Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
Agenda Item
8 24-0296 Subject: Community-Led Traffic Safety Pilot Program
From: Transportation Department
Recommendation: Receive An Informational Report Responding To The Questions Raised In Resolution No. 90051 C.M.S
I encourage OakDOT to consider cost avoidance from crashes in its calculations of staffing and resource shifts needed to support a Community-led traffic calming project. The genesis of the community's request for a mechanism to put in place traffic calming infrastructure was borne out of urgency, sometimes out of the need to address well-known dangerous locations that continues to experience horrific crashes while awaiting long term funded projects to be implemented. Community solutions don't need to replicate City-engineered solutions. Let's put in time and resources towards authentically speaking with neighbors about what's possible; which could yield very different types of solutions: One teacher at the April BPAC meeting asked if we can just close streets during school hours around schools. That is an example of an engineering-light solution that could help move this conversation forward.
I appreciate the creativity OakDOT provided in this opening report. Helping with an materials inventory library would be incredible. Using the Equity Index is foundationally important, and not different from the intent of community-led projects. That OakDOT is able to lend staff time is amazing. Let's also push for resource shifts from emergency response departments and other areas of the city teams impacted by traffic violence towards this urgent need.
I heavily support this project. Oakland needs to leverage as many resources as it can to make streets safe before more innocent people get injured or killed. Regarding the concerns about equity, I suggest:
1) prioritize areas already marked for improvement (as listed in Attachment C and D or other major projects), but are not yet ready for construction to begin within the year. Ideally, these projects already adhere to OakDOT's equity framework, so wouldn't need to be reconsidered.
2) prioritize intersections and streets where any traffic violence has occurred. Even if this were in a wealthy area, it still deserves consideration.
3) use any other mechanism that you already are using to identify priority areas for traffic safety improvements
Projects that fall under the above priority areas that also use pre-approved materials and general designs as designated by OakDOT should be reviewed monthly. All other projects that don't fall under the priority location criteria above should be evaluated more infrequently e.g. every 4-6 months.
Additional changes:
1) Lane reductions have a significant impact on safety, and should not be restricted to twice a year and should be allowed for at least a month to study their impacts.
2) Slip lane closures should be included in the pilot because they are extremely dangerous for pedestrians.
3) If pilots are successful in reducing dangerous driving, they should be allowed extensions until OakDOT makes it permanent. Define success criteria.
I offer suggestions/alternatives:
- Alt 1 can be modified so that Council Discretionary Funding can fund the Community-Led Traffic Safety Pilot Program in each council district.
- Another funding source can come from shifting budget from OPD to OakDOT. OPD is the only City department that has gone over budget. Why does OPD get so much funding without scrutiny while OakDOT and other departments are suffering from cuts to sorely needed programs and infrastructure?
- The Pilot Program should add another category for Essential Places (schools, senior centers, neighborhood commercial centers) with longer-term permits. Create maintenance agreements with community members/orgs so they can maintain the barricades and cones. This builds upon the pandemic Slow Streets-Essential Places program, which was successful but needed funding for maintenance. Allowing community members to steward Essential Places road diets and traffic calming will revive the program and continue its success.
I encourage OakDOT to consider cost avoidance from crashes in its calculations of staffing and resource shifts needed to support a Community-led traffic calming project. The genesis of the community's request for a mechanism to put in place traffic calming infrastructure was borne out of urgency, sometimes out of the need to address well-known dangerous locations that continues to experience horrific crashes while awaiting long term funded projects to be implemented. Community solutions don't need to replicate City-engineered solutions. Let's put in time and resources towards authentically speaking with neighbors about what's possible; which could yield very different types of solutions: One teacher at the April BPAC meeting asked if we can just close streets during school hours around schools. That is an example of an engineering-light solution that could help move this conversation forward.
I appreciate the creativity OakDOT provided in this opening report. Helping with an materials inventory library would be incredible. Using the Equity Index is foundationally important, and not different from the intent of community-led projects. That OakDOT is able to lend staff time is amazing. Let's also push for resource shifts from emergency response departments and other areas of the city teams impacted by traffic violence towards this urgent need.
I heavily support this project. Oakland needs to leverage as many resources as it can to make streets safe before more innocent people get injured or killed. Regarding the concerns about equity, I suggest:
1) prioritize areas already marked for improvement (as listed in Attachment C and D or other major projects), but are not yet ready for construction to begin within the year. Ideally, these projects already adhere to OakDOT's equity framework, so wouldn't need to be reconsidered.
2) prioritize intersections and streets where any traffic violence has occurred. Even if this were in a wealthy area, it still deserves consideration.
3) use any other mechanism that you already are using to identify priority areas for traffic safety improvements
Projects that fall under the above priority areas that also use pre-approved materials and general designs as designated by OakDOT should be reviewed monthly. All other projects that don't fall under the priority location criteria above should be evaluated more infrequently e.g. every 4-6 months.
Additional changes:
1) Lane reductions have a significant impact on safety, and should not be restricted to twice a year and should be allowed for at least a month to study their impacts.
2) Slip lane closures should be included in the pilot because they are extremely dangerous for pedestrians.
3) If pilots are successful in reducing dangerous driving, they should be allowed extensions until OakDOT makes it permanent. Define success criteria.
I offer suggestions/alternatives:
- Alt 1 can be modified so that Council Discretionary Funding can fund the Community-Led Traffic Safety Pilot Program in each council district.
- Another funding source can come from shifting budget from OPD to OakDOT. OPD is the only City department that has gone over budget. Why does OPD get so much funding without scrutiny while OakDOT and other departments are suffering from cuts to sorely needed programs and infrastructure?
- The Pilot Program should add another category for Essential Places (schools, senior centers, neighborhood commercial centers) with longer-term permits. Create maintenance agreements with community members/orgs so they can maintain the barricades and cones. This builds upon the pandemic Slow Streets-Essential Places program, which was successful but needed funding for maintenance. Allowing community members to steward Essential Places road diets and traffic calming will revive the program and continue its success.