Exhibit 9 - Public Comments on Draft — Alameda City Council, December 6, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

96 Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.
26 ‐ listen to the community, 1 ‐ not just repairs but access to reused bicycles, e.g., Cycles of Change, 10 ‐ there is NOT ENOUGH bike parking and the new bike parking is flimsy and not safe for bikes, 14 ‐ get more folks bikes ... and I know this isn't on the list, but please educate e‐bike riders on etiquette! This isn't on your list, but I encourge city staff and elected's to educate the public about the rights or pedesterians and cyclists. I have people in cars yell at me, drive way too close and even try to drive me off the road because they claim I don't have a right to ride my bike on certain streets.
27, 15, 13, 10

28. Otis ‐ Doolittle Drive

17. Greenway For San Jose St

22. Broadway to Otis Greenway

23. Otis to Central
3 4
7 17
3 8
10 13
3) many of our streets are so veeeeeeery wide; random bulb‐ outs in the middle would help.
crossing guards made it incredibly easy to bike across busy street crossings when going to school
parking. Enclosed bike boxes? I'm scared of trying to park my trailer somewhere! BikeLink parking is great, especially if it can handle larger bikes used to transport kids. We should have a ton of it!
Consider having Weekend valet bike parking on Webster/Park. 3, 17, 18
3, 20, 19
#3 is by far the most important. Alameda point is burdened with car enthusiasts causing an unsafe environment for people and children living in the area
3, 4, 10, 14 16
is a great idea (see Vancouver BC for excellent examples of trackers) but can be done more cost effectively to start and then gauge success.
3, 4, 5, 20
3, 4, 8, 27 We
don't have enough data to evaluate ROI on most programs. 3, 8, 18, 20 19
3,4,5,10.

Page 51 of 122 ends

97 Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.
4 ‐ If that means making bikes illegal on sidewalks.  Bikes are legally vehicles and should get the privileges and
responsibilities of vehicles.  [If that's not what it means, I vote for 31]
18 ‐ Why are so few programs focused on anything other than promoting bicycling?  This is the only item out of 31 about encouraging use of public transit.
20 ‐ If that means neighborhoods can have block parties without paying a fortune for permit and insurance.  [If that's not what it means, I vote for 28 if that means making the traffic light sensors work for bikes.]
29 ‐ It is critical to measure impacts so we can do more of what works and stop what doesn't.

Remove 2, 12 ‐ Electric bikes and scooters are not active transportation ‐ they are more like motorcycles. Because they go so fast, they should not be allowed on mixed‐use paths or sidewalks ‐‐ much less be subsidized.

6. If a cyclist wants the privileges of a pedestrian (by definition, someone walking), they can and should dismount. Riding in crosswalks should never be allowed ‐ it's dangerous to pedestrians.

15. Absolutely not! If the city wants sidewalks repaired, it needs to pay for them. Forcing homeowners to pay for repairs the city wants is just wrong.

16. I have no idea what this is.
4 10
4, 10, 15, 18
4, 10, 18, 26
4,7,8
5,11,15,15
6 8
10 13
Cars Blocking bike lanes, double parking, should be cited. “Discourage” is not enough.
6, 10, 13
7 is very important for the children's safety than I do except from that the points is!
No everything looks good as practical ways and change for the better either ways ! Okay
8, 26, 29, 13
8,4,3, 5
All are good, but please consider including language to equitably distribute these programs. I highly recommend placing priority on areas that have high population density and have been historically underserved, such as census tract 4276 All you guys do is make it harder for cars to move around the island. By slowing cars down you're increasing harmful
emissions. Stop cutting down on lanes available to cars.

Anything that improves safety and decreases auto speeds on existing streets with bike paths
Anything that is financially sustainable, ie with a funding source.

Bicycle paths connecting all the island. Bridge from foot of park street to Seaview on BFI.

I think we are on the right track as long as we can tweek it as we go.

