38 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Street Trauma Prevention Program
(STPP): The STPP embodies a new and
emerging approach to Berkeley’s safety
goals, reinforcing the Fire Department’s
commitment to positive patient outcomes,
trauma prevention, and emergency response
access. In the context of bicycle planning,
this approach calls for balancing the need to
implement new bikeways and traffic calming
with the need to preserve and improve
emergency personnel response times. This
supports positive patient outcomes from
fires, medical emergency and other service
calls responded to by the Berkeley Fire
De
partment. For example, this approach
suggests future integration of innovative
devices like removable/retractable barriers
that can facilitate emergency responder
access while promoting bicycling.
These advancements reflect a growing
recognition of the importance of active
transportation in creating sustainable,
livable cities, and demonstrate an ongoing
commitment to improving infrastructure
for all users.
2.2 Existing Bikeway Network
Since adopting the 2017 Bicycle Plan, the City of Berkeley has constructed over 10 miles of new upgraded bikeway network facilities. Figure 5 shows the existing bikeway network in Berkeley, with new or upgraded facilities highlighted in gold. Table 4 lists the total miles of bicycle facilities by classification for 2017 and 2025. Mileage for standard bicycle lanes (Class II) decreased between 2017 and 2025 due to standard bike lanes being upgraded to either upgraded bicycle lanes (Class II) or separated bikeways (Class IV).
Table 4: Bikeway Network Mileage Comparison for 2017 and 2025 FACILITY TYPE 2017 (MI) 202 5 (MI)
Shared use path (Class I) 18.2 18.9
B
icycle lane (Class II) 12.1 10.9*
Upgraded bicycle lane (Class II) 0.3 1.8
Bicycle route (Class III) 8.1 12.6
Bicycle boulevard (Class III) 11.9 12.5
Separated bikeway (Class IV) 0.1 4.2
Total 50.8 60.9
Bicycle boulevard network ** 15.8 17.6
*Standard bicycle lane mileage decreased in 2025 due to standard bicycle lane being improved to upgraded bicycle lane or separated bikeway.
**The Bicycle Boulevard Network includes segments of Class I, II, III, and IV facilities.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 39
Figure 5: Existing Bikeway Network (2017–2025)
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
GRIZ
ZLY PEAK
BLVD
ARLINGTON
AVE
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
MARIN AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
WILDCAT
CAN
YON
RD
TUNNEL
RD
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN
STTREMONT ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVE
COLUSA AVEENS
ENA
DA
AVE
SOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
OHLONE GREENWAY
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
BUCHANAN ST
SAN PABLO AVE DERBY ST
SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
BerkeleyCésar Chávez
Park
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore State
Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
El Cerrito
Emeryville
Oakland
Richmond
EXISTING BIKEWAY
NETWORK
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Amtrak Station
BART Station
School
Railroad
Park
EXISTING FACILITIES
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
New or Upgraded since
2017
BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK
40 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
2.3 Low-Stress Network Intersection Controls
Since adopting the 2017 Bicycle Plan, the
City of Berkeley has focused on improving
the comfort and safety of crossings where
low-stress corridors intersect with major
roadways. Intersection crossings are often
the most dangerous part of a trip on the
bikeway network; high levels of discomfort
for vulnerable users at intersection
crossings are most likely to discourage
people from bicycling and rolling. This
section describes the intersection
treatments currently used in Berkeley.
A median crossing (1) is a median refuge
is
land placed between directions of travel
on a collector or arterial roadway at
uncontrolled intersections, allowing users
to cross the street having only to watch for
one direction of travel at a time. Median
crossings also prohibit through movements
for vehicles on the local cross street while
allowing bicycle and pedestrian travel
to make through movements, and are
designed to preserve the opportunity
for emergency and City service vehicles
to pass through. This treatment is useful
on the Bicycle Boulevard Network, as it
will divert vehicle traffic off the bikeway
network while improving crossings at
challenging intersections.
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (2)
(RRFBs) are user-actuated or automated
de
tection amber LEDs that supplement
warning signs at uncontrolled intersections
and midblock crosswalks. Some are
manually activated by pushing a button,
while others can automatically detect the
presence of a person walking or biking.
RRFB + median crossing (3) is an
en
hanced version of an RRFB treatment,
including a median crossing for users to
focus on one direction of travel at a time.
An RRFB and median should be considered
on streets with higher traffic volumes or
on parts of the Bicycle Boulevard Network
that would benefit from the traffic-
diverting elements of a median crossing.
A pedestrian hybrid beacon (4) (PHB),
al
so known as a high-intensity activated
crosswalk (HAWK) beacon, is a traffic
control device used to stop roadway traffic
and allow people to walk or bike across
an intersection. They can be activated by
people walking and bicycling by manually
pushing a button or passively by a video
detection or detector loop system. The
City of Berkeley is in the early stages of
implementing passive detection, with
ongoing calibration to detect bicyclists.
PHBs installed on the Bicycle Boulevard
Network should include an in-lane push
button for people bicycling or rolling to
activate the signal without having to go
onto the sidewalk. PHBs are generally
recommended for streets with more than
one lane of traffic per direction. PHBs can
also be paired with a median crossing.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 41
1 MEDIAN CROSSING on California Street at Dwight Way.
2 RRFB at Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Avenue
(S
ource: City of Berkeley)
3 RRFB + MEDIAN CROSSING on Addison Street
at M
LK Jr. Way.
4 PHB on Virginia Street at San Pablo Avenue.
42 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
A two-way cycletrack crossing (5) is a
tr
eatment where two bikeways meet at an
offset intersection with a major roadway.
This treatment implements a two-way
separated bikeway facility on one side of
the street, or a one-way separated bikeway
facility on each side of the street, along the
major roadway to facilitate safe crossings
in conjunction with a traffic signal. This
treatment eliminates uncontrolled turning
conflicts and provides a signalized crossing
for the bikeway.
A raised crossing/intersection (6) is a
tr
eatment where the pavement level of
an intersection is raised up to sidewalk
height. The approach slope acts as a traffic
calming device for vehicles before entering
the intersection, and creates a comfortable
and accessible crossing for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
A traffic signal (7) is a fully controlled
in
tersection, phased by a traffic signal.
Traffic signals are appropriate at crossings
of major streets. Partial traffic diversion
at signalized intersections may be used to
enhance bicycle boulevards, such as the
intersection of MLK Jr. Way at Channing
Way.
A protected intersection (8) is a signalized
in
tersection with physical bikeway barriers
extending into the intersection. Protected
intersections force tighter angled turns by
vehicles, improving sight visibility of people
walking, bicycling, and rolling across
the intersection. Protected intersections
also position people bicycling and rolling
further into the intersection while waiting
for the signal to change, improving their
visibility to people in vehicles preparing to
turn. Protected intersections are typically
built in conjunction with separated
bikeways but can supplement standard
bicycle lanes.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 43
5 TWO-WAY CYCLETRACK CROSSING at Holmes in
Da
vis, CA.
6 RAISED CROSSING at the intersection of
Te
legraph Avenue at Bancroft Street.
7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL CROSSING of MLK Jr. Way at Channing Way. 8 PROTECTED INTERSECTION on Hopkins Street at The Alameda
44 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
2.4 Existing Low-Stress Intersection
Controls
Since adopting the 2017 Bicycle Plan, the City has implemented over 20 different intersection crossing improvements on the Low-Stress Network, including the Bicycle Boulevard Network and separated bikeways. The goal of bicycle boulevards is to provide low-stress bikeways on pleasant neighborhood streets that are part of a gridded network in relatively flat areas – creating both a safe and convenient experience. Some of the intersection controls shown on this map are not on the current Low-Stress Network but will be integrated with upcoming, funded bicycle boulevard projects. Figure 6 shows the existing Low-Stress Network and all low-stress intersection controls, with new or upgraded facilities highlighted in gold. Table 5 below lists the inventory of low-stress intersection controls for 2017 and 2025.
Table 5: Low-Stress Network Intersection Controls 2017 vs. 2025 INTERSECTION CONTROLS (LOW-STRESS NETWORK) * 2017 2025 Median Crossing 0 2
RRFB 4 10
RRFB + Median Crossing 0 1
PHB 0 2
Raised Crossing/Intersections 0 2
Traffic Signal 33 39
All-Way Stop Sign 0 1**
Protected Intersection 0 5
Total Intersection Controls 37 61
* The list does not include intersection controls installed by the City of Berkeley on streets other than the Low- Stress Network.
** St
op sign implemented after analysis determined it was preferable to an RRFB at this location
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 45
Figure 6: Existing Low-Stress Intersection Crossings (2017 to 2025)
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
MARIN AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN
STTREMONT ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVESOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
Berkeley
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
S
S
S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
H
S
R
SS
MX
H
S
RM
S
S
S
P
P
I
S
S
R
P
P
P S
S
S
S S
R
R
S
S
SS
S
S
MX
R R
SS
SS
I
R
R
R
S
SS
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
EXISTING
LOW-STRESS
INTERSECTION
CROSSINGS
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Low-Stress Intersection Control
Protected Intersection
All-Way Stop Sign
Median Crossing
RRFB + Median
RRFB
Raised Intersection
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Traffic Signal
Built After 2017
Bike Boulevard Network
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
P
SS
MX
RM
R
I
H
S
BART Station
Amtrak Station
School
Railroad
Parks
46 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
2.5 Bicycle Boulevards
WHAT IS A BICYCLE
BOULEVARD?
A bicycle boulevard is a roadway intended
to prioritize bicycle travel and provide a
low-stress experience for people of all
ages and abilities. The goal of bicycle
boulevards is to provide low-stress
bikeways on pleasant neighborhood streets
that are both safe and convenient. To
achieve these goals, bicycle boulevards are
only appropriate on streets without large
trucks or transit vehicles, and where traffic
volumes and speeds are already low, or can
be further reduced through traffic calming.
For convenience, bicycle boulevard routes
should not require people bicycling or
rolling to stop any more frequently than
they would on a parallel route.
In the 1960s and 70s, Berkeley installed
diverters aiming to direct cars away
from neighborhood streets and reduce
traffic through residential areas, which
later formed the backbone of the bicycle
boulevard network. The first seven bicycle
boulevards in Berkeley were developed
through community workshops in 1999,
from which a set of design tools and
guidelines were created. The guidelines
outlined three phases of implementation:
(1) signs and markings; (2) traffic
calming and stop sign removal; and (3)
intersection crossings. The first phase of
implementation was finished in 2003, with
continual modification and expansion in the
intervening years.
Refer to Ap
pendix A: Bicycle Boulevard
Design Guide for more information.
ELEMENTS OF BICYCLE
BOULEVARDS
Distinct visual identity: Unique pavement
markings and wayfinding signs increase
visibility of bicycle boulevard routes, assist
with navigation, and alert drivers that
the roadway is a priority route for people
bicycling.
Bicycle priority: Traffic calming treatments
such as traffic circles, diverters, and
chicanes, sometimes in place of existing
stop signs, can prioritize bicycle through-
travel and discourage cut-through motor
vehicle traffic.
Safe, convenient crossings: Traffic
controls, warning devices, or separated
facilities at intersections facilitate safe and
convenient crossings of major streets along
the Bicycle Boulevard Network.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 47
48 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK
The currently-built Bicycle Boulevard
Ne
twork consists of five north-south routes
and five east-west routes; additional future
bicycle boulevard routes were identified in
the 2017 Bicycle Plan.
North-South Routes
• Ninth Street/Eighth Street
• California Street/King Street
• Milvia Street
• Hillegass Avenue/Bowditch Street
• Fulton Street (in progress)
East-West Routes
• Virginia Street
• Channing Way
• Russell Street/Heinz Avenue
• Woolsey Street
• Addison Street (in progress)
Figure 7 shows this existing network. The
Ci
ty of Berkeley has four bicycle boulevard
projects in various states of construction,
funding, and design. The details of these
upcoming projects are documented in
Chapter 5.
SIGNAGE AND MARKING SYSTEM
Berkeley pioneered a unique bicycle
boul
evard signage and marking system.
The distinct purple signs are instantly
recognizable and provide greater
wayfinding information than standard
bicycle route (Class III) signs.
Signage and markings used along
Be
rkeley’s bicycle boulevards include:
• Destination and distance information
sign
s
• Route and off-route guidance signs
• Street and advance street identification
sign
s
• Pavement markings (“bike blvd” stencils)
Each of these signs provides one or more
of t
he four Ds of a complete wayfinding
system: destination, direction, distance,
and distinction.
TRAFFIC CALMING
Berkeley’s bicycle boulevards use traffic
ca
lming and bicycle priority to achieve
a safe, comfortable, and convenient
experience for people who bicycle. Traffic
calming reduces the speed of vehicles
and directs them away from streets where
bicyclists have priority but share the
roadway with vehicles. Some of the traffic
calming treatments used along Berkeley’s
Bicycle Boulevard network include those
shown below:
• Traffic circle: Red
uces speed of travel
through the intersection using a raised
center median
• Speed table or speed cushion: Reduces
sp
eed along segments using vertical
deflection
• Diverter: Pr ohibits auto traffic from
entering into, or exiting from, a street
More detail is provided in Appendix A:
Bi
cycle Boulevard Design Guide.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 49
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
MARIN AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN
STTREMONT ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVESOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
BUCHANAN ST
SAN PABLO AVE DERBY ST
SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University
of California, Berkeley
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
C
C C
C
D
C
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
CC
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
D
D
D C C
D D D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D C
D
D CC
C
C
CC D
D
C
C
D
D
C
D
CC
C
D
C
D
C
D
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
EXISTING BIKE
BOULEVARD
NETWORK
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Amtrak Station
BART Station
Railroad
Park
TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic Circle
Traffic Diverter
Built After 2017
EXISTING BIKE BOULEVARD NETWORK
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
C
D
Figure 7: Existing Bicycle Boulevard Network (2017–2025)
50 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
2.6 Notable Projects Built Since 2017
Since adopting the 2017 Bicycle Plan, the City of Berkeley has implemented 10.1 miles of new or upgraded bicycle facilities around the city and upgraded 24 intersection crossings on the Low-Stress Network. These projects are largely funded by grants and leveraged by local funds. The following sections provide a summary of the most notable projects built since 2017.
MIL VIA BIKEWAY PROJECT
This project covers 12 contiguous blocks of Milvia Street (0.75 miles), from Hearst Avenue in the north to Blake Street in the south. The project converted a Class III Bicycle Boulevard to a Class IV Separated Bikeway, including two-way to one-way street conversions from Berkeley Way to University Avenue, University Avenue to Center Street, and Channing Way to Dwight Way, as well as a modified traffic signal at University Avenue to add bicycle signal heads for north/south bicycle movements. The project was completed in 2022.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 51
ADDISON STREET BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
The Addison Street Bike Boulevard project
covers 22 contiguous blocks of Addison
Street (2.0 miles) from Bolivar Drive to
Oxford Street. The first phase of the
Addison Street Bike Boulevard project
covers nine contiguous blocks (0.62
miles) from Sacramento Street to Milvia
Street and was constructed in 2022. The
project included the installation of an
RRFB and median crossing island on MLK
Jr. Way at Addison Street. This crossing
prohibits through and left-turn movements
for vehicles on Addison Street while
maintaining emergency vehicle access.
The unbuilt second phase of the Addison
St
reet Bike Boulevard is in two segments:
Bolivar Drive to Sacramento Street and
Milvia Street to Oxford Street. It includes
two uncontrolled intersection crossings
(one RRFB with median, and one PHB);
signal upgrades and addition of a Class IV
bikeway at the offset San Pablo Avenue
and Addison Street intersection; and traffic
calming including new speed tables and
several new traffic circles.
52 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
SOUTHSIDE COMPLETE STREETS
The Southside Complete Streets project
covers 16 contiguous blocks (1.5 miles)
of Bancroft Way, Fulton Street, and Dana
Street on the southern side of the UC
Berkeley campus. All three streets received
separated bikeways (Class IV), and the
project was completed in 2024. Project
details include:
Bancroft Way (Piedmont Avenue to Milvia
Stre
et): Concrete curb-protected two-
way separated bikeway on the south side
of Bancroft. The project includes a transit
lane from College Avenue to Shattuck
Avenue, a raised intersection at Telegraph
Avenue, and fully or partially protected
intersections at Bowditch Street, Dana
Street, Fulton Street, and Shattuck Avenue.
Fulton Street (Bancroft Way to Dwight
Way): Concrete curb-protected separated
bikeways, with phase-separated protected
bike crossings at Durant Street and Dwight
Way.
Dana Street (Bancroft Way to Dwight
Way): Concrete curb-protected separated
bikeways, including a transit boarding
island at Haste Street.
Two-way separated bikeway at Bancroft and
Ellsworth.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 53
Bridge over I-80 and Gilman Street for people walking and bicycling.
GILMAN STREET OVERCROSSING &
CYCLETRACK
The I-80/Gilman interchange project
is a joint project between Caltrans and
the Alameda County Transportation
Commission to rebuild the I-80 freeway
interchange at Gilman Street, build a
new bicycle and pedestrian freeway
overcrossing, and construct adjacent
separated bikeway improvements. The
bicycle and pedestrian bridge was
completed in 2023, and the adjacent
bikeways were finished in 2025.
The project includes a 0.33 mile bicycle
an
d pedestrian overcrossing (Class I) and
a 0.12 mile separated bikeway (Class IV)
on Gilman Street (Second Street to Fourth
Street), upgrading the existing bicycle lane
(Class II).
54 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Adeline Street separated bikeway.
ADELINE STREET
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Phase 1 of the Adeline Street Improvements
project covers four contiguous blocks (0.33
miles) from Shattuck Avenue to Ashby
Avenue. The project upgraded the existing
Class II Bike Lane to a Class IV parking-
protected Separated Bikeway. The project
included the construction of four transit
boarding islands. Phase 2 of this project will
extend the Separated Bikeway south to the
Oakland border.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 55
Transit boarding island on Hearst Avenue.
HEARST AVENUE COMPLETE
STREETS
The Hearst Avenue Complete Streets
project covers six contiguous blocks (0.40
miles) from Milvia Street to Arch Street.
The first phase, from Shattuck Avenue
to Arch Street, was completed in 2018.
The second phase, from Milvia Street to
Shattuck Avenue, was completed in 2020.
The project includes transit boarding
islands on Hearst Street at Arch Street and
at Euclid Avenue.
56 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Shared use path on Ninth Street.
NINTH STREET BICYCLE
BOULEVARD PATHWAY
Phase II of the Ninth Street Bicycle
Boulevard Pathway project connects West
Berkley to the Emeryville Greenway. The
project included the construction of a new
shared use path (Class I) from the terminus
of Ninth Street, south across Ashby
Avenue, to connect to the Emeryville
Greenway at Murray Street. The project
was completed in 2021.
The project included new signal
im
provements and intersection
reconfiguration at Ashby Avenue and an
RRFB crossing at Folger Street.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 57
Separated bikeway at North Berkeley BART.
NORTH BERKELEY BART BICYCLE
& PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS
The North Berkeley Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements project was a joint effort
between BART and the City of Berkeley,
funded by the Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC)
grant and Measure RR funds from BART.
The project included:
• Delaware Street (
Acton Street to
Sacramento Street): a two-way
cycletrack on the north side of the street.
• BART Station Parking Lot : th ree two-
way cycletracks on the access lanes
within the North Berkeley BART parking
lot.
• Ohlone Greenway (Virginia Street to
Vir
ginia Gardens): widening of the
Ohlone Greenway from 10 feet to 18 feet
wide.
The project is currently under construction.
58 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Two-way separated bikeway in the Ashby BART parking lot.
ASHBY BART BICYCLE
CONNECTOR
The Ashby BART Bicycle Connector
project constructed a separated bikeway
within the access lanes of the Ashby BART
station, connecting the intersection of
Adeline Street at Woolsey Street to the
intersection of MLK Jr. Way at Prince
Street. This project will connect with the
future Woolsey-Fulton Bicycle Boulevard
in the east and the Southwest Berkeley
Bicycle Boulevard in the west. This BART-
led project was completed in 2024.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 59
2.7 Transportation & Land Use Patterns
Transportation and land use are deeply
interconnected, as land development
determines where growth occurs, and
transportation systems determine how
people move through the region to
reach destinations. The City of Berkeley
is committed to a sustainable future as
a Fossil Fuel Free City, prioritizing safe
transportation options and connections to
vibrant commercial areas and institutions,
ensuring that all residents have access
to the community. This commitment is
reflected in various plans aligned with
Berkeley’s mission and values, including
the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element,
which serves as a key framework for
guiding future growth and transportation
improvements.
PLANNED GROWTH
THROUGH HOUSING
ELEMENT AND MANAGING
TRANSPORTATION
The City of Berkeley’s 2023-2031 Housing
Element defines specific goals, policies,
and programs to support the region’s
population growth. As Berkeley continues
to grow, the City recognizes that increasing
housing density can lead to multiple
benefits, such as reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, improved health, and greater
access to affordable housing. Programs
in Chapter 5 of the Housing Element
increase the City’s residential capacity
and align with the City’s overall goals
and policies. The housing programs were
developed through extensive community
engagement, such as Program 20 –
Liv
able Neighborhoods, which includes
infrastructure, streetscape, and active
transportation improvements in Equity
Priority Areas. These efforts are supported
by several key plans, including but not
limited to the 2017 City of Berkeley Bicycle
Plan, 2020 City of Berkeley Pedestrian Plan,
Vision Zero Action Plan, and the Berkeley
Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan.
The Housing Element update zoning
ordinance and zoning map amendments
prioritized density and affordable
housing in transit-rich areas, which will
incentivize the use of transit and active
modes of transportation. The City Council
emphasized seven key principles in
the Housing Element update, including
Transit Proximity and Reducing Vehicle
Miles Traveled. To support this principle,
Program 27 – Priority Development Areas
(PDAs) focuses on building housing near
transit hubs and commercial corridors,
ensuring that new development is well
connected to sustainable transportation
options. Program 28 – BART Station
Area Planning is another transit-focused
program where the City of Berkeley and
the San Francisco BART are collaborating
to advance equitable transit-oriented
development (TOD) at the Ashby and
North Berkeley BART station areas.
60 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
To advance fair housing, Solano, North Shattuck, and College Avenues have been designated as priority commercial and transit corridors in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. This framework for augmenting housing capacity focuses on fostering equity and inclusion, setting clear and objective development standards in compliance with state laws. New development will induce additional walking, cycling, and transit trips along and across each corridors. All three corridors are identified as Primary Transit Routes in the Berkeley General Plan Transportation Element; both Shattuck Avenue and Solano Avenue are identified as Complete Street Corridor study locations in the Berkeley Bicycle Plan; and all three corridors have bikeway network crossings in need of improvements per the recommendations of this Plan.
BART SITE
REDEVELOPMENT – NORTH
BERKELEY & ASHBY
The City is working with BART to comply
with AB 2923 and has adopted new
zo
ning standards for a mixed-use district
to facilitate residential development at
North Berkeley and Ashby BART stations.
The new zoning will permit higher density
housing and includes new standards for
height, floor area ratio, and minimum
density (Program 28 – BART Station Area
Planning). The development of the Ashby
TOD and North Berkeley BART station
areas is crucial for the active transportation
system and will bring over 700 homes
into the market, over 300 of those being
affordable units.
BART’s TOD Performance Targets
prioritize the creation of below-market-
rate housing for low and very low-income
households, addressing affordable housing
needs while fostering greater mobility.
Active transportation improvements,
including Complete Streets, are being
integrated into the projects at North
Berkeley BART TOD and Ashby TOD to
ensure safer, more accessible routes for
people walking, bicycling, and riding
transit. These improvements will enhance
connectivity to key destinations and
encourage sustainable, nonmotorized
travel, supporting a more inclusive and
environmentally friendly transportation
system for all.
SAN PABLO AVENUE
SPECIFIC PLAN
Planning Commission recommendations
are expected in the spring of 2026, and the
City Council’s review and adoption of this
plan is expected in the middle of 2026. The
San Pablo Specific Plan focuses on land
use policies and economic development
programs, such as allowed uses and
development standards. The plan will
outline programs and policies to encourage
and support diverse housing, commercial
activities, and public amenities. To manage
transportation demand on the San Pablo
Corridor, planners will assess current
multimodal transportation conditions
and needs while summarizing potential
parking and loading impacts in conjunction
with public improvements. In addition
to this assessment, the City is working
with the Alameda County Transportation
Commission and the Transit Rapid
Corridor Project to ensure multiple safety
enhancements are included, in addition to
bus and bicycle lane projects along the San
Pablo Avenue corridor.
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 61
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT
AREAS
The Priority Development Areas (PDA),
defined in the Regional Long Range
Transportation Plan by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, focuses on
connecting housing, commercial corridors,
and transit. By developing housing and
commercial corridors near transit, the City
aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
while addressing housing needs. The City of
Berkeley has seven PDAs, shown in
Figure 8:
• North Berkeley BART
• Adeline Street
• Downtown
• San Pablo Avenue
• South Shattuck
• Southside/Telegraph
• University Avenue
MTC’s Transit-oriented communities (TOCs)
po
licy supports two strategies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area.
Strategy H3: Allow a greater mix of housing
densities and types in Growth Geographies
(including PDAs), and Strategy EC4: Allow
greater commercial densities in Growth
Geographies (including PDAs to encourage
more jobs to locate near public transit).
MTC EQUITY PRIORITY
COMMUNITIES
Formerly known as “Communities of
Concern”, Equity Priority Communities
(EPCs) include Census tracts with a high
concentration of underserved populations,
such as low-income households and
com
munities of color. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) has
used data from the American Community
Survey to identify communities (Census
tracts) that may have historically faced
disadvantages and underinvestment due to
their background or socioeconomic status.
MTC uses this data to direct funding toward
projects that enable more equitable access
to transportation, housing, and services.
EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITIES
ME
THODOLOGY
The Equity Priority Communities (tract
ge
ography) dataset is based on eight
demographic variables:
1. People of Color (70% threshold)
2 . Low-Income (28% threshold)
3. Limited English Proficiency (12%
threshold)
4. Seniors 75 Years and Over (8% threshold)
5. Zero-Vehicle Households (15% threshold)
6. Single Parent Families (18% threshold)
7. People with a Disability (12% threshold)
8. Rent-Burdened Households (14%
threshold)
If a tract exceeds both threshold values for
Low-Income and People of Color shares or
exceeds the threshold value for Low-Income
and exceeds the threshold values for three
or more other variables (#3 to #8), it is an
Equity Priority Community.
Areas of Berkeley designated as Equity
Priority Communities are shown in
Figure 9.
