Castro Valley Blvd Bike Lanes at Risk of Removal
Castro Valley Blvd Bike Lanes at Risk of Removal
Embedded Files
🚨Call to Action Round 2: Castro Valley MAC Forced to Re-Vote After "Illegal" Removal Attempt 🚨
🚨Call to Action Round 2: Castro Valley MAC Forced to Re-Vote After "Illegal" Removal Attempt 🚨
Tonight, January 20, 2026, the future of the Castro Valley Boulevard bike lanes is back on the table.
We need a massive turnout tonight to put the CV MAC, and the County, on record. Tell them: Don't destroy this critical link in our bike infrastructure for 30 parking spots.
When: Tonight, Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.
Where: Castro Valley Library - 3600 Norbridge Avenue
Zoom Link: https://zoom.us/j/99559522662
Sign the petition: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/keep-castro-valley-blvd-bike-lanes/
Last month, the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) voted 5-2 to recommend removing the newly installed bike lanes—infrastructure that was completed less than a year ago.
However, that vote has been asserted as an illegal action under the Brown Act. The agenda for that meeting listed the item only as a "Report on Average Daily Bike Counts," depriving the public of fair notice that a vote to demolish the lanes was actually taking place.
Because of this violation, the MAC is forced to vote again tonight.
The "No Compromise" Approach
Despite 20 out of 29 public speakers supporting the lanes on December 15, the MAC majority pushed forward with removal of the entire bike lanes, to restore approximately 30 parking spaces. Crucially, they rejected a compromise proposed by Council Members Davis and Thomas, who suggested adding parking only where strictly necessary while preserving the rest of the bike lanes. Instead, the majority opted to scrap the entire project.
(Discussion about the bike lanes starts at 37:00 minute mark, but here's a summary of the public comments)
Why We Must Show Up Tonight: Building the Record for the Real Fight
Let’s be realistic: The Castro Valley MAC appears set in stone on removing these lanes. Their refusal to consider compromise suggests their minds are already made up. However, showing up tonight is arguably more important than if their votes were in play.
Tonight isn't about changing the MAC's mind; it's about exposing how out of touch they are and building an undeniable public record for the people who actually have the power: the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
The MAC Has No Skin in the Game: The MAC is an advisory body. If they vote to remove safety infrastructure and someone gets hurt, Alameda County gets sued, not the MAC members individually. Because they don't bear the legal or financial burden of their decision, they can afford to ignore the massive liability risks of removing safety features from a known high-injury corridor.
The Board of Supervisors is Watching: The final decision rests with the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Transportation / Planning Committee. They do care about legal liability, fiscal waste, and county-wide policy.
The Record Matters: Every public comment, every email, and every petition signature tonight becomes part of the official legal record. When this item reaches the Supervisors, they will look at this record. We need them to see a discrepancy: a MAC voting based on bias versus a community advocating for safety and data.
Momentum is on Our Side
Bike Walk Castro Valley has submitted a petition with almost 500 signatures urging the County to reject this removal. We are urging the MAC—and ultimately the Board of Supervisors—not to prioritize static vehicle storage over the safety of residents and the economic vitality of our corridor.
Agenda Item VII for tonight aims to use "current bike counts" to justify erasing a critical "First Mile/Last Mile" connector to the BART station. This proposal is not just a safety regression; it is a shocking mismanagement of public funds that exposes all of Alameda County to significant legal liability.
Email the MAC Members
You can use one of our email templates listed here, and if you have Gmail, just open the doc and click the Gmail icon on the top left of the text to draft the email:
Tell them: "Do not waste taxpayer money removing safety infrastructure you just paid to upgrade."
Copy/Paste List: chuck.moore@acgov.org, bill.mulgrew@acgov.org, tojo.thomas@acgov.org, angela.mota@acgov.org, raymond.davis@acgov.org, dan.davini@acgov.org, tim.fiebig@acgov.org
Suggested Subject Line: Vote NO on Agenda Item VII - Protect CV Blvd Investment
Key Talking Points:
Fiscal Irresponsibility: Why are we removing lanes we paid to install less than a year ago?