Bikeway maintenance and school access
Creating structures at bus stops‐but must be accessible Sidewalk repairs‐ desperately needed seems strange it’s left to patchwork of home owners
Wayfaring‐ must be accessible
If you can require review projects for Maintenance considerations you should certainly be able to review for accessibility considerations
Really wish there were more projects aimed at accessibility for pedestrians with disabilities
Decline. Decline.

Definitely
in support of more bike racks across the city.

Page 52 of 122 ends

98 Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

Do not build walkway into Bay 37 community. Do not build walkway into Bay 37 community.

Document the impacts of pedestrian and bicycle capital
projects and programs on
safety and mode shift. Conduct before‐and‐after studies of projects using a consistent
methodology.

Evaluate current bikeshare (standard and electric), scooter share and other micromobility options, and establish programs and policies for their operations in Alameda.

Include discounts for low‐income residents
Enforce the speed limit along Otis Drive, especially between Park Street and High Street.  Stop the speeders!
Increase the Alameda Police Force.  Bring back the 5
motorcycle officers/motorcycles.  Issue speeding tickets! Enforce the speed limit along Otis Drive, especially between Park Street and High Street.  Stop the speeders!
Increase the Alameda Police Force.  Bring back the 5 motorcycle officers/motorcycles.  Issue speeding tickets!
Enforce the traffic regulations for bikes.

It is dangerous to drive and walk in Alameda because the majority of bicyclists run red lights and do not follow the traffic rules.

Often bicyclist are driving on sidewalks which is dangerous for elderly and handicap
The police need to cite these offenders.

Remove all of them. MOST alamedeans use cars not bikes out of necessity. If not using cars, they walk.

WHY are we wasting all of this money on bicycles?
Get rid of slow streets
The bike bridge
Signage
Lights
Get rid of slow streets
GREENWAYS 3, Maintenance 4, rebate programs 2
Hire more city workers to address the issues of street
maintenance
I can’t use a bicycle‐ what about me and those like me? I don’t care about bicycles ‐ I care about infrastructure for vehicles in and out of Alameda!
I do not support any of these recommended programs. Remove items P1 ‐ P31 I don’t see programs addressing increasing security issues in the island, the risk of crime in the island is increasing. That will discourage bike usage.

I don’t see programs addressing increasing security issues in the island, the risk of crime in the island is increasing. That will discourage bike usage.

I really think the following 7 are very important: 1, 4, 8, 10, 18, 20, 21
But if I have to pick 4 only, they are as follows:

P.8
P.10
P.18
P.21
I think this looks great. To me the most important piece is traffic calming and speed accountability in neighborhood greenways.

I’m all in on teaching bike safety to all ages.

In the near term P4 and P5 are the most important. Midterm, P18 should be at the top of the list of it all. It is by far the most important thing on the list. I will say P15 is complete nonsense.

The city should be 100% responsible for all street and sidewalk repairs!

Page 53 of 122 ends

99 Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

In theory biking is ideal. I reality aggressive bikers run over pedestrians, challenge auto drivers, and disregard DMZ bike laws. Further, what about those that don't ride bikes and are too far away from buss routes; the auto is their only form of transport. How do seniors carry their groceries on bicycles? Bikcycling should be a secondary form of transport, not primary ‐ get real.

Increase bike parking.

Increasing safety in items p.3 and p.7 ‐ so that residents see slower speeds that make biking safe ‐ will drive up cycling figures. Making bikes and ebikes discounted for low income folks, and increasing available cycle parking in p.2 and p.10, will signal the expected behavior and make it accessible.

I don't think any programs should be removed or changed. One national level change we could advocate for, is increasing cycling and transit benefits instead of car benefits for employers. It is common for example to have a public transit benefit (discount on transit pass) and parking benefit (discount on parking fees). It is less common (and less funded) to have a biking transit pass (storage) or biking benefit, and when available, funds are not comperable to car and transit passes.

Infrastructure maintenance
Way finding/ routes like used in Alameda (e.g. "Wiggle") More bike racks like what was lost near the farmers market.

Many of these rebate programs seem best fit within a non‐profit or grant‐based as it may be difficult (and expensive) to promote to those most in need.

Involve the citizens living on the neighborhood green streets in the development so all all views are heard.

It looked okay.