62 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Figure 8: Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050 Plus) from MTC/ABAG
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
MARIN AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN
STTREMONT ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVESOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
BUCHANAN ST
SAN PABLO AVE DERBY ST
SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
EXISTING FACILITIES
PRIORITY
DEVELOPMENT AREAS
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
School
Amtrak Station
BART Station
Railroad
Park
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
Priority Development Areas
BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK
Existing Conditions & Plan Progress | 63
Figure 9: Equity Priority Communities (Plan Bay Area 2050 Plus)
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
MARIN AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN
STTREMONT ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVESOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
BUCHANAN ST
SAN PABLO AVE DERBY ST
SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
EQUITY PRIORITY
COMMUNITIES
(2025)
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley, MTC and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Amtrak Station
BART Station
School
Railroad
Park
EXISTING FACILITIES
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike Route (Class III)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK
Berkeley Equity Priority Communities
64 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
03 NEEDS
ASSESSMENT/
PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT
Needs Assessment/Public Engagement | 65
3.1 Data Analysis
CENSUS DATA
The City of Berkeley is a majority-minority
city, where 52% of households identify as
a non-white ethnicity.
1 While the median
household income is $98,000, more than
a quarter of Berkeley households have
an annual income above $200,000, and
almost one-third have an annual income
below $50,000.
2 Additionally, 17.7% of
households live below the poverty line,3
25% of households do not have access to
a private vehicle,
4 and 10.6% of Berkeley’s
population reports having one or more
disability.
5 US Census data provides an overall context
for bicycling activity in Berkeley. The US
Census American Community Survey
(ACS) commute data consistently tracks
long-term journey-to-work commute
trends. However, the Census only collects
data on the primary mode that Berkeley
residents use to travel to work. It does
not count residents who use a bicycle or
mobility device as part of their commute
(linking to a longer transit trip, for
example). Residents who travel in the hills
may particularly rely on transit for first/
last mile connections during a portion of
a bicycle commute where there are steep
ascents and descents. The Census count
also excludes trips made for recreation,
Not all trips are commuting trips,
which census and ACS data do not
capture. The 2019 Berkeley Vision
Zero Action Plan, when looking at
California Travel Household Survey
data, found that 40% of all trips in the
City of Berkeley are made by people
walking or biking.
to run errands, or to commute to school.
Census data, therefore, only tracks a
portion of the total bicycle trips in Berkeley.
Table 6 shows the commute mode share
a
s reported in the 2023 ACS one-year
estimates. Almost one-third of working
residents worked from home in 2023,
reflecting evolving work trends related to
the COVID-19 pandemic. 56.5% of work
trips are made by low-carbon modes,
which include walking, bicycling, and
taking transit.
When looking at only those people
tra
veling for work (excluding those
working from home), 9% of all Berkeleyans
traveling for work in 2023 chose a bicycle,
representing a substantial increase over
mode share estimates in 2022 and 2021.
6 1 ACS 2023 Table B03002, 5-year estimate
2 ACS 2023 Table 1901, 1-year estimate
3 ACS 2023 Table 1701, 1-year estimate
4 ACS 2023 Table S2504, 1-year estimate
5 ACS 2023 Table S1810, 1-year estimate
6 ACS 2023 Table S0801, 1-year estimate
66 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Table 6: Mode Share for Work Commute (2023 ACS, 1-Year Estimate)
MODE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL TRIPS*
Bicycle 6.2% 9%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other (including
scooters and mobility devices) 2.5% 3.6%
Car, truck, or van 27.3% 39.7%
Public transportation 14.4% 21.0%
Walked 18.2% 26.5%
Worked from home 31.3%
*”Percentage of total trips” represents only those workers commuting to a different place of work, excluding people working from home.
Needs Assessment/Public Engagement | 67
3.2 City Plans, Policies, and Studies
Since 2017
Since adopting the 2017 Bicycle Plan,
the City of Berkeley has pursued
and completed other plans that
substantially impact the development
and implementation of bikeway network
projects. Below is a summary of those
plans.
VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN
VISION ZERO OVERVIEW
The City of Berkeley is committed to an
eq
uity-focused, data-driven effort to
eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries
on city streets by 2028. The Vision Zero
Action Plan prioritizes infrastructure
improvements in Equity Priority Areas,
particularly in conflict locations for people
walking and bicycling. A key principle in
the Vision Zero Action Plan is creating
safer transportation options for people
who walk, bike, and take transit. By making
these transportation options safer and
more comfortable, the City can encourage
their use and reduce reliance on cars,
ultimately leading to fewer severe and fatal
collisions.
RELEVANT POLICIES AND ACTIONS
Key actions include collaborating with
va
rious partners, securing sustainable
funding, and ensuring transparency and
equity in data collection and reporting. The
Vision Zero Action Plan also emphasizes
designing infrastructure for vulnerable
users and planning and developing
projects on High-Injury Streets.
TRANSIT-FIRST POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The City of Berkeley’s Transit-First Policy
Implementation Plan serves as a policy
and design guide to public transit in the
city. It was developed in coordination
with a technical advisory committee and
the Transportation and Infrastructure
Commission.
Proposed objectives of the plan include:
• Improve transit efficiency, reliability, and
acce
ssibility
• Increase transit ridership
• Prioritize transit corridors for future
pla
nning
Policy 3.2: To p rovide first/last mile
connections at transit hubs, BART stations,
or major bus lines, stops will provide
parking for micromobility that is safely out
of the way of the transit facilities and active
sidewalk space. The actions for this policy
include:
• Develop guidance or adopt existing
gu
idance from other agencies for
bikeshare and scooter-share parking
zones near transit stops.
• Work with shared mobility providers to
im
plement the guidance.
68 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Figure 10: Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan High-Injury Streets Map (20 20)
Needs Assessment/Public Engagement | 69
Streets that required transit coordination
for bikeway projects include, but aren’t
limited to:
Redesigning Adeline Street at Ashby
BA
RT: The City and BART coordinated a
study on the feasibility of a lane reduction
on Adeline Street between Ashby Avenue
and MLK Jr. Way. This would provide room
for a public plaza with a protected bikeway
adjacent to the Ashby BART station.
Adeline Street Transportation
Im
provements: This project began in
late 2022, to work on the South Adeline
corridor from MLK Jr. Way to the Oakland
city border. This project aimed to move the
plan’s design concepts into the preliminary
engineering phase of developing
multimodal improvements, including
protected bikeways, potential bus-only
la
nes and other transit improvements, and
pedestrian safety improvements.
Telegraph Avenue Multimodal Corridor
Pro
ject: In 2022, the City of Berkeley
began this project that spans from Dwight
way to Woolsey Street on Telegraph
Avenue. Preliminary engineering designs
consisted of bicycle lanes, transit lanes,
and pedestrian safety improvements.
The goal of the project is to improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety while
maintaining or increasing transit reliability.
These Complete Streets improvements
will provide safe connections to key
destinations along Telegraph Avenue such
as hospitals, UC Berkeley, and Willard
Middle School.
70 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
3.3 Public Outreach
Public outreach for the 2025 Bicycle Plan
Update occurred during two distinct
phases in 2022 and 2025. The project
team used a variety of outreach methods
to gather feedback and input from a
diverse range of Berkeley’s population,
representative of various challenges,
needs, and values.
2022 PUBLIC OUTREACH
SUMMARY
Phase one of engagement for the plan
update took place during the spring and
summer months of 2022. The focus of this
initial engagement effort was to gather
general feedback from the public about
priorities for the update, as well as focused
input on the network recommendations
from the 2017 Bicycle Plan.
During this phase, 14 public events were
he
ld along with the use of an interactive
webmap. The engagement events included
two pop-up workshops, a bike tour, 10
listening sessions, a virtual community
workshop, and emails that the project team
received. The outreach effort garnered
input from 900 participants in total. More
than 600 respondents interacted with the
webmap, making it the method for greatest
participation (67%). The other events
were also well attended, with 100 people
engaging with the pop-up workshops,
95 people participating in the listening
sessions, and 78 people attending the
virtual community workshop.
In total, the project team received 1,333
comments during the engagement effort.
Of those, 935 came from the webmap,
which accounted for the majority of
comments received (70%); 264 came from
the listening sessions, which accounted
for 20% of all comments received; and the
last 10% of comments were split relatively
evenly across the other four outreach
types.
During phase one, participants provided
the project team with an abundance of
input throughout the engagement events.
The Equity Priority Area group listening
sessions were meant to gather feedback
from lower-income residents and provide
balance to other public input mechanisms
that would be over-represented by well-
resourced residents. The virtual community
workshop was meant to gather input
from the broader public and provide
participants with an overview of the
project, the updated high-injury network,
and information on more ways they could
get involved.
Some themes that arose from public
outreach sessions included:
• Desire for improved pavement
qu
ality
• Desire for better north-south
co
nnectivity throughout the city.
• Concern for debris in bikeways
• Concern for dangerous driving
be
haviors
• Near-universal support for bicycle
boul
evards
• Need for more bike parking
Needs Assessment/Public Engagement | 71
2022
OUTREACH
14 public
events
interactive
webmap
900
participants
1,333
comments
Support for Mabel/Bonar Bike
Blvd - no viable routes through
that area now for north-south
trips. Connects with parks
& Emeryville Greenway.
Public providing feedback at the 2022 Juneteenth Festival.
Like the workshop, the pop-up events were
meant to gather input from the broader
public and allowed participants to provide
specific feedback on existing bicycling
and rolling facilities and conditions in
Berkeley. Participants identified numerous
common issues with the bikeway network,
including pavement quality on bicycle
facilities, major arterials serving as barriers
to bicycling and rolling, limited north-
south connections through the city, and
numerous crossings and corridors where
people bicycling and rolling encounter
dangerous situations.
Common themes that came from
th
e virtual community workshop
included:
• Interest in continued engagement
an
d how input would be used
• A desire to see universal design
pri
nciples in future bicycle facilities
• An interest in improving bicycle
bo
ulevards to make them lower
stress
• Concern for the quality of pavement
wi
thin bicycle facilities
72 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Figure 11: Comment Density Map for Phase One of the Outreach Process
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
GRIZ
ZLY PEAK
BLVD
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
WILDCAT
CAN
YON
RD
TUNNEL
RD
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVE
SOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MOTERE
Y AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
MURRARY ST
SAN PABLO AVE
DERBY ST
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California, Berkeley
San
Pablo
Park
Tilden
Regional
Park
East Bay
Shoreline
State Park
Albany
El Cerrito
Emeryville
Oakland
Richmond
COMBINED 2022
OUTREACH
COMMENT DENSITY
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 11/15/2024. 0 0.5 1 MILE
FEATURES
Amtrak Station
BART Station
Schools
Parks
City Boundary
COMMENTS ON ALL FACILITIES
Number of Comments
Low
High
Needs Assessment/Public Engagement | 73
Students are using bike blvds
to get to school. Smaller kids
will bike with parents.
2025
OUTREACH
13 public
events
5 disability
community
interviews
972
participants
1,303
comments
Listening session at MLK Middle School for BUSD families. 2025 PUBLIC OUTREACH
SUMMARY
Phase two of public outreach took place
during the winter months of 2025, running
from January 16 to the end of February.
The focus of this phase of engagement
was to introduce and validate the network
recommendations with the public, as
well as communicate how public input
from phase one was used to develop the
recommendations.
Phase two consisted of 13 events, including
three pop-up events, six listening sessions,
three presentations to the Transportation
and Infrastructure Commission and the
Commission on Disability, one Public
Workshop, and four individual interviews
with stakeholders with a disability. The
pop-ups occurred at the Downtown
Berkeley Farmers’ Market, the South
Berkeley Farmers’ Market, and the Ashby
Flea Market. These outreach events reached
UC Berkeley students, Berkeley business
owners, seniors, BUSD families, people
with disabilities, and residents residing in
Berkeley Way Affordable Housing Tenant.
In total, 652 people engaged in phase two
of the outreach effort, with a majority of
participants attending the listening sessions
(237 people) and the pop-up events (180
people). The project team also received
63 emails and four formal letters from
residents. A citywide online workshop was
held in August of 2025 to solicit input on
the draft plan update. The online workshop
was attended by 128 members of the public.
74 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
The project team received 768 comments
during phase two, with most of the
comments coming during the listening
sessions (35%), the Public Workshop
(19%), from emails (16%), and at pop-ups
(13%). The formal letters (7%), interviews
with disabled stakeholders (6%), and
Commission Meetings (3%) accounted for
the least number of comments.
The project team received a wealth of
in
put from all the outreach efforts during
phase two. The farmers’ market pop-ups
were meant to capture input from the
broader public, and a few common themes
emerged during these events. In general,
most of the participants were supportive
of enhancing the bikeway network and
the specific project recommendations that
were presented. The stakeholder group
listening sessions were held in partnership
with specific groups to capture input
and participation from their constituents.
Common themes captured during these
sessions included a desire for a more
connected bikeway network, a concern for
parking loss and loading, and a desire for
more education and traffic enforcement.
What we heard from Phase Two
outreach:
• Safety concerns
• A desire for more traffic calming
an
d all-way stops
• An interest in prioritizing safe routes
to
schools
• Ensuring access and safety for
re
sidents with a disability
DRAFT PLAN & PUBLIC
COMMENT
The Draft Bike Plan was released in August
2025 and during the approximately
7-week public comment period City staff
received 316 emails on the draft plan. In
addition, seven organizations and groups
submitted letters to the City regarding
various aspects of the draft plan including
design guidelines, recommendations for
the bikeway network, and accessibility. In
total, these emails and letters resulted in
535 comments that City staff reviewed and
analyzed to revise the plan appropriately.
Some of the changes reflected in
this final draft are the result of these
public comments, such as an expanded
accessibility recommendations section,
and a more streamlined project delivery
process section.
Needs Assessment/Public Engagement | 75
Milvia Street
76 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
04 PROPOSED
B I K E WAY
NETWORK
Proposed Bikeway Network | 77
This chapter presents the recommended bikeway network, which supports a vision for Berkeley where bicycling is safe, comfortable, and convenient for people of all ages and abilities.
Recommendations consist of updates to
the 2017 Bicycle Plan recommendations,
with consideration given to safety (the
Vision Zero Action Plan’s High-Injury
Streets; retaining first responder access),
equity (MTC Equity Priority Communities),
proximity to schools and school routes,
and the public input received through two
separated phases of outreach.
This plan update revises the Bikeway
Network Vision, first established in the 2017
Bicycle Plan: a continuous and connected
system of “low-stress” bikeways that
provide safe and comfortable travel for
all users and links to all key destinations
in Berkeley. Bikeway facility types are
described in Se
ction 2.1 while Figure 12
illustrates the Low-Stress Bikeway Network
Vision showing how low-traffic bicycle
boulevards, separated bikeways, and
multi-use paths, all with safe intersection
crossings, can form a network that an
overwhelming majority of Berkeley’s
population would feel comfortable
bicycling or rolling on (based on the
statistically-balanced survey conducted
during the 2017 Bike Plan).
Safety considerations are especially
important for parents riding with their
children, or for older children riding
independently. The Berkeley Unified
School District, by policy, does not provide
school bus service to middle or high school
students and does not provide school
bus service to households within 1.5 miles
of their assigned elementary school. In
terms of the potential for reducing traffic
congestion and helping to achieve the
City’s climate action goals, school trips
account for a significant portion of morning
auto traffic and yet are often less than a
mile in length. Therefore, it is important
that the Low-Stress Network connect to
as many schools in Berkeley as possible,
and allow parents and children within a
given enrollment area to have the option
of a completely low-stress trip from their
residence to school.
78 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Figure 12: Low-Stress Bikeway Vision Network
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
MARIN AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN
STTREMONT ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVESOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
BUCHANAN ST
SAN PABLO AVE DERBY ST
SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
LOW-STRESS
BIKEWAY
NETWORK VISION
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Low-Stress Bikeway
Network Vision
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Boulevard Network
Cycletrack (Class IV)
Complete Street Corridor Studies* -
Low Stress Bikeway
Recommendation
Study Cycletrack*
Primary Transit Route - Study Cycletrack*
Amtrak Station
BART Station
School
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
*Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects.
The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide planning document that recommends improvements to bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity at a network level. See Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process and Section 5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study Recommendations for more information.
Proposed Bikeway Network | 79
4.1 Project Recommendation Categories
Berkeley’s Bikeway network
recommendations are described in detail
on the following pages and have been
grouped into the following categories:
1. Planned/Funded Projects : pr
ojects
already in various stages of funding and
design, moving toward construction.
2. Citywide Network Recommendations:
lin
ear project recommendations to
expand and upgrade the bike network
across Berkeley.
3. Citywide Low-Stress Intersection
Co
ntrols Recommendations:
intersection project recommendations to
close gaps in the low-stress network and
increase user comfort and safety when
crossing major roadways on bicycle.
4. Citywide Bicycle Boulevard Traffic
Ca
lming Recommendations: project
recommendations for speed tables
or cushions, traffic circles, and traffic
diverters across the Bicycle Boulevard
Network.
5. Complete Streets Corridors: gu
idance
for complete streets corridor studies
when considering implementation of
separated bikeways.
Recommended projects will go through a detailed design process to ensure universal ac
cessibility. Refer to Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process for more information.
80 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
4.2 Planned/Funded Projects
The following section provides a summary
of projects that have already reached a
stage of substantial funding or design by
the time of the 2025 Bicycle Plan Update’s
adoption. As such, these projects had
project details determined prior to the
development of recommendations.
WOOLSEY-FULTON BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
The Woolsey-Fulton Bicycle Boulevard
project includes the following project
elements:
• A PHB crossing at the intersection of
ML
K Jr. Way at Prince Street
• A PHB crossing at the intersection of
Sh
attuck Avenue and Russell Street
• An RRFB + median crossing of Adeline
St
reet at Woolsey Street
• An RRFB crossing of Adeline at Russell
St
reet with curb extensions
• An RRFB crossing of Shattuck Avenue at
Wo
olsey Street with curb extensions
• A bicycle boulevard route (1.18 miles)
on W
oolsey Street (Adeline Street
to Wheeler Street); Wheeler Street
(Woolsey Street to Prince Street); Prince
Street (Wheeler Street to Fulton Street);
and Fulton Street (Prince Street to
Dwight Way)
• New traffic circles at the intersection of
Wh
eeler Street at Prince Street
• New speed tables at the intersections of
Fu
lton Street north of Oregon and south
of Oregon
This project will connect Ashby BART to
th
e separated bikeways on the south side
of the UC Berkeley campus. Construction is
anticipated to be complete by early 2026.
Woolsey-Fulton Bicycle Boulevard project extents
Proposed Bikeway Network | 81
PARKER-ADDISON MOBILITY
& SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
The Parker-Addison Mobility and Safety
project includes the following project
elements:
• A bicycle boulevard route (1.05 miles) on
Bo
nar Street (Addison Street to Dwight
Way) and on Mabel Street (Dwight Way
to Russell Street)
• A bicycle boulevard route on Parker
St
reet from Mabel Street to Ninth Street
• Two new traffic circles at the
in
tersections of Bonar Street at Channing
Way and Parker Street at Ninth Street
• A two-way cycletrack connector on
Dw
ight Way between Mabel Street and
Bonar Street
This project will connect the West Street
Bi
ke Path, Addison Bicycle Boulevard
Phase 2 (future), the Ninth Street Bicycle
Boulevard, the Channing Way Bicycle
Boulevard, the Russell Street Bicycle
Boulevard, and the Southwest Berkeley
Bicycle Boulevard (future). This project
does not include improvements on
Parker Street between San Pablo Avenue
and Ninth Street. This project is being
constructed in coordination with the San
Pablo Avenue Parallel Routes project (see
page 86). Construction is anticipated to be
completed in 2026.
Parker-Addison Mobility & Safety Improvements
project extents
82 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
SOUTHWEST BERKELEY
BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
The Southwest Berkeley Bicycle Boulevards
project includes the following project
elements:
• A bicycle boulevard route (1.25 miles)
on M
abel Street (Russell Street to 66th
Street); 66th Street (Mabel Street to
Idaho Street); Idaho Street (66th Street
to Harmon Street); Harmon Street
(Idaho Street to King Street); King Street
(Harmon Street to Prince Street); and
Prince Street (King Street to MLK Jr.
Way)
• A bicycle lane (Class II) on Alcatraz
Av
enue from Adeline Street to King
Street
• A PHB with a median crossing on Harmon
St
reet at Sacramento Street
• An RRFB + median crossing of Alcatraz
Av
enue at California Street
• An RRFB + median crossing of Alcatraz
Av
enue at King Street
• Four traffic circles at the intersections of
Ma
bel Street at Carrison Street, Mabel
Street at 67th Street, Harmon Street at
Idaho Street, and Harmon Street at Baker
Street
This project will connect the Russell Street
Bi
cycle Boulevard, the California Street
Bicycle Boulevard, the King Street Bicycle
Boulevard, and the Ashby BART station
and connect the existing Alcatraz Avenue
bicycle lanes to King Street. The project
is being designed in coordination with the
San Pablo Avenue Parallel Routes project
(see below). The project is recommended
for Active Transportation Program funding
from MTC/Caltrans, with construction
anticipated in 2028.
Southwest Berkeley Bicycle Boulevard project extents
Proposed Bikeway Network | 83
SAN PABLO AVENUE
PARALLEL ROUTES
The San Pablo Avenue Parallel Routes project
is led by the Alameda County Transportation
Commission in coordination with the City of
Berkeley. The project attempts to establish
viable routes for north-south bicycle travel
on both the east and west sides of San Pablo
Avenue. The project includes the following
project elements:
• A bicycle boulevard route (0.67 miles) on
Ka
ins Street (Albany border to Camelia
Street); Camelia Street (Kains Street to
Stannage Avenue); and Stannage Avenue
(Camelia Street to Virginia Street)
• A bicycle boulevard route (0.17 miles) on
Ca
melia Street from Kains Street to Ninth
Street
• A bicycle boulevard route (0.40 miles) on
Ni
nth Street (Camelia Street to Harrison
Street); Harrison Street (Ninth Street to 10th
Street); and 10th Street (Harrison Street to
Albany border)
• Bicycle boulevard connections to
Em
eryville (via 65th Street) and Oakland
(via Idaho Street)
• 10 new traffic circles at the intersections
of N
inth Street at Harrison Street; Eighth
Street at Harrison Street; Kains Street
at Camelia Street; Stannage Avenue at
Camelia Street; Ninth Street at Page Street
(upgrade); Stannage Avenue at Virginia
Street; 10th Street at Virginia Street; Ninth
Street at Virginia Street (upgrade); Ninth
Street at Grayson Street; Ninth Street at
Heinz Avenue (upgrade)
• Diverters at the intersection of Ninth Street
at
Delaware Street (upgrade) and Channing
Way at Curtis Street
San Pablo Avenue Parallel Routes project extents
also includes intersection upgrades in southwest
Berkeley
• A PHB crossing at the intersection of San
Pa
blo Avenue at Camelia Street and San
Pablo Avenue at Channing Way
• An RRFB crossing with curb extensions at
th
e intersections of Gilman Street at Kains
Street, Hopkins Street at Stannage Avenue,
and Cedar Street at Stannage Avenue
• An RRFB + median crossing at the
in
tersection of Ninth Street at Cedar Street
• A median crossing of San Pablo Avenue at
Vi
rginia Street (enhancing the existing PHB)
• Speed tables along the majority of the
ro
ute
• An RRFB crossing of Alcatraz Avenue at
Id
aho Street
The project is being implemented in
co
ordination with multiple other City of
Berkeley bicycle boulevard projects (listed
above). Phased construction is anticipated to
start in 2026.
Ä13
Ä13
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
¥80
University of
California,
Berkeley
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
M L KING JR WAY
FAIRLAWNDR
HARRISON ST
TUNNELRD
VIRGINIA ST
CEDAR ST
BONAR ST
OXFORD ST
GILMAN ST
HOPKINS ST
DURANT AVE
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
LE CONTE AVE
TELEGRAPH AVE
ROSE ST
CAMPUS
DR
MARIN AVE
ASHBY AVE
COLLEGE AVE
HILLCREST RD
CAMELIA ST
SECOND ST
DWIGHT WAY
FIFTH ST
PANORA M I
C
WAY
FOURTH ST
SACRAMENTO ST
BUEN
A VISTA
W
AY
UNIVERSITY AVE OVERPASS
THE AL
AME
DA
CURTIS ST
MILVIA ST
CLAREMONT AVE
SHAS
TA
RD
BOLIVAR DR
BROWNING ST MCKINLEY AVE
PARKER ST
GRANT ST
SEVENTH ST
MONTEREY AV
E
UNNA
MEDLBLROAD
BLAKE ST
TENTH ST
ROOSEVEL T AVE
NINTH STEIGHTH ST
PI
EDM
ONT
AVE
MCGEE AVE
ACTON ST
PAGE ST
CALIFORNIA ST
ELLSWORTH ST
SPRUCE ST
FAIRVIEW ST
BANCROFT WAY
ALLSTON WAY
RUSSELL ST
WOOLSEY ST
PRINCE ST
CHESTNUT ST
DERBY ST
FRANCISCO ST
LAL OMA AVE
ADDISON ST
HARMON ST
SPAULDING AVE
MATHEWS ST
HASTE ST
CHANNING WAY
VINE ST
FUL TON ST
W FRONTAGE
RD
GRIZZLYPEAK
BL
VD
OREGON ST
CARLETON ST
STUART ST
FOLGER AVE
SIXTH ST
THE UPL ANDS
WARD ST
BENVENUE AVE
BERKELEY WAY
CYCLO
TRON RD
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 11/12/2025.0 0.5 1 MILE
84 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Adeline Street Transportation Improvement project extents
ADELINE STREET
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AND QUICK BUILD
The Adeline Street Transportation
Improvement Project aims to redesign
the stretch of Adeline Street from Ashby
Avenue to the Oakland border (on MLK Jr.
Way) according to the recommendations
of the 2020 Adeline Corridor Specific
Plan. This project would involve the
implementation of separated bikeways
(Class IV) and transit boarding islands
along the length of the corridor.
The project is in the preliminary design
stage, with construction funding yet to be
secured. The City of Berkeley was recently
awarded grant funding for a quick-build
project on this corridor, with design and
construction anticipated in 2026.
The City of Oakland will in 2026 implement
separated bikeways on MLK Jr Drive from
West Street to the City of Berkeley border,
connecting to the Adeline Transportation
Improvement Project.
