But the years-long pilot project stoked conflicts between different communities and revealed problems with the city’s transportation planning process.
Five years ago, Oakland planners broke ground on a bold project on Telegraph Avenue: a protected bicycle lane. It might not seem like that big of a deal until you see it. Most bicycle lanes in Oakland and the rest of California are the buffered type, which place bike riders in a painted strip next to vehicle traffic, with parked cars on their right. Protected lanes entirely separate bicyclists from moving traffic by putting a barrier in between them.
To do this on Telegraph, Department of Transportation staff started by reducing its four-driving lane design to two, with one lane for each direction of vehicle traffic, and a center turn lane. Then they moved car parking about four feet away from the curb and painted stripes designating the space in between parked cars and the sidewalk as the protected bicycle lane.
Over time, the Department of Transportation, commonly referred to as OakDOT, added other physical barriers like bollards, plastic poles stuck into the ground to better separate the protected lanes from the parking spaces, and planters and small islands. This pilot project was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of protected lanes, and eventually the city would build permanent concrete separators and wider bike lanes, making the changes permanent.
But on June 2, OakDOT Director Ryan Russo recommended abandoning the protected lanes and returning the street to a buffered layout. The announcement caught many by surprise and marked an about-face for one of the transportation department’s most high-profile projects.
In a blog post explaining his decision, Russo wrote that it came down to three things. First, the many staggered outlets and entry points for cars, bikes, and pedestrians created dangerous intersections between the protected bike lanes and traffic. Second, the protected design, at least in its pilot phase, failed to alleviate potentially harmful economic effects on local businesses. And third, OakDOT was unable to conduct sufficient and equitable community outreach about the redesign and its impacts. Russo said further improvements could not overcome these issues.
“We brought in well-received bus boarding islands, two kinds of plastic posts, and planters designed to both beautify and protect the installation,” he wrote about improvements. “But each of these interventions proved temporary and insufficient.” Cars ended up running over posts, people removed planters, and the islands caused accidents.
The board of the KONO Community Benefit District, which represents business owners in the area, viewed Russo’s announcement as a victory. Many shop owners and restaurants think the bike lanes are bad for their business. They’d gathered more than 1,800 signatures on a Change.org petition calling for the removal of the bike lanes.
Oakland’s and California’s wider biking advocacy communities were horrified by the plan to take out the protected bike lanes. They believe that the paths were much safer than the buffered lanes could ever be, and they accused OakDOT of caving to the demands of businesses that care more about parking than traffic safety.
Dave Snyder, the California Bicycle Coalition’s executive director, told The Oaklandside that OakDOT’s recommendation was unprecedented. The Telegraph Avenue changes were approved under the state’s Active Transportation Program, and out of nearly a thousand similar bike and pedestrian safety improvements also approved through ATP program since its inception in 2013, only one other project Snyder can think of, he said, reverted back to an old design.
Multiple city and regional transportation authorities rejected OakDOT’s proposal to take out the protected lanes, including the city’s Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission, the City Council’s Public Works Committee, and AC Transit.
Yesterday, the City Council considered Russo’s recommendation alongside input from community groups and Oakland residents. After hearing from both sides, the council voted 8-0 to reject Russo and OakDOT’s suggestions. The city will keep the protected lanes and eventually expand them.
But the council’s decision by no means puts the controversy to rest. The struggle over Telegraph Avenue symbolizes broader challenges facing Oakland about designing our streets and making them safer. With residents loudly questioning what projects get completed and why, and who gets to benefit from them, this week’s decision is a bellwether for other traffic safety projects, raising all kinds of questions.
We examined the origins of the Telegraph Avenue controversy to see if there are lessons to be learned, not just about Telegraph Avenue, but deeper problems affecting our city’s ability to make big transportation changes work for everyone. Sources told us Oakland’s transportation department has staffing problems that cause trouble when the city tries to roll out big projects. In a city with strongly differing views on how to design the streets, these problems can doom pilot projects like the Telegraph bike lanes, even if the lanes are making streets safer. But an even bigger issue is that Oakland still isn’t doing a good job taking into account the views and needs of communities of color, and that failures to properly survey and plan for everyone’s needs causes conflict.
The protected bike lanes made Telegraph Avenue safer, but not everyone felt safe
If the sole purpose of OakDOT redesigning Telegraph Avenue was to make it safer for bikers and pedestrians, then data suggest they should keep the protected bicycle lanes.