for peds at intersections/crossings. Provide direct access to the curb for persons with disabilities. Design the safety improvements for the most vulnerable of users - pedestrians.
Yes, I am a board member at Bike East Bay and frequent Oakland visitor commenting solely on my own behalf. I biked from downtown to Temescal Brewing last week. Although I am an extremely confident cyclist, I felt much more calm in the protected lanes. Just because I can take the lane doesn't mean I want to any more. Plus, the traffic and bus noise reduction made the ride much more pleasant. The only visibility problems I had were when people parked in the no parking zones that would be fixed by adding concrete.
I believe that the protected bike lanes are best. I have read the staff report and understand the perspective, but it still glosses over some concerns. The idea that bike riders can easily go around vehicles parked in 11' buffered bike lanes is too easy of a hand-wave for that problem. The driveway visibility could be further mitigated in the far future by creating raised bike lanes so vehicles would be turning even more slowly. Speeding will likely creep up with one lane in the buffered option due to perceived street width.
I know that comfort and safety are different things. But comfortable facilities bring more bike riders, and more bike riders means more safety because people see bike riders and look out for them. Making a consistently protected bike lane would encourage even more people to bike than do so now - the fact that the protected bike lanes just stop and start is frankly ridiculous.
I support safer protected bike lanes. I find the name of this agenda item quite misleading because implementing enhanced buffer bike lanes sounds safer but is actually removing the barriers we have in place to just paint instead of adding new barriers. We're supposed to be increasing protection for cyclists on this lane and I don't know why we're going backwards on this. I want Oakland to be a walkable, bikeable community that's equitable, safe, and accessible for everyone. I moved here from Texas because I love how accessible Oakland is in comparison. It feels like a better community for everyone with or without cars. I want to bike more often, but I don't feel safe doing so, and am constantly worried about cyclists when I drive. Adding more barriers would give me peace of mind as a driver and feel better about our inclusion as a community and progressive infrastructure for the environment.
I live in West Oakland (D3) and I regularly bike along Telegraph for shopping, dining, and medical appointments. I enjoy the protected bike lanes in KONO and feel far less safe below 20th and above 30th where there is no physical protection, only paint.
Today I write to support keeping and upgrading the PROTECTED bike lanes. As someone who almost exclusively bikes for transportation, the more physical protection people on bikes can have from cars, the better.
Reckless driving and car crashes are rampant and unchecked around the town; Oakland can't afford to go backwards on safety.
79 percent of bicyclists, and 63 percent of pedestrians surveyed now feel safer on Telegraph. Data shows they actually are safer, too. Since the protected lanes went in, biking and walking has doubled in this area with incidents and injuries flat. Also, there have been zero pedestrian collisions for the first time in five years since the protected configuration was installed.
Going backwards to paint-only “buffered” bike lanes will result in more blocked bike lanes and expensive, inequitable police enforcement.
The permanent, upgraded, concrete protected configuration is fully grant funded and ready to go. Going backwards would be irresponsible and a poor steward of our tax dollars and city staff time.
I urge City Council to vote for the concrete-protected bike lanes on Telegraph in KONO. Move Oakland forward, keep the grant funding, and connect communities with safe and comfortable bikeways.
I am a local FREQUENT biker up and down telegraph specifically and I honestly know that if have safer Update bike lanes that thing would be much for my family and other families EXSPECIALLY us with small children. I too know that will even give others the confidence for riding down this what can get " crazy" area. I love Oakland and the culture. I would like to just see great things like bike lanes improved instead of removed and it's for betterment of the community and EXSPECIALLY the bike community!
I oppose the plan to move back to buffered bike lanes. I live in West Oakland and frequently bike up Telegraph to access food, bars, and groceries in uptown and temescal. With the new bike lanes, I find that cars go significantly slower and I feel much safer. I've also observed more people biking on a day-to-day basis. We should not be wasting city resources re-litigating a massive safety improvement. We should instead double down on the street safety we've created and expand it to other places in the community!
Please do not support this resolution. We need protected bike lanes throughout the city. The problems cited in the resolution are not due to the protected bike lanes; they are due to poor driver behavior and the design flaws of the temporary bollard system. I urge you to keep the protected bike lanes, make them permanent, and improve them. They make me and other bicyclists feel much safer and should become the standard for major thoroughfares.
I am a bike commuter and I ride through this stretch of Telegraph daily. The improvements that have been made on Telegraph have made me feel safer and made this area more pleasant for pedestrians generally. It is dangerous to allows bikers and cars access to the same streets without adequate protection for bikers. Eliminating protections for bikers is a move in the wrong direction.
The proposed buffered lanes do nothing to protect bikers. In my experience, if cars have access to bike lanes they will use the bike lanes. They park in them, swerve in them and pay no respect to the vulnerability of the bikers in them.