Proposed Bikeway Network | 85
OHLONE GREENWAY
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
The Ohlone Greenway Safety
Improvements Project will make
improvements to the Ohlone Greenway
multi-use pathway, from Virginia Gardens
to the south to Santa Fe Avenue to
the north. This will include widening
the pathway to 12 feet where feasible
and making the following intersection
improvements:
• A two-way cycletrack connector at the
in
tersection with Rose Street
• A two-way cycletrack on Peralta Avenue,
be
tween Hopkins Street and the Ohlone
Greenway
• An RRFB at the intersection with Santa
Fe
Avenue
• An RRFB + median crossing at the
in
tersection of Cedar Street
• A raised crosswalk at the intersections
wi
th Peralta Avenue, Cedar Street, Rose
Street, and Santa Fe Avenue
Construction is expected to be started by
202
6. Ohlone Greenway Safety Improvements project
extents
86 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
ADDISON STREET BICYCLE
BOULEVARD PHASE 2
The Addison Street Bicycle Boulevard
Phase 2 project is two separate segments
equaling 1.4 miles combined. The two
segments are from Bolivar Drive to
Sacramento Street in the west and from
Milvia Street to Oxford Street in the east.
The project includes:
• A new bicycle boulevard route on
Ad
dison Street (Bolivar Drive to
Sacramento Street; Milvia Street to
Oxford Street)
• A new shared use path (Class I) along
Le
hua Way (Browning Street to Curtis
Street)
• A two-way cycletrack connector across
San
Pablo Avenue
• A PHB crossing of Sacramento Street
• An RRFB + median crossing at Sixth
St
reet
• Three traffic circles at Fifth Street,
Se
venth Street, and Tenth Street
This project will connect the Berkeley
Bi
cycle Boulevard network to the Mario
Savio bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of
I-80, creating a low-stress connection to
the Bay Trail and the Berkeley waterfront.
Construction is expected in 2027.
Addison Street Bicycle Boulevard Phase 2 project extents
Proposed Bikeway Network | 87
SIXTH STREET UPGRADED
BIKE LANE
Through an Affordable Housing
Sustainable Communities grant win, the
City of Berkeley will upgrade the existing
bicycle lanes on Sixth Street between
Camelia Street and University Avenue
with green pavement and conflict zone
markings. Construction will be coordinated
with the construction of the North Berkeley
BART Bridge Phase 1 affordable housing
development, according to the terms of the
grant agreement.
Sixth Street Upgraded Bike Lane project extents
88 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
4.3 Project Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
The bikeway network recommendations
remain largely the same as those in the
2017 Bicycle Plan, with three types of
adjustments:
1. Removing projects that have been
co
mpleted since 2017
2. Updating projects that are currently
funded or in design
3. Adding new connections to link existing
sections of the Low-Stress Network
The network recommendations shown on
Figure 13 al
so include the removal of a few
bicycle routes, such as Chestnut Street,
which have lost their utility due to better
network options being built nearby since
the 2017 Bicycle Plan. Table 7 shows the
mileage proposed for each facility class.
Table 7: Summary of Network Recommendation
BIKEWAY FACILITY MILEAGE
PR
OPOSED
Shared use path (Class I) 1.3 mi
Bi
cycle lane (Class II) 0.5 mi
Upgraded bicycle lane (Class
II)
2.2 mi
Bicycle boulevard (Class III) 14.0 mi
Bicycle route (Class III) 9.0 mi
Separated bikeway (Class IV) 15.5 mi
Total 42.7 mi
Recommended projects will go through a detailed design process to ensure universal accessibility. Refer to Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process for more information.
Proposed Bikeway Network | 89
Figure 13: Recommended Network Improvements
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
GRIZ
ZLY PEAK
BLVD
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
WILDCAT
CAN
YON
RD
TUNNEL
RD
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVE
SOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MON
TER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
SONOMA AVE
DERBY ST
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
BerkeleyCésar Chávez
Park
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore State
Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
El Cerrito
Emeryville
Oakland
Richmond
2025 EXISTING/RECOMMENDED FACILITIES
RECOMMENDED
NETWORK
IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Complete Street Corridor Study -
Primary Transit Route*
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike Route (Class III)
Bike Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
BIKE BOULEVARD NETWORK
School Amtrak
Station
BART
Station
Railroad Park
Complete Street Corridor Study*
*Complete Street Corridor Studies are
proposed multimodal transportation studies,
not planned projects. The Berkeley Bicycle
Plan is a citywide planning document that
recommends improvements to bicycle safety,
comfort, and connectivity at a network level.
See Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process and
Section 5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study
Recommendations for more information.
90 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
SAFE CROSSINGS
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations
to inform future design. All projects
will comply with design requirements
established by the CA MUTCD, PROWAG,
and other relevant guidelines.
Major street crossings are a critical piece
of t
he Bicycle Boulevard Network. One of
the three goals for bicycle boulevards is
to “develop a network of efficient routes
for bicyclists,” which means improving the
ability to cross major intersections.
Many bicycle boulevard corridors are
lo
w-stress within the neighborhood until a
person on bike must cross a major street
such as Sacramento Street or San Pablo
Avenue. These high-stress crossings
are barriers to more people bicycling; a
single high-stress crossing point along an
otherwise low-stress bicycle boulevard
route can be a major deterrent to use.
The 2017 Bicycle Plan recommended a
series of crossing improvements across the
existing and proposed Bicycle Boulevard
Network, based on the unsignalized
bikeway crossing treatment progression
shown in Ta
ble 10, which recommended
more advanced crossing treatments based
on the number of travel lanes and daily
volume of vehicle traffic on the major cross
street. This treatment progression table
attempted to provide guidance on the
appropriate crossing treatment to achieve
a suitably low-stress experience for users
on the Bicycle Boulevard Network. Low-
stress in
tersection control improvements
are shown on Figure 14. The total number
of intersection improvements by type is
shown in Table 8.
The six recommended RRFBs are from
ongoing funded projects currently in the
final design or construction phase. As
shown in Table 9, RRFBs without
additional traffic calming features (such
as medians or curb extensions) are not
recommended for crossing treatments in
the future (see following page).
Table 8: Recommended Low-Stress Intersection
Co
ntrols
LOW-STRESS
INTERSECTION CONTROL
NUMBER
PR
OPOSED
Two-Way Cycletrack Crossing 6
Pe
destrian Hybrid Beacon
(PHB) 12
Protected Intersection 5
Raised Intersection/Raised
Crosswalk 2
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) 6
Median Crossing 2
RRFB + Median Crossing 12
Total 45
Recommended projects will go through a detailed design process to ensure universal accessibility. Refer to Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process for more information.
Proposed Bikeway Network | 91
Table 9: Uncontrolled Crossing Treatment Progression Table
CROSSING
TREATMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT) 1
VERY
LOW
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
Cross Street Up to 3
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Marked Crossing LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 All-way STOP2 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
Median Refuge
Island3 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Median with
RRFB
3 X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
4 X X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
Traffic Signal4 X X X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
1: Very Low: 0-1,500; Low: 1,501-5,000; Medium: 5,001-12,500; High: >12,500 2: Requires completing a CA MUTCD STOP warrant analysis before implementation 3: Minimum 6-foot-wide median to provide Level of Traffic Stress benefit; already existing median can serve this purpose
4: Subject to successful warrant analysis; locations to be implemented considering turn movement restrictions to mitigate vehicle diversion effects
DEFINITIONS:
X: No additional benefit
Black: Not advisable or not applicable
LT
S: Level of Traffic Stress, with LTS 1 or 2 ideal for low-stress crossings.
See the “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” study a t ht
tps://t
ransweb.sjsu.edu/research/Low-Stress-Bicycling-and-Network-Connectivity for detailed discussion of LTS. For more information, see Berkeley Bicycle Plan 2017 Appendix C Level of Traffic Stress
92 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
In the years following the adoption of the
2017 Bicycle Plan, City of Berkeley staff
has sought to validate the effectiveness
of recommended crossing treatments
for different types of cross streets on
the Bicycle Boulevard Network. Through
implementation and public feedback, the
City learned residents felt uncomfortable
with the application of RRFBs on busier
streets, instead preferring median crossing
islands. The Uncontrolled Crossing
Treatment Progression table has been
subsequently updated to keep in line
with observed results, best practices, and
updated standards and guidelines for the
City of Berkeley. These changes can be
summarized as:
• RRFBs should be implemented in tandem
with a median crossing or should include
other traffic calming features such as
raised crosswalks or curb extensions. To
reduce crossing distances and improve
visibility.
• Use an All-Way STOP sign as a stand-
alone
option for local street intersections
and collector street intersections that are
no more than three lanes of travel.
This
requires completing a CA MUTCD STOP
warrant analysis before implementation.
• Median crossings, whether paired with
RRFBs or PHBs, should consider the
feasibility of acting as a diverter for
the bicycle boulevard route. The City
of Berkeley has developed designs for
median crossings that divert vehicle
traffic off bicycle boulevard routes while
still permitting through movements by
e
mergency vehicles.
Changes in recommendations from 2017
largely focus on accounting for funded
and upcoming projects, applying updated
guidance to remaining recommendations,
and identifying additional crossing
treatments needed for new network facility
recommendations.
Proposed Bikeway Network | 93
Figure 14: Recommended Low-Stress Bikeway Intersection Control Improvements
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
COLLEGE AVE
WOOLSEY ST
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTON ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN ST
TREMONT ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVESOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUT
TER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
ADDISON ST
DERBY ST
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
Berkeley
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
S
S
S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
H
S
SS
H
S
RM
S
S
S
P
P
I
S
S
P
P
P S
S
S
S S
R
S
S
SS
SS
SS
I
R
S
SS
RM
H
RM
H
2w
H
RM
RM
H
2w
P
P
RM
RM
P P
P
2w
H
H
H
H
RM
H
RM
2w
R
RM
H
RM
I
I
I
R
R
R
RM
2w
MX
RM
H
2w
H
RM
R
R
H
MX
RECOMMENDED
LOW-STRESS
BIKEWAY
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
EXISTING INTERSECTION CONTROL
Protected Intersection
All-Way Stop Sign
Median Crossing
RRFB + Median
RRFB
Raised Intersection
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Traffic Signal
INTERSECTION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
Protected Intersection
2-Way Cycletrack
Connector
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
RRFB + Median
RRFB
Median Crossing
Raised Intersection
COMPLETE STREETS TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY
Complete Streets Corridor Study - Primary
Transit Route*
2w RM
P IRH
MX
P
SS
MX
RM
R
I
H
S
Bike Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III)
Cycletrack (Class IV)
BICYCLE BOULEVARD
NETWORK
NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Complete Street Corridor Study*
*Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects. The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide planning document that recommends improvements to bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity at a network level. See Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process and Section 5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study Recommendations for more information.
94 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
BICYCLE BOULEVARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Berkeley’s bicycle boulevards use traffic
calming and bicycle priority to achieve
a safe, comfortable, and convenient
experience for people who bicycle.
Intersections along bicycle boulevards will
be evaluated as part of neighborhood-
level public outreach and involvement to
see whether traffic calming treatments
would be more effective than stop signs
in establishing bicycle priority while
reducing the speed and volume of motor
vehicle cut-through traffic. While these
recommendations focus on traffic circles
and diverters as primary bicycle boulevard
traffic calming strategies, the City will
apply appropriate traffic calming options
when needed and where feasible. This may
include speed tables and cushions, raised
crosswalks, corner sidewalk bulb-outs,
and chicanes where appropriate to reduce
vehicle speeds. Recommended traffic
calming for select intersections is shown on
Figure 15.
TRAFFIC CIRCLES AND DIVERTERS
Figure 15 shows recommended traffic
ca
lming improvements along the Bicycle
Boulevard Network. New traffic circles
are recommended as a traffic calming
feature to slow and discourage non-local
vehicle traffic. Traffic circles also reduce
conflicts at intersections. Diverters are
recommended to direct vehicles off
the bicycle boulevards and onto larger
roadways, decreasing vehicle speeding
and cut-through traffic. Recommendations
were updated from the 2017 Bicycle Plan
for both traffic circles and diverters based
on new design guidelines developed by the
City of Berkeley.
Recommended traffic circle and diverter
lo
cations in this 2025 Bicycle Plan Update
may be changed based on traffic studies,
emergency response impacts, public
process, or neighborhood feedback.
The City may pilot these locations with
temporary installations to understand
their traffic impacts before making them
permanent.
Recommended projects will go through a detailed design process to ensure universal ac
cessibility. Refer to Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process for more information.
Proposed Bikeway Network | 95
Figure 15: Recommended Low-Stress Bicycle Boulevard Traffic Calming Improvements*
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVE
SOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MONTER
EY AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
DERBY ST
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
Berkeley
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
Albany
Emeryville
Oakland
C
C C
C
D
C
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
CC
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CC
D
D
D C C
D D D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D C
D
D CC
C
C
CC
D
D
C
C
D
D
C
D
CC
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
D C
C
C
C C
C
D
C C
C
C C
C
D
C C
D C
C
C
C
C
C
RECOMMENDED
LOW-STRESS BIKE
BOULEVARD TRAFFIC
CALMING
IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class II Upgraded Bike Lane
Class III Bicycle Boulevard
Class IV Cycletrack
TRAFFIC CALMING RECOMMENDATIONS
Traffic Circle Traffic Diverter
NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Class III
Bicycle Boulevard
Amtrak Station
BART Station
School
Railroad
Park
BICYCLE BOULEVARD NETWORK
EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic Circle Traffic DiverterC D C D
The Berkeley Bike Plan is a citywide planning document that recommends improvements to bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity at a network level. These recommendations require further project- specific planning, data collection, analysis, and engineering before being approved for implementation. For further information, see Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process. *In addition to the improvements shown in the map, Bicycle Boulevards should have at least one speed table or speed cushion per block, as specified in Appendix A.
96 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
SPEED TABLES AND CUSHIONS
The city should use speed tables to reduce
vehicle speeds on bicycle boulevards
initially, and should consider using other
traffic calming devices such as speed
cushions to reduce speeds on bicycle
boulevards after the city approves these
devices. It is recommended that the City
apply speed tables on every block of every
bicycle boulevard in the network. The City
of Berkeley will continue its practice of
replacing existing speed humps with speed
tables on bicycle boulevards when these
streets are repaved. Speed tables should
be designed with gentle transitions on the
approach and departure ramps, in the form
of a sinusoidal curve.
Speed cushions retain the height and slope
of a speed hump while providing a cut-
through space that can be used by wide-
based vehicles such as fire trucks,
ambulances, or buses to avoid vertical
deflection and retain travel speeds.
These speed-cushion cut-throughs can also
be used by people on bicycles to avoid
going up and over a speed cushion. This is
particularly beneficial to seniors and
residents with mobility disabilities who
experience pain when traveling
over a speed hump or a speed table. It is
recommended that cut-through spacing for
speed cushions be set broadly enough that
drivers of vehicles with a standard wheel
base cannot use them.
REMOVABLE/RETRACTABLE TRAFFIC
CALMING DEVICES
Removable and retractable devices should
be considered for diverters and other
devices that limit vehicle access and
circulation to provide flexibility for
emergency access by responders and/or
for emergency evacuation.
Proposed Bikeway Network | 97
This page intentionally left blank.
98 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
05 IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation | 99
This chapter presents the strategies Berkeley should use when implementing this 2025 Bicycle Plan Update. The chapter includes the evaluation criteria and scoring method, project cost estimates, and a map of prioritized projects.
5.1 Evaluation Criteria Update: 2017 to 2025
Recommended projects were scored
against the evaluation criteria listed in
Table 10. Prior to being scored, individual
project segments and intersections were
consolidated and organized into logical
implementation corridors based on their
location and extent.
These evaluation criteria were selected
to b
e both Berkeley-specific and to align
with the criteria used by the vast majority
of transportation grant funding agencies.
As such the prioritization is intended
to support competitiveness for grant
applications, but does not necessarily
incorporate all criteria and values
important to the Berkeley community
in regard to these projects. See Section
5.2 Project Delivery Process for more
information.
The prioritization corridors were organized
into three tiers based on the evaluation
scoring, with scoring criteria shown in
Table 10. Fi
gure 16 shows projects in all
tiers, and Table 11 shows all projects in
Tier 1, grouped by corridor. Tables showing
grouped projects for Tier 2 and Tier 3 can
be found in Appendix E .
Table 10: Prioritization Criteria for Recommended Projects
CRITERIA SCORING METRIC SC ORING
METHOD
MAXIMUM
POINTS
Safety – Collisions 2019 High Injury Streets Map Pro ximity 20 Safety – LTS 2024 Existing Network Map Severity 15
Community Support – project
identification 2022 Community Input Density 10
Community Support – project
prioritization 2025 Community Input Density 20
Equity 2024 Equity Priority
Communities Map (MTC) Proximity 20
Safe Routes to Schools BUSD campus proximity Proximity 10 Feasibility Engineering Judgment Complexity 5
Total Possible Score 100
100 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Figure 16: Proposed Project Tiers Map
SHATTUCK AVE
DELAWARE ST
HOPKINS ST
ACTON ST
CO
LLEGE
AVE
WOOLSEY ST
GRIZ
ZLY PEAK
BLVD
VIRGINIA ST
SACRAMENTO ST
RUSSELL ST
MLK JR WAY
DWIGHT WAY
CENTER ST
HEINZ AVE
THE ALAMEDA
GILMAN ST
6TH ST
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BANCROFT WAY
ROSE ST
GRANT ST
FULTO
N
ST
MILVIA ST
CALIFORNIA ST
TELEGRAPH AVE
ASHBY AVE
CHANNING WAY
BAY TRAIL
SPRUCE ST
UNIVERSITY AVE
4TH ST
OXFORD ST
WALNUT ST
5TH ST
9TH ST
WILDCAT
CAN
YON
RD
TUNNEL
RD
CLAREMONT AVE
HARMON ST
ADELINE ST
KING ST
65TH ST
DEAKIN ST
PIEDMONT AVE
HILLEGASS AVE
DANA
ST
BOWDITCH ST
MABEL ST
GAYLEY RD
JOSEPHINE ST
EUCLID ST
COLUSA AVE
SOLANO AVE
MARIN AVE
MOTERE
Y AVE
SUTT
ER
ST
ADDISON ST
HEARST AVE
FOLGER AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
DERBY ST
SONOMA AVE
Ä13
Ä123
¥80
University of
California,
Berkeley
César Chávez
Park
Aquatic
Park
San
Pablo
Park
McLaughlin
Eastshore
State Park
San Francisco Bay
Tilden
Regional
Park
Claremont
Canyon
PROJECT
PRIORITIZATION
CORRIDORS
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
Data provided by the City of Berkeley and OpenStreetMap Site Explorer. Date saved: 2/23/2026. 0 0.5 1 MILE
PROJECT PRIORITY TIER
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
COMPLETE STREETS STUDY
CORRIDOR
Complete Street Corridor Study -
Primary Transit Route*
Complete Street Corridor Study*
School
BART Station
Amtrak Station
Railroad
Parks
City Boundary
*Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects. The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide planning document that recommends improvements to bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity at a network level.
See Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process and Section 5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study Recommendations for more information.
Implementation | 101
Table 11: Tier 1 Project List
CORRIDOR
RECOMMENDED
PR
OJECT OR
STUDY
LOCATION CROSS ST A CROSS ST B MILES TOTAL COST
ESTIMATE
Russell Street
Corridor
PHB Rus sell St Sacramento St $ 396,000
RRFB_Median Russell St Claremont Ave $ 143,000
Traffic Circle Russell St Hillegass Ave $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Russell St King St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Russell St Regent St $ 50,000
PHB Russell St Shattuck Ave $ 396,000
RRFB_Median Russell St Adeline St $ 143,000
Derby Corridor
Improvements
Traffic Circle Derby St Regent St $ 50,000
2-Way Cycletrack
Crossing Derby St College Ave $ 92,000
PHB Derby St Sacramento St $ 396,000
PHB Derby St Shattuck Ave $ 396,000
Traffic Diverter Derby St Grant St $ 32,000
Class III Bike Route Piedmont Ave Russell St 0.26 $ 3,600 Class III Bike
Boulevard Derby St Mabel St Warring St 1.92 $ 143,800
Channing
Corridor
Improvements
RRFB_Median Channing Way 6th St $ 143,000
PHB Channing Way Sacramento St $ 396,000
Traffic Circle Channing Way 7th St $ 50,000
Traffic Diverter Channing Way San Pablo Ave $ 32,000
Traffic Circle Channing Way 9th St $ 50,000
Traffic Diverter Channing Way Curtis St $ 32,000
Traffic Circle Channing Way Bonar St $ 50,000
PHB Channing Way San Pablo Ave $ 396,000
Class II Upgraded
Bike Lane Channing Way Milvia St Piedmont Ave 1.00 $ 275,000
102 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Table 11: Tier 1 Project List, continued
CORRIDOR
RECOMMENDED
PROJECT OR
STUDY
LOCATION CROSS ST A CROSS ST B MILES TOTAL COST
ESTIMATESouthwest
Berkeley Bike
Boulevard
RRFB_Median Al
catraz Ave King St $ 143,000
PHB Sacramento St Harmon St $ 396,000
Traffic Circle Harmon St Baker St $ 50,000
RRFB_Median California St Alcatraz Ave $ 143,000
Traffic Circle Mabel St Carrison St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Harmon St Idaho St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Mabel St 67th St $ 50,000
RRFB Idaho St Alcatraz Ave $ 97,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard 65th St Vallejo St Idaho St 0.38 $ 28,500
Class III Bike
Boulevard
63rd St - Harmon
St - Idaho St -
66th St - Mabel St
- Ward St
Sacramento St Mabel St 1.50 $ 112,500
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Prince St - MLK
Jr Way King St Adeline St 0.27 $ 20,400
Class II Upgraded
Bike Lane Alcatraz Ave King St Adeline St 0.12 $ 33,600 Addison
Corridor
Improvements
Traffic Circle Addison St 5th St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Addison St Seventh St $ 50,000
2-Way Cycletrack
Crossing Addison St San Pablo Ave $ 92,000
Median Crosing Addison St 10th St $ 46,000
RRFB_Median Addison St 6th St $ 143,000
PHB Addison St Sacramento St $ 396,000
Class I Bike Path Addison St Curtis St Browning St 0.06 $ 310,900 Class III Bike
Boulevard Addison St Oxford St Milvia St 0.26 $ 19,500 Class III Bike
Boulevard Addison St Sacramento St Browning St 0.36 $ 26,900 Class III Bike
Boulevard Addison St Curtis St San Pablo Ave 0.13 $ 9,800 Class III Bike
Boulevard Addison St Bolivar Dr San Pablo Ave 0.59 $ 43,900
Implementation | 103
Table 11: Tier 1 Project List, continued
CORRIDOR
RECOMMENDED
PROJECT OR
STUDY
LOCATION CROSS ST A CROSS ST B MILES TOTAL COST
ESTIMATE
San Pablo
Parallel Routes
Traffic Circle Vir ginia St 8th St $ 50,000
PHB San Pablo Ave Camelia St $ 396,000
Raised Intersection Emeryville
Greenway Folger Ave $ 200,000
RRFB Gilman St Kains Ave $ 97,000
Traffic Circle Harrison St 8th St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Harrison St 9th St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Page St 9th St $ 50,000
Traffic Diverter Jones St 9th St $ 32,000
Traffic Circle Camelia St Kains Ave $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Camelia St Stannage Ave $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Virginia St Stannage Ave $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Virginia St 9th St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Virginia St 10th St $ 50,000
RRFB Cedar St Stannage Ave $ 97,000
RRFB Stannage Ave Hopkins St $ 97,000
RRFB + Median Cedar St 9th St $ 143,000
Traffic Circle Grayson St 9th St $ 50,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard Kains Ave Northern City
Limits Camilia St 0.28 $ 21,300
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Harrison St - 10th
St 8th St Northern City
Limits 0.20 $ 15,200
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Stannage Ave -
Camelia St - 9th
St
Harrison St Virginia St 0.86 $ 64,600
Rose Street
Corridor
Improvements
RRFB + Median Rose St Milvia St $ 143,000
Traffic Diverter Rose St Chestnut St $ 32,000
Traffic Circle Rose St California st $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Rose St Walnut St $ 50,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard Rose St Hopkins St Spruce St 1.46 $ 109,400
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Wal
nut St Rose St Shattuck Ave 0.37 $ 27,800
104 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Table 11: Tier 1 Project List, continued
CORRIDOR
RECOMMENDED
PROJECT OR
STUDY
LOCATION CROSS ST A CROSS ST B MILES TOTAL COST
ESTIMATE
Adeline
Corridor Class IV Cycletrack Adel ine St Ashby Ave Southern City Limits 0.61 $ 454,900
Heinz Ave
Corridor
Improvements
2-Way Cycletrack
Crossing
Heinz Ave/Russell
St San Pablo Ave $ 92,000
Traffic Circle Heinz Ave 9th St $ 50,000
Woolsey-Fulton
Bike Boulevard
RRFB + Median Woolsey St Adeline St $ 143,000
Traffic Circle Oregon St Fulton St $ 50,000
Traffic Circle Prince St Wheeler St $ 50,000
PHB Martin Luther
King Jr Way Prince St $ 396,000
RRFB Woolsey St Shattuck Ave $ 97,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Fulton St - Prince
St - Wheeler St -
Woolsey St
Stuart St Adeline St 0.83 $ 62,300
Grant Street
Corridor
Improvements
RRFB + Median Grant St Dwight Way $ 143,000
Median Crossing Grant St Cedar St $ 141,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard Grant St Rose St Russell St 1.75 $ 131,400
Class III Bike Route Josephine St Rose St The Alameda 0.35 $ 4,700 Telegraph
Corridor
Protected
Intersection Channing Way Telegraph Ave $ 990,000
Class IV Cycletrack Telegraph Ave Bancroft Way Woolsey St 1.09 $ 816,500 Oxford Street
Corridor
Improvements
Class IV Cycletrack Oxford St Virginia St Bancroft Way 0.63 $ 472,000 Protected
Intersection Oxford St Hearst Ave $ 990,000
Protected
Intersection
Arch St/Le Conte
Ave Hearst Ave $ 990,000
*Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects. The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide planning document that recommends improvements to bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity at a network level. These recommendations require further project-specific planning, data collection, analysis, and engineering before being approved for implementation. For further information, see Section 5. 2 Project Delivery Process .
Implementation | 105
5.2 Project Delivery Process
The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide
planning document that recommends
improvements to bicycle safety, comfort,
and connectivity at a network level.
These recommendations require further
project-specific budgeting, planning, data
collection, analysis, and engineering to
confirm detailed and appropriate design
within the context of the City’s priorities for
transportation system operations before
implementation.
