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 am a bike commuter who rides rain or shine, and while I’m comfortable riding with traffic, I much prefer protected bike lanes. I’m always grateful for physical barriers that force cars to keep a distance, especially in low-visibility situations. I can only imagine what the protection must feel like to those less experienced than me, and can’t imagine taking them away just when we want to encourage more people to get around by bike. Please reconsider this proposal; instead of going back to painted bike lanes, improve the protected lanes as originally planned.
I support the proposal to replace current “protected bike lanes” with “buffered lanes.” Anecdotal evidence and my own experience show the current protected lanes to be confusing and in some cases more dangerous, and they also negatively impact the Oakland First Fridays event, which is a vital part of a city that is struggling right now to hold on to a positive and inclusive sense of community.
Before shelter in place, I was commuting regularly to this area by bike. I look forward to doing so again soon. I’m deeply disappointed to learn about the proposal to remove the protected bike lanes, and strongly oppose it.
Protected bike lanes are much more welcoming and safer than painted bike lanes. They are the best way to keep vehicles out of the bike lanes. Relying on police enforcement to manage this is like relying on buckets to “fix” a leaky roof: it’s not an effective or safe long-term strategy, and it’s a poor use of resources. Reverting to buffered painted lanes would be one giant step backwards for safety.
It’s unfortunate and very frustrating that the full implementation has taken so long to complete. But even without completion, the vehicle speed reduction and pedestrian safety gains here have been impressive. I hope we can build on these successes by completing the funded upgrades and implementing the plans as originally envisioned.
I urge you to oppose this proposal, and instead, expedite the original plan.
I've lived in KONO for 10 years, and have been a driver, bicyclist, and pedestrian here throughout that time. The current configuration of the bike lanes is extremely unsafe for drivers, bicycles, and pedestrians. As a driver, visibility is completely lacking without pulling way out into the street, or having to start to round a corner just to be able look past the parked cars to see if a bicycle is coming. As a pedestrian you have to step out into the street past the parked cars to make sure drivers see you before crossing in the crosswalk. And upon reaching the other side of the street and another row of parked cars, you can't see bicyclists and they can't see you. And all you can do is pray that turning cars will see you. As a bicyclist, cars having to pull way out across the bike lane just to be able to see cross traffic isn't safe. Getting around the neighborhood is a harrowing act, no matter what mode of transportation you're using. Removal of the existing bike lanes is long overdue. Please install a safe alternative. Bike lanes are needed! Please make them safe for everyone!
I strongly oppose removing the protected bike lanes on Telegraph. I frequently bike up and down this corridor and occasionally drive on it as well. The old buffered lanes were extremely dangerous as cars constantly ran over the flimsy posts to park and even drive in the bike lane. The new design feels much safer as a cyclist, and I found traffic to be much calmer as a driver. That said, the current plan implementation certainly has its flaws. The reflective ballasts are a bit dizzying to look at while driving. However, the proposed plan of installing curbs in their place to permanently protect the bike lane will solve this issue. Why regress to a demonstrably more dangerous street design when there is already a funded plan to move forward safely? Doing so would not only endanger people's lives but also waste city resources that are badly needed for other priorities. KONO small businesses are struggling, and stripping away the bike lane will not solve their problems. The city needs to step in with a serious investment to help business owners deal with the very real problems of skyrocketing commercial rents, slow and unreasonably complex permitting processes, and an overall lack of business and financial support services.
I regularly drive, walk, and bike down Telegraph Avenue in KONO. I urge you to support the protected bike lanes on this stretch and to oppose regressing the design to buffered non-protected bike lanes. I regularly bikes this stretch and really love the way the protected bike lanes make me feel safer from cars parking, from buses stopping for passengers, and from cars parking in the bike lane. This design has proven to be much safer. I also appreciate the design as a driver and a pedestrian because it slows down car traffic, which I like. This design makes more people more likely to bike, which is a positive for the neighborhood and city. With any design, there are some flaws. Many of the issues have come from people parking their cars illegally blocking sight lines and creating traffic jams. The existing infrastructure of paint, cones, and previously plastic planters are not sufficient to stop drivers from parking illegally. The next phase of concrete curbs, which is fully funded and already approved, would address many of the existing issues with the design. Furthermore, in the KONO BID’s own survey, a majority of business owners supported the protected bike lanes and felt that they helped improve business. These bike lanes are popular and safer. I don’t understand why they are even up for debate. To change the design now would lose funding, increase costs for a redesign, increase staff time to gather community feedback, and be another sign of waste and regressive policies.