Additionally, physically protecting bikers and cars is the best way to induce more biking, which is a necessary means of meeting our climate change goals by reducing our vehicle miles travelled.
I'm an Oakland-born Berkeley resident and regular cyclist through this area and I strongly oppose the removal of the protected lanes. I worked on Telegraph at Aunt Mary's for a while before the protected bike lanes were put in and at that time I often drove a car to work because biking didn't feel safe. The new protected bike lanes make me feel safe biking down Telegraph in a way I never did before, and they should remain in place. Knowing that I won't get killed by a driver opening their door into the bike lane is such a relief.
Protected bike lanes also encourage new and less confident cyclists to ride more and further, which is an important step towards promoting this green and healthy form of transport and creating a more diverse community of cyclists. Being able to bike downtown to have dinner with my sister or to meet with a friend is so much more enjoyable now, and I've loved seeing the ways different businesses have adapted, putting outdoor seating in the parking areas and so on, and I'm sure First Friday vendors will also be able to do this.
With education and clear signage, drivers can and will learn to adapt to these as they have elsewhere in the world. The heat waves and fires that we've been experiencing make it clear that cars cannot be the future (if we want a long future), and removing critical bicycle infrastructure would be an absurd step backwards.
I strongly support the return to buffered bike lanes. I prefer to ride at a moderate pace around 15 mph or so. However in the dedicated curbside bike lane, I would need to ride slowly, with heighten alert approaching intersections with short range visibility of cross traffic. It had been an annoyance having to navigate debris, and with particular attention to avoiding the inevitable spots of broken glass shards. These hazard spots are beyond the reach of street sweeping trucks, and tend to persist neglected. This is why I instead always ride in the vehicle traffic lane, at around 20 mph, which is sustainable for less than the mile duration between my residence street Sycamore and Grand Ave.
I strongly oppose removing the protected bike lanes. I shop and commute along telegraph and will use a car, the bus, or my bike to get there. Replacing the protected bike lanes with buffered will make it more chaotic and dangerous regardless of your method of transportation. The buffered lanes will inevitably be used for double parking (just look at telegraph below 20th) and when they aren't they will allow for driving at dangerous speeds that gets people killed. Please improve the protected bike lanes, don't regress to a design everyone knows will fail.
As someone who cycles to work and has been hit by cars twice, please keep the bike lanes protected. A buffered bike lane still allows cars to pull into the lane. The name on this agenda item and the organizing against this motion by Oakland First Fridays have been misleading. Buffered bike lanes are not as safe as protected bike lanes. If oakland wants to be a leader on the fight against climate change and be a walkable / active transit oriented city, the protected bike lane should remain.
I support having buffered bike lanes on Telegraph. I support keeping cyclist safe. Why not direct cyclists to streets with less traffic and congestion and keep everyone safe?
Respecting the sentiments and perspective from experienced cyclists that feel endangered when commuting on buffered lanes, my wish is for Oakland to envision a solution that can bring the city into the 22nd Century and set an example for cities around the world... retractable curbs. This vision would allow the KONO district to resume their festivities, such as First Fridays, in an effort to fortify & foster a safer and closer knit commUNITY.
I live on 25th street, right off Telegraph, and support the buffered bike lines. The current arrangement seems confusing to everyone except cyclists, and cyclists still have to deal with cars pulling into the bike lane (I do cycle regularly). Which still happens regularly. I don't own a car, but when I do use a car share, I tend to avoid having to turn onto Telegraph from my street, because it is difficult to see oncoming traffic without blocking the bike lane and or pedestrians. I also love First Friday and would hate to see that negatively impacted by emplaced concrete or further hardening of the bollards -- which are really ugly.
As a long time bicycle commuter, I've been regularly cycling on Telegraph Ave. for 21 years for transportation and shopping. I never had an issue riding Telegraph Ave. until the separated cycleway went in. Due to the poor sight lines it has created, I had several near miss incidents with motorists turning right into driveways or narrow cross streets which required me to slam on my brakes to avoid colliding with them. I also find the protected cycleway is too narrow to safely pass other cyclists and it tends to collect debris. It also prevents me from making a left turn to get to a business across the street due to the wall of parked vehicles to my left.