Progress on projects recommended for
fu
rther study since the 2017 Berkeley
Bicycle Plan adoption -- the Milvia Street
Bikeway, Southside Complete Streets,
and other in-progress projects as of this
writing -- demonstrates the City’s ability
to deliver projects that advance active
transportation goals through this process.
Depending on the scope of the proposed
project, the City will determine the level
of public engagement, environmental
clearance, inter-departmental/inter-agency
coordination, and approvals needed for
implementation. Simpler projects such
as new or upgraded Bicycle Boulevards
along residential streets tend to have fewer
impacts and broader community support.
These may involve less public process
and may be implemented more quickly
once funded. More complex projects
along or crossing busy streets involve
more technical/engineering studies and
engagement with affected stakeholders, are
more costly to construct, and have longer
timelines.
Generally speaking, the City contemplates
the following existing and recommended
internal processes to deliver these projects:
Project Development, Scoping, Funding:
As the first phase in the development of
pr
ojects for the purpose of grant applications,
the City conducts a series of meetings with
key stakeholders to define the scope of the
projects. The scoping level defines the project
recommended in the bike plan in additional
detail and assesses traffic safety benefits
against operational impacts, ensuring the
project study, public engagement, design,
and/or construction is adequately scoped
to meet the City’s needs. City stakeholders
at this phase should include planning and
engineering technical staff from Public Works
Transportation and Engineering Divisions
as well as representatives from other City
departments.
At the time of the 2017 Bicycle Plan approval,
th
e Berkeley City Council requested that
Public Works staff conduct a neighborhood-
level public engagement process as part of
developing and implementing new bicycle
boulevards, whether or not the types of
improvements being proposed tend to be
controversial or not. Subsequently, some City
Council and public input has emphasized
the need to streamline and accelerate non-
controversial aspects of bicycle boulevard
project delivery, including simplifying
and expediting public engagement. Non-
controversial elements of bicycle boulevards
could include signs, pavement markings, and
traffic calming such as speed tables and traffic
circles, which do not limit residents’ ability to
access the neighborhood or have substantial
impacts on parking. By adopting this plan,
the implementation of non-controversial
elements of bicycle boulevards such as signs,
pavement markings, and traffic calming (e.g.,
106 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
speed tables and traffic circles), which do
not limit residents’ ability to access the
neighborhood or have substantial impacts
on parking will be streamlined to expedite
project delivery.
Concept Design: Fu
nded projects move
into the concept design phase, which
includes developing design alternatives
and ultimately identifying a preferred
alternative, potentially for vetting with
City Commissions and approval by the
Berkeley City Council. This stage includes
collecting traffic, safety, parking, and
operations data and analyzing the data
to understand existing conditions, and
propose and evaluate alternatives. Key
studies required to fully understand the
project impacts and benefits include
parking and loading inventory and
occupancy; traffic studies; and operational
studies of potential impacts to emergency
response and evacuation times as well as
other City roadway operational concerns.
Agency stakeholders at this phase includes
planning and engineering technical
staff from Public Works Transportation
and Engineering Divisions as well as
representatives from the Berkeley Fire
Department, Police Department, Office of
Economic Development, Parks Recreation
and Waterfront, AC Transit, BART, and
other affected City departments and
outside agencies. During this phase, Public
Works adheres to departmental public
engagement guidelines to obtain public
input for the project.
Detailed Engineering Design: On
ce
concepts are approved by City Council,
detailed engineering design prepares the
project for construction, developing a full
plan set suitable for requests for proposals
to complete the project scope. The purpose
of this stage is to answer remaining
te
chnical questions and develop accurate
cost estimates for the purpose of finalizing
the funding plan and soliciting construction
bids. Agency stakeholders at this phase
should include planning and engineering
technical staff from Public Works
Transportation and Engineering Divisions
as well as representatives from the Berkeley
Fire Department, Police Department, Office
of Economic Development, Parks Recreation
and Waterfront, AC Transit, BART, and other
affected City departments and outside
agencies. Importantly, engagement with
stakeholders will taper off as the detailed
design work advances through the 35%,
65%, 95%, and 100% design completion
phases.
Construction: Fol
lowing award of the
construction contract, the project will be
built, with appropriate notifications to
affected residents, property owners, and
merchants. Details of the project may
change slightly as a result of site-specific
limitations encountered by the contractor.
For the most part, designs are typically
constructed per plan.
During construction, City of Berkeley
cr
ews, Contractors with the City, and all
others working in the right-of-way are
required to ensure complete, safe, usable
and accessible paths of travel. This includes
but is not limited to meeting the standards
for construction in the public right-of-way,
as established by the City of Berkeley
Department of Public Works.
Evaluation: Af
ter a project is built,
evaluation programs help measure success
and to identify adjustments that may be
necessary. This Plan recommends the City
conduct semiannual bike counts throughout
Implementation | 107
Berkeley, prioritizing count locations where
bicycle infrastructure is planned for future
implementation to establish a baseline,
or where infrastructure was recently
constructed.
DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION
The City of Berkeley sometimes relies
upon private development to fund minor
transportation improvements as part
of a development agreement. These
transportation improvements typically
help to mitigate anticipated transportation
impacts from increased activity within the
immediate area of the development.
The City of Berkeley also will partner with
aff
ordable housing developers to submit for
grant funding from the Affordable Housing
and Sustainable Communities (AHSC)
program. This funding source ties funds for
affordable housing construction to projects
that will enhance mobility and safety for
future residents of affordable housing
sites. For example, the City has secured an
AHSC grant which will fund bicycle lane
improvements on Sixth Street in coordination
with the construction of an affordable
housing site at North Berkeley BART.
ACCESSIBILITY UNDER
THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-
OF-WAY ACCESSIBILITY
GUIDELINES (PROWAG)
Accessibility is a fundamental requirement
of all street design projects. While
separated bikeways (Class IV facilities) can
sometimes introduce new and different
design challenges for accessibility, ADA
re
quirements can still be met when designed
with features such as accessible pedestrian
crossings, compliant curb ramps, loading
zones, path-of-travel, detectable warnings,
and level boarding areas for transit. These
features are now standard practice in
Complete Streets projects throughout
California and nationally.
1 The City will continue to ensure that all
multimodal transportation projects undergo
appropriate accessibility review during
design. This will include early engagement
with Berkeley community disability
advocates and the City’s Commission on
Disability during corridor-level planning
and engineering design processes to
identify and address accessibility needs
before implementation. The Bicycle Plan
Update’s recommendations for Complete
Streets corridor studies will help ensure
that separated bikeways, transit operations,
parking and loading, emergency response
needs, and other operational, safety,
and maintenance considerations are
fully evaluated in an integrated manner.
Accessibility will be a key consideration in
those studies.
1 Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) Protected
Bi
cycle Lane Design Guide (2020); Seattle Department
of T
ransportation (SDOT) Illustrated Streets Design
Manu
al (2022); Massachusetts Department of
Tr
ansportation (MDOT) Separated Bike Lane Design
Guid
e (2020); WalkSF Getting to the Curb (2019); San
Fr
ancisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
Guidelines for Accessible Building Blocks forBicycle
Fa
cilities (2018).
108 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Implementation | 109
5.3 Key Projects
As part of the 2025 Bicycle Plan Update
five “Key Project” concept designs were
developed in consultation with the public
during 2025 outreach. Following the
outreach phase, City of Berkeley staff
considered public input against project
feasibility, available funding, grant
competitiveness, and other factors. City of
Berkeley staff selected the following five
projects to move forward to development
of concept designs:
1. Gilman Street – proposed separated
bi
keway and bicycle boulevard
2. Derby Street – proposed bicycle
boul
evard
3. Heinz Avenue – proposed bicycle
boul
evard improvement, two-way
cycletrack connector across San Pablo
Avenue, and separated bikeway to
connect to the 9th Street pathway
4. Sacramento Street at Channing Way –
pr
oposed PHB and median crossing
5. Sacramento Street at Russell Street –
pr
oposed PHB and median crossing
The following pages contain concept
design “cut-sheets” meant to inform future
grant applications. Once the project is
funded, a concept design will determine
whether the design is feasible on the
corridor. After feasibility is confirmed,
additional engineering, design, and
community engagement will be necessary
before these projects can be brought
forward for approval and implementation.
110 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
GILMAN STREET
SEPARATED BIKEWAY
4TH ST TO SAN PABLO AVE
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
• Gilman Street is a major street. The project
ar
ea has standard bicycle lanes.
• Gilman Street has a mostly uniform 48 feet
wi
de right-of-way throughout the project
area.
• Gilman Street has a two-way separated
bi
keway on the south side of the street from
2nd Street to 4th Street. From 2nd Street,
it connects to the Bay Trail via a bicycle/
pedestrian bridge over I-80.
• This section of Gilman Street has eight
in
tersections, four of which are signalized.
The other four intersections have STOP
controls on side-streets.
• AC Transit runs Line 12 on Gilman Street
ea
st of 6th Street, with five bus stops in the
project area.
• Gilman Street is classified as a High-Injury
St
reet in the Berkeley Vision Zero Action
Plan, with two severe driver collisions and
two severe pedestrian collisions between
2008 and 2018.
• Gilman Street is a primary response route
fo
r the fire department; a new Fire HQ
and ambulance deployment center is in
construction on Gilman Street between 8th
& 9th Streets.
Gilman St at 4th St
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
This Key Project recommends two potential
ro
utes for closing the gap between the Berkeley
waterfront and the rest of the bicycle network
near Gilman Street.
1 Route 1: Two-Way Separated Bikeway on Gilman
Street from 4th St to San Pablo Ave
This option recommends extending a two-way
separated bikeway on Gilman Street from 4th
Street up to San Pablo Avenue, running on the
south side of the street.
• City staff should consider terminating the
pr
oject at existing/proposed bikeways on 6th
Street, 8th Street, or 9th Street if it improves
feasibility and deliverability.
• This project would require the removal of
ap
proximately 33 street parking spaces
accommodate the bikeway while providing
sufficient clear-space for emergency vehicles.
• Consider the removal of left-turn pockets at 6th
St
reet, 8th Street, and 9th Street, which could
help retain 10 parking spaces on the north side
of the street.
• Consider transit signal priority along this
co
rridor and how it will work in tandem with
proposed bike signals. Coordinate with AC
Transit to study impacts to Line 12, including
transit boarding islands and accommodation of
bus operator layover locations.
2 Route 2: Bicycle Boulevard Alternative on
Ca
melia Street
This option recommends extending the planned
Ca
melia Street bicycle boulevard from 8th Street
west to 4th Street, where it can connect with the
existing separated bikeway on Gilman Street. This
project would include:
• A pedestrian hybrid beacon crossing of San
Pa
blo Avenue being constructed as part of the
Alameda CTC San Pablo Avenue Parallel Bicycle
Boulevards project
• A RRFB + Median crossing at 6th Street
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
Ä123
CORNELL AVE
HARRISON ST
CEDAR ST
STANNAGE AVE
PAGE STFOURTH ST
UNNAMED ALLEY
CAMELIA ST
JONES ST
FIFTH ST
EIGHTH ST
SEVENTH ST
KAINS AVE
SECOND ST
NINTH ST
SIXTH ST
Albany
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
GILMAN STREET:
4TH STREET TO
SAN PABLO AVENUE
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
!
!
Railroad
AC Transit Bus Stop
AC Transit Line 12
Layover Stop
City Boundary
Park
Traffic Circle
RRFB + Median
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
0 250 500 FEET
Option 1 Route
Identified Connection,
Opportunity or Barrier
along the route
Existing Bicycle Blvd (Class III)
Existing Bicycle Route (Class III)
Existing Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Existing Cycletrack (Class IV)
Proposed Bicycle Blvd (Class III)
Proposed Bicycle Route (Class III)
Proposed Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Proposed Cycletrack (Class IV)
GILMAN ST
CONNECTION TO BAY TRAIL
VIA I-80 GILMAN OVERCROSSING
Option 2 Route
Implementation | 111
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
Ä123
CORNELL AVE
HARRISON ST
CEDAR ST
STANNAGE AVE
PAGE STFOURTH ST
UNNAMED ALLEY
CAMELIA ST
JONES ST
FIFTH ST
EIGHTH ST
SEVENTH ST
KAINS AVE
SECOND ST
NINTH ST
SIXTH ST
Albany
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
GILMAN STREET:
4TH STREET TO
SAN PABLO AVENUE
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
!
!
Railroad
AC Transit Bus Stop
AC Transit Line 12
Layover Stop
City Boundary
Park
Traffic Circle
RRFB + Median
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
0 250 500 FEET
Option 1 Route
Identified Connection,
Opportunity or Barrier
along the route
Existing Bicycle Blvd (Class III)
Existing Bicycle Route (Class III)
Existing Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Existing Cycletrack (Class IV)
Proposed Bicycle Blvd (Class III)
Proposed Bicycle Route (Class III)
Proposed Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Proposed Cycletrack (Class IV)
GILMAN ST
CONNECTION TO BAY TRAIL
VIA I-80 GILMAN OVERCROSSING
Option 2 Route
6th St to 9th St
• Consider bicycle phase
or b
icycle signal head,
coordinated with westbound
left-turn phase
• Study removal of left-
turn pockets or signal
reconfiguration to retain
parking and Line 12 westbound
bus bays
• Transit boarding island for
eastbound Line 12 stop
San Pablo Ave
• Study removal of one eastbound travel lane to
acco
mmodate separated bikeway
• Potential for protected intersection treatments
on west side of intersection
• Consider separate bicycle signal phase to
minimize turning conflicts
• Coordinate with AC Transit to accommodate
bus stops and transit efficiency
6th St
• RRFB + Median crossing
*
*
*
*San Pablo Ave
• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Kains Ave & Stannage Ave
• Traffic circles
These projects will be implemented as part of the Alameda CTC San Pablo Avenue Parallel Routes project
112 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
DERBY STREET BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
MABEL ST TO WARRING ST
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
• Derby Street is a local street. The project
ar
ea is a marked bicycle route from Milvia
Street to Telegraph Avenue.
• Derby Street has a mostly uniform 35 feet
wi
de right-of-way.
• This section of Derby Street has 20
in
tersections. Two of these intersections
are uncontrolled crossings of major
roadways: at Sacramento Street and at
Shattuck Avenue.
• AC Transit runs Line 27, 51B, 604, 605, and
85 1 on College Avenue where the Derby
Street route jogs on College Avenue for
approximately 90 feet.
• Derby Street is not a High Injury Street
in t
he Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan,
but there was a pedestrian fatality at the
intersection of Derby Street at Warring
Street between 2008 and 2018, and a
pedestrian fatality at the intersection of
Derby Street at Regent Street in 2025.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
1 Installation of Bicycle Boulevard
This key project recommends a 1.95 mile bicycle
boulevard route from Mabel Street in the west
to Warring Street in the east. It would provide a
parallel route to existing bicycle boulevards on
Russell Street (approximately 1,300 feet to the
south) and Channing Way (approximately 2,000
feet to the north).
2 Enhancement of Street Crossings
The Derby Street bicycle boulevard takes
advantage of a number of preexisting diverters
and traffic circles along the route and includes
recommendations for enhanced crossings of major
streets at Sacramento Street, at Shattuck Avenue,
and at College Avenue.
3 Study of Impacts to Transit Lines
Additional study and design consideration will
be r
equired at the College Avenue crossing to
minimize transit impacts for AC Transit lines
running on College Avenue.
4 Ensure Emergency Access
There is a Berkeley Fire Department station at the
in
tersection of Derby Street at Shattuck Avenue.
All Bicycle Boulevard treatments should allow full
access by emergency responder vehicles.
Derby St at Sacramento St
Implementation | 113
!!
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!! !! !!!
! !
!
!
Ä123
Ä13
University
of California,
Berkeley
San
Pablo
Park
ALCATRAZ AVE
HEARST AVE
CEDAR ST
BONAR ST
OXFORD ST
DURANT AVE
LE CONTE AVE
TELEGRAPH AVE
ASHBY AVE
W
ARRING STCOLLEGE AVE
SACRAMENTO ST
DWIGHT WAY
REGENT STHILLEGASS AVE
MILVIA ST
N RD
CYCLOTRO
MCKINLEY AVE
PARKER ST
BLAKE ST
ROOSEVEL T AVE
PIEDM
ONT AVE
MCGEE AVECALIFORNIA ST
ELLSWORTH ST
BROWNING ST
FAIRVIEW ST
BANCROFT WAY
RUSSELL ST
WOOLSEY ST
PRINCE ST
VIRGINIA ST
FRANCISCO ST
ACTON ST
ADDISON ST
HARMON ST
GRANT ST
SPAULDING AVE
M
ATHEW
S ST
RIMWAY RD
HASTE ST
CHANNING WAY
FRANKLIN ST
FUL TON ST
ELLIS ST
KING ST
LINCOLN ST
ALLSTON WAY
RIDGE RD
DELAWARE ST
OREGON ST
CARLETON ST
STUART STWARD ST
BENVENUE AVE
BERKELEY WAY
JEFFERSON AVE
MABEL STMABEL ST
Emeryville
Oakland
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIESDERBY STREET:
MABEL STREET TO
WARRING STREET
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
! School
Railroad
City Boundary
Park
Existing Bicycle Blvd (Class III)
Existing Bicycle Path(Class I)
Existing Cycletrack (Class IV)
AC Transit Bus Stop
Existing Bicycle Route (Class III)
Existing Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Existing Upgraded Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Proposed Bicycle Blvd (Class III)
Proposed Cycletrack (Class IV)
!
0 750 1,500 FEET
Key Corridor Project
DERBY ST
* Subject to traffic analysis; may be converted to a traffic circle based on potential impacts to neighborhood vehicle access and emergency response time Mabel St
• Existing traffic diverter
• Connects to proposed
Mable St bicycle boulevard
Sacramento St
• Proposed PHB crossing
• St
udy potential to remove
left-turn lanes on Sacramento
Street and implement a median
crossing prohibiting left turns
California St
• Existing traffic circle
• Con
nects to existing Califor nia
St bicycle boulevard
Grant St
• Proposed traffic diverter *
• Co
nnects to proposed Grant
St bicycle boulevard
Milvia St
• Proposed traffic circle
• Con
nects to existing Milvia St
bicycle boulevard
Shattuck Ave
• Proposed PHB crossing
• St
udy potential to remove left-
turn lanes on Shattuck Avenue
and implement a median
crossing prohibiting left turns
(compatible with fire vehicles)
Regent St
• Planned traffic circle
Hillegass Ave
• Proposed traffic diverter
(d
iagonal)*
• Connects to existing Hillegass
Ave bicycle boulevard
College Ave
• Proposed two-way
cy
cletrack connector
• Consider relocating
southbound AC Transit
stop to accommodate
connector; consider
impacts to transit and
loading for adjacent
businesses
114 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
HEINZ AVENUE
BICYCLE BOULEVARD
7 TH ST TO SAN PABLO AVE
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
• While Heinz Avenue is currently classified
as a b
icycle boulevard, the high traffic
volumes and demand from adjacent uses
require additional measures to achieve
standards of safety and comfort for the
Bicycle Boulevard Network.
• This project examines two potential
ro
utes east of San Pablo Avenue: one on
Russell Street and one on Oregon Street.
• Heinz Avenue has a mostly uniform 36
fe
et wide right-of-way throughout the
project area, with bulb-outs between 8th
Street and 9th Street.
• This project area has eight intersections.
Th
e signalized intersection with San Pablo
Avenue is offset, with Oregon Street
approximately 200 feet to the north and
Russell Street approximately 300 feet to
the south.
• The Alameda County Transportation
Co
mmission is leading a San Pablo
Avenue corridor project, which proposes
a two-way separated bikeway on the west
side of San Pablo Avenue, connecting
Heinz Avenue to Russell Street.
• While Heinz Avenue is not a High Injury
St
reet in the Berkeley Vision Zero Action
Plan, it is immediately adjacent to parallel
(Ashby Avenue) and perpendicular (San
Pablo Avenue) streets on the High Injury
Network.
Heinz Ave at 9th St
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
1 Heinz Avenue
Heinz Avenue’s high volumes make meeting
thresholds for a bicycle boulevard challenging. The
City should study a potential Cycletrack on Heinz
Avenue from 7th Street to San Pablo Avenue.
As an alternative to a separated bikeway, implement
sp
eed tables between 9th Street and San Pablo
Avenue, with additional traffic calming treatments
such as a mountable traffic circle at 10th Street and
curb extensions.
Evaluation of Two-way Cycletrack on 9th Street
2 The City should consider a two-way cycletrack on
the east side of 9th Street to connect Heinz Avenue
to the 9th Street Greenway. Design should account
for ADA access to parking stalls, emergency vehicle
access, and large vehicle loading/routing.
3 Evaluation of Two-way Cycletrack on San Pablo
Ave
nue
Russell Street Option
A two-way cycletrack on San Pablo Avenue
connecting to the existing facilities on Russell Street wo
uld require removal of 13 parking spaces on the
west side of San Pablo Avenue and a new signalized
crossing at Russell Street.
Oregon Street Option
A two-way cycletrack on San Pablo Avenue
co
nnecting to existing facilities on Oregon Street
would require removal of one blue-curb ADA
zone and relocation of an existing AC Transit stop
serving Line 72. This alignment may also require
modification of the existing median to accommodate
two lanes of travel and the two-way cycletrack
connector.
Quick-Build Option
As a quick-build alternative to a two-way cycletrack
co
nnector, implement one-way cycletracks on either
side of San Pablo Avenue. Additionally, include an
RRFB at Oregon and San Pablo Avenue.
Coordinate with AC Transit to accommodate bus
st
ops and transit efficiency.
Implementation | 115
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ä123
San
Pablo
Park
WARD ST
TENTH ST
ASHBY AVE
DERBY ST
NINTH ST MATHEWS ST
EIGHTH ST
SEVENTH STGRAYSON ST
PARDEE ST
CARLETON ST
MABEL ST
FOLGER AVE
POTTER ST MURRAY ST CARRISON ST
ANTHONY ST
WALLACE ST
BURNETT ST
Emeryville
Oakland
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIESHEINZ AVENUE:
7TH STREET TO
SAN PABLO AVENUE
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
City Boundary
Park
0 250 500 FEET
Existing Bicycle Blvd (Class III)
Existing Bicycle Route (Class III)
Existing Bicycle Path (Class I)
Existing Cycletrack (Class IV)
Key Project Corridor: Route 2
Key Project Corridor: Route 1
AC Transit Bus Stop Existing Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Proposed Bicycle Blvd (Class III)
Proposed Cycletrack (Class IV)
!
HEINZ AVE RUSSELL ST
OREGON ST
SAN PABLO AVE
Berkeley
Bowl West
Berkeley
Bowl West
Ecole Bilingue
de Berkeley
Ecole Bilingue
de Berkeley
Global
Montessori
International
School
Global
Montessori
International
School
School
Grocery Store
Key Project Corridor: Route 1 & Route 2
*
*
This project will be implemented as part of the Alameda CTC San Pablo Avenue Parallel Routes project Route 1: Heinz to Russell
• Two-way cycletrack on south
side of S
an Pablo Ave requires
loss of 13 parking stalls
• New signal and bike crossing at
Russell Street
• Connects to planned cycletr ack
on San Pablo Avenue through
Oakland as part of AC Transit
project
Route 2: Heinz to Oregon
• Two-way cycletrack on north
s
ide of San Pablo Ave requires
loss of one ADA parking stall
and relocation of bus stop
• Requires reconstruction of
existing median
Additional Considerations
• Adjacent schools and grocery
st
ore present challenges to
reaching traffic volume goals
for a bicycle boulevard on
Heinz Ave
9th St
• 9th & Heinz temporary traffic
ci
rcle to be reconstructed with
permanent materials as part
of San Pablo Parallel Routes
project
Heinz Ave - 8th St to 10th St
• Speed tables on each block and
mo
untable traffic
circles at all intersections
• Curb extensions at San Pablo
Avenue
9th St: South of Heinz Ave
• Two-way separated bikeway on
th
e east side of the street
• Consider minimum clear width
requirements for fire and large
freight vehicles
116 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
SACRAMENTO ST AT
RUSSELL ST
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
• The Russell Street bicycle boulevard has an
un
controlled crossing of the intersection at
Sacramento Street. Sacramento Street is
a major arterial with four through lanes of
traffic, left-turn lanes, and a speed limit of
25 mph.
• This intersection is the only uncontrolled
cr
ossing of a major street on the Russell
Street bicycle boulevard for over a mile
(San Pablo Avenue to Adeline Street).
• The Sacramento leg of this intersection is
a ve
ry wide crossing (76 feet) for users of
the bicycle boulevard to cross unaided.
• Sacramento Street is a High Injury Street
on t
he Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan,
and the intersection with Russell Street
had one severe pedestrian collision
between 2008 and 2018.
IMPROVEMENT GUIDANCE
A Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Implement a PHB crossing of Sacramento Street
at R
ussell Street. Consider closing the left-turn
lanes on Sacramento Street and implementing
a median crossing. This median crossing would
prohibit vehicular left-turn movement from
Sacramento Street and would prohibit vehicular
left-turn and through movements on Russell
Street. The median crossing would be built
to allow through movements by emergency
vehicles.
B Construction of Divider Islands
Construct divider islands on the approaches to
th
e intersection on Russell Street, with bicycle
lane segments positioned in the center of
the street. This would require vehicular right
turns by drivers on Russell Street and position
bicycles to avoid conflicts with right-turning
drivers. Install a push button in the divider island
to activate the PHB.
Sacramento St at Russell St
a: .20
SACRAMENTO STREET
& RUSSELL STREET
INTERSECTION
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
alta
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
0 Install pedestrian hybrid beacon
(PHB)
f) Ensure push button for PHB is
accessible by pedestrians and
bicyclists (may need two push
buttons at southwest and
northeast corners) OR bike
activation for PHB
e Add intersection conflict
markings
0 Upgrade to crosswalk markings
on all approaches
e
e Add bicycle boulevard wayfinding
signs
Evaluate prohibiting left turns
from Sacramento St and provide
designated space for bicyclists
and pedestrians
Daylight parking at all approaches
Implementation I 117
118 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
SACRAMENTO ST AT
CHANNING WAY
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
• The Channing Way bicycle boulevard
ha
s an uncontrolled crossing of the
intersection at Sacramento Street.
Sacramento Street is a major arterial
with four through lanes of traffic, a large
median (approximately 28 feet wide)
between directions of travel, and a speed
limit of 25 mph.