I support removing the bike lane. I witnessed multiple accidents between 25th street and the telegraph. Somehow lots of cars will drive in the bike lane and park in the bike lane. The traffic was heavier and slower after the current bike lane was built. Also, Oakland First Friday is such a symbol of Oakland; it helped lots of local businesses and artists. It embraces the culture of Oakland. With the new bike lane, I can hardly see the Oakland First Friday be there. Would you please bring back the vibrant event to Oakland.
I oppose the proposal to replace the protected bike lanes with buffered bike lanes. I bike regularly on Telegraph between Temescal and Uptown. Buffered bike lanes do not work. Protected bike lanes are empirically much safer and more effective. We need to get more people on bikes to solve the climate crisis, so we have to make it safe, and we have to do it now. I'm sick of cities like ours claiming to care about climate change, yet failing to take the tiniest steps to reduce transport emissions, even as we're staring down a historically bad fire season. I'm angry that rather than leading us forward, the city is forcing us to fight them not to go backward. I appreciate that local businesses need help right now, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that 16 months into COVID, protected bike lanes are the root of their problems. So let's give them real help, not pull out needed infrastructure and hope for the best. When it comes to protected bike lanes, improve them, don't remove them!
As someone who uses this stretch of Telegraph Ave as a cyclist and a driver, the protected bike lanes have resulted in a safer experience for me both when cycling and driving. There is room for improvement as cars still find a way to park in the protected bike lane from time to time, but overall it is a gigantic improvement.
I live at 24th and Telegraph. I completely support safe biking for our city, but our current set up is not working. No one seems to understand it, and the new cones make it even more confusing. Making turns is very difficult. And I truly think supporting a set up that facilitates our First Friday events is so important to our community. All small businesses are suffering from the current arrangement. Hope you will consider our comment.
I oppose removing the protected bike lanes. As someone who commutes by bike I regularly encounter cars parked in the bike lane. Rules haven’t been enforced in the past and there’s no reason to think that would actually change now. Removing these puts people at risk!
We live in small condo at corner of 24th /Telegraph. My wife gave up her bike when the dangerous protected lanes were installed. We both do a lot of walking in the neighborhood and these so-called “protected” lanes are a hazard to both pedestrians and car drivers who try to avoid hitting them.
As a pedestrian, before you step off curb you have to look leftward to see if bike or scooter is coming. Then you walk cautiously in front of parked car, peak around car to see if car is coming, look to right quickly to make sure a car didn’t make it self known and quickly cross street – but – need to remember to peak around the parked car before you cross the other buffered lane.
The vast majority of both pedestrians and drivers do not have experience with this unique method of handling bicycles, cars, and pedestrians. You have cars making their way to park against the curb-which is normal. That blocks bike lane.
Most intersections do not have traffic lights.
What makes this really horrible KONO district is that for over 10 years the district has sponsored an event called “First Friday” each month which draws 20,000 people, or more, to the various arts, restaurants, and other small businesses in the district. The ugly bollards that are in place that attempt to designate parking areas will prevent the street merchants from setting up their “stations”. This “First Friday” event has been written up nationally and attracts families from all over the area.
As a district 3 resident, I strongly support the removal of the “protected” bike lane. “Protected” is a misnomer. All the barriers and parked cars do is obstruct everyone’s vision, making it impossible to see oncoming cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians. While this protective barrier was well intentioned, it endangers the very cyclists it is meant to protect. The safest thing for the community is to remove the barriers and make sure everyone can see oncoming traffic in all directions.
As a resident of District 3 who regularly travels to KONO, I vehemently oppose OakDOT's proposal to remove the protected bike lanes. It’s frankly irresponsible of DOT to claim that painted bike lanes + curb management (whatever that means) is safer than actual, physical protected bike lanes. Paint on the street does not prevent cars from blocking bike lanes and creating serious safety hazards for cyclists. Physical infrastructure does.
OakDOT’s own study on the pilot project showed that protected bike lanes resulted in 40% reduction in collisions, 9% increase in retail sales, and decrease in speeding in both directions (45% southbound, and 27% northbound). Given these economic and safety benefits, there's no logical reason why we should be moving backwards on this proposal.
Some residents have pointed out issues with visibility. If that's the case, we should be addressing those issues by adjusting the design of the protected bike lanes, not by removing them altogether. We should move forward and create streets that are better and safer for EVERYONE. Building permanent, protected bike lanes on Telegraph is one small step toward that goal.