Listed by order or priority:

P.13. Revise the Bicycle Chapter in Alameda’s municipal code to reflect current laws and practices, support safe bicycling in Alameda, eliminate bicycle registration requirement and discourage motorists from parking or idling in bike lanes.

P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles
P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and community gathering for special events or longer term.

P.4. Develop and implement a maintenance schedule for
bikeway infrastructure, including striping and separated bike lane barriers.

Maybe I missed it. Teach parents and children the rules of the road and how to navigate them safely? More bike racks that are safe to lock your bikes to. Better signages for how to navigate Alameda.

Remove electric bike rebates. If they can afford to buy an electric bike, they should be able to pay for it.

More Bike Parking Bicycle
Maintenance
More bike parking around town, especially downtown
corridors. Bicycle education for young children to bike safely on city streets.

Most important, by far: "P.3 Develop a toolkit to achieve Neighborhood Greenway volume and speed targets using
volume management and traffic calming tools."
(The Neighborhood Greenways will only succeed with
appropriate support.)

Page 54 of 122 ends

100
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

My Top 4:

P4: Ongoing maintenance.

P3: Traffic calming and speed maintenance.

P20: More car‐free spaces. The closed section of Alameda Ave between Park and Oak is great. I'd love see the block of Oak between Santa Clara and Lincoln be closed and become the primary Alameda city square.

P29: Measure the effectiveness of these ideas.

Near term P3 and P4; P15, P18
No link to table 9. Can not comment
No opinion. No opinion.
none remove all
None of the programs. This only focuses on youth All not acceptable None of them are important. All should be eliminated. We don't need any more government bureaucracy.

None, this is a waste of taxpayer resources Implement none None. They are wasteful. All should be removed.
not in favor
One I want to point out is how poorly the bus waiting spaces are, many are in direct sunlight, are often hard for bus drivers to see, and have no seating for elders, those who need it. I also like the maintenance of spaces for people to sit outside, eat, and gather.

P 8 School crossing. It seems to me like you have already decided on bike traffic, safety, and security is the most important thing. What about everything else on the island? Pedestrians? School safety? Parking? Providing buses to schools!!!!! Not having school buses has a big impact on safety and traffic
Yes. P1 we don't need to subsidize bike repair. P2 we don't need electric bike subsidies. P4 Striping bike lanes barriers seem to go unnoticed. Instead of P8, why can't Alameda get school buses? I know that there are public buses that go on a school route, but they often get kids late to school and are extremely crowded. P10 we do not need to spend more money on bike parking.

P. 10, P. 18, P. 20, P. 4,
P. 14; p. 26 P.
15‐ Isn’t sidewalk repair already a condition of a property sale? It should be
p. 2 ‐ electric bike rebates
p. 20 ‐ pedestrian‐only spaces ‐ Park St. for pedestrians! p. 13 ‐ no more cars in bike lanes!!
p. 31 ‐ safe routes to schools
p. 6 ‐ we cyclists should act like vehicles and follow stop lights, stop signs.
p. 24 ‐ does anyone use bike repair stations?!
p. 16 ‐ not sure why we need bike detection video systems P. 3 ‐ traffic calming. Everywhere. All streets ‐ especially the side alleys full of kids angry drivers race down like eagle, walnut, willow.

P 8 ‐ sort of. Please start a volunteer crossing guard program ASAP to increase coverage and reduce costs. Drivers are scary AF near every elementary I commute past. A kids gonna die, this is #1 priority.

P13 ‐ with the additon of enforcement for construction crews that permanently close bike lanes without a permit. The work site on clement near near grand has closed the bike lane without a permit on at least 40 days in the last three months.

P16 ‐ crossing Webster is a death trap. Someone will die with current signs.

P6. Alamedas use of pedestrian signals for bikes is dangerous and confuses drivers and bikes. Please stop no one else does this.

Page 55 of 122 ends

101
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P. 3 neighborhood freeway
P. 10. Bike parking
P. 4. Bikeway maintenance schedule
P. 1. Free bike repair
P. 3
P. 18
P. 19
P. 27
I believe P.6 is covered now that the state passed legislation.