• This intersection is the only uncontrolled
cr
ossing of a major street on the Channing
Way bicycle boulevard for over two miles
(San Pablo Avenue to Piedmont Ave).
• The Sacramento leg is this intersection is
a ve
ry wide crossing (85 feet) for users of
the bicycle boulevard to cross unaided, but
does offer a 28 feet wide median.
• Sacramento Street has AC Transit bus
st
ops for lines 88 and 688 adjacent to this
intersection.
• Sacramento Street is a High Injury Street
on t
he Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan
and the intersection with Channing Way
had one severe bicycle collision between
2008 and 2018.
IMPROVEMENT GUIDANCE
A Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Implement a PHB crossing of Sacramento
St
reet at Channing Way with a median
crossing. This median crossing would prohibit
vehicular left-turn movement from Sacramento
Street and would prohibit vehicular left-turn
and through movements on Channing Way.
The median crossing would be built to allow
through movements by emergency vehicles.
B Construction of Divider Islands
Construct divider islands on the approaches
to t
he intersection on Channing Way, with
bicycle lane segments positioned in the center
of the street. This would require vehicular right
turns by drivers on Channing Way and position
bicycles to avoid conflicts with right-turning
drivers. Install a push button in the divider
island to activate the PHB.
C Evaluation of Bus Stop Relocation
Consult with AC Transit about relocating the
ne
ar-side bus stops on Sacramento Street to
the far side of the intersection. This would
minimize impacts to transit travel times caused
by the PHB.
Sacramento St at Russell St
Sacramento St at Channing Way
Implementation | 119
!
!
BLVD STOP
BLVDSTOP
•
•
•
2 2
22 2
2 •
•
•
•
1 1
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 4
5 7
7 7
7 6
6 SACRAMENTO ST
& CHANNING WAY
INTERSECTION
CITY OF BERKELEY
BIKE PLAN UPDATE
0 20 40 FEET
CHANNING WAY
SACRAMENTO ST
AC Transit Bus Stop!
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
1 Install pedestrian hybrid beacon
(PHB)
2 Ensure push button for PHB is
accessible
by pedestrians and
bicyclists (may need two push
buttons at southwest and
northeast corners) OR bike
activation for PHB
3 Add intersection conflict
markings
4 Upgrade to cros
swalk markings on
all approaches
5 Designate space at median for
bicyclists (can be green paint
protected by bollards/flex posts)
6 Add bicycle boulevard wayfinding
signs
7 Daylight parking at all approaches
120 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
5.4 Cost Estimates
CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS
Table 12 gives the 2025 planning level cost
assumptions used to determine project
cost estimates. Unit costs are typical or
average costs in the Bay Area. While they
reflect typical costs, unit costs do not
consider project-specific factors such as
right-of-way acquisition, intensive grading,
landscaping, or other location-specific
factors that may increase actual costs.
For some segments, project costs may be
significantly greater.
Table 12: Planning Level Cost Estimates
TREATMENT UNIT COS T
ESTIMATE
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) Mile $7 5,000
Bike Routes (Class III) 500 Feet $1,300
Shared-Use Path (Class I) Mile $5,400,000
Separated Bikeway (Class (IV) Mile $747,000
Bike Lane (Class II) Mile $140,000
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class II) Mile $275,000
Two-way Cycletrack Crossing Intersection $92,000
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Intersection $97,000 Median $46,000
RRFB + Median Intersection $143,000
Raised Crosswalk $95,000
RRFB + Median + Raised Crosswalk Intersection $238,000
Raised Intersection Intersection $200,000
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Each $396,000
Traffic Signal Intersection $1,012,000
Protected Intersection Each $990,000
Traffic Circle Each $50,000
Traffic Diverter $32,000
Bike Station Each $2,300,000
Implementation | 121
PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION AND STAFFING COSTS
Capital project costs only capture a portion
of the resources needed to fully implement
this plan. In addition to base capital costs,
contingencies are added to capture
unanticipated increases in the cost of
project materials and/or labor. The City will
need to utilize a combination of staff and
consultant resources for project delivery
phases that include Planning (conceptual
project development and funding);
Pr
eliminary Engineering (environmental
clearance and design); Final Design; and
Construction Management (contractor
oversight, inspection, and invoicing).
Table 13 provides a planning-level estimate
of these “soft costs” associated with
delivering Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects.
Table 13: Total Planning-Level Implementation Cost Estimates
PROJECT
TIER
CONSTRUCTION COST
Capital Cost Mob/Demob &
Bi
d (16%)
Design
Contingency
(15%)
Capital
Contingency
(10%)
Sub
Construction
Cost Total
Tier 1 $14,276,500 $2 ,284,200 $2,141,500 $1,427,700 $20,129,900 Tier 2 $15,784,100 $2,525,500 $2,367,600 $1,578,400 $22,255,600 Tier 3 $6,616,600 $1,058,700 $992,500 $661,700 $9,329,500 Totals $36,677,200 $51 ,715,000
Table continues below
PROJECT
TIER
SOFT COSTS
TOTAL COST
ESTIMATE
Planning (25%) Preliminary
En
gineering
(25%)
Construction
Management
(15%)
Total “Soft
Costs”
Tier 1 $5,032,500 $5,032,500 $3,019,500 $13,084,500 $33,214,400 Tier 2 $5,563,900 $5,563,900 $3,338,300 $14,466,100 $36,721,700 Tier 3 $2,332,400 $2,332,400 $1,399,400 $6,064,200 $15,393,700 Totals $33,614,800 $85,329,800
122 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
PROJECT
RECOMMEN DATIONS
This Plan recommends nearly $37 million
in infrastructure recommendations to help
Berkeley achieve its vision of becoming a
model bicycle-friendly city. Table 14 shows
the mileage or count along with total cost
estimate by type of recommendation.
Appendix E: Prioritization Methodology
provides the full project lists and their
locations.
Table 14: Summary of Project Recommendations and Cost Estimates
RECOMMENDED PROJECT OR STUDY MILEAGE/COUNT COS T ESTIMATE Shared-Use Path (Class I) 1.3 Miles $ 7,048,400
Bike Lane (Class II) 0.6 Miles $86,000
Upgraded Bike Lane (Class III) 2.1 Miles $583,600
Bike Route (Class III) 8.8 Miles $118,500
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 14.3 Miles $1,071,300
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 15.6 Miles $11,667,400
Two-way Cycletrack Crossing 6 Ct $552,000
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) 13 Ct $5,148,000
Protected Intersection 5 Ct $4,950,000
Raised Intersection 3 Ct $600,000
Median Crossing 2 Ct $187,000
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 6 Ct $582,000 RRFB + Median 13 Ct $1,859,000
Traffic Circle 40 Ct $2,000,000
Traffic Diverter 7 Ct $224,000
Total Cost Estimate 42.7 Miles/95 Ct $ 36,677,200
Implementation | 123
5.5 Transit
Integration
City of Berkeley staff should collaborate
with transit agencies early in the design
stage to identify potential travel time or
operational impacts from future bikeway
network projects. This primarily deals with
separated bikeway projects, but could
include other projects which may remove
travel lanes, introduce new intersection
controls, or require modification of existing
bus stop locations.
When pursuing new projects, the City
sh
ould refer to the 2023 Berkeley Transit-
First Policy Implementation Plan and the
2025 AC Transit “Transit-Supportive Design
Guidelines” to ensure project design that
enhances transit access and transit service.
Some crossing recommendations are at
intersections currently served by various
AC Transit routes. The City of Berkeley
should coordinate early with AC Transit to
ensure crossing improvements minimize
impacts to AC Transit operations and
stop locations. This is especially the case
in locations where median crossings may
require parking removal, stop relocation,
and the general reconfiguration of travel
lanes to accommodate a median crossing.
124 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
5.6 Complete Streets Corridor Study
Recommendations
The 2017 Bicycle Plan established
“Complete Streets Corridor Studies” as a
required component of recommendations
for separated bikeways (Class IV) likely
to have a substantial impact on other
modes. Complete Street Corridor Studies
are intended to support the City’s goal of
delivering a fully-connected citywide low-
stress bikeway network which will serve all
ages and abilities of people riding bicycles
in Berkeley.
As defined by the Berkeley Complete
St
reets Policy, “Complete Streets”
describes a comprehensive, integrated
transportation network with infrastructure
and design that allows safe and convenient
travel along and across streets for all users,
including:
• Pedestrians
• Bicycles (analog, cargo, electric)
• Scooters and skateboards
• Wheelchairs/powerchairs
• Private vehicles
• Transit
• Delivery trucks
• Postal trucks
• Fire trucks and ambulances
• Police cars
Providing a complete network does
not require dedicated facilities for all
transportation modes on every street.
Instead, it means creating convenient,
safe, and connected routes for all
modes throughout the city. For bikeway
planning, Berkeley considers both major
and collector streets and parallel streets
as part of a Complete Streets Corridor.
Potential bikeways on either type should
be evaluated within a Complete Streets
Corridor Study. Most major and collector
streets with recommendations for separated
bikeways (Class IV) require further study
to evaluate their suitability, impacts on
other transportation modes, and support
of community safety. They currently serve
multiple transportation modes, emergency
response traffic, and provide on-street
parking, necessitating broader consideration
beyond bicycle travel alone.
These streets are labeled “Complete Streets
Corridor Studies” within the Bicycle Plan
Update. By conducting thorough traffic
analysis, environmental analysis, a robust
public process, and close coordination
among Berkeley’s Public Works, Police, and
Fire Departments, as well as all affected
State, county, and local transportation and
transit agencies, Complete Street Studies
will identify needs, constraints, and solutions
to deliver projects that improve safe cycling
access across a broad bikeway network
while maintaining access and efficiency of
other modes as well. This approach ensures
that all design decisions are informed by
national best practices, California-specific
guidelines, and comprehensive operational
considerations. Potential bikeways to be
considered as part of future Complete
Streets Corridor Studies will be evaluated
in the context of the modal priorities
established by the Be
rkeley General Plan
Transportation Element.
Implementation | 125
Table 15: Complete Street Corridor Studies
LOCATION CROSS
ST
REET A
CROSS
STREET B
RECOMMENDED
STUDY
MILES 2025 STATUS
4th Street Virginia St Ad
dison St Class II Bike
Lane
0.21 Study not initiated
Adeline St Shattuck Ave South City
Limits
Class IV
Cycletrack
0.59 Class IV Cycle Track and
bus boarding islands
completed from Shattuck
Avenue to Ashby Avenue.
Study in progress for
Ashby Avenue to south
city limits (Oakland
border)
Claremont
Ave
Claremont
Blvd
South City
Limits
Class IV
Cycletrack
0.58 Vision Zero Quick Build
Study underway. Quick
Build improvements
will be evaluated before
further corridor studies
initiated.
Euclid Ave Hearst Ave Virginia St Class II Bike
Lane
0.17 Study not initiated
Gilman St I-80 Hopkins St Class IV
Cycletrack
1.06 Class IV Cycle Track
complete from I-80 to 4th
Street. Study needed for
remaining segment from
4th St to San Pablo Ave
Hearst Ave California St Milvia St Class IV
Cycletrack
0.50 Class II and Class IV
bikeways completed
between Euclid and
Milvia. Study required for
remaining segment from
Milvia to California.
Hopkins St Ninth St Milvia St Class IV
Cycletrack
1.67 Study completed
for Sutter to Gilman.
Community concerns
put project on hold and
additional studies and
community outreach
needed.
Oxford St Virginia St Dwight Way Class IV
Cycletrack
0.64 Class IV Cycle Track
completed on Fulton
between Bancroft and
Dwight. Study required
for remaining segment
between Virginia and
Bancroft.
Piedmont
Ave/Waring/
Derby/
Claremont
Blvd
Bancroft Way Claremont
Ave
Class IV
Cycletrack
1.06 Study initiated for
intersection of Waring/
Derby. Study needed for
remainder of corridor.
126 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
LOCATION CROSS
STREET A
CROSS
STREET B
RECOMMENDED
STUDY
MILES 2025 STATUS
San Pablo
Ave
North City
Li
mits
Heinz Ave Class IV
Cycletrack
2.34 Initial study completed
by Alameda County
Transportation
Commission in 2017.
Conceptual design of
corridor improvements
approved by Berkeley
City Council in November
2023. Further study
and design of parallel
residential street
bikeways, ped and bike
crossing improvements,
and transit service
improvements in
progress.
Shattuck
Ave/Sutter St
Hopkins St Woolsey St Class IV
Cycletrack
2.60 Study not initiated
Telegraph
Ave
Bancroft Way Woolsey St Class IV
Cycletrack
1.10 Study in progress
The
Alameda/
Solano Ave
Tulare Ave Hopkins St Class IV
Cycletrack
0.73 “Road diet” and new bike
lanes completed in 2017.
Study needed for further
improvements.
University
Ave
Fourth St Oxford St Class IV
Cycletrack
1.88 Study not initiated
As defined by the Berkeley General Plan
Transportation Element, most of the
future Complete Streets Corridor Studies
are either Primary or Secondary Transit
Routes. General Plan Policy T-4 “Transit-
First Policy” gives priority to alternative
transportation and transit over single-
occupant vehicles on Transit Routes.
The Alameda County Transportation
Commission Countywide Multimodal
Arterial Plan identifies many of the future
Complete Streets Corridor Studies as part
of the Transit Emphasis modal priority
network. In this planning and policy
context and given the importance of
approaching Complete Streets from an
integrated, layered network perspective,
it is critically important to consider
how transit service can be maintained
and improved as an outcome of future
Complete Streets Corridor Studies. The
City will coordinate bikeway planning
with proposed improvements to transit
performance on Primary Transit Routes,
such as bus boarding islands, transit-
only lanes, transit signal priority/queue
jump lanes, far-side bus stop relocations,
and other improvements as described in
the AC Transit Major Corridor Study. In
addition, these studies should approach
Secondary Transit Routes as opportunities
for transit improvements, such as bus
stop optimization and relocation, among
other potential improvements. At the
conclusion of the Complete Streets
Corridor Study process, design alternatives
that have a significant negative effect
on transit on Primary Transit Routes will
not be recommended. Criteria to define
what constitutes a significant negative
Table 15: Complete Street Corridor Studies, cont’d.
Implementation | 127
effect on transit will be developed and
applied during the study process for each
corridor. Consideration of how to allocate
limited public right-of-way among various
travel modes will be made consistent
with Alameda County Transportation
Commission modal priorities and the
Berkeley General Plan.
The City will coordinate improvements
to the public right-of-way, in an effort to
develop changes that do not adversely
impact emergency response.
Future Complete Streets Corridor Studies
should be undertaken by considering
national design best practices, including
guidance from documents such as the
NACTO Transit Street Design Guide, Urban
Street Design Guide, and Urban Bikeway
Design Guide. These studies will also
adhere to relevant California guidelines,
such as the California Highway Design
Manual (HDM), the California Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA
MUTCD), and local City of Berkeley
standards, ensuring designs are context-
sensitive and balance all modes of
transportation effectively.
Local guidance such as the Berkeley
Transit-First Policy Implementation Plan
or the AC Transit Design Standards and
Guidelines Manual for Safe and Efficient
Multimodal Transit Stops and Corridors will
also be consulted.
Studies should carefully consider the
potential impacts and trade-offs of
including bikeways on Primary and
Secondary Transit Routes and emergency
response or high-capacity routes. Impacts
can be minimized/mitigated by including
potential median reductions, repurposing
of parking or travel lanes, and the need to
avoid impacts to transit operations and
emergency response that could otherwise
occur. Example transit performance
criteria that may be considered as part of
future Complete Streets Corridor Studies
could include: on-time performance and
reliability; gapping/bunching; transit travel
time; operational and safety conflicts with
other modes of transportation; maintaining
minimum lane widths; and other criteria to
be identified through the study process.
128 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
A-1 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
APPENDIX A
BICYCLE BOULEVARD
DESIGN GUIDE
Sections of this guide that have been updated or added
since the 2017 Bike Plan are noted accordingly.
Appendix A | A-2
R
WHAT IS A BICYCLE
BOU LEVARD?(New Section)
A bicycle boulevard is a roadway that has been modified, as needed, to enhance safety and convenience for people bicycling. It provides better conditions for bicycling while maintaining the neighborhood character and necessary emergency vehicle access. Berkeley’s bicycle boulevards are intended to serve as the primary low-stress bikeway network, providing safe, direct, and convenient routes across Berkeley.
TYPICAL APPLICATION
• Parallel with and close to major
thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less).
• Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that
is ideally long and relatively continuous
(2 to 5 miles).
• Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag
or circuitous routing. The bikeway should
have less than 10% out-of-direction travel
compared to the shortest path of primary
corridor.
• Local streets with traffic volumes of:
• 20 m
ph = 1,000 - 2,000 ADT
(average daily traffic)
• 25 mph = 500 - 1,500 ADT,
as well as less than 50 vehicles per hour
in the peak direction at peak hour.
DESIGN FEATURES
• In addition to pavement markings and
signs, bicycle boulevards must include
features to enhance safety.
• Implement volume control treatments
based on the context of the bicycle
boulevard, using engineering judgment.
Pay special attention to school zones to
ensure bicycle boulevards are designed
for low-speed and low-volume during all
times of the day, and especially during
pick up and drop off times.
• Intersection crossings should be
designed to enhance safety and minimize
delay for bicyclists, following crossing
treatment progression to achieve Level of
Traffic Stress 1 or 2 (see page A-21).
Neighborhood Byway Signage + Striping
A-3 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Bicycle boulevard retrofits to local streets
are typically located on streets without
existing signalized accommodation
at crossings of collector and arterial
roadways. Without treatments for
bicyclists, these intersections can become
major barriers along the bicycle boulevard
and compromise safety.
Traffic calming can deter motorists from
dri
ving on a street, as well as help to
maintain or establish low volumes and
discourage vehicle cut through/speeding.
Anticipate and monitor vehicle volumes
on adjacent streets to determine whether
traffic calming results in unintended
and inappropriate volumes on arterial
or collector streets adjacent to the
bicycle boulevard. Traffic calming can be
implemented on a trial basis.
Key elements of bicycle boulevards are
unique signage and pavement markings,
traffic calming features to maintain low
vehicle volumes, and safe and convenient
major street crossings.
CRASH REDUCTION
In a comparison of vehicle/bicyclist
collision rates on traffic-calmed side
streets signed and improved for cyclist
use, compared to parallel and adjacent
arterials with higher speeds and volumes,
the bicycle boulevard was found to have a
crash reduction factor of 63%, with rates
two to eight times lower when controlling
for volume (CMF ID: 3092
1).
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Costs vary depending on the type of
treatments proposed for the corridor.
Simple treatments such as wayfinding
signage and markings are most cost-
effective, but more intensive treatments
will have greater impact at lowering speeds
and volumes, at higher cost.
1 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse, “Install Bicycle Boulevard”, (2011).
Elements of Bicycle Boulevards
DISTINCT VISUAL IDENTITY
Unique pavement markings and wayfinding
signs increase visibility of bicycle boulevard
routes, assist with navigation, and alert
drivers that the roadway is a priority route
for people bicycling.
Bicycle Boulevard Pavement Markings
(Source: RB Landmark)
Appendix A | A-4
SAFE, CONVENIENT
CROSSINGS
Traffic controls, warning devices, and
separated facilities at intersections
facilitate safe and convenient crossings of
major streets along the bicycle boulevard
network.
Example of a traffic control sign at an intersection.
Example of a separated bike lane approaching an
intersection.
BICYCLE PRIORITY
Traffic calming treatments such as traffic circles, speed tables, diverters, and chicanes, sometimes in place of existing stop signs, can help prioritize bicycle through-travel and discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic.
Diverter at Milvia Street and Cedar Street in Berkeley (Source: Google Earth)
A-5 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Design Needs of Bicyclists (New Section)
The facility designer must understand how bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more affected by poor facility design, construction, and maintenance practices than motor vehicle drivers.
By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bicyclists, a fac
ility designer can provide quality facilities and minimize user risk.
BICYCLE AS A DESIGN
VEHICLE
Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and
their bicycles exist in a variety of sizes and
configurations. The most common devices
people ride in urban bikeways fit into one
of these four categories:
• Mini devices: El
ectric and non-electric
scooters, skateboards, rollerblades, and
other devices under 20 inches wide that
typically ride or roll upright on small
wheels. This typically includes people
who use wheelchairs and personal
mobility devices in bikeways
• Typical bikes: Electric and conventional
up
right bikes and tricycles, as well as
recumbent bikes, hand cycles, and
any wheeled devices up to 2.5 feet
wide. These are the most common
bikeway users and a typical bike is the
conventional design vehicle for bikeways.
• Cargo bikes: Electric and conventional
bi
kes, tricycles, or any other wheeled
device between 2.5 to 3 feet wide that
has an extended wheelbase or is pulling a
trailer.
• Extra-large bikes: La
rge freight tricycles,
pedicabs, and other devices wider than 3
feet, and typically up to 4.5 feet wide.
In addition to the design dimensions
of a typical device the minimum and
preferred rideable widths, shown below,
ensure that each device type has enough
space to operate within a bikeway.
Appendix A | A-6
Minimum and Preferred Rideable Widths
CONTROL
DEVICE
ONE-WAY BIKE LANE TWO-WAY BIKE LANE
MINIMUM
RECOMMENDED * PREFERRED
MINIMUM
RECOMMENDED * PREFERRED
Mini Device
Widths cannot be less than
a typical bike
6 f
eet 7-8 feet 8-10 f eet 11-13 feet
Typical Bike
Device width up to 2.5 feet 6 feet 7-8 feet 8-10 f
eet 11-13 feet
Cargo Bike
Device width up to 3 feet 6.5 feet 8-9 feet 9-11 f
eet 12-14 feet
Extra-Large Bike
Device width up to 4.5 feet 7 feet 11.5-12.5 feet 12-14 f eet 15-17 feet
* Side-by-side riding and passing are not accommodated in minimum widths. Refer to NACTO’s Designing for Small Things With Wh
eels publication for further design guidelines.
Design Speed Expectations
BICYCLE TYPE FEATURE
TYPICAL
SPEED
Upright Adult Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 8-12 mph* Cros
sing 10 mph
Downhill 30 mph
Uphill 5-12 mph
E-Bike Paved level surfacing 18 mph
Recumbent Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 18 mph
* Typical speed for casual riders per AASHTO 2013.
Bicycle Rider - Typical Operating Dimensions
Source: NACTO Design Controls for Bicycle Facilities , Adapted from Urban Bikeway Design Guide 3rd Edition
A-7 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
02 TRAFFIC CALMING
FEATURES
Appendix A | A-8
Speed Table at Milvia Bicycle Boulevard (Source: City of Berkeley) Traffic calming may include elements intended to reduce the speeds of motor vehicle traffic to be closer to bicyclist travel speeds, or include design elements that restrict certain vehicle movements and discourage motorists from using bicycle boulevards as cut-through corridors.
Traffic calming treatments can cause drivers to slow down by constricting the roadway space for more careful maneuvering. Such measures may reduce the design speed of a street, and can be used in conjunction with reduced speed limits to reinforce the expectation of lowered speeds. They can also lower vehicle volumes by physically or operationally reconfiguring corridors and intersections along the route.
Typical Application
• City should study feasibility of
implementing a posted speed limit of 20
mph, as allowed by AB 43. Use traffic
calming to pursue a design speed of 20
mph (25 mph maximum). Traffic calming
on bicycle boulevards will be
implemented a
ccording to direction
from the City Council regarding public
notification and engagement thresholds.
• Pursue a 1,500-cars-per-day maximum.
Bikeways with daily volumes above this
limit should be considered for traffic
calming measures.
A-9 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
•
•
Curb extension + median (wider road)
Median Refuge
Curb ExtensionA
B
Design Features:
Speed Management
A Median islands in the center of the
roadway create a pinchpoint for vehicles
and offer shorter crossing distances for
pedestrians when used with a marked
crossing.
• Chicanes slow drivers by requiring
v
ehicles to shift laterally through
narrowed lanes, while preserving
sightlines.
B Pinchpoints, chokers, or curb extensions
restrict motorists from operating at high
speeds on local streets by visually and
physically narrowing the roadway.
• Neighborhood traffic circles reduce
v
ehicle speed at intersections by
requiring motorists to move cautiously
through conflict points. Traffic circles can
be landscaped but must be maintained to
preserve sightlines.
• Street trees narrow a driver’s visual field
and create a consistent rhythm and
canopy along the street, which provides
a unified character and facilitates place
recognition.
• Speed tables slow drivers through
vertical deflection. Leave a gap between
the table and the curb to have less
impact on stormwater drainage.
Pedestrians can cross one lane or one direction of
traffic at a time, wait on the refuge for traffic to clear in the other direction, and then continue crossing.
Narrows the crossing
distance.
Appendix A | A-10
SPEED TABLES (New Section)
Speed tables are midblock traffic calming devices that raise the entire wheelbase of a vehicle to reduce its speed. Speed tables are longer than speed humps and flat-topped, and can be used on collector streets and transit and emergency response routes.
Placement Criteria
Minimum one speed table per block; can
exceed this minimum consistent with the
guidelines below:
• Speed tables located no further than
5 00 feet from another speed table in
the same block.
• Speed tables located no closer than 50
feet from the nearest back of crosswalk.
• Speed tables must be placed so as
not to interfere with residential or
commercial driveways.
Multiple cities in the Bay Area have recently adopted
standards for speed cushions as an alternative to
speed tables. A speed cushion incorporates two
wheel cutouts to allow large vehicles to pass through
unaffected while still imposing traffic calming effects on regular passenger vehicles. Speed cushions can
benefit operations for emergency responders, trash
collectors, and transit operators while still providing traffic calming benefits. Speed cushions also allow
a path of travel for people riding bikes or scooters
which avoids the vertical deflection and discomfort
of traveling over the speed cushion. Speed cushions
are not currently an approved device by the City
of Berkeley; any future implementation of speed
cushions should include close coordination with
the Berkeley Fire Department to develop design
specifications that work with their vehicles while still achieving traffic calming goals.
(Source: NACTO)
A-11 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
•
•
A
B
TRAFFIC CIRCLES (Updated Section)
Traffic circles are a type of horizontal speed management typically installed along low- speed, low-volume streets, and bicycle boulevards. They are raised islands located in the center of intersections that narrow the roadway and require motorists and bicyclists to reduce their speed in order to navigate around.
Purpose
• Slowing vehicle through- and turn-
mo
vements.
• Discouraging non-local or cut-
through traffic.
• Reducing turn-movement conflicts
between bicycles and vehicles.
• Facilitating movements and reducing
conflicts at intersections of two
bicycle boulevards.