I strongly oppose the proposal for buffered bike lanes. I live in the area (Telegraph and 23rd) and I love First Fridays, but I'm also a pedestrian, bike rider and car owner, and we need to keep that curb lane for bikes. The current system isn't perfect, but it's much safer than useless buffered lanes.
I bike between Berkeley and Oakland via Telegraph all the time, and I strongly oppose the replacement of protected bike lanes with simple buffered bike lanes. There is ample evidence available that protected lanes are much safer than painted lines and that Telegraph has become safer for cyclists and pedestrians in the time the protections have been in place.
My question is why take a step backwards by removing the safety features entirely instead of improving upon them? I have read some of the concerns from OakDOT around the many intersections in this stretch of Telegraph and the challenges around visibility for drivers. Believe me, I have those concerns too as I bike in this area. While removing the existing protective features *may* somewhat improve visibility for drivers (although that is debatable, given that there would still be buffered lanes with cars parking here), it brings our community no closer to having a safe route to bike along Telegraph. If safety is the goal, why not restrict parking near intersections to improve intersection visibility? Why not add lights to or re-route some intersections? There is a lot that could be done by improving on the physical barriers/infrastructure in this stretch to reduce the interactions between cars and cyclists or pedestrians, recognizing this is a really important route for people traveling by any means of transportation through Oakland. Please oppose this resolution and rather focus on long-term safety improvements.
I live in District 3 and I strongly oppose the proposal to remove the protected bike lanes and replace with buffered bike lanes. I am an active transportation professional and there is no such thing as "enhanced" buffered bike lanes. There are also no curb management strategies that will prevent double-parking in the bike lanes or reduce conflict between people driving and people biking, as people driving will need to cross the bike lane to access and leave parking spots. The only possible option that might reduce double parking is increased enforcement of the corridor and this would require more police officers enforcing traffic violations, but I do not support increasing police presence in Oakland.
Please consider the future we want for Oakland. Bike lanes that make it safe for people of ALL ages and abilities to ride in Oakland are critical for the city to achieve our sustainability goals and fight the climate crisis we are in. Safe bike lanes are critical to ensure we see fewer drivers and more people biking.
Please OPPOSE this resolution to replace protected bike lanes with buffered bike lanes.
As a regular driver along this stretch of Telegraph I oppose removing the protected bike lanes.
I am a bike commuter who rides rain or shine, and while I’m comfortable riding with traffic, I much prefer protected bike lanes. I’m always grateful for physical barriers that force cars to keep a distance, especially in low-visibility situations. I can only imagine what the protection must feel like to those less experienced than me, and can’t imagine taking them away just when we want to encourage more people to get around by bike. Please reconsider this proposal; instead of going back to painted bike lanes, improve the protected lanes as originally planned.
I support the proposal to replace current “protected bike lanes” with “buffered lanes.” Anecdotal evidence and my own experience show the current protected lanes to be confusing and in some cases more dangerous, and they also negatively impact the Oakland First Fridays event, which is a vital part of a city that is struggling right now to hold on to a positive and inclusive sense of community.
Before shelter in place, I was commuting regularly to this area by bike. I look forward to doing so again soon. I’m deeply disappointed to learn about the proposal to remove the protected bike lanes, and strongly oppose it.
Protected bike lanes are much more welcoming and safer than painted bike lanes. They are the best way to keep vehicles out of the bike lanes. Relying on police enforcement to manage this is like relying on buckets to “fix” a leaky roof: it’s not an effective or safe long-term strategy, and it’s a poor use of resources. Reverting to buffered painted lanes would be one giant step backwards for safety.
It’s unfortunate and very frustrating that the full implementation has taken so long to complete. But even without completion, the vehicle speed reduction and pedestrian safety gains here have been impressive. I hope we can build on these successes by completing the funded upgrades and implementing the plans as originally envisioned.
I urge you to oppose this proposal, and instead, expedite the original plan.
I've lived in KONO for 10 years, and have been a driver, bicyclist, and pedestrian here throughout that time. The current configuration of the bike lanes is extremely unsafe for drivers, bicycles, and pedestrians. As a driver, visibility is completely lacking without pulling way out into the street, or having to start to round a corner just to be able look past the parked cars to see if a bicycle is coming. As a pedestrian you have to step out into the street past the parked cars to make sure drivers see you before crossing in the crosswalk. And upon reaching the other side of the street and another row of parked cars, you can't see bicyclists and they can't see you. And all you can do is pray that turning cars will see you. As a bicyclist, cars having to pull way out across the bike lane just to be able to see cross traffic isn't safe. Getting around the neighborhood is a harrowing act, no matter what mode of transportation you're using. Removal of the existing bike lanes is long overdue. Please install a safe alternative. Bike lanes are needed! Please make them safe for everyone!