Liability Risk: Removing safety features creates a "Dangerous Condition" lawsuit waiting to happen.
Survivor Bias: Measuring demand by counting current riders on a dangerous road is a flawed methodology.
Why Removing These Lanes is a Mistake: Full Breakdown
Why Removing These Lanes is a Mistake: Full Breakdown
1. The "Brand New" Waste of Taxpayer Money
Taxpayers just paid to install and restripe these lanes to separate car traffic from cyclists and meet basic safety standards on this High-Injury Network (HIN) corridor.
If the MAC votes to remove them now, they are literally throwing that 2025 investment into the trash less than a year later. It sends a message that Alameda County plans its budget in 6-month increments—building safety features in the spring only to scrape them off in the winter.
2. The Data Flaw: A Hypocritical Double Standard
The decision hinges on "Average Daily Bike Counts," revealing a glaring contradiction in how the County plans for cars versus people
The "Survivor Bias" Trap
Relying on current counts to measure demand is a fundamental error known as Survivor Bias.
Whether the report shows 5 riders or 500, counting cyclists on high-stress arterial roads is a fundamental error. It only tells you how many people are currently brave enough to navigate unprotected bike lanes next to 45mph car traffic, not how many would ride if they felt safe.
It’s like deciding not to build a bridge because you don’t see enough people swimming across the raging river.
Current counts only capture the "Strong and Fearless" (<1% of riders). They ignore the 60% of residents who are "Interested but Concerned"—families, seniors, and residents who would ride if we had a low-stress, protected bike lane network.
The "Induced Demand" Hypocrisy (How they treat cars)
Contrast this with the glaring double standard applied to car traffic. Traffic engineers never consider counting how many cars are currently using a road to determine whether to keep it or not.
Instead, they rely on theoretical formulas to project future car volumes, using these "predictions" to justify widening roads and adding car capacity.
This approach ignores the lack of reasonable alternatives to driving and fuels a cycle of induced demand: new lanes don't fix traffic; they act as a magnet, inviting more people to drive until the gridlock returns.
Yet for bikes, they weaponize the inverse logic: demanding riders materialize in unsafe conditions before justifying the infrastructure.
We reject a planning paradigm that treats car traffic as a "potential to be unlocked" while dismissing bike traffic as a "nuisance to be counted."
3. A Legal Minefield for Taxpayers
3. A Legal Minefield for Taxpayers
Removing safety infrastructure on a High-Injury Network (HIN) corridor creates a massive fiscal risk for the County.
Because Castro Valley is unincorporated, there's no city legal fund. If the MAC advises the removal of these lanes, they expose all of Alameda County to liability.
Creating a "Dangerous Condition": Under California Government Code § 835, removing a safety feature on a known High-Injury Network corridor effectively creates a dangerous condition.
The Whitehead v. City of Oakland Precedent: A May 2025 Supreme Court ruling stripped municipalities of "recreational" defenses. If the County removes these lanes and a cyclist is hit, the County creates a "foreseeable risk" that plaintiff attorneys will exploit. The settlement won't come from the MAC members' pockets; it will come from the County General Fund—your library, police, and social service budget.
Another relevant legal case is this one from Indian Wells CA, where a bike rider was hit and killed by a driver in 2012 on a street where the city had previously removed a painted bike lane. The city was found partially at fault in a lawsuit brought by the family, and ordered to pay $5.8 Million in 2015. Adjusted for inflation that would be about $8 Million in 2025 dollars.
4. Severing the BART Connection
4. Severing the BART Connection
Castro Valley is a BART town. These lanes were installed to serve as "First Mile/Last Mile" connectors to the Castro Valley BART station. Removing them isolates the station, pushes more cars onto the Boulevard, and slows down AC Transit buses that will now have to share the lane with displaced cyclists.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse