This would be great and easy safety improvement.

Legally, both sides of the intersection are crosswalks, but designating them so is always a good idea.

This is a dangerous intersection, also a frequent bike route. It is hard to see cyclists with the Hill and think they are also at risk for getting hit.

This would be a much-needed improvement for the safety of everyone in this neighborhood.

There are young children and elderly folks who use that road, and a stop sign would make it much safer. Please take action.

I frequently drive south on Gilbert to reach 41st. Turning east on 41st (toward Howe) is extremely dangerous - cars suddenly appear coming from the east and the west on 41st. I've had several near accidents at this intersection despite edging slowly into the intersection in an attempt to see whether there is any oncoming traffic, then gunning it if it seems (momentarily) safe. Stop signs for both east and west traffic on 41st at this intersection would greatly reduce the chance of an accident.

Please take action to keep the many children who get dropped off and picked up here everyday safe!

I was the accident in July of 2006, was hit while walking in that crosswalk and ended up with a broken pelvis. Please put a stop sign there to help prevent this happening to someone else.

With so many young children being picked up and dropped off at the preschool, the stop signs are desperately needed.

A stop sign at this intersection would greatly improve the safety of the neighborhood. I often have to park on 41st Street, and crossing over to Gilbert can be dangerous - as it is difficult for drivers to see pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A stop sign will help keep the kids and neighbors safe crossing the street. Thanks!

Thank you for your interest in making this intersection safer for pedestrians. As the District 1 representative on the Oakland Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission I have been working to get the city to update their standards and policies for pedestrian infrastructure to make the city safer and more convenient for people on foot.

However, while I do feel that this intersection is a great place for traffic calming measures to slow down traffic and encourage them to yield to pedestrians, I don't think a stop sign is the appropriate treatment for this location. Stop signs should be reserved for assigning right of way, but they do not physically slow down traffic and should not be used as traffic calming treatments.

Since this section of 41st is a bike route and on a hill, adding a stop sign here might create more conflicts between people on bikes and in cars, while also decreasing the efficiency of the 41st Street bikeway while already has a lot of stop signs and red lights. Instead, I would recommend treatments such as sidewalk extensions (the southern sidewalk could be extended significantly) that decrease the crossing distance while also narrowing the street, slowing traffic, and/or pedestrian-activated flashing beacons. An uncontrolled crosswalk like this one should also be upgraded to a more visible ladder-style marking via the city's own crosswalk standards.

Narrowing the street via sidewalk extensions and/or a median refuge island here would also assist with an existing issue of car drivers attempting to pass slower bicyclists by crossing the center line at the crest of the hill, a very dangerous situation which could put them in a blind, head on collision with oncoming traffic.

With all due respect to Robert, I'm not sure I agree in this particular case--one of the biggest challenges at this intersection is that, especially in the PM rush hour, it is very challenging to turn from Gilbert onto 41st Street because there are few breaks in traffic and very poor visibility over the hill, so when people do it, they gun it to try to get into the breaks. This is where a stop sign seems an appropriate solution (short of a traffic signal, which isn't warranted by the volume). Drivers (and also cyclists) trying to enter the flow of traffic are watching for gaps and not watching for pedestrians. Traffic calming would certainly help to improve pedestrian safety and visibility, but it wouldn't address this at all.

The second big challenge is visibility due to the hill (coupled with drivers' tendency to accelerate when driving up a hill), and again, I'm not sure pedestrian beacons (which won't be visible when activated until a car is almost upon them) and sidewalk treatments will really address the core problem, though they would certainly help. It would be wonderful to see all of the above, though I know that's unlikely to happen.

As a cyclist, I generally agree that limiting lights and stop signs along designated bike routes is wise, but in this case I think the benefit to pedestrians and Gilbert Street turning vehicles and cyclists outweighs the few seconds of delay for traffic on 41st, especially since the stop signs would be at the crest of a hill, which is a relatively natural point to pause anyway.

Thanks for the input Neighbor. It sounds like there are two separate issues then, one being with pedestrian safety crossing 41st and another with car traffic right of way with turning movements from Gilbert onto 41st.

If the car turning movements need to be addressed then that could potentially be accomplished with a stop sign to dictate right of way. However, I'll reiterate that stop signs are not effective traffic calming tools for improving pedestrian safety, so even if a stop sign is installed I still urge neighbors to push for more effective treatments that will physically slow car traffic.

