The Transportation Commission recently voted on long- and near-term designs for this project.
In good news, they unanimously endorsed the 2-way bikeway as the long-term design:
Whether it’s raised, at-grade, or a mix of the two is still TBD. Commissioner Dara-Abrams noted that it costs more (approximately $6M) for a raised facility, and urged that there be consideration for that. Bike Walk Alameda made this point in our letter, too. Funding projects like this is not easy, so keeping costs down is key to getting them built in a reasonable timeframe. The motion from the Commission included a request for staff to return with more information about the vertical configuration at a future date.
In not so good news, the Commission endorsed buffered bike lanes for the near-term (the segment between Tilden and High) instead of the one-way protected bike lanes we’ve been advocating for. Here’s the rendering:
Of all the options, buffered bike lanes offer the least amount of traffic calming and protection for bicyclists. Here’s a detail showing how Staff proposes to add quick-build medians and bulbouts at intersections to make them safer:
While it’s an improvement over what exists now, it falls short in many ways. This is just the segment between Tilden and High, but it’s the segment that sees the most crashes, and deserves the most protective infrastructure.
Protected bike lanes are a proven safety countermeasure that would make the street safer for all users. Making this enhancement in 2026 (the “near-term” timeline) rather than waiting for the long-term design to be implemented would give us 4+ years of increased safety and ensure that we meet the 2030 target set in our Active Transportation Plan for our Low Stress Network.
Why is the buffered bike lane design being recommended over a much safer one, then? There are a combination of factors. Pressure from neighbors concerned about on-street parking loss is a major driver, and the buffered bike lane design removes the fewest spaces. Although on-street parking is less than 50% occupied at all times of day, and as Commissioner Weitze pointed out, the vast majority of houses on this street have driveways, the complaints have been significant. There are also complaints about aesthetics, navigating driveways, and other driving inconveniences that are common to projects like this.
The combination of buffered bike lanes for the near term and the 2-way bikeway for the long-term offers marginal improvements, costs a little less, and meets the least resistance from neighbors. It’ll be very challenging, but not impossible, for Staff to win grant funding and get the long-term design built by 2030, so technically, it’s a strategy that doesn’t compromise the target set in our Active Transportation Plan.
The Commissioners supported Staff’s recommendation, but asked for more vertical delineation than what was proposed where possible.
Regarding the Gibbons/High/Fernside intersection, Staff recommended delaying improvements until they could do more study and outreach. This was likely due to initial negative feedback they received at the pop-up event and initial survey responses, although there was a shift in favor of the changes over the week:
The survey is still open if you care to add your voice, here.
You can view the meeting here, and review the item and attachments here. Our letter to the Transportation Commission is here.
This project will go before the Commission on Persons with Disabilities on December 11 (check here for agenda), and the City Council in early 2025. Stay tuned and please plan to comment. We’ll need more people speaking up and reminding leadership of our city’s priorities. If we want safer streets, we need to build them. We won’t get our Low Stress Network built by 2030, or meet 2035 Vision Zero target, if we allow safety to be deferred.