As a result of these issues I now legally ride in the traffic lane on Telegraph Ave. which slows down motorists behind me and can upset them resulting in honking or yelling at me from time to time. Thus I request the City Council vote to remove the protected cycleway and replace it with buffered bike lanes. For further information on the safety issues the protected cycleway on Telegraph has created, I urge all City Council members to view this video before voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7obAT9LxQM
I am a cyclist from Columbus, Ohio who would like to comment on the proposal to convert Telegraph Ave from a "protected" (formal name separated) bike lane to a buffered bike lane. I have ridden in Oakland only once when my brother and I were bicycling from SF to Seattle. I would like to share my analysis of a separated bike lane to support my concern about the safety of separated bike lanes. Ours is a 2-way separated bike lane on the right side of a 1-way street. We experience right hooks, right crosses, drive outs and drive acrosses (from the opposite side). I expect that yours also experiences left crosses. My analysis lists the crash report narratives in the 5 years since our bike lane was constructed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nipFKhMJeGlMblxDTybx9Ly-c3r0Icc5/view?usp=sharing
I write to the council to strongly oppose this motion. This action is a step backwards and deprives Oaklanders who bike and walk of safe travel through an important inter-neighborhood corridor. OakDOT has an approved, environmentally cleared and funded permanent curb protected bike lane project which should be what we are approving today instead of this proposal.
I remember the old bike lanes on Telegraph and how I feared for my life every time I biked in them. I remember the rampant double parking, and the dangers of cars crossing over the line either for parking or generally weaving all over the road. I also know how much more safe I feel now biking on the protected lane, which is the only reason I go to Telegraph for shopping and groceries and nightlife.
I have been hit by cars 8 times in my life, 5 times as a cyclist, 4 times in "Buffered" or "Regular" bike lanes. To remove a safe convenient and essential protected corridor from Oaklanders who go by bike is insulting to every Oaklander who has suffered traffic violence. The proposal before council can only be called transportation malpractice and endangers the lives of those of us who depend on our bikes to get around.
I strongly oppose this proposal and ask the council to recommit Oakland to the approved, funded and environmentally cleared protected bike lanes. Protected bike lanes must be maintained on Telegraph.
I am in support of the protected bike lanes. I frequently bike on Telegraph and feel unsafe on parts of the road that do not have a clear bike lane. From someone who has been hit by a car in the East Bay, the blocked bike lane make me feel a lot safer and allow for a nice ride and safer commute to and from work. It would be a backwards step to spend money on removing something that works when the money could go to make other improvements. I believe that the City Council should vote to keep the concrete-protected bike lanes on Telegraph. Keep our streets and families safe!
Please approve the recommendation by OakDOT to replace the parking separated bike lanes with buffered bike lanes. The current design is dangerous. Consider actual safety data in your decision and not conjecture. Bicycle and pedestrian collision data from 2017 to 2020 shows that the Telegraph/KONO corridor has the highest per mile bike and ped collision rates relative to other commercial bike and ped corridors in north Oakland, over 2.5 times more dangerous. Telegraph/KONO is 3 times more dangerous for bicyclists and almost 4 times more dangerous for pedestrians compared to Telegraph from 30th Street to Alcatraz – this is a serious equity issue. The statement that the parking separated bike lanes are a safe alternative is false and not based on fact. The collision data are here: https://tims.berkeley.edu/. In 2017, Telegraph from 16th Street to 29th Street accounted for 43% of all parking violations on bikeways in the entire city. Those data are here: https://oakgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=8b9340cb451d44048f765a61e4edd303. Significant parking issues with buffered bike lanes is a contrived issue and not based on fact. Do not memorialize a dangerous design in concrete. Improve visibility and safety for bikes. Repurpose the concrete to create curb bulb outs to improve safety for peds at intersections/crossings. Provide direct access to the curb for persons with disabilities. Design the safety improvements for the most vulnerable of users - pedestrians.
Yes, I am a board member at Bike East Bay and frequent Oakland visitor commenting solely on my own behalf. I biked from downtown to Temescal Brewing last week. Although I am an extremely confident cyclist, I felt much more calm in the protected lanes. Just because I can take the lane doesn't mean I want to any more. Plus, the traffic and bus noise reduction made the ride much more pleasant. The only visibility problems I had were when people parked in the no parking zones that would be fixed by adding concrete.
I believe that the protected bike lanes are best. I have read the staff report and understand the perspective, but it still glosses over some concerns. The idea that bike riders can easily go around vehicles parked in 11' buffered bike lanes is too easy of a hand-wave for that problem. The driveway visibility could be further mitigated in the far future by creating raised bike lanes so vehicles would be turning even more slowly. Speeding will likely creep up with one lane in the buffered option due to perceived street width.
I know that comfort and safety are different things. But comfortable facilities bring more bike riders, and more bike riders means more safety because people see bike riders and look out for them. Making a consistently protected bike lane would encourage even more people to bike than do so now - the fact that the protected bike lanes just stop and start is frankly ridiculous.
Please support consistent protected bike lanes.
I support safer protected bike lanes. I find the name of this agenda item quite misleading because implementing enhanced buffer bike lanes sounds safer but is actually removing the barriers we have in place to just paint instead of adding new barriers. We're supposed to be increasing protection for cyclists on this lane and I don't know why we're going backwards on this. I want Oakland to be a walkable, bikeable community that's equitable, safe, and accessible for everyone. I moved here from Texas because I love how accessible Oakland is in comparison. It feels like a better community for everyone with or without cars. I want to bike more often, but I don't feel safe doing so, and am constantly worried about cyclists when I drive. Adding more barriers would give me peace of mind as a driver and feel better about our inclusion as a community and progressive infrastructure for the environment.
I live in West Oakland (D3) and I regularly bike along Telegraph for shopping, dining, and medical appointments. I enjoy the protected bike lanes in KONO and feel far less safe below 20th and above 30th where there is no physical protection, only paint.
Today I write to support keeping and upgrading the PROTECTED bike lanes. As someone who almost exclusively bikes for transportation, the more physical protection people on bikes can have from cars, the better.
Reckless driving and car crashes are rampant and unchecked around the town; Oakland can't afford to go backwards on safety.
79 percent of bicyclists, and 63 percent of pedestrians surveyed now feel safer on Telegraph. Data shows they actually are safer, too. Since the protected lanes went in, biking and walking has doubled in this area with incidents and injuries flat. Also, there have been zero pedestrian collisions for the first time in five years since the protected configuration was installed.
Going backwards to paint-only “buffered” bike lanes will result in more blocked bike lanes and expensive, inequitable police enforcement.
The permanent, upgraded, concrete protected configuration is fully grant funded and ready to go. Going backwards would be irresponsible and a poor steward of our tax dollars and city staff time.
I urge City Council to vote for the concrete-protected bike lanes on Telegraph in KONO. Move Oakland forward, keep the grant funding, and connect communities with safe and comfortable bikeways.
I am a local FREQUENT biker up and down telegraph specifically and I honestly know that if have safer Update bike lanes that thing would be much for my family and other families EXSPECIALLY us with small children. I too know that will even give others the confidence for riding down this what can get " crazy" area. I love Oakland and the culture. I would like to just see great things like bike lanes improved instead of removed and it's for betterment of the community and EXSPECIALLY the bike community!
I oppose the plan to move back to buffered bike lanes. I live in West Oakland and frequently bike up Telegraph to access food, bars, and groceries in uptown and temescal. With the new bike lanes, I find that cars go significantly slower and I feel much safer. I've also observed more people biking on a day-to-day basis. We should not be wasting city resources re-litigating a massive safety improvement. We should instead double down on the street safety we've created and expand it to other places in the community!
I am in support of protected bike lanes
Please do not support this resolution. We need protected bike lanes throughout the city. The problems cited in the resolution are not due to the protected bike lanes; they are due to poor driver behavior and the design flaws of the temporary bollard system. I urge you to keep the protected bike lanes, make them permanent, and improve them. They make me and other bicyclists feel much safer and should become the standard for major thoroughfares.
I am a bike commuter and I ride through this stretch of Telegraph daily. The improvements that have been made on Telegraph have made me feel safer and made this area more pleasant for pedestrians generally. It is dangerous to allows bikers and cars access to the same streets without adequate protection for bikers. Eliminating protections for bikers is a move in the wrong direction.
The proposed buffered lanes do nothing to protect bikers. In my experience, if cars have access to bike lanes they will use the bike lanes. They park in them, swerve in them and pay no respect to the vulnerability of the bikers in them.
Additionally, physically protecting bikers and cars is the best way to induce more biking, which is a necessary means of meeting our climate change goals by reducing our vehicle miles travelled.
I'm an Oakland-born Berkeley resident and regular cyclist through this area and I strongly oppose the removal of the protected lanes. I worked on Telegraph at Aunt Mary's for a while before the protected bike lanes were put in and at that time I often drove a car to work because biking didn't feel safe. The new protected bike lanes make me feel safe biking down Telegraph in a way I never did before, and they should remain in place. Knowing that I won't get killed by a driver opening their door into the bike lane is such a relief.
Protected bike lanes also encourage new and less confident cyclists to ride more and further, which is an important step towards promoting this green and healthy form of transport and creating a more diverse community of cyclists. Being able to bike downtown to have dinner with my sister or to meet with a friend is so much more enjoyable now, and I've loved seeing the ways different businesses have adapted, putting outdoor seating in the parking areas and so on, and I'm sure First Friday vendors will also be able to do this.
With education and clear signage, drivers can and will learn to adapt to these as they have elsewhere in the world. The heat waves and fires that we've been experiencing make it clear that cars cannot be the future (if we want a long future), and removing critical bicycle infrastructure would be an absurd step backwards.