There is lots of excess pavement space at this intersection which should be reconfigured to narrow the street and slow traffic speeds while shortening the pedestrian crossing distance and also discouraging car drivers from passing in the oncoming lane at the blind hill crest. Pedestrian-activated crossing beacons can be installed either in the pavement or on signs (photo attached), and the signs could be seen by drivers heading up the hill well before they reach the intersection.

Yes, there are multiple issues at this intersection, all of which could result in injury or death. Stop signs on 41st seem to be the best (perhaps only) way to address the driving hazards. From the vantage point of drivers on Gilbert waiting to turn left (east onto 41st), parked cars on the north side of 41st (east of Gilbert) block views of traffic and bicycles coming from the east. The hill makes it difficult to see cars coming from the west. The intersection is thus fairly blind. The best solution is to have everyone stop at a point at which they can all be seen, then proceed based upon rules of the road. Because this intersection is also frequently used by pedestrians and bicyclists, any automobile accident could easily also impact these other user groups.

If everyone was vigilant about obeying stop signs I would agree with you George, but stop signs are only as effective as people are willing to allow them to be, and the more stop signs there are installed the more apathetic people become about obeying them. As such I prefer to focus on traffic calming elements that physically force drivers to slow down and pay attention, giving them more opportunity to see and react to roadway conditions and other road users. Countries with much better street safety records rely much more on yielding and much less on stop signs and signals.

Again, I'm not against having a stop sign installed at this intersection, but without an additional focus on other traffic calming measures I don't feel that a stop sign alone will have the desired effect on improving pedestrian safety.

Robert - I have no problem with other measures being used in addition to stop signs. While some people may not stop for a stop sign (watch traffic at stop signs on Piedmont Avenue), most people do. The probability of an accident occurring is thus greatly reduced. In the real world, that's pretty good.

I am a frequent cyclist in the area, while I agree with Robert's concerns in general, I think they are misplaced for this area. Being close to the crest of the hill, I am less concerned with the addition of a stop sign, as momentum is slowing and I will be riding slowly anyway. Therefore the stop of momentum for me as a cyclist, is less of an inconvenience here, compared to other stop signs on other bike routes, such as the stop at Monte Vista and Piedmont (should be a light) or the stop sign at Howe and Jon (only Howe needs to stop).

My bigger concern is that there IS a need for consideration of creating rights of way for local traffic here (either Gilbert or Montgomery), as it is not on what should not be a thoroughfare street. When I am trying to enter 41st Street from Montgomery (a nice informal bike route as it runs the crest of the hill from Pleasant Valley Rd), I find it risky to turn onto 41st, as I am often seeing cars going too fast over the crest of the hill from Broadway or up the hill from Howe.

Regarding bike routes, I think if they extended the green lane on 40th Street to Howe, this would be a better solution to improving the overall bike system, as it cuts off the crest of the hill entirely. The long term solution would be to extend 40th Street to Piedmont, as one of the main reasons that there is so much traffic on 41st Street is due to the mess that 40th Street traffic makes by having it end at Howe, then make two quick right turns, just to get to Piedmont, the ultimate destination for a good portion of traffic coming from the west.

Just my 2 cents.

Just to be super clear about this, I don't have an issue with a stop sign being installed to address a right of way concern. However, a stop sign alone is not enough to act as traffic calming to address safety concerns for pedestrians crossing 41st, and I am very cautious about implementing new stop signs as the more they are used the less effective they become.

I as well feel that 40th is a potential, future bikeway alternative to 41st, although in the westbound direction parking would have to be removed to create enough room for a bike lane. Another right of way issue where new stop signs or a traffic signal could be useful is at the bottom of 40th at Howe, where there is a lot of confusion between drivers and pedestrians about who has the right of way.

I'll also add that Oakland is currently involved in a Pedestrian Master Plan update this year, and a Bicycle Master Plan Update in 2016, so anyone interested in weighing in on new policies they feel the city should enact to promote pedestrian safety can find more info at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/BicycleandPedestrianProgram/OAK024599.

Anyone interested in suggesting new or updated bike routes throughout the city can stay tuned for info on the bike plan throughout 2016.

I agree, Robert. Well observed and well said.

Regarding the pedestrians with children crossing 41st Street: There was a school at this site for decades before the current nursery school. The drop-off area seemed sufficient, and these pedestrian/traffic conflicts did not arise as a topic. It must be at least partially the way the school is handling the drop-offs. Per the Conditional Use Permit from the Zoning Dept. for any school to be at this address, there should be a staff member assigned to be on the sidewalk during peak drop-off and pickup hours to direct traffic and assist children in exiting their parents' cars efficiently and entering the school grounds safely. If this is not happening now with the new school, they need to start this practice immediately.