• Providing opportunities for
neighborhood greening/landscaping
and potential green infrastructure.
Traffic Circle
Typical Application
• An effective traffic calming tool on
bi
cycle boulevards and low-speed,
low-volume bicycle routes.
• Often installed to replace stop
signs at intersections along a bike
boulevard.
• Should be installed in consultation
with neighborhood residents and
emergency vehicle operators.
• Traffic circles feature raised curbs
and/or mountable aprons to provide
access for emergency vehicles.
• Approaches can feature mini
channelization islands or pavement
markings to further narrow the
roadway and delineate travelways.
A The visual footprint of the traffic circle
can be expanded in the intersection
with integral colored pavement, or
visually patterned surface treatments.
B Traffic circles can be landscaped
but must be maintained to preserve
sightlines.
Appendix A | A-12
Design Features
• Multiple traffic circles in series at adjacent
in
tersections may not be needed due to
the incorporation of speed tables, and
should be avoided if there is not a strong
justification.
• Traffic circle radius depends on roadway
width, and curb radii, to provide
adequate horizontal deflection.
• Consider including a vertical element to
traffic circles
• Individual intersections should be
assessed based on the above criteria
to determine whether through-/
turn-movement conflicts or adjacent
destinations are a factor.
Fully Mountable Traffic Circle at Virginia Street
and McGee Street (Source: City of Berkeley)
PLACEMENT CRITERIA
Traffic circles may be considered at any
residential street along a bicycle boulevard,
but particularly at:
• Intersections of bicycle boulevards and
l
ocal streets with higher traffic volumes.
• Locations near a collector or arterial
street intersection without nearby
diversion—to discourage non-local or cut-
through traffic.
Vegetated Traffic Circle at Prince Street and King
Street in Berkeley (Source: City of Berkeley)
A-13 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
TRAFFIC DIVERTERS (Updated Section)
Traffic diverters are an effective traffic volume management tool that allow bicycles and emergency vehicles to proceed through an intersection, but restrict all other vehicle through- movements (requiring vehicles to turn right). Traffic diverters are installed on local roadways designated as bicycle boulevards.
Typical Application
• Traffic diversion reduces vehicle
volu
mes on bicycle boulevards.
• Existing non-landscaped traffic
diverters without cut-throughs can be
retrofitted to allow through-access for
bicycles and emergency vehicles.
• Traffic diverter designs should
be developed in consultation
with neighborhood residents and
emergency vehicle operators.
• Design and neighborhood outreach
processes should inform the type
and precise location of diverters, with
consideration given to traffic volume,
and the direction of the diversion, with
the goal of routing motorized traffic to
the nearest collector or major street.
• Design and placement should consider
potential impacts to evacuation routes
Full Diverter at Berkeley Way and Trader Joe’s
(Source: City of Berkeley)
Diagonal Diverter (Source: NACTO)
Appendix A | A-14
Purpose
• Slowing or eliminating vehicle turn-
mo
vements.
• Discouraging non-local or cut-through
traffic on bicycle boulevards, which are
intended as low-volume streets.
• Reducing turn-movement conflicts
between bicycles and vehicles.
• Providing opportunities for neighborhood
greening/landscaping and potential
green infrastructure.
• When placed as median intersections,
diverters offer pedestrian and bicycle
crossing refuges.
Design Features
• Traffic diverters can be landscaped to
en
hance the overall attractiveness of the
bike boulevard.
• Colored concrete pavers and visually
dramatic striping should be used to
further delineate the diverter from the
roadway, and reinforce the vehicle turn
restriction.
• At-grade curb cuts, or mountable curbs,
provide convenient access for bicycles.
• Bollards, stanchions, and remaining metal
and concrete “staples” on existing traffic
diverters should be removed. These
obstacles pose a crash hazard to cyclists.
They can be replaced with small, properly
designed median islands.
PLACEMENT CRITERIA FOR
MAJOR STREET CROSSING
At major street crossings, diverters are
designed as median crossings.
Two configurations for median islands are
de
scribed below:
• Approach islands, which require “right-
in/right-out” turn-movement restriction,
but allow left turns from the main street
into the side street (bike boulevard);
sometimes used in conjunction with
pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) or traffic
signal. Se
e illustration B on the next
page.
• Approach islands, which require “right-
in/right-out” turn-movement restriction,
while also prohibiting left turns from
the main street into the side street
(bike boulevard); typically used alone
or in conjunction with rectangular rapid
flashing beacon (RRFB). See
illustration
C on the next page.
PLACEMENT CRITERIA
FOR RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS
At residential street intersections, a partial,
full, or diagonal diverter may be considered:
• Minimum one diverter per bike boulevard
s
egment between collector or arterial
street crossings.
• May not be necessary if diversion has
been provided at collector or arterial
street crossings along a particular
segment.
A-15 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Design Features: Volume Management
A Partial closure diverters allow
bicyclists to proceed straight
across the intersection but
require motorists to turn left or
right. All turns from the major
street onto the bikeway are
prohibited. Curb extensions
with stormwater management
features and/or a mountable
island can be included.
B Right-in/right-out diverters
require motorists to turn right
while bicyclists can continue
straight through the intersection.
The island can provide a through
bike lane or bicycle access to
reduce conflicts with right-
turning vehicles. Left turns
from the major street onto the
bikeway are prohibited, while
right turns are still allowed.
C Median refuge island diverters
restrict through and left-turn
vehicle movements along the
bikeway and provide a refuge
for bicyclists to cross one
direction of traffic at a time. This
treatment prohibits left turns
from the major street onto the
bikeway, while right turns are
still allowed.
D Full/diagonal diverters block all
motor vehicles from continuing
on a neighborhood bikeway,
while bicyclists can continue
unrestricted. Full closures can
be constructed to preserve
emergency vehicle access.
Traffic Calming Treatments to Reduce Motor
Veh
icle Volumes
A
Partial Closure
Diverter
B
Right-In/Right-Out
Diverter
C
Median Refuge Island
Diverter
D
Full Diverter
Appendix A | A-16
Field Examples of Traffic Diverters
Partial Diverters (See illustration A on page 15)
Older Installation with Concrete Barrels at
Wheeler and Ashby (Source: City of Berkeley)
Newer Installation at Cedar and Milvia
(Source: City of Berkeley)
Full Diverters (See illustration D on page 15)
Older Installation with Concrete Barrels at Fulton
and Ashby (Source: City of Berkeley)
Newer Installation at Berkeley Way and Trader Joe’s
(Source: City of Berkeley)
A-17 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Diagonal Diverters
Older Installation at Virginia and Acton
(Source: City of Berkeley)
Newer Installation at Virginia and McGee
(Source: City of Berkeley)
Appendix A | A-18
Newer Installation at Roosevelt and Channing
(Source: City of Berkeley)
A-19 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
03 BICYCLE
BOULEVARD
CROSSING
TREATMENTS
Appendix A | A-20
Curb extension + median (wider road)
Safe Crossing Recommendations
The following are recommendations to inform future design. All projects will comply with design requirements established by the CA MUTCD, PROWAG, and other relevant guidelines.
Major street crossings are a critical piece of the bicycle boulevard network. One of the three goals for bicycle boulevards is to “develop a network of efficient routes for bicyclists,” which means reducing the number of times that a cyclist must stop along the route, and improving the ability to cross major intersections.
Many bicycle boulevard corridors are low
stress within the neighborhood until a
person on a bicycle must cross a major
street such as Sacramento Street or San
Pablo Avenue. These high-stress crossings
are barriers to getting more people to
bicycle; a single high-stress crossing point
along an otherwise low-stress bicycle
boulevard route can be a major deterrent
to use.
The following are recommendations
to inform future design. All projects
will comply with design requirements
established by the CA MUTCD, PROWAG,
and other relevant guidelines.
The treatment progression table on the
following page provides guidance on the
appropriate crossing treatment to achieve
a suitably low-stress experience for users
on the bicycle boulevard network.
A-21 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Table 1: Uncontrolled Crossing Treatment Progression Table
CROSSING
TREATMENT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES (ADT) 1
VERY
LOW
LOW MEDIUM HIGH
Cross Street Up to 3
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Up to 3
lanes
4 or 5
lanes
Marked Crossing LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 All-way STOP2 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2
Median Refuge
Island
3 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Median with
RRFB
3 X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (PHB)
4 X X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
Traffic Signal X X X LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
1: Very Low: 0-1,500; Low: 1,501-5,000; Medium: 5,001-12,500; High: >12,500 2: Requires completing a CA MUTCD STOP warrant analysis before implementation 3: Minimum 6-foot-wide median to meet LTS benefit
4: Subject to successful warrant analysis
Definitions:
X: No additional benefi t
Black: Not a
dvisable or not applicable
LTS
: Level of Traffic Stress, with LTS 1 or 2 ideal for low-stress crossings.
See the “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” study at ht
tps://t
ransweb.sjsu.edu/research/Low-Stress-Bicycling-and-Network-Connectivity for detailed discussion of LTS. For more information, see Berkeley Bicycle Plan 2017 Appendix C Level of Traffi
c Stress
This plan contains, as proposed projects, multiple RRFB locations that were designed, approved, and funded prior to the update of the Unsignalized Crossing Treatment Progression Table (Table 1). In each of these instances, design efforts were made to incorporate additional traffic calming elements (such as curb extensions or raised crossings) to s
upplement visibility,
safety and comfort for crossing users.
Appendix A | A-22
In the years following the adoption of
the 2017 City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan,
City of Berkeley staff have been able to
validate the effectiveness of recommended
crossing treatments for different types
of cross streets on the bicycle boulevard
network. Through implementation and
public feedback, the City learned residents
felt uncomfortable with the application of
RRFBs on busier streets, instead preferring
median crossing islands. The Unsignalized
Crossing Treatment Progression Table has
been subsequently updated to keep in line
with observed results, best practices, and
updated standards and guidelines for the
City of Berkeley. These changes can be
summarized as:
• No stand-alone use of RRFBs. RRFBs
s
hould either be implemented in
tandem with a median crossing or
should include other traffic calming
features such as raised crosswalks or
curb extensions. This reduces crossing
distances and improves visibility.
• Use of an All-Way STOP sign as
stand-alone option for local street
intersections, collector street
intersections, and minor arterial
intersections that are no more than
three lanes of travel. The intersection
must meet a CA MUTCD STOP warrant
before being considered for this
treatment.
• Consider the feasibility of using median
crossings as diverters for the bicycle
boulevard route, whether paired with
RRFBs or PHBs. The City of Berkeley
has developed designs for median
crossings that divert vehicle traffic
off bicycle boulevard routes while still
permitting through movements by
emergency vehicles.
Examples of existing bicycle boulevard
crossing treatments throughout the City
of Berkeley can be found on the following
pages.
Transit Integration: Some crossing
re
commendations are at intersections
currently served by various AC Transit
routes. The City of Berkeley should
coordinate early with AC Transit to
ensure crossing improvements minimize
impacts to AC Transit operations and
stop locations. This is especially the case
in locations where median crossings may
require parking removal, stop relocation,
and the general reconfiguration of travel
lanes to accommodate a median crossing.
A-23 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Field Examples of Bicycle Boulevard
Crossing Treatments (Updated Section)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
RRFB at MLK Jr. Way and Virginia Avenue
(Source: City of Berkeley)
RRFB at Shattuck Avenue and Virginia Avenue
(Source: City of Berkeley)
RRFB + Median Island
RRFB and a Median Island at MLK Jr. Way and Addison Street (Source: City of Berkeley)
Appendix A | A-24
Median Island
Median Islands at California Street and Dwight Way
(Source: City of Berkeley)
A-25 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
PHB at Hillegass Avenue and Ashby Avenue
(Source: City of Berkeley)
PHB at Virginia Avenue and San Pablo Avenue
(Source: City of Berkeley)
Traffic Signal with Diversion
Traffic Signal with Diversion at MLK Jr. Way and Channing Way (Source: City of Berkeley)
Appendix A | A-26
Traffic Signal with Diversion
Traffic Signal with Diversion at Sacramento Street and Virginia Street (Source: City of Berkeley)
A-27 | City of Berkeley Bicycle Plan
APPENDIX B
2022 OUTREACH
SUMMARY
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-1
MEMORANDUM
To: Eric Anderson, City of Berkeley
Dan
i Dynes, City of Berkeley
From
: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Dat
e: December 25, 2024
Re: Ap
pendix B: Berkeley Bike Plan Update – 2022 Outreach Summary Introduction
This memorandum summarizes activities and key findings from public engagement undertaken in 2022 for the Berkeley Bike Plan Update process.
Engagement in 2022 focused on connecting with residents in Berkeley’s Equity Priority Areas (EPAs), ensuring the needs and values of those most vulnerable to transportation challenges were strongly represented in public input (Figure 1).
This memo documents the process and outcomes of the 2022 outreach phase and identifies how that input will be used in the development of network recommendations for the 2024 plan update.
Figure 1: Berkeley's EPAs
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-2
2022 Outreach Summary
The Berkeley Bike Plan Update kicked off in early 2022; 14 public events were held in the spring and summer months of 2022, accompanied by an interactive webmap. Engagement focused on general feedback from the public about priorities for the update, as well as focused input on the network recommendations from the 2017 Berkeley Bike Plan. A summary of events and input is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: 2022 Outreach Participation Summary
Outreach Method Number of Events Numbe r of Participants Number of Comments Interactive webmap -- 603 (unique IP addresses) 935
Pop-up workshops 2 100 30
Bike tour 1 18 24
Listening sessions 10 95 264
Virtual community workshop 1 78 53
Emails to project team -- 6 27
Total 14 90 0 1,333
The project team collected over 1,300 comments during outreach in 2022, with the most common types of comments summarized below by comment type and by outreach method. Cells have been color-coded for the frequency at which they appeared by event type. As single comments may encompass multiple themes, these tables add up to more than 100% per event type.
Table 2: 2022 Engagement comment matrix
Comment Type
Total
Com
ments
(N=1,333)
Support
Bikeway
Improvement
Support
Intersection
Improvement
Roadway
Safety
Concerns
Pav
ement or
Maintenance
Insufficient
Facility
Oppose
Project
Bike
Parking
Educati on or
Programs
Webmap
(N=935
) 70% 29% 41% 49% 8% 33% 9% 1% 1%
Email
Comments
(N=27)
2% 7% 48% 15% 41% 0% 0% 0% 15%
Virtual
Workshop
(N=53)
4% 15% 13% 21% 8% 32% 2% 8% 49%
Bike Tour
(N=24) 2% 29% 46% 33% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0%
List
ening
Session
(N=264)
20% 32% 28% 22% 15% 26% 1% 1% 6%
Pop-Up Event
(N=30) 2% 17% 30% 30% 17% 17% 0% 3% 0%
Total 28% 38% 41% 10% 30% 6% 1% 4%
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-3
Combined Results
All mappable comments from the 2022 outreach were combined in Figure 2. This map shows the density of public comm
ents along corridors and at intersections.
Figure 2: Combined 2022 outreach comment density
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-4
Promotion and Outreach
The project team advertised to residents of Berkeley’s EPAs in the following ways:
• Postcards inviting input through the project website and participation in focus groups were sent to every resid
ential address within EPAs, a total of 15,261 addresses. • Flyers inviting input through the project website and participation in focus groups were poste d within EPAs. • 11 sidewalk decals inviting input through the project website were placed within EPAs .
Additional citywide advertisements included:
• The Public Inf ormation Officer posted official City of Berkeley Community Messages on Twitter and Nextdoor. • A project website was set up to take comments, host documents, and provide additional information:
www.Ber keleyBikePlan.org .
All project advertising materials were provided in English and Spanish.
Listening Sessions
Equity Priority Area Group Listening Sessions – April and May 2022 Overview
Project staff hosted 10 virtual listening sessions on Zoom. Gift cards were offered to encourage participation: up to 100 EPA residents could receive a $30 gift card for their attendance. Gift card options included Berkeley Bowl and four local-owned businesses: Alchemy Collective Coffee Roasters, Blue Honey Beauty Barr, Revolution Books, and Nutter Butter Cookies.
Over 340 residents expressed interest in signing up for a listening session. The project team filtered out applicants with inc
omes over $100,000, as the intent of the listening sessions was to prioritize lower-income residents and provide balance to other public input mechanisms that would be over-represented by well-resourced residents. Once screening was completed, about 200 residents were still eligible to participate. All 200 residents were offered the opportunity to schedule a listening session. The listening sessions gathered feedback from a diverse (race, age, gender, and travel preferences) group of participants and perspectives. Over the 10 sessions, the project team spoke with 95 residents. Two Spanish- speaking residents expressed interest in attending during the scheduling process, and project staff held individual conversations with these two residents.
Process
After introductions and a brief project overview, project staff led conversations on a variety of topics related to riding bicycles, scooters, or other wheeled devices in Berkeley. Common themes across the 10 listening sessions are below:
• Pavement quality: Having smooth, pothole-free streets is important for people bicycling and rolling. Poor pavement quality or bumpy streets can pose safety risks for people bicycling. Many participants felt the City should prioritize paving bicycle boulevards and other designated bicycle corridors. • Street sweeping: Debris in the bike lane can pose safety risks; depending on the location and situation, debris can be hard to avoid. Having a clean lane is especially important in separated bikeways. • Bicycle boulevards: Bicycle boulevards are almost universally supported; people bicycling generally feel seen and respected by people driving on these corridors. The utility of the bicycle boulevard network is limited by the difficult crossings of arterial corridors like San Pablo Avenue or Ashby Avenue—especially at uncontrolled intersections. Participants also felt more could be done to reduce cut-through traffic on bicycle boulevards, balanced with access for local residents.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-5
• Driver awareness: People bicycling appreciate infrastructure that improves visibility and driver awareness, such as large bike boulevard pavement markings.
• Intersection crossings: Most participants felt signalized intersections are the safest place to cross arterial streets.
Most residents stated that drivers rarely slow down or stop for them to cross at uncontrolled locations; in these circumstances, many find it easier to dismount their bikes and cross as a pedestrian. • Healthy Streets program: Most participants knew of the Healthy Streets program but did not associate the “Healthy Streets” name with the infrastructure changes. Residents generally approved of the program's premise but felt it was poorly executed and communicated. Many found the changes confusing; the signs, cones, barriers, or other items were constantly vandalized. The program lacked sufficient community engagement to understand and correct residents’ access issues.
• Bike parking: Participants would like to see more secure bike parking around the city, not just at transit centers. • North-south connectivity: Many participants felt that north-south travel is hard for people bicycling. Continuous north-south streets are typically uncomfortable arterial roads, and lower-stress options involve connecting via multiple streets. This impacts people trying to bicycle to or from places like Emeryville or Oakland. • Facility design considerations: Participants felt narrow facilities could make things uncomfortable and potentially cause conflicts between people bicycling or rolling. Examples included on-street facilities not being wide enough for people to pass a slower-moving roller or the Ohlone Greenway not being wide enough to comfortably handle the volume of people walking, bicycling, and rolling at the same time.
Figure 4:Listening Session 10
Figure 3:Listening Session 8
Virtual Community Workshop
Zoom Webinar – April 28, 2022
Project staff hosted a virtual community workshop on Thursday, April 28, 2022, from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. Seventy-eight community members attended the workshop. The workshop provided the community with an overview of the project, discussed the updated high-injury network, and discussed other ways the community could get involved with the plan update. The workshop had multiple ways for the community to interact with the project team, including interactive polling using PollEverywhere during the presentation and a question-and-answer session after the presentation. Attendees asked over 70 questions during the meeting. Common themes from questions and comments included:
• Questions about future engagement events (pop-ups and bike tour) and the interactive webmap.
• Including universal design principles in future bicycle facility designs to maximize access ibility.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-6
• Making bicycle boulevards consistently lower-stress by improving crossings and minimizing vehicle cut-through traffic.
• Paving prioritization for streets on the adopted bike network, especially for bicycle boulevards.
Figure 6: Word cloud generated from comments during the virtual community workshop Figure 5: Word cloud generated from comments during the virtual community workshop
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-7
Figure 7: Screen capture from the virtual community workshop during the Q&A session Pop-Up Events
San Pablo Park Pop-Up – May 7, 2022
Project staff hosted a pop-up event at San Pablo Park on Saturday, May 7. The project team set up a table and shade tent in the park and prepared a plotted map to gather feedback on existing bicycling and rolling conditions. The project team spoke to 57 people during the event. General feedback received included the following:
• Improved pavement quality on bike boulevards, especially on Russell Street, Heinz Street, and Channing Way. • Cr
ossing San Pablo Avenue at t he intersections of Russell Street, Channing Way, Delaware Street, and Virginia Street was identified as a barrier to biking.
• Crossing Sacramento Street at the intersections of Russell Street and Channing Way was iden tified as a barrier to biking.
• Improved paths in San Pablo Park to accommodate people biking and rolling with smaller wheels. • Desire for a new north-south bike route that connects San Pablo Park to Strawberry Creek Park. • Widen the paths along the waterfront at Cesar Chavez Park and East Bay Shoreline Park so people biking and walking can share the same space.
• A low-stress east-west connection between Strawberry Creek Park and the Bay Trail via Mario Savio Bridge over I-80.
• Poor pavement quality was reported on Hillegass Avenue, De laware Street, and Gilman Street. • The intersection of King Street and Alcatraz Avenue is ha rd to cross, and the existing rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) on the east leg of the intersection requires an awkward movement when biking south on King Street to activate the RRFB.
• The intersection of Ashby Avenue and Cali fornia Street would feel safer if there was a better way for people biking north-south on California Street to cross Ashby Avenue.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-8
• Residents like the upgraded intersection at Dwight Way and California Street (median crossing) and would like to see similar improvements elsewhere.
• Some residents expressed concerns about safety on the Virginia Street bike boulevard at the intersections of Oxfo
rd Street and Shattuck Avenue.
• When traveling north to Berkeley from Oakland on Shattuck Avenue, the bike lane disappears when reaching the Berkeley border. Residents would like to see an improved, continuous biking connection here. • The Ohlone Greenway path should be widened and made more comfortable for all trail users. • Green pavement conflict markings through intersections increase comfort and the sense of safety. • Residents like the new separated bikeways on Milvia Street. • Improve bike ac cess to and from Berkeley Bowl east and Ashby BART Station.
Figure 9: Project staff chatting with residents at San Pablo Park Figure 8: Project staff gathering feedback on existing bike routes Berkeley Juneteenth Festival Pop-Up – June 19, 2022
On Sunday, June 19, project staff tabled at Berkeley’s Juneteeth Festival. The project team staffed the booth for the entire event from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. The team gathered community feedback on existing bicycling conditions in Berkeley and priorities for the plan update. The team provided maps and informational boards for the public. General themes included:
• Better, coordinated connections between Oakland and Berkeley, especially around the Shattuck and Webster corridors.
• Cr
ossings along MLK and Adeline are too stressful and unfriendly for students attending Malcolm X Elementary. • Corridors with diff icult crossings:
o Adeline (multiple locations)
o San Pablo/Gilman
o Channing/San Pablo
o Russell/Sacramento
o Dwight/California
o Ohlone Greenway crossings
• Bike lanes should continue through intersections instead of stopping to create a turn lane. • South Berkeley residents feel it can be hard to bike downtown or reach the Bay Trail.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-9
• Some residents want the City to build more separated
bikeways on larger streets. They find them more
comfortable than bicycle boulevards because some
drivers still don’t respect people biking on bike
boulevards.
• Getting to the bike boulevard network can be difficult when
many connector streets have poor pavement
quality—Grant Street and Acton Street, especially.
• Addison Stree t needs traffic calming to feel safer.
• Regional trails and connections to them are the best
options
for regional connectivity.
• The Bay Trail needs better access/directional
wayf
inding across the city.
• Traffic circles help calm traff ic and can be aesthetically pleasing (when maintained).
• Need more dedicated scooter parking areas.
• Bikeway designs should be similar across the city t o improve continuity.
Figure 10: Public comments at the Juneteenth Festival
Figure 11: Residents giving input at the Juneteenth Festival
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-10
West Berkeley Bike Tour
Bike Tour – May 14, 2022
Project staff led a five-mile community bike ride through West Berkeley, touring different types of bicycle facilities and intersections to gather feedback from participants. The route started and ended at Ashby BART Station and included bicycle boulevards, shared-use paths, separated bikeways, and various types of intersections. A total of 18 people, including several children with their parents, participated. A map of the route and a summary of feedback from each of the tour stops are provided below.
Figure 12: Bike tour route map
Stop 1: San Pablo Park
• Crossing MLK Jr. Way after leaving Ashby BART Station felt unsafe on a bi ke—even when using the RRFB crossing at Prince Street. Cars did not immediately yield and traveled at high speeds. • Bike access and the Prince Street crosswalk from Ashby BART can be difficult to navigate when using a recumbent (or ot
her non-traditional) bike.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-11
• The RRFB at the crossing of Ashby Street when traveling north on the King Street bike boulevard makes the intersection feel safer.
• The crossing of Sacramento Street when traveling west on the Russell Street bike boulevard was a barrier. The inte
rsection has no signal and four lanes of traffic to navigate across on Sacramento Street. • The pavement quality on the Russell Street bike boulevard could be improved and made smoother. • Many in the group felt comfortable on bike boulevards and agreed that on-street bike facilities feel safer when they are adjacent to arterial roadways as opposed to on them.
Stop 2: 9th Street Greenway
• The crossing of San Pablo Avenue whe n traveling west on the Russell Street bike boulevard requires a challenging jog across San Pablo Avenue without a designated space for bikes. • The protected left turn phase from San Pablo Avenue onto H einz Street should be longer to allow more time for bicycles to proceed through; painted markings through the intersection designating an area for bikes would be helpful.
• Biking to destinations along San Pablo Aven ue is challenging and often requires walking on the sidewalk to feel safe from moving traffic.
• Participants like the purple bike boulevard signs that help with wayfinding. • The new 9th Street crossing at Ashby is comfortable for all ages and abilities. • Improvement to the pavement quality on Heinz Street, 9th Street, and near schools will make these areas feel safer
and more comfortable, especially for kids using bikes with smaller wheels. • The 9th Street Gree nway is “magical” according to a participant. Members of the group liked that it is smooth and only has people biking and walking on it.
Figure 13: The group ride passing through the intersection of Dwight Way at California Street Stop 3: Ohlone Greenway
• The pavement quality on Channing Street could be imp roved and made smoother. • The intersection of Channing Street and San Pablo Avenue is ch allenging to cross. The crosswalk can give people biking a false sense of security.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-12
.