P. 4, p.2, p.3, p.13 P.11 CAN NOT HAPPEN. Rideshare bikes and scoots are bad for the community. Will create conflicts on sidewalks and with cyclists, pedestrians and motorists including unsafe operation + abandoned and discarded gear.
p. 8, p. 10, p. 7, p.2. No
but p.2 is super important for climate change prevention as it provides alternative transportation options for low‐income people.

P.1 Free / discounted bicycle repairs, P. 18 Infrastructure installation ‐ benches, shelters, safe pedestrian crossings, etc.

P. 10 ‐ more bike parking, P. 4 ‐ maintenance schedule for bikeway infrastructure
P.1, P.2, P.4, P.18, P.22 Remove
P.8. School crossing guards are a band‐aid for improperly designed streets that fail to provide a safe walking/bicycling environment for children. Instead of bandaging broken streets with crossing guards, they should be redesigned (e.g., narrow lanes, curb extensions, ped refuge islands, raised crossings) that maximize child safety and force proper driver behavior. The money spent on crossing guards could instead be spent on geometric changes to roadways or more useful programming efforts.

P.1.

P. 7.

P.8.

P.9.

P.2. Electric bikes are now becoming the "new " motorcycles! They are traveling at the speed of cars, but, are not obeying motor vehicle rules. I would not consider increasing the use of them.

P.10 ‐ more bike parking
P.13 ‐ revise and update municipal code
P.8 ‐ data‐driven school guard program
P.4 ‐ maintenance schedule
P.16 ‐ not sure what this means nor what its intent is
P.10, P.20, P.3, P.4
P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles.

P.12. Develop and distribute materials that educate the community on the benefits of electric and cargo bikes and promote programs that provide rebates for electric bikes.

P.18. Where needed, install infrastructure such as benches, shelters, safe pedestrian crossings and lighting along bus transit lines, prioritizing high‐frequency bus corridors, equity priority areas and stops near senior centers and schools.

P.21. Continue partnering with Bike Walk Alameda on
development of the printed walking and biking map of
Alameda, and create an online bicycling map.

Page 56 of 122 ends

102
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles.

P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and
community gathering for special events or longer term.
no
P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and
parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles.

P.13. Revise the Bicycle Chapter in Alameda’s municipal code to reflect current laws and
practices, support safe bicycling in Alameda, eliminate bicycle registration requirement and
discourage motorists from parking or idling in bike lanes.

P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and
community gathering for special events or longer term.

P.4. Develop and implement a maintenance schedule for
bikeway infrastructure, including
striping and separated bike lane barriers.

P.10‐install additional bike parking
P.13‐discourage motorists from parking or idling in bike lanes (note: this should be a separate line item)
P.2‐ebike rebate programs for low income individuals
P.13 ‐ program to discourage motorists from parking or idling in bike lanes should be a separate line item AND be a top priority P.11 (micromobility) is the most important to ease car traffic, then P.8. for children who bike to school, and then P.1 (discounted repairs)
p.11 Bike Share implementation,
p.4 maintenance
p.19
p.23 signage
P.11, P.13, P.20, P.3
p.13, p.3, p.18, p.23
P.15. Develop strategies to assist and incentivize property owns to repair their sidewalks across the City
P.16. Identify priority intersections for bicycle video detection and implement.

P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and
parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles.

I'm strongly against the following two proposals. I'd rather see the money going to programs that make transportation easier for those with mobility issues. We are a flat island, manual bikes are cheaper and more healthy.

P.2. Support and promote local, regional and state electric bike rebate programs for lowincome individuals
P.12. Develop and distribute materials that educate the community on the benefits of electric and cargo bikes and promote programs that provide rebates for electric bikes

Page 57 of 122 ends

103
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P.16. Identify priority intersections for bicycle video detection and implement
P.17. Increase training opportunities for Public Works and Transportation Planning staff
directly involved in the planning and design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on best
practices for infrastructure design, implementation and maintenance.

P 11 Currently it is the Wild Wild West in Alameda Bike lanes.