It's erroneous to conclude that just because one person never heard about traffic issues at an intersection that the fast traffic along 41st must be the new school's fault. Further, there is no evidence that the old school did NOT have these safety concerns. Regardless, it doesnt dispute the fact that there are dangerous conditions at that intersection NOW for BOTH people conneccted to the school and those that aren't. Not sure why people would prefer to do nothing and wait for someone to get hit in that intersection than to do something even if it's not THE perfect method of traffic calming for every interest group.

@Janel Thamkul, I should have explained my role and why I am not saying this as a random neighbor with an opinion. I have been on the steering committee of the neighborhood group (Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood Improvement League—PANIL) for a number of years, and was part of the original negotiating team that worked with Archway School to come up with the agreement that became the formal Zoning Dept. Conditions of Approval for Archway's operations which potentially had public impacts (traffic patterns, drop-offs, noise control, etc). Those conditions run with the address and not the individual school, so are applicable to subsequent schools at the site. Because of my role in the neighborhood group, I was the contact point for complaints and concerns about the operations at that corner for years.

I assume that as part of any request for a stop sign or other traffic calming measures, there would be a traffic count and a speed study before a decision is made. This would be helpful. Piedmont Avenue and that section of Broadway have become much busier commercial areas since Archway School and PANIL came up with the methods of minimizing the conflicts between drop-off operations and general traffic.

"Not sure why people would prefer to do nothing and wait for someone to get hit in that intersection than to do something even if it's not THE perfect method of traffic calming for every interest group."

The city has limited funds for traffic measures. Robert Prinz' suggestions make sense, reflect newer thinking in traffic calming methods, and should be considered. The city budget for Public Works will not allow a trial and error method of doing something fast and then trying something else later if it does not work as we lay people thought it would.

@Valerie - Appreciate the clarification of your experience, but yes, traffic at that intersection is fast in both east and west directions and is dangerous for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers whether related to the school or not as you can see from the comments above. While I appreciate the need for bureaucratic policies and procedures, I do hope they dont end up getting in the way of actually increasing safety for the community sooner than later.

@Valerie and Robert - Actually, since I have your ears and you both seem to have experience with city planning efforts and traffic issues, can you tell me what the decision making process is for a request like this? I am not opposed to the suggestions that Robert had (reducing pavement space, installing pedestrian crossing lights, etc.), but these sound like more significant changes/requests than a crosswalk and stop signs. Is that the case? Or are stop signs a bigger deal than pavement adjustment and lights? Is the decision making process more complicated for one or the other? Does one or the other take longer? Would adding Robert's suggestions to the request draw the process out longer and make it more difficult to get something done or vice versa? How long does it usually take to get stop signs or pavement adjustments and lights? Another gentleman told me that he has been trying to get a stop sign in his neighborhood for two years. I hope that is not typical of the way the city government works.

I think it's helpful to understand the differences between elementary school and pre school children for this discussion.

When I was in elementary school I walked to school by myself, and I understand from friends who drive their children to elementary school now that they're expected to drop their kids off at the curb and leave. That would allow traffic to move through the drop off area fairly efficiently, and might be made more efficient by having a teacher on the curb guiding kids in the right direction.

Preschool kids start at age two, and don't get dropped off on the curb. It would make the kids very unhappy, and would probably result in some of them getting lost or worse before making it to their classrooms. Instead, parents come into the school, and spend a few minutes helping the kids get adjusted. California's preschool licensing laws require parents to sign the kids in, in the classroom. At the end of the day, the school does not just send kids out into the street. Parents come into the classrooms to pick up the kids, and are required by law to sign the kids out before taking them home.

Counterintuitively, Janel, a simple stop sign might be a more difficult ask than more expensive sidewalk extensions or flashing lights, since a new stop sign would typically have to be warranted by a demonstrated history of crashes at that location, and would have to be approved via a number of city departments.

I think it would be good for the community to ask for a series of measures, including ones that can be implemented right away such as upgraded crosswalk striping and pedestrian crossing warning signage. This won't address the tricky turning movements from Gilbert onto 41st, but it is more likely to be accomplished in the short term until funding for sidewalk extensions or approvals for stop signs can be achieved.

@Robert -- Thank you!