• The California Street bike boulevard is a nice route for biking. The group enjoyed the trees, low traffic volumes, and designated bike areas. Two-way stop-controlled intersections, where those crossing California Street have to stop, were preferred over all-way stops
• The varying intersection types along the California Street bike boulevard can sometimes cause confusion as the inte
rsection treatments are not uniform along the corridor. The traffic circles tend to cause reduced visibility, especially for kids, because the plants and signs can block sight lines. • Members of the group prefer stop-controll ed intersections over RRFBs. • The intersection upgrades at California Street and Dwight Avenue felt very safe as they force oncoming traffic to slow down.
• The new stop signs at California Street and Allston Way make the bike boulevard feel safer.
Stop 4: Blake Street and Milvia Street Intersection
• Members of the group liked the new Class IV separated bikeway on Milvia Street. • Positive takeaways from the Milvia bikeway include separation from moving cars, designated space for people biking
that makes them visible to cars, and the curbs preventing parents parking in the bike lane to drop off their kids.
• Negative takeaways from the Milvia bikeway include narrow sections can feel claustrophobic, there can be cognit
ive overload from the different elements and intersections in the bikeway, the lack of street sweeping in the bike lane itself, and a preference for bollards over concrete curbs (more porous). • The intersection of Hearst Avenue and ML K Jr. Way has a narrow and awkward shift in the bike lane that sends people biking into traffic.
• Members of the group expressed a need for bike facilities on University Avenue.
Figure 14: The group waiting to turn left from San Pablo Ave onto Heinz Street bike boulevard
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-13
Webmap
In combination with the 2022 public outreach phase, the City of Berkeley launched an interactive webmap on their project website www.BerkeleyBikePlan.org. The
website featured an interactive webmap showing the existing bike network and network recommendations from the 2017 Bike Plan.
Users were encouraged to identify barriers they encountered and destinations they would like to reach, or to comment on existing or proposed facilities. Users could also view the comments posted by other users, reply to those comments, or like/dislike the comments of other users. This created a dynamic environment for discussion among residents rather than a black-box of input. In total, 633 unique IP addresses provided 1,172 comments on the webmap.
Figure 15: Screenshot of public input on the interactive webmap
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
B-14
Outreach Results
In total, the project team received 1,333 comments with the majority (70%) coming from the webmap. Most comments related to roadway safety concerns (41%), support for intersection improvements (38%), and insufficient proposed facility recommendations (30%). All public comments are grouped by event and category in Table 3. Compared to the webmap com
ments, in-person outreach events input had a heavier focus on pavement quality, support of education and programs, and desire for more secure bike parking.
Table 3: Engagement comment matrix
Comment Type
Total
Com
ments
(N=1,333)
Support
Bikeway
Improvement
Support
Intersection
Improvement
Roadway
Safety
Concerns
Pav
ement or
Maintenance
Insufficient
Facility
Oppose
Project
Bike
Parking
Educati on or
Programs
Webmap
(N=935
) 70% 29% 41% 49% 8% 33% 9% 1% 1%
Emai
l
Comments
(N=27)
2% 7% 48% 15% 41% 0% 0% 0% 15%
Virtual
Workshop
(N=53)
4% 15% 13% 21% 8% 32% 2% 8% 49%
Bike Tour
(N=24) 2% 29% 46% 33% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0%
List
ening
Session
(N=264)
20% 32% 28% 22% 15% 26% 1% 1% 6%
Pop-Up Event
(N=30) 2% 17% 30% 30% 17% 17% 0% 3% 0%
Total 28% 38% 41% 10% 30% 6% 1% 4%
Table 4: Occurrence of specific streets in public input Street Occurrence
San Pablo Ave 40
Sha
ttuck Ave 34
Milvia St 28
Hopkins St 24
Claremont Ave 21
Ad
dison St 20
Gilman St 18
Hearst Ave 16
University Ave 16
Oh
lone Greenway 15
Acton St 14
Telegraph Ave 14
Adeline St 13
Channing Way 13
Sp
ruce St 13
Ru
ssell St 12
9th St 10
Rose St 10
Among all public input, streets mentioned more than 10 times are shown in Table 4. Major arterials, such as San Pablo Ave
nue or Shattuck Avenue, or key sections of the bicycle boulevard network, such as Milvia Street or Addison Street, ranked the highest for public comment.
MEMORANDUM
B-15
Table 5: Occurrence of specific intersections in public input Cross Street A Cross Street B Occ urrence
Russell St Shattuck A ve 24
San Pablo Ave Virginia St 17
As
hby Ave California St 16
MLK Jr. Way Virginia St 15
Ru
ssell St Sacramento St 13
Sa
n Pablo Ave Channing Way 12
Alcatraz Ave King St 11
Ashby Ave Hillegass Ave 11
Un
iversity Ave Milvia St 10
Among all public input, intersections mentioned more than 10 times are shown above in Table 5. This list is largely made up of
intersections where the bicycle boulevard network meets and crosses major arterial roadways.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
Appendix A | A-28
APPENDIX C
2025 OUTREACH
SUMMARY
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-1
To: Eric Anderson, City of Berkeley
Dani Dynes, City of Berkeley
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: February 26, 2026
Re: Appendix C: Berkeley Bike Plan Update – 2025 Outreach Summary
Introduction
This memorandum summarizes activities and key findings from public engagement undertaken in the winter of 2025 for the Berkeley Bike Plan Update process. This represents the second phase of outreach for the Berkeley Bike Plan Update, with the first phase taking place in the spring/summer of 2022. Results from this first phase of outreach can be found in the 2022 Outreach Memo.
Engagement in 2025 focused on introducing and validating network recommendations with the public and communicating how public input from 2022 engagement was used to develop recommendations. Engagement events focused on a series of pop-up events to reach the general public and a series of small-scale “listening sessions” to reach specific stakeholder groups within Berkeley. This memo documents the process and outcomes of the 2025 outreach process and how that input will be integrated into the Draft Plan.
2025 Outreach Summary
Outreach for this second phase of engagement ran from January 16th to the end of February in the winter of 2025. During this period, the project team hosted 3 pop-up events, 6 listening sessions, conducted individual interviews with stakeholders who have a disability, presented to the Transportation & Infrastructure Commission, and presented to the Commission on Disability. All project materials were posted to the project website berkeleybikeplan.org, and stakeholder communication included 3 project email blasts, promotion through the City of Berkeley Public Information Officer, event posting to the City of Berkeley calendar, and a story in Berkeleyside.org . A citywide online workshop was held in August of
2025 to coincide with the release of the Draft Plan. A summary of events and input is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: 2025 Outreach Participation Summary
Input Method Number of Events Number of Participants Number of Comments Pop-up events 3 180 97
Listening sessions 6 237 270
Commission Meetings 3 36 25
Emails to project team -- 63 emails 124
Formal Letters -- 11 letters 57
Disability needs interviews -- 4 interviews 49
Public Workshop 1 128 146
Draft Plan Comments -- 313 535
Total 13 972 1,303
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-2
The project team collected over 1,300 comments during outreach in 2025, with the most common types of comments summarized below by comment type and by outreach method. Cells have been color-coded for the frequency at which they appeared by event type. As single comments may encompass multiple themes, these tables add up to more than 100% per event type.
Table 2: 2025 outreach comments by theme and comment method
Comment Type
Total
Comments
(N=743)
Support
Bikeway
Improvement
Support
Intersection
Improvement
Roadway
Safety
Concerns
Pavement or
Maintenance
Insufficient
Facility or
Recommendation
Oppose
Project
Bike
Parking
Education or
Programming
Pop-Up (N=97) 13% 36% 31% 38% 8% 42% 13% 0% 5%
Listening Session
(N=270) 37% 18% 17% 40% 7% 40% 4% 1% 7%
Email (N=124) 17% 35% 44% 58% 10% 30% 15% 0% 6%
Letter (N=57) 8% 26% 30% 37% 2% 21% 25% 0% 9%
Disability
Interview (N=49) 6% 5% 0% 42% 34% 12% 0% 0% 25%
Virtual Workshop
(N=146) 20% 9% 3% 53% 18% 33% 3% 2% 8%
Total 21% 21% 46% 11% 34% 8% 1% 8%
Outreach by Stakeholder Group
Outreach during the winter of 2025 was designed to reach a broad range of stakeholder groups, representative of various challenges, needs, and values. While the three pop-up events were meant to capture input from the public-at-large, the Listening Sessions were held in partnership with specific stakeholders to capture input and participation from their constituents. The table below identifies each key stakeholder group, event dates, and key interests from each group.
Table 3: 2025 Outreach Stakeholder Groups & Feedback Themes Stakeholder Group Event(s) Key Themes
UC Berkeley Community ASUC Listening Session 2/5/25 - Desire for connected network Business Community Berkeley Business District Network Listening Session 2/6/25
- Concern for parking loss & loading
Disability Community Center For Independent Living Listening Session 2/18/25
Commission on Disability 2/19/25
Disability Interviews (4)
- Accessible facility design
- Concern for parking loss & loading
- Desire for more active outreach
Senior Community North Berkeley Senior Center Listening Session 2/19/25
- Concern for parking loss & loading
- Desire for more traffic enforcement
Parents & Youth MLK Middle School Listening Session 2/25/25 - Desire for traffic safety for youth - Desire for connected network
Affordable Housing
Community
Berkeley Way Tenants Meeting Listening Session
2/26/25
- Concern for parking loss & loading
- Desire for more education & traffic
enforcement
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-3
Promotion and Outreach
The project team advertised to residents in the following ways:
• A project website update on BerkeleyBikePlan.org - hosting the event schedule and all outreach materials, presentations, and network recommendations
• 3 email blasts to the project subscriber list – with over 530 subscribers
• Coverage of the outreach phase in a January 21st story by the publication Berkeleyside
• Event promotion through our 3 pop-up event partners and our 6 listening session partners
• Social media advertising conducted by the Berkeley Public Information Officer
• Posts to the City of Berkeley calendar conducted by the Berkeley Public Information Officer
• Project fliers, distributed with all project & outreach partners • Postcard mailers to 15,000 households in August to promote the Draft Plan release and an online workshop.
All project advertising materials were provided in English and Spanish.
Figure 1: Example of outreach event flyer
Figure 2: Example of social media art for 2025 outreach
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-4
Outreach Materials
The Project Team developed a powerpoint presentation and a set of seven poster boards that were used during this phase of public outreach. The powerpoint presentation included:
• An introduction to the Plan Update and the project schedule • The state of Berkeley’s bike network and progress made since 2017 • An overview of public input received in 2022
• The process & factors used when developing network recommendations • A description of recommendations for the network, for intersections, and for bike boulevard traffic calming • A request for feedback and description of next steps for the plan process The seven outreach boards displayed the following information:
• the current bike network, City progress since 2017, and a summary of input provided during 2022 outreach • Network recommendations with space to comment
• Intersection recommendations with space to comment
• Bicycle Boulevard traffic calming recommendations with space to comment • Top 10 priority projects with space for sticker-voting by participants • A visual glossary showing examples of bike network infrastructure • A visual glossary showing examples of intersection improvements
Figure 3: Network recommendations poster & Key Projects sticker voting poster
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-5
Pop-Up Events
Downtown Berkeley Farmer’s Market – January 25th, 2025
Overview
The project team staffed a table at the Downtown Berkeley Farmer’s Market, held on Center Street between MLK Jr Way and Milvia Street, from 10AM to 2PM. The event was staffed by 2 Alta staff. The project team engaged with approximately 80 members of the public, recorded 43 written comments, and tallied 93 votes for Key Projects.
67% of written comments focused on safety concerns and 6 written comments explicitly opposed certain project
recommendations. General themes of comments and
discussions included: requests for all-way stop intersections, traffic enforcement needs, concern for access for residents with a disability, comments both in favor and opposed to parking removal, high preference for bicycle boulevards, requests for additional traffic calming treatments, and comments both in favor and opposed to separated bikeways.
A small subset of participants attempted to engage the project team in detailed discussions surrounding the City’s Complete Streets policy and the recommendations development process.
Figure 4: Residents at the Downtown Berkeley Farmer's Market South Berkeley Farmer’s Market – January 28th, 2025
Overview
The project team staffed a table at the South Berkeley Farmer’s Market on the corner of Adeline Street at Stanford Avenue, form 2PM to 6PM. The event was staffed by 2 Alta staff and 1 City of Berkeley staff. The project team engaged with approximately 60 members of the public, recorded 41 written comments, and tallied 147 votes for Key Projects. 6 of the 41 comments explicitly opposed specific project recommendations. General themes of comments and discussions included: maintenance of bicycle facilities, preference for traffic signals or all-way stop signs, prioritizing Safe Routes to Schools, improving visibility on separated bikeways, the potential to re-locate existing bicycle boulevards, and an overall desire for robust traffic calming at intersections.
Ashby Flea Market – February 8th, 2025
Overview
The project team staffed a table at the Ashby Flea Market, held in the parking lot of the Ashby BART station, from 10AM to 2PM. The event was staffed by 2 Alta staff and 1 City of Berkeley staff. The team was initially scheduled for tabling on February 2nd, but the Flea Market was canceled due to rain. The February 8th Flea Market was the day before the Super Bowl, potentially contributing to lower foot traffic compared to other weekends. The project team engaged with 40 members of the public, recording 15 comments and tallying 17 votes for Key Projects.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-6
Members of the public were generally supportive of plan recommendations, with about half of participants requesting stronger network recommendations on the basis of safety concerns. One participant requested quick-build projects at intersections to prioritize rapid safety improvements.
Listening Sessions
Associated Students of UC Berkeley – February
5th, 2025
Overview
The project team staffed an in-person event in partnership with the Associated Students of UC Berkeley (ASUC). The event was held at the top floor of Eshelman Hall at 2465 Bancroft Way from 5PM to 6:30PM. The event was staffed by 2 Alta staff, 2 City of Berkeley staff, and 1 ASUC representative. ASUC conducted event promotion with the UC student body, with merchants in the Southside business district, and other adjacent community stakeholders. 17 members of the public attended the meeting, which consisted of a presentation followed by a roundtable discussion and posting comments to outreach boards. The project team recorded 64 written
comments and tallied 35 votes on Key Projects.
Comments included broad support for network
recommendations, requests for more robust intersection
treatments, requests for additional separated bikeways, and requests for additional Bicycle Boulevards.
Figure 5: Participants at the ASUC listening session
Berkeley Business District Network – February 6th, 2025 Overview
The project team staffed a presentation during the monthly Berkeley Business District Network (BBDN) meeting, which is held on Zoom. BBDN meetings are convened by the City of Berkeley Office of Economic Development and serves as a clearinghouse for information relevant to business district representatives across the City. The event was staffed by 1 Alta staff and 1 City of Berkeley staff. The project team presented to a group of 22 individuals on the Zoom call.
There were no questions or comments from attendees.
Center for Independent Living – February 18th, 2025
Overview
The project team staffed a virtual workshop hosted by the Center for Independent Living (CIL), a non-profit organization dedicated to disability rights and advocacy. At the recommendation of CIL staff, the event was held as a virtual workshop and was advertised a having a limited number of $25 virtual gift cards for attendees. The presentation was screened and updated to be fully WCAG-compliant for screen readers. The virtual event was held from 5:30PM to 7:00PM. The presentation was staffed by 1 Alta staff and 2 City of Berkeley staff. 66 individuals attended the event and the project team recorded 27 different comments during the discussion.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-7
Comments focused on three general themes: meaningful engagement with residents with a disability, facility design for blind and low-vision residents, and parking/loading needs for residents with a mobility disability. Residents voiced strong concerns and/or opposition to separated bikeways, including visibility challenges, challenges crossing separated bikeways, and parking/loading adjacent to separated bikeways. Participants expressed skepticism that their concerns would be heeded or that their recommendations would be incorporated into the Draft Plan.
North Berkeley Senior Center – February 19th, 2025
Overview
The project team hosted an event with the North Berkeley Senior Center in conjunction with their recurring luncheon event. The project team worked with North Berkeley Senior Center staff to promote the event through their mailing list and their SMS message list. The project team set up an outreach table with posters in the senior center lobby at 11AM and gave a presentation in the Goosebury Room from 12:30PM to 200PM. The event was staffed by 2 Alta staff and 2 City of Berkeley staff. Between the presentation and the outreach table, the project team engaged with 25 residents, collected 30 comments, and tallied 24 votes for Key Projects.
Comments from the presentation focused on the necessity of street parking for seniors, complaints with an outreach process that focused on Equity Priority Communities, concerns about roadway safety impacts from increases in bicycling mode share, interest in creating separation between drivers and bicycle users, and concern about congestion/parking impacts from future housing growth. One participant called for a 1-year moratorium on bicycle projects until data collection, evaluation, education, and enhanced signage projects were completed.
MLK Middle School BUSD Community Meeting
– February 25th, 2025
Overview
The project team hosted an event open to all parents, students and staff of Berkeley Unified School District at the auditorium in the MLK Middle School auditorium, with the event going from 6:30PM-8:30PM. The project team worked with the MLK Middle PTA, the BUSD PTA Network, BUSD Superintendent
Ford, Safe Routes to School Task Force coordinator Sheila Islam, and various parents to promote the event to all school communities across Berkeley. More than 75 parents and
students attended the event, which was staffed by 2 Alta staff and 2 City of Berkeley staff. 120 written and spoken comments were recorded at the event and 104 votes were tallied for Key Projects.
Figure 6: Participant discussion at the MLK Middle School listening session Comments at this meeting focused primarily on wanting the City to implement more robust bike network solutions and to implement them more quickly. Comments expressed frustration at City of Berkeley Public Works for not fulfilling past Bike Plan recommendations during paving projects, such as Rose Street. Attendees strongly supported re-starting the Hopkins Street proposal for separated bikeways. Comments focused on designing projects nearby schools with additional emphasis on traffic calming, traffic diversion, and physical separation to provide maximum safety and comfort to youth. There were also competing opinions about the role of traffic enforcement in improving overall safety.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-8
Berkeley Way Affordable Housing Tenant Meeting – February 26th, 2025 Overview
The project team joined a pre-existing tenants meeting for the BRIDGE affordable housing development at 2020 Berkeley Way. The site managers at Berkeley Way put up meeting posters throughout the building and sent email invitations to all tenants. Participants were offered a $25 gift card for their attendance and participation. The event was staffed by 1 Alta staff and 2 City of Berkeley staff. 17 tenants attended the meeting, recorded 32 comments and questions from participants, and tallied 1 vote for Key Projects.
Comments at this meeting focused on the availability of parking for tenants. The Berkeley Way site has limited on-site parking and residents of the building struggle to find enough nearby street parking. Residents worried about the loss of street parking due to future bicycle projects and worried about the impacts of new housing slated for construction in downtown on the availability of street parking. Promotional posters within the building erroneously stated the City was proposing a new bike lane facility on Berkeley Way itself, and many tenants expressed their fears about the potential for street parking removal. Residents were also very supportive of rebate programs for low-income residents to purchase e- bikes, universal helmet distribution, greater education for foreign UC Berkeley students on rules of the road, and enhanced traffic enforcement.
Virtual Workshop
The project team hosted a virtual workshop open to the public to share the Draft Berkeley Bike Plan Update. The workshop was promoted on the City of Berkeley’s social media accounts, newsletter, and a community message. As advertised, participants who registered in advance for the workshop were entered into a raffle for a limited number of $25 gift cards.
One hundred and twenty-eight (128) community members attended the workshop.
The workshop included a 50-minute presentation with interactive polling using Mentimeter. The chat feature was initially available for submitting comments/questions, but was closed after 10 minutes so that the project team could more effectively respond using the Q&A feature. After the presentation, participants were added to breakout rooms for 30 minutes of small group discussions. In the breakout rooms, the project team facilitated discussions and documented questions/comments using a Miro board. A total of 146 comments or questions were submitted either via chat, Q&A, or on the Miro board during the workshop. Key comment/question themes are organized below.1
Accessibility & ADA Compliance
• Framing ADA Compliance: Multiple comments emphasized that when discussing accessibility, it’s important to frame ADA compliance as a requirement and not optional. • Concerns for people with visual impairments: Multiple comments raised the concern that concrete bikeway barriers and concrete safety features at intersections may pose risks to visually impaired users. • Include design references and future accessibility focused work: Suggestions included referencing ADA and PROWAG in planning documents, hiring ADA consultants, and conducting accessibility impact studies. 1 Themes were derived using generative AI
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-9
Safety & Traffic Calming
• Dangerous intersections and corridors: Locations like Claremont Ave, Gilman Ave, King/Russell were cited as dangerous for people walking and biking.
• Flashing beacons: Multiple comments highlighted that flashing beacons are challenging to use as a bicyclist. • Traffic calming needs: Locations like Channing east of MLK, California, Milvia, and Ninth Street were cited as needing additional traffic calming measures to divert vehicles and/or lower speeds, particularly near schools. • Diverters vs. traffic circles: Participants shared a preference for installing diverters over traffic circles, which were seen as ineffective or dangerous.
• Speeding and enforcement: Speeding near schools and residential areas was shared as a major concern, with calls for lower speed limits and better enforcement.
Project Implementation & Timeline
• Project delivery timelines: Participants about anticipated project delivery timelines and shared frustration with excessive studies leading to delays.
• Repaving and bicycle improvements: Participants shared questions about requirements to incorporate bicycle improvements when a street is repaved.
Network Connectivity & Wayfinding
• Wayfinding improvements: Participants requested improvements to wayfinding, to facilitate navigating unfamiliar routes.
There were 96 submissions through the interactive polling using Mentimeter during the workshop. The following table summarizes the comments.
Table 4: Summary of Mentimeter Responses
Question Responses
Top three concerns for the Bike Plan 1. Improve bike safety and comfort for all ages and abilities (62)
2. Improve bike connectivity through a complete low-stress bikeway network (52)
3. Safe Routes to Schools (35)
The weighted average of comfortably biking and rolling in Berkeley (1 = least comfortable, 5 = most comfortable)
3.22 The weighted average of comfortably navigating the existing bike network in Berkeley? (1 = least comfortable, 5 = most comfortable)
2.78 People we heard from during 2022 and/or 2025 outreach Yes! (30) No, but participated in the workshop (48)
The three tier one projects most important to the attendees 1. San Pablo Avenue – Parallel Routes (35)
2. Telegraph Avenue Corridor – Complete Streets Study (27)
3. Rose Street Bicycle Boulevard Corridor (27)
Key projects the attendees are most excited about 1. Gilman Street (25)
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-10
2. Sacramento Street at Russell Street (22)
3. Sacramento Street at Channing Way (16)
4. Derby Street (5)
5. Heinz Avenue (3)
Project Team Emails
The project team received emails through a contact form on the project website berkeleybikplan.org. Between the relaunch of the website on January 16 and the close of the public outreach phase on March 15, the project team received 63 separate emails with over 100 individual comments or recommendations. 18 emailed comments explicitly opposed elements of the bike plan update – or the plan overall. Some emails expressed general project support, while others provided detailed, point-by-point recommendations for specific streets and intersections.
The project team provided individual responses to each email, letting the sender know their comments would be integrated into the public outreach record.
Letters
Independent of the website contact form, seven individuals/organizations sent formal letters to either the director of public works or to City of Berkeley elected officials. These seven letters contained 57 different comments. Letters included:
- One letter from Walk Bike Berkeley focused on improvements to the network recommendations and policy recommendations to streamline delivery
- One letter focused on opposition to the Bike Plan Update and requests for additional CEQA analysis - One letter focused on the City of Berkeley ending its practice of using chip seal for roadway resurfacing projects on the bike network
- One letter from Berkeleyans for Accessible Right-of-Way (BAROW) focused on accessibility needs for residents with a disability and requested additional engagement specifically with the disability community both during the plan process and during project design for individual projects.
Interviews on Disability Needs
Following the listening session with Center for Independent Living and the presentation at the Commission on Disability, the project team met individually with different residents with a disability who wished to give specific input on bike facility design challenges. The project team attempted to meet with residents experiencing different disabilities to gain a range of perspectives on design challenges. The project team met with Eric Knaresboro (a low-vision individual) on February 26, with Helen Walsh (who suffers from MS and is low-vision) on March 3, and with Kathi Pugh & Rena Fischer (both of which are powerchair users) on March 10. Below is a summary of feedback received during those interviews.
Support for Bikeways:
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-11
- All individuals interviewed expressed support for bikeways in general, stressing that opposition to bikeways from the disability community comes not from a fundamental opposition, but instead to the implementation of design details that impact accessibility and safety for users with a disability. - There was strong support for bicycle boulevard projects, though some concerns with how traffic circles may force driver vehicle paths into crosswalks
- Separated bikeways are sometimes preferrable to sidewalks for mobility device users in order to avoid pavement uplift, cracks, or heavy seams. Mobility device users will often ride against the direction of traffic on separated bikeways in order to see bicycle traffic that would otherwise overtake them from behind.
Engagement:
- Work proactively with the Commission on Disability, BAROW, and the Center for Independent Living to engage members of the disability community on the early stages of project design. - Ensure all presentation materials are WCAG-compliant and always provide verbal descriptions of images and maps during presentations for blind and low-vision participants Facility Design:
- Consider the needs of slow and wide-based devices, such as e-trikes, mobility scooters, and powerchairs, during separated bikeway design. Limit cross-slopes, design for width that accommodates safe & comfortable passing, and design breaks in vertical elements wide enough for a wide-based device to leave the bikeway. - Consider the needs of low-vision users when designing separated bikeways. Apply reflective paint and reflectors to vertical elements and use consistent hatch-striping in buffers for users to pick up in their peripheral vision.
Intersections:
- Consider the needs of low-vision users crossing at separated bikeways. Consider a second row of truncated domes in the crosswalk to delineate between the bikeway and the vehicle portion of the roadway. Ensure curb ramps point directly at each other on either side of a crosswalk. Consider braile messages and/or audible messages for pedestrian push buttons alerting users to the presence of a separated bikeway. - Consider transit boarding island accessibility as part of separated bikeway design. Where possible, integrate transit boarding island ramp access into a pre-existing crosswalk, using truncated domes to demarcate the extents of the transit boarding island. Where transit boarding island access is not at a crosswalk, consider a raised crossing of the separated bikeway, at sidewalk level, with corresponding yield signage and markings for separated bikeway users.
Parking and Loading:
- Attempt to provide a minimum 4’ buffer/path-of-travel adjacent to parking-protected separated bikeways. When placing bollards within a buffer space, place bollards in the edge of the buffer space to maximize path-of-travel width.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-12
- Consider opportunities to establish blue-zone parking stalls adjacent to intersections with pre-existing curb ramps, especially on longer blocks, blocks without mid-block curb ramps, or blocks where driveway slopes exceed minimum requirements for use by a wheelchair
Construction Mitigation:
- Increase enforcement of construction mitigation plans, in particular: accessible crosswalks, audible warning devices announcing crosswalk closures, and sufficiently-wide path-of-travel for temporary walkways or bikeways.
Draft Plan Comments
The Draft Bike Plan was released in August 2025 and during the approximately 7-week public comment period City staff received 316 emails on the draft plan. In addition, seven organizations and groups submitted letters to the City regarding various aspects of the draft plan including design guidelines, recommendations for the bikeway network, and accessibility.
In total, these emails and letters resulted in 535 comments that City staff reviewed and analyzed to revise the plan appropriately. Some of the changes reflected in this final draft are the result of these public comments, such as an expanded accessibility recommendations section, and a more streamlined project delivery process section.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-13
Outreach Results
In total, the project team received 590 comments with more than half (57%) coming from listening session events and the virtual workshop. Most comments related to roadway safety concerns (46%) and a desire for the City to introduce more robust bike network projects than were in the recommendations (34%).
All public comments are grouped by event and category in Table 5. Opposition to the Bike Plan Update or to specific projects was highest among letters received, comprising 25% of all comments in letters. Emailed comments had the highest emphasis on safety (58%) and support for intersection improvements (43%). Pop-up events had the strongest support for Bikeway facility projects (36%). Interviews with residents with disabilities had a much higher focus on pavement quality & facility maintenance (36%) and the desire for additional programming (26%) than other methods of input.
Table 5: Engagement comment matrix
Comment
Type
Total
Comments
(N=743)
Support
Bikeway
Improvement
Support
Intersection
Improvement
Roadway
Safety
Concerns
Pavement or
Maintenance
Insufficient
Facility
Oppose
Project
Bike
Parking
Education or
Programming
Pop-Up
(N=97) 13% 36% 31% 38% 8% 42% 13% 0% 5%
Listening
Session
(N=270)
37% 18% 17% 40% 7% 40% 4% 1% 7%
Email
(N=124)
17% 35% 44% 58% 10% 30% 15% 0% 6%
Letter
(N=57) 8% 26% 30% 37% 2% 21% 25% 0% 9%
Disability
Interview
(N=49)
6% 5% 0% 43% 34% 12% 0% 0% 25%
Virtual
Workshop
(N=146)
20% 9% 3% 53% 18% 33% 3% 2% 8%
Total 21% 21% 46% 11% 34% 8% 1% 8%
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley C-14
When calculating input on specific streets, there were 140 total comments recorded. Of these 136 comments the Top 10 streets with the most comments are shown below, representing 52% of all comments. Major streets (such as Telegraph Avenue, Gilman Street, or San Pablo Avenue) or streets that are currently Bicycle Boulevards or proposed for Bicycle Boulevards (Rose Street, Channing Way, Russell Street) were the streets most likely to be most mentioned.
Table 6: Occurrence of specific streets in public input Street Occurrence
Hopkins Street 19
Rose Street 12
Milvia Street 9
Telegraph Avenue 6
Gilman Street 5
San Pablo Avenue 5
Channing Way 4
Claremont Avenue 4
Russell Street 4
Alcatraz Avenue 4
Spruce Street 4
When calculating input on specific intersections, there were 131 total comments recorded. Of these 131 comments, the top 8 are shown below, representing 34% of all comments. Three separate intersections on Sacramento Street are identified as high-priority crossings.
Table 7: Occurrence of specific intersections in public input Cross Street A Cross Street B Occurrence
Russell St Sacramento St 10
Virginia St MLK Way 9
66th St Sacramento St 6
King St Alcatraz Ave 5
Russell St Shattuck Ave 5
Channing Way Sacramento St 4
California St Dwight Way 3
Virginia St Shattuck Ave 3
MEMORANDUM
C-15
Key Projects
During this phase of outreach, the project team brought a sticker-voting poster board for participants to vote among 10 different “key projects”. These projects were selected due to their proximity to High Injury Streets, their proximity to schools, the street being programmed on the city’s upcoming paving plan, or projects where the City had already secured partial funding. The outreach team solicited input from residents with the intent of using resident feedback to refine this list down to 5 Key Projects which would receive concept design treatments for the Draft Plan. Public input will be incorporated into the final selection of the 5 Key Projects, along with safety, equity, and feasibility criteria.
Table 8: Key Projects
Project Location Recommendation
Claremont Ave Complete Streets Corridor Study/Study New Cycle Tracks UC Berkeley “Back Route”
(Piedmont/Waring/Derby/Belrose/Claremont Blvd)
Complete Streets Corridor Study/Study New Cycle Tracks
Oxford St Complete Streets Corridor Study/ Study Upgrading Existing Bike Lane to Cycle Tracks
Rose St New Bicycle Boulevard
Southwest Berkeley Bike Blvd (subsequently funded) New Bicycle Boulevards/potential bike lane connector on Alcatraz Heinz St Upgraded Bicycle Boulevard, including Heinz/San Pablo crossing Derby St New Bicycle Boulevard
Gilman St Complete Streets Corridor Study/Study Extending Existing Cycle Track Sacramento & Channing Bicycle Boulevard Crossing/Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Sacramento & Russell Bicycle Boulevard Crossing/Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-1
MEMORANDUM
To: Eric Anderson, City of Berkeley
Dani Dynes, City of Berkeley
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: December 1, 2025
R
e: Appendix D: Ber keley Bike Plan Update – Updated Bikeway Network Memo Introduction
This memorandum describes the process used to develop network recommendations for the 2025 Berkeley Bike Plan Update, including:
• Documentation of the existing 2025 bike network
• An assessment of projects implemented since the adoption of the 2017 Bike Plan • D
ocumentation of projects already in advanced stages of design or funding at the time of the Bike Plan Update • Updated Network Recommendations tab les and maps
• Three tables documenting network recommendation changes from the 2017 Plan This me mo memorializes the status of the existing network and planned/funded projects for all of 2025.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-2
Project Recommendation Development Process
Project recommendations in the 2017 Berkeley Bike Plan were divided into three categories:
1. Network reco mmendations: recommending facility classes (such as bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, or separated bikeways) for specific streets.
2. Low-stress bikeway intersection control recommendations: r ecommending intersection controls (such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), pedestrian hybrid beacons, or protected intersections) where existing or proposed low-stress bikeways cross high-stress intersections.
3. Bicycle bou levard traffic calming recommendations : recommending traffic calming (traffic circles, traffic diverters, and speed humps) on existing and proposed segments of the bicycle boulevard network .
For each of these three categories, the project team engaged in parallel processes to update the 2017 recommendations.
Thi
s included updating the network to 2024 conditions, documenting upcoming funded projects, screening the network for high-priority locations, identifying new projects, and applying new City guidelines.
Updating the Network to 2025 Conditions
The project team conducted a comprehensive update of the ArcGIS network shapefiles from the 2017 Bike Plan to account for new bicycle network projects that have been built since the adoption of the plan. This exercise included integration of available ArcGIS shapefiles, the Alta Planning + Design team conducting street-view screen-checks, and implementation records from City of Berkeley staff.
This network u pdate includes three categories of improvements:
• Implemented 2017 Bik e Plan recommendations: projects such as the Milvia Street Class IV separated bikeway or the protected intersection on Bancroft Way at Fulton Street. • Projects superseding 2017 Bike Pl an recommendations: locations where further design considerations led to a different outcome than the 2017 Bike Plan recommendations, such as the all-way stop sign implemented on Oxford Street at Virginia Street (RRFB recommended) or the median crossing implemented on California Street at Dwight Way (RRFB recommended).
• Projects not identified in the 2017 Bike Plan: lo cations where new facilities were implemented that were not identified in the 2017 Bike Plan, such as upgraded bike lanes on Tunnel Road or an upgraded traffic signal at the intersection of Delaware Street at the Ohlone Greenway.
Notable Projects Built Since 2017
Since the adoption of the 2017 Plan, the City of Berkeley has implemented 10.5 miles of new or upgraded bicycle facilities around the city and upgraded over 20 intersection crossings on the low-stress network. Below is a summary of the most notable projects built since 2017.
Milvia Bikeways Improvement Project
This project covers 12 contiguous blocks of Milvia Street (0.75 miles), from Hearst Avenue in the north to Blake Street in th e south. The project converted a Bicycle Boulevard to a Class IV Separated Bikeway, including a one -way street conversion from University Avenue to Berkeley Way and a modified traffic signal at University Avenue to introduce signal heads for north/south movements. The project was completed in 2022.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-3
Addison Street Bike Boulevard
The Addison Street Bike Boulevard project covers 22 contiguous blocks of Addison Street (2.0 miles) from Bolivar Drive to Oxford Street. The first phase of the Addison Street Bike Boulevard project covers nine contiguous blocks (0.62 miles) from Sacramento Street to Milvia Street and was constructed in 2022. The project included the installation of a rapid rectangular flashing beacon and median crossing on Addison Street at MLK Jr Way. This crossing prohibits through movements for vehicles on Addison Street while maintaining emergency vehicle access.
The unbuilt second phase of the Addison Street Bike Boulevard is in two segments: Bolivar Dr to Sacramento St and Mil via St to Oxford St.
Southside Complete Streets
The Southside Complete Streets project covers 16 contiguous blocks (1.5 miles) of Bancroft Way, Fulton Street, and Dana Street on the southern side of the UC Berkeley campus. All three streets received Class IV Separated Bikeways and the project was completed in 2024. Project details include:
Bancroft Way (Piedmont Avenue to Milvia Street): Con
crete curb-protected 2-way Separated Bikeway on the south side of Bancroft. The project includes a transit lane from College Ave to Shattuck Ave , a raised intersection at Telegraph Avenue, and protected intersections at Bowditch St, Dana St, Fulton St, and Shattuck Ave.
Fulton Street (Bancroft Way to Dwight Way): Con crete curb-protected Separated Bikeways.
Dana Street (Bancroft Way to Dwight Way): Con crete curb-protected Separated Bikeways, including a transit boarding island at Haste St.
Gilman Avenue Overcrossing & Cycletrack
The I-80/Gilman interchange project is a joint progress between Caltrans and the Alameda County Transportation Commission to rebuild the I-80 freeway interchange at Gilman Street, build a new bicycle & pedestrian freeway overcrossing, and construct adjacent Separated Bikeway improvements. Construction of the bicycle & pedestrian bridge was completed in 2023, and the adjacent bikeways were completed in 2025.
The project includes a 0.33 mile Class I bicycle & pedestrian overcrossing and a 0.12 Class IV Separated Bikeway on Gilman Str
eet (2nd Street to 4th Street), upgrading the existing Class II Bike Lane.
Adeline Street Improvements
The Adeline Street Improvements project covers four contiguous blocks (0.33 miles) from Shattuck Avenue to Ashby Avenue. The project upgraded the existing Class II Bike Lane to a Class IV parking -protected Separated Bikeway. The project included the construction of 4 transit boarding islands.
Hearst Avenue Complete Streets
The Hearst Avenue Complete Streets project covers six contiguous blocks (0.40 miles) from Milvia Street to Arch Street. The first phase, from Shattuck Avenue to Arch Street, was completed in 2018. The second phase, from Milvia Street to Shattuck Avenue, was completed in 2020. The project includes transit boarding islands on Hearst Street at Arch Street and Euclid Avenue.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-4
Ninth Street Bicycle Boulevard Pathway
Phase II of the Ninth Street Bicycle Boulevard Pathway project connects West Berkley to the Emeryville Greenway. The project included construction of a new Class I Shared Use Path from the terminus of 9 th Street, south across Ashby Avenue to connect to the Emeryville Greenway at Murray Street. The project was completed in 2021.
The project included new signal improvements and intersection reconfiguration at Ashby Avenue and a rapid rectangular fl
ashing beacon crossing at Folger Street.
North Berkeley BART Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements The North Berkeley BART Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements project was a joint collaboration between BART and the City of Berkeley, funded by Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) grant and Measure RR funds from BART. The project included:
Delaware Street (Acton St to Sacramento St): a
two-way separated bikeway on the north side of the street BART Station Parking Lot: Thr ee two-way separated bikeway on the access lanes within the North Berkeley BART parking lot
Ohlone Greenway (Virginia St to Virginia Gardens): Wi dening of the Ohlone Greenway from 10’ to 18’ The project was completed in 2024.
Ashby BART Bicycle Connector
The Ashby BART Bicycle Connector project constructed a separated bikeway within the access lanes of the Ashby BART station, connecting the intersection of Adeline Street at Woolsey Street to the intersection of MLK Jr Way at Prince Street.
This project will connect with the future Woolsey-Fulton Bicycle Boulevard in the east and the Southwest Berkeley Bicycle Boulevard in the west. The project was completed in 2024.
Existing Conditions
The following pages show the existing 2025 network. Figure 1 shows the existing bikeways network, Figure 2 shows intersections crossing treatments on the low-stress network (comprised of the Bike Boulevard network and separated bikeways), and Figure 3 shows traffic calming devices on the Bike Boulevard network. Projects built since 2017 are shown with a gold highlight on each map.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-5
Figure 1: Existing 2025 Bikeway Network
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-6
Figure 2: Existing 2025 Low-Stress Intersection Crossings
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-7
Figure 3: Existing 2025 Bike Boulevard Network
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-8
Documenting Upcoming Funded Projects
The project team identified all projects either currently funded for construction or in an advanced stage of the design process. This included screening of project website details from the City of Berkeley, the Alameda County Transportation Commission, and Caltrans, followed by review and correction by City of Berkeley staff for design detail accuracy. The purpose of this screening was to identify where projects were to be implemented in the coming years that either confirm or supersede 2017 Bike Plan recommendations. This list of projects represents project status, detail, and information as of Summer 2025.
Addison Street Phase 2 Bicycle Boulevard
• Addison Street – Sa cramento Street to Fourth Street – bicycle boulevard • Addison Street – Mil via Street to Oxford Street – bicycle boulevard • Intersection improvements at San Pablo Ave, Sacramento Street, 10th Street, 7th Street 6th Street, and 5th Street Parker-Addison Bicycle Boulevard
• Mabel Street – Ru ssell Street to Dwight Way – bicycle boulevard • Bonar Street – Dwi ght Way to Addison Street – bicycle boulevard • Parker Street - Ma bel Street to 9th Street – bicycle boulevard • An intersection improvement at Dwight/Mabel/Bonar
Woolsey/Fulton Bicycle Boulevard
• Woolsey Street – Ad eline Street to Wheeler Street – bicycle boulevard • Wheeler Street – Woo lsey Street to Prince Street – bicycle boulevard • Prince Street – Whee ler Street to Fulton Street – bicycle boulevard • Fulton Street – Pri nce Street to Dwight Way – bicycle boulevard • Intersection improvements at MLK/Prince, Adeline/Woolsey, and Shattuck/Woolsey Southwest Berkeley Bike Boulevard
• Mabel Street – Rus sell Street to 66th Street – bicycle boulevard • 66th Street – Mabel Street to Idaho Street – bicycle boulevard • Idaho Street – 66th Street to Harmon Street – bicycle boulevard • Harmon Street – Id aho Street to King Street – bicycle boulevard • Prince Street – Kin g Street to MLK Jr Way – bicycle boulevard • Alcatraz Avenue – Adel ine Street to King Street – upgraded bike lanes (from current standard bike lanes) • Intersection improvements at Harmon/Sacramento, Alcatraz/California, and Alcatraz/King San Pablo Avenue and Parallel Routes
• San Pablo Avenue – Oakl and border to Heinz Street – separated bikeway • Idaho Street – Oaklan d border to 66th Street – bicycle boulevard
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-9
• Stannage Avenue – Vir ginia Street to Camelia Street – bicycle boulevard • Camelia Street – Sta nnage Avenue to 9th Street – bicycle boulevard • Kains Avenue – Came lia Street to Albany border – bicycle boulevard • 9th Street – Cam elia Street to Harrison Street – bicycle boulevard • Harrison Street – 8th S treet to 10th Street – bicycle boulevard • 10th Street – Har rison Street to Albany border – bicycle boulevard • Additional intersection and cros sing improvements along San Pablo Avenue and along the 9th Street Bicycle Boulevard
Sixth Street Upgraded Bike Lanes
• Camelia Street to University Avenue – upgr aded bike lanes (from current standard bike lanes) Ohlone Greenway Improvements
• Albany border to Virginia Street – shared-use path widening • Intersection improvements at Santa Fe St, Rose St, Cedar St, and Peralta Ave Adeline Street Transportation Improvements Project
• Ashby Avenue to Oakland border (MLK Jr. Wa y) – separated bikeway Telegraph Avenue Multimodal Corridor
• Dwight Way to Oakland bor der – separated bikeway
Many of these projects supersede the recommendations of the 2017 Bike Pl an, based on design guidance that has been updated since the adoption of that plan. These are represented as recommended projects in Figures 5, 6, and 7, but their project details were defined before the project recommendation process began . Projects identified as “Planned/Funded” in tables 1 through 3 in this memo are inclusive of the projects in this section.
Screening the Network for High-Priority Locations
After updating the network for 2025 conditions and upcoming funded projects, the Alta team screened all remaining projects from the 2017 Bike Plan for their proximity to high-priority locations. This high-priority screening was conducted using the following factors:
• Density of public comments from 2022 Berkeley Bik e Plan Update outreach (see 2022 Outreach Summary memorandum)
• Proximity to High Inj ury Streets, as identified by the 2019 Berkeley Vision Zero Action Plan • Proximity to Berkeley’s adopted Equity Priority Areas • Proximity to Berkeley Unified School District school locations Figu re 4 on the following page shows High-Priority Corridors as a result of this screening analysis. This analysis is inclusive of all streets in the City of Berkeley. This allows for the identification and prioritization of bicycle network corridors in cl ose proximity to high-priority corridors.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-10
Figure 4: Map of High-Priority Corridors analysis
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-11
Identifying New Projects
Using the High-P riority Corridors analysis, the Alta team screened remaining 2017 Bike Plan recommendations for potential updates. This analysis included assessment of 2017 recommendations for upgrade, assessment of 2017 recommendations for removal, and assessment of streets not in the 2017 recommendations for potential inclusion in the 202 5 recommendations. These recommendations focused on:
• Closing gaps in the existing and proposed networks
• Low-stress facilities on, or in close proximity to, High-Pri ority Corridors • Opportunities to expand or enhance the bike network with limited impacts to circulation or street parking • Removing 2017 Bike Pla n recommendations that have become redundant based on infrastructure constructed or funded since 2017
• High-priority areas in the 2019 Vision Zero Action Plan or the 2020 Pedestrian Master Plan N
etwork recommendation changes were then screened with City of Berkeley staff prior to being finalized.
Applying New City Guidelines
For updates to Figure 6: Reco mmended Low-Stress Bikeway Intersection Control Improvements and Figure 7:
Recommended Low-Stress Bike Boulevard Traffic Calming Improvements, recommendations were informed by public input, updated guidelines for traffic control devices and intersection crossing treatments. The details of th ese updated guidelines can be found in the Bicycle Boulevard Design Guide.
Applying 2025 Public Input
From January t hrough March of 2025, the project team held 12 engagement events and hosted network recommendations on the project website for review and comment. The project team received over 600 comments from the public , and these comments were reviewed by City staff for additional updates to the network.
The Draft Plan, including network recommendations, was published on August 11, 2025 and had a public comment period runni
ng through September 26, 2025. Comments supplied on the Draft Plan were considered for additional network recommendation revisions.
Network recommendations were also screened with the Technical Advisory Committee for edits and revisions to the network recommendations.
Recommended Projects
The tables and figures on the following pages document recommended projects for the 2025 Bicycle Plan Update.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-12
Table 1: Summary of Network Recommendation
Bikeway Facility Mileage Proposed
Shared use path (Class I) 1.3 mi
Bike lane (Class II) 0.6 mi
Upgraded bike lane (Class II) 2.1 mi
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 14.3 mi
Bike Route (Class III) 8.8 mi
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 15.6 mi
Total 42.8 mi
Table 2: Recommended Low-Stress Intersection Controls
Low-Stress Intersection Control Number Proposed
Two-way cycletrack crossing 6
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 13
Protected Intersection 5
Raised Intersection/Raised Crosswalk 3
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 6
Median Crossing 2
RRFB + Median Crossing 13
Table 3: Recommended Bicycle Boulevard Traffic Calming
Bicycle Boulevard Traffic Calming Devices Number Proposed Traffic Circle 40
Traffic Diverter 7
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-13
Figure 5: Recommended Network Improvements
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-14
Figure 6: Recommended Low-Stress Bikeway Intersection Control Improvements
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-15
Figure 7: Recommended Low-Stress Bike Boulevard Traffic Calming Improvements
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-16
Changes from 2017 Bike Plan Recommendations
The following tables detail changes in recommendations between the 2017 Plan and the 2025 Plan Update.
Table 4: Changes for Recommended Network Improvements
Street From To 20 17 Proposed 2025 Proposed Rationale
4th St Camelia St Ha rrison St Nothing Bike Route Public request Harrison St 8th St 10th St Nothing Bike Blvd Planned/Funded 10th St Harrison St Albany border Nothing Bike Blvd Planned/Funded 9th St Camelia St Harrison St Nothing Bike Blvd Planned/Funded Kains Ave Virginia St Camelia St Bike Blvd Nothing Planned/Funded Camelia St Stannage Ave Cornell Ave Bike Blvd Nothing Planned/Funded Cornell Ave Camelia St Hopkins St Bike Blvd Nothing Planned/Funded Stannage Ave Camelia St Virginia St Nothing Bike Blvd Planned/Funded Del Norte St Sutter St The Circle Nothing Bike Route Connectivity Hopkins St Milvia St The Circle Nothing Separated
Bikeway*
Connectivity
Sutter St Eunice St The Circle Nothing Separated
Bikeway*
Connectivity
Henry St Rose St Eunice St Nothing Separated
Bikeway*
Connectivity
Delaware St 6th St 9th St Nothing Bike Lane Connectivity Chestnut St Delaware St University Ave Bike Route (existing) Nothing (remove) Redundant to West St Path Acton St Delaware St University Ave Bike Route Bike Blvd Connectivity Acton St University Ave Addison St Nothing Bike Blvd Connectivity Grant St Russell St Rose St Nothing Bike Blvd Connectivity Idaho St Harmon St Oakland
border
Nothing Bike Blvd Funded/Planned
Camelia St 4th St 9th St Nothing Bike Blvd Public Request *Complete Street Corridor Studies are proposed multimodal transportation studies, not planned projects. The Berkeley Bicycle Plan is a citywide planning document that recommends improvements to bicycle safety, comfort, and connectivity at a network level. T
hese recommendations require further project-specific planning, data collection, analysis, and engineering before being approved for implementation. For further information, see Section 5.2 Project Delivery Process.
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley D-17
Table 5: Changes for Recommended Low-Stress Bikeway Intersection Control Improvements Cross Street A Cross Street B 2017 Proposed 2025 Proposed Rationale Kains Ave Gilman St No thing RRFB + curb extensions Planned/Funded Santa Fe Ave Ohlone Greenway Nothing RRFB Planned/Funded Cedar St 9th St RRFB RRFB + Median Updated guidelines
Cornell Ave Hopkins St RRFB Nothing Planned/Funded
Stannage Ave Hopkins St Nothing RRFB + curb extensions Planned/Funded Stannage Ave Cedar St Nothing RRFB + curb extensions Planned/Funded Peralta Ave Ohlone Greenway RRFB + Median Raised Crossing Planned/Funded Peralta Ave Hopkins St RRFB + Median All-Way STOP Planned/Funded Rose St Ohlone Greenway RRFB + Median 2-way cycletrack Planned/Funded Milvia St Hopkins St RRFB RRFB + Median Updated guidelines Milvia St Rose St RRFB RRFB + Median Updated guidelines Ohlone Greenway Cedar St Nothing RRFB + Median Planned/Funded Grant St Cedar St Nothing Median Crossing New Project
Sacramento St Virginia St Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Signal (existing) Planned/Funded MLK Jr Way Virginia St RRFB + Median Pedestrian Hybrid Signal Updated guidelines Oxford St Virginia St RRFB All-way STOP (existing) Updated guidelines 10th St Addison St Nothing Median Crossing Planned/Funded Oxford St Addison St RRFB + Median Signal (existing) Updated guidelines Mabel St Dwight Way RRFB + Median 2-way cycletrack Planned/Funded California St Dwight Way RRFB RRFB + Median Updated guidelines Grant St Dwight Way Nothing RRFB + Median New Project
Hillegas St Dwight Way RRFB + Median 2-way cycletrack Public request San Pablo Ave Parker St Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Signal (existing) Planned/Funded Emeryville Greenway Folger St Nothing RRFB + Raised Crossing Public request Adeline St Russell St Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon RRFB + Median Planned/Funded Shattuck Ave Russell St RRFB + Median Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Planned/Funded Adeline St Woolsey St Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon RRFB + Median Planned/Funded Shattuck Ave Woolsey St RRFB + Median RRFB + curb extensions Planned/Funded Idaho St Alcatraz Ave Nothing RRFB Planned/Funded
California St Ashby Ave RRFB + Median PHB Updated guidelines
MEMORANDUM
D-18
Table 6: Changes to Recommended Low-Stress Bike Boulevard Traffic Calming Improvements Cross Street A Cross Street B 2017 Proposed 2025 Proposed Rationale 8th St Harrison St Nothing Traffic Circle Planned/Funded 9th St Harrison St Nothing Traffic Circle Planned/Funded Stannage Ave Camelia St Nothing Traffic Circle Planned/Funded 7th St Virginia St Diverter Nothing Updated guidelines
10th St Addison St Diverter Median Crossing Planned/Funded Grant St Addison St Diverter Traffic Circle (existing) Planned/Funded 10th St Channing Way Diverter Nothing Planned/Funded
San Pablo Ave Channing Way Nothing Diverter (with PHB) Planned/Funded Browning St Channing Way Traffic Circle Nothing Updated guidelines Fulton St Channing Way Traffic Circle Nothing Updated guidelines Ellsworth St Channing Way Traffic Circle Nothing Updated guidelines Dana St Channing Way Traffic Circle Nothing Updated guidelines Bowditch St Channing Way Diverter Traffic Circle Updated guidelines 9th St Pardee St Diverter Nothing Updated guidelines
Mabel St Oregon St Traffic Circle Nothing Planned/Funded Mabel St Russell St Traffic Circle Diverter Planned/Funded Mabel St Haskell St Traffic Circle Nothing Updated guidelines Fulton St Derby St Diverter Nothing Planned/Funded
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Berkeley