I strongly oppose removing the protected bike lanes on Telegraph. I frequently bike up and down this corridor and occasionally drive on it as well. The old buffered lanes were extremely dangerous as cars constantly ran over the flimsy posts to park and even drive in the bike lane. The new design feels much safer as a cyclist, and I found traffic to be much calmer as a driver. That said, the current plan implementation certainly has its flaws. The reflective ballasts are a bit dizzying to look at while driving. However, the proposed plan of installing curbs in their place to permanently protect the bike lane will solve this issue. Why regress to a demonstrably more dangerous street design when there is already a funded plan to move forward safely? Doing so would not only endanger people's lives but also waste city resources that are badly needed for other priorities. KONO small businesses are struggling, and stripping away the bike lane will not solve their problems. The city needs to step in with a serious investment to help business owners deal with the very real problems of skyrocketing commercial rents, slow and unreasonably complex permitting processes, and an overall lack of business and financial support services.
You've got great protected bike lanes. Why would you spend money to downgrade them? This is a waste of money and doesn't help anybody.
I regularly drive, walk, and bike down Telegraph Avenue in KONO. I urge you to support the protected bike lanes on this stretch and to oppose regressing the design to buffered non-protected bike lanes. I regularly bikes this stretch and really love the way the protected bike lanes make me feel safer from cars parking, from buses stopping for passengers, and from cars parking in the bike lane. This design has proven to be much safer. I also appreciate the design as a driver and a pedestrian because it slows down car traffic, which I like. This design makes more people more likely to bike, which is a positive for the neighborhood and city. With any design, there are some flaws. Many of the issues have come from people parking their cars illegally blocking sight lines and creating traffic jams. The existing infrastructure of paint, cones, and previously plastic planters are not sufficient to stop drivers from parking illegally. The next phase of concrete curbs, which is fully funded and already approved, would address many of the existing issues with the design. Furthermore, in the KONO BID’s own survey, a majority of business owners supported the protected bike lanes and felt that they helped improve business. These bike lanes are popular and safer. I don’t understand why they are even up for debate. To change the design now would lose funding, increase costs for a redesign, increase staff time to gather community feedback, and be another sign of waste and regressive policies.
I support removing the bike lane. I witnessed multiple accidents between 25th street and the telegraph. Somehow lots of cars will drive in the bike lane and park in the bike lane. The traffic was heavier and slower after the current bike lane was built. Also, Oakland First Friday is such a symbol of Oakland; it helped lots of local businesses and artists. It embraces the culture of Oakland. With the new bike lane, I can hardly see the Oakland First Friday be there. Would you please bring back the vibrant event to Oakland.
I oppose the proposal to replace the protected bike lanes with buffered bike lanes. I bike regularly on Telegraph between Temescal and Uptown. Buffered bike lanes do not work. Protected bike lanes are empirically much safer and more effective. We need to get more people on bikes to solve the climate crisis, so we have to make it safe, and we have to do it now. I'm sick of cities like ours claiming to care about climate change, yet failing to take the tiniest steps to reduce transport emissions, even as we're staring down a historically bad fire season. I'm angry that rather than leading us forward, the city is forcing us to fight them not to go backward. I appreciate that local businesses need help right now, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that 16 months into COVID, protected bike lanes are the root of their problems. So let's give them real help, not pull out needed infrastructure and hope for the best. When it comes to protected bike lanes, improve them, don't remove them!
As someone who uses this stretch of Telegraph Ave as a cyclist and a driver, the protected bike lanes have resulted in a safer experience for me both when cycling and driving. There is room for improvement as cars still find a way to park in the protected bike lane from time to time, but overall it is a gigantic improvement.
I live at 24th and Telegraph. I completely support safe biking for our city, but our current set up is not working. No one seems to understand it, and the new cones make it even more confusing. Making turns is very difficult. And I truly think supporting a set up that facilitates our First Friday events is so important to our community. All small businesses are suffering from the current arrangement. Hope you will consider our comment.
Love Oakland!!!
I oppose removing the protected bike lanes. As someone who commutes by bike I regularly encounter cars parked in the bike lane. Rules haven’t been enforced in the past and there’s no reason to think that would actually change now. Removing these puts people at risk!
We live in small condo at corner of 24th /Telegraph. My wife gave up her bike when the dangerous protected lanes were installed. We both do a lot of walking in the neighborhood and these so-called “protected” lanes are a hazard to both pedestrians and car drivers who try to avoid hitting them.
As a pedestrian, before you step off curb you have to look leftward to see if bike or scooter is coming. Then you walk cautiously in front of parked car, peak around car to see if car is coming, look to right quickly to make sure a car didn’t make it self known and quickly cross street – but – need to remember to peak around the parked car before you cross the other buffered lane.
The vast majority of both pedestrians and drivers do not have experience with this unique method of handling bicycles, cars, and pedestrians. You have cars making their way to park against the curb-which is normal. That blocks bike lane.
Most intersections do not have traffic lights.
What makes this really horrible KONO district is that for over 10 years the district has sponsored an event called “First Friday” each month which draws 20,000 people, or more, to the various arts, restaurants, and other small businesses in the district. The ugly bollards that are in place that attempt to designate parking areas will prevent the street merchants from setting up their “stations”. This “First Friday” event has been written up nationally and attracts families from all over the area.
As a district 3 resident, I strongly support the removal of the “protected” bike lane. “Protected” is a misnomer. All the barriers and parked cars do is obstruct everyone’s vision, making it impossible to see oncoming cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians. While this protective barrier was well intentioned, it endangers the very cyclists it is meant to protect. The safest thing for the community is to remove the barriers and make sure everyone can see oncoming traffic in all directions.
As a resident of District 3 who regularly travels to KONO, I vehemently oppose OakDOT's proposal to remove the protected bike lanes. It’s frankly irresponsible of DOT to claim that painted bike lanes + curb management (whatever that means) is safer than actual, physical protected bike lanes. Paint on the street does not prevent cars from blocking bike lanes and creating serious safety hazards for cyclists. Physical infrastructure does.
OakDOT’s own study on the pilot project showed that protected bike lanes resulted in 40% reduction in collisions, 9% increase in retail sales, and decrease in speeding in both directions (45% southbound, and 27% northbound). Given these economic and safety benefits, there's no logical reason why we should be moving backwards on this proposal.
Some residents have pointed out issues with visibility. If that's the case, we should be addressing those issues by adjusting the design of the protected bike lanes, not by removing them altogether. We should move forward and create streets that are better and safer for EVERYONE. Building permanent, protected bike lanes on Telegraph is one small step toward that goal.
I strongly oppose the proposal for buffered bike lanes. I live in the area (Telegraph and 23rd) and I love First Fridays, but I'm also a pedestrian, bike rider and car owner, and we need to keep that curb lane for bikes. The current system isn't perfect, but it's much safer than useless buffered lanes.
I bike between Berkeley and Oakland via Telegraph all the time, and I strongly oppose the replacement of protected bike lanes with simple buffered bike lanes. There is ample evidence available that protected lanes are much safer than painted lines and that Telegraph has become safer for cyclists and pedestrians in the time the protections have been in place.
My question is why take a step backwards by removing the safety features entirely instead of improving upon them? I have read some of the concerns from OakDOT around the many intersections in this stretch of Telegraph and the challenges around visibility for drivers. Believe me, I have those concerns too as I bike in this area. While removing the existing protective features *may* somewhat improve visibility for drivers (although that is debatable, given that there would still be buffered lanes with cars parking here), it brings our community no closer to having a safe route to bike along Telegraph. If safety is the goal, why not restrict parking near intersections to improve intersection visibility? Why not add lights to or re-route some intersections? There is a lot that could be done by improving on the physical barriers/infrastructure in this stretch to reduce the interactions between cars and cyclists or pedestrians, recognizing this is a really important route for people traveling by any means of transportation through Oakland. Please oppose this resolution and rather focus on long-term safety improvements.
I live in District 3 and I strongly oppose the proposal to remove the protected bike lanes and replace with buffered bike lanes. I am an active transportation professional and there is no such thing as "enhanced" buffered bike lanes. There are also no curb management strategies that will prevent double-parking in the bike lanes or reduce conflict between people driving and people biking, as people driving will need to cross the bike lane to access and leave parking spots. The only possible option that might reduce double parking is increased enforcement of the corridor and this would require more police officers enforcing traffic violations, but I do not support increasing police presence in Oakland.
Please consider the future we want for Oakland. Bike lanes that make it safe for people of ALL ages and abilities to ride in Oakland are critical for the city to achieve our sustainability goals and fight the climate crisis we are in. Safe bike lanes are critical to ensure we see fewer drivers and more people biking.
Please OPPOSE this resolution to replace protected bike lanes with buffered bike lanes.