Also keep in mind that temporary sidewalk extensions could be implemented in the short term using cheap and inexpensive materials like paint and plastic bollards.

To Valerie's point, I suspect that this is an issue that may not have been reconciled in the CUP, and probably should be. There is, as Steve notes, a distinction between elementary schools and preschools with respect to pick-up/drop-off. California Community Care Licensing requires parents/guardians to sign preschool children in and out each day, while the law allows staff to sign in school-age children when they arrive. Preschool drop-off typically entails a parent parking and getting out of the car with the child, while I believe that Archway used this zone as a true staffed drop-off zone where the parent remained in the car and the child got out. (In fact, the no parking signs in this zone still reflect Archway's hours.) There is one Oakland preschool that I know of that has uses a half-hour staffed drop-off with mixed success, but it is very unusual. More typically, preschools and daycares have a handful of parking spots that are time-limited to 5 or 10 minutes during drop-off and pick-up hours to accommodate this, which is what the preschool at this site is currently doing. It would be interesting to know what language in the CUP carried over to the child care use and how it should ideally be implemented, though.

I'm still not convinced a different drop-off procedure would really resolve the issue, though. It's really about traffic volume and visibility, but perhaps it would reduce the number of pedestrians crossing at this intersection. I suspect the bigger factor in why it's an issue now and wasn't before may be that the preschool and Archway have different hours, so most children at the preschool are being picked up between 5 and 5:30 pm when volume on 41st is highest. I believe Archway ended at 3 pm.

@Neighbor and @Steve, Thank you for the explanation of the sign in and out requirements for younger children. The way that Conditional Use Permits work is that the language carries over into the next user—it runs with the address and not the occupant. If the current language does not work for this use, it needs to be formally amended through the city's process, which includes formal public comment. For that reason, I would suggest that the school and PANIL jointly put together a group of interested parties to work out some suggestions to take to the city, so we do not find ourselves in conflict during the city's process. Everything will go much smoother that way.

As to the hours of the two respective schools, many families participated in Archway's extended day care for before and after school, so there were a lot of children being picked up between 5:00 and 5:30 then, too.

As to visibility, I actually find the Duck's Nest fence to be a barrier, especially to views of pedestrians on the sidewalk to the west. Archway's fence was waist high and transparent, made of rails with lots of open spaces.

I much appreciate the fact that this issue is receiving so much attention. This intersection has been a big concern of mine for many years. I have concidered it unsafe for all the reasons others have stated. The fact is that it is a blind corner and turning onto or off Gilbert is not safe. The visibility for cars turning onto 41st from Gilbert was greatly decreased when the parking pattern was changed to diagomnal parking on one side of 41st. That took the traffic coming from Piedmont Ave out of sight as it approaches Gilbert and forces the driver to inch out into the intersection simply to see the oncoming traffic. Likewise the same driver has to inch out onto 41st to see if someone is coming up from Broadway since that car is not readily visible from the corner and the hill hides the oncoming traffic frorm view.
A helpful solution to visibillity would be to have a red zone (no parking zone) on both corners in each direction for about 40 feet since it is the parked cars that block the view. This will however exaccerbate our shortage of parking spaces
I registereed in writing with the city my concerns and requested a stop or light many years ago and my request was rejected becasue frankly no one had been killed or seriously injured there yet. Personally I did not think this was a good excuse since I know the intersection is dangerous. I often have near misses as cars suddenly come out of the blind spot and I have to be extremely cautious..
I have always been concerned for the chldren. Archway did have to be "encouraged" not to double park, another dangerous way of blocking the intersection, but Duck Pond has not been a big problem since they do park and walk their children to school. But the blind corner still concerns me in terms of children's safety.
I will dispute the above who said that there have not been accidents there becasue there have been. It may be that the accident I saw was not registered with the city. Not all accidents are reported but I did ask the Archway secretary to photofgraph the crushed car.
Personally I favor a stoplight or at least a blinking light at the intersection at the top of the hill. A stop sign woud help too.
I have lived on Gilbert for 30 some years.

If anyone is still following this, this is the response I received from the city regarding this request for traffic control measures at 41st and Gilbert:

Hi JT,

I looked at our most recent collision records and found one incident that was reported in a five-year period at the T-intersection of 41st and Gilbert Street. The reported incident is not correctable by installing all way stop signs per traffic engineering standards . Based on this and the number of traffic safety requests we have backlogged, I cannot justify elevating this request to high priority.

Looks like it will take an accident before anything will actually happen...