Robert Prinz

Mini sweepers have other uses than protected bikeways. They can be employed to clean pedestrian refuge islands, multi-use trails, & other constrained spaces.

Well the main problem is that Pleasanton needs to step it up & build many more protected bikeways. They even ignored a recommendation from their bike plan for the 6-8 lane, 45mph Hopyard Rd & just re-installed painted bike lanes.

Hayward didn’t cancel, the supplier did. The city is still trying to aquire the sweeper.

Indeed it’s silly how long the procurement takes. Oakland had trouble finding an available model that met US emissions requirements.

I’ve asked them about bike parking upgrades there many times. REI staff’s response has been that they don’t own the property & have control over the parking situation. But that’s weak. They’ve been tenants for so long, they must have some influence w the management.

Last I heard Hayward had one on order but it was cancelled. They are working with another company to still acquire a sweeper but their D St / Winton bikeway separation is on hold as a result.

The lack of a mini sweeper is Union City’s number one excuse they use for not installing protected bikeways. So they’re actively resistant to procuring one.

Last year Pleasanton used $312k in routine TDA3 funds to purchase a mini sweeper. In Emeryville they added a broom attachment to an existing bobcat utility vehicle.

I caught this OakDOT crew training on mini sweeper operations in the @cityofoakland.bsky.social 14th St protected bikeway today. Thanks for keeping our streets & bikeways clean!

The return of Jesus:

Also a single middle boarding island takes up less road space, meaning less curbside car parking impacts.

Some of the original concept art also showed center running BRT w right side boarding islands. Like most of the other bad design decisions my guess is that cost cutting was a factor. A single left side island can serve both directions but right side can’t.

This, from the original 2008 International BRT concept doc. Landscaped island center bus lane separation and right side boarding islands.

Much of Tempo was modeled after Cleveland’s HealthLine BRT. But they failed to copy the center running right side boarding islands. This also brings some benefit by physically separating the bus lanes, mitigating the driver misuse/speeding seen on International.

But recommendations in bike plans are at least more concrete than the others, and harder to waffle on w/o being obviously out of compliance.

Complete streets policies, climate action plans, local road safety plans, etc. The number of plans local jurisdictions ignore when it comes to corridor by corridor decision making is indeed shameful. Avoiding micromanagement is in part why the plans are developed, to stay on track larger goals.

Indeed, though I think ACTC giving Pleasanton an ultimatum is partly why they have a plan update underway now. Contra Costa has cities w bike plans from 2017-2006 w no update in the works. Antioch has never had a bike plan.

I forgot one step: Require cities to keep their bike plan up to date every 5 years, also as a condition of receiving funding. Alameda County already does this but Contra Costa does not. As a result the relative avg bike plan ages are 2023 vs 2018.

WRT tying funding to bike/walk plan implementation, I’m not speculating. I’m sharing what I know from my actual experience. This is the number 1 thing we have to do to force cities to take action w every opportunity.

WRT liability, cities already pay out major settlements regularly & it doesn’t often compel more proactive design treatments. Lower resource areas are usually the ones w the most safety issues, & also have the least ability to act proactively. More liability would not help this.

Making plan bike implementation a requirement of funding addresses the issue either way, no matter who it pisses off. We’re already seeing this benefit via Oakland’s Measure U. The recent upper Telegraph project conversations were about HOW, not IF, the protected bikeway would be implemented.

The leverage for housing plan implementation is the builders remedy. The analogue for bike/walk plan implementation needs to be access to funding. Relying on local staff & electeds to see the light is not sufficient.

Bike plan implementation can be a condition of funding, as per Oakland’s Measure U & Berkeley’s Measure FF. I’m pushing for the same w other local & regional funding programs, plus requirements for low-stress bike network recommendations in bike plans, informed by NACTO all ages/abilities guidelines

Sadly I’ve been spoiled for life by working in the non-profit sector, being able to say what I actually mean all the time.

Close the slip turn lane with K-rail, pull back the stop line for southbound Warring so buses & other large vehicles can make wide right turns from Derby. Add centerline posts to slow left turners. Easy, can be completed in a few hours.

Or rather, an e-trike user riding side by side with an Urban Arrow cargo bike rider!

In better news there’s a 2-stage turn box about to be added at Telegraph / 20th. My ask for this as part of the Telegraph project was also agreed to but then overlooked. I was able to connect w the 20th St project team on it instead though.

It’s definitely not permitted. They’ve been parking on the sidewalk & responsible for pretty regular bike/walk impacts ever since they opened.

It’s a disgusting and irresponsible turn of phrase, absolutely removed from the terrible realities of traffic violence felt in our communities daily. There are no “winners”.

Nobody “wins” in a fatal crash, that phase needs to be retired. It’s a disastrous situation for all involved. I had a distant relative who killed another person in a car crash, from simple carelessness. Their life spiraled after that & they eventually passed from complications of substance abuse.

Usually when business owners cite parking concerns it’s for themselves & their staff, not for customers. And that’s real since lower wage workers are forced into arduous mega car commutes as a function of housing unaffordability. But the solution to that is more housing not more parking.