I am 73 and still pedal my bike but I am passed by folks going over 20mph in the bikelanes on electric bikes. Someone will get injured at some point. I have neve seen any Rules as per use of electric vehicles in Alameda.

P.1. Regularly provide free or discounted bicycle repairs and maintenance via a local non‐ profit, such as the BikeMobile, and/or through partnerships with local bike shops.

P.4. Develop and implement a maintenance schedule for
bikeway infrastructure, including striping and separated bike lane barriers.

P.20 is a great idea, especially after living through the pandemic and enjoying the additional outside space for eating that sprang up outside many businesses. Alameda Pride in Chochenyo Park is a recent example of a social event
community gathering that worked really well.

P.23 could make Alameda hella cool! I love the idea of the city becoming known for its trail and cycle system, which will need a well‐designed, simple and cute map. The island really could do with proudly branding all its public facing literature and signage with its nautical heritage and progressive ideals.

Can't see any mention of free local buses but it's such a pity the shuttle stopped running. They admittedly needed their routes improving, and better drivers, but it would be great to have a service that went around the island again. Maybe even beside the beach like before!
P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and community gathering for special events or longer term.

P.27. Implement a regular sweeping schedule for
bicycle/pedestrian facilities
P.5. Develop guidance on integrating maintenance
considerations
P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda

Page 58 of 122 ends

104
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and
community gathering for special events or longer term.

P.7. Update existing City design guidelines for bicycling and walking facilities to reflect best practices and the range of new types of infrastructure.

P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles.

P.4. Develop and implement a maintenance schedule for
bikeway infrastructure, including striping and separated bike lane barriers.

P.23. Develop and implement a citywide wayfinding signage program, including trail
systems.

P.3. Develop a toolkit to achieve Neighborhood Greenway volume and speed targets using
volume management and traffic calming tools.

P.16. Identify priority intersections for bicycle video detection and implement.

P.19. Encourage and support partner organizations to develop temporary street closure
programs, such as Sunday Streets, to provide safe and fun places for people to walk, bike,
roll, and gather, such as on Shore Line Drive, Harbor Bay Parkway, or Ferry Point.

P.22. Develop program guidelines for street art and placemaking, such as painted bulb‐outs,
in‐street bike corrals and intersections.

P.28. Continue implementing the Signalized Intersection Access Equity policy and
communicate about implementation status. WHAT IS THIS?
P.23. Develop and implement a citywide wayfinding signage program, including trail
systems.

P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and
community gathering for special events or longer term.

P.27, P.18, P.15, P.8 I
just think matters of safety should take priority over mode shift.

While I understand a lot of these go hand‐in‐hand, safety should always be at the top of the list.

P.29, P.21, P.28, P.7 P.19, P.15, P.2,
P.3
P.15
P.19 but where will ppl. park to get there?
P.23
Honestly, is this much thought, time, money and input by others required for anything else? WHY BIKES?
P.3
P.7
P.19
P.20

Page 59 of 122 ends

105
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P.3, P.13, P.18, P.20
P.3, P.26. For P.26, I would also like to see efforts to reach out to residents in general, as many often have opinions and comments about the state of traffic and transportation on the island.

Additionally, this was not included on the list, but I would like to see a program developed that would allow citizens particularly concerned about an urgent or recurring problem with street/traffic safety (which can be corrected with a design treatment) to initiate and voice their concerns with the city’s transportation department.

The residents who live and work everyday know best what problems/issues arise in some particular streets that a public official might never know of, so having that channel for communication and quick action is very critical.

P.3, P.6, P.8, P.10, P.19, P.20, P.24, P.26
P.3, P.7.

P.3. ,P.10. P.13. I
do not see the city's current partnership with Cycleofchange.org program which offers free bike classes to all public school 5th graders listed. Please keep this program going.

P.3. Develop a toolkit to achieve Neighborhood Greenway volume and speed targets using volume management and
traffic calming tools.

P.4. Develop and implement a maintenance schedule for
bikeway infrastructure, including striping and separated bike lane barriers.

P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles.

P.3. Develop a toolkit to achieve Neighborhood Greenway volume and speed targets using volume management and
traffic calming tools.

P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles.

P.29. Document the impacts of pedestrian and bicycle capital projects and programs on safety and mode shift. Conduct before‐and‐after studies of projects using a consistent methodology.

Page 60 of 122 ends

106
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P.3. Develop a toolkit to achieve Neighborhood Greenway volume and speed targets using volume management and
traffic calming tools.

P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and
community gathering for special events or longer term.

P.7. Update existing City design guidelines for bicycling and walking facilities to reflect best practices and the range of new types of infrastructure.

P.8. Develop a data‐driven school crossing guard policy that provides guidance on where to locate crossing guards and, in partnership with other public agencies, adequately fund the program
P.15 The city should maintain the sidewalks.

P.16. This hardly seems like a priority and an expensive endeavor.

Adding push buttons to key intersection for cyclist (such as on Cross Alameda Trail's Webster intersection) seems sufficient.

P.3. Greenway P.7. Design guidelines P.6. LPI P.10. bike parking P.3.

P.10.

P.23.

P.19.

P.3., P.4., P.6., P.7.

P.6. is very important, but doesn't go far enough.

P.10. is not needed. There are already sufficient lock‐ups for bikes on the island. Spend the money on improving visibility of bike lanes and on educating drivers so cyclists don't have to risk their safety when sharing the roads.

P.9. is also not a good use of money.

P.3: Getting the neighborhood greenways right is essential P.4: Maintenance of facilities
P.7: Design guidelines so stuff is built right
P.17: Staff training on best‐practices
P.17 Might be moved to near‐term.

Consider adding:

Make sure we're getting all the data needed to plan well.

Consider bounty program for bike lane violators.

Support legislative efforts that make streets safer.

P.31 ‐ assist with safe routes to schools (require all able bodied children to bike/walk/bus to school) no more parental
dropoffs.

P.15 ‐ assist with sidewalk improvements
P.6 ‐ support bikes using pedestrian signals
P.24 ‐ expand bike repair stations
P.19 ‐ eliminate any street closures programs. Existing slow streets are not used.

P.31.

P.8.

P.18.

P.26
Anything that is going to interfere with regular car commuting on the Island should be eliminated. No roundabout, no in‐street bike parking, no raised crosswalks. It increases stress of drivers and makes being a pedestrian even more dangerous.

P.4 develop and maintain bike lanes.

P 10 bike parking facilities downtown.

P 20 pedestrian only spaces.

Remove the shoreline to Seaview water crossing as stated above.

P.4
P.8
P.15
P.27

Page 61 of 122 ends

107
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P.4. Develop a maintenance schedule for infrastrcture
P.10 Bike Parking (make it substantial enough for cargo bikes, after all, we continue to make parking stalls big enough for SUVs...)
P.5 Develop guidance on maintenance considerations during development
P.12. Support rebate programs for electric/cargo bikes
P.4. Develop a maintenance schedule for infrastructure
P.10 Bike Parking (especially secure parking for all types of bikes including Long‐tail cargo bikes)
P.5 Develop guidance on maintenance considerations during development
P.12. Support rebate programs for electric/cargo bikes
I don't see any changes to make, these are a lot of great programs. I think doing a lot to make it easier to bike now will encourage more people to start cycling around Alameda instead.

Today, I saw 7 cargo bikes at Bay Farm School, so they are definitely gaining popularity, and now it's time to ensure the infrastructure is improving to support those folks while we work on the larger programs. It's important that the infrastructure be ready for the people who are going to make the shift to cycling.

P.4. Develop and implement a maintenance schedule for
bikeway infrastructure, including striping and separated bike lane barriers
P.3. Develop a toolkit to achieve Neighborhood Greenway volume and speed targets using volume management and
traffic calming tools.

P.13. Revise the Bicycle Chapter in Alameda’s municipal code to reflect current laws and
practices, support safe bicycling in Alameda, eliminate bicycle registration requirement and discourage motorists from
parking or idling in bike lanes.

P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and
community gathering for special events or longer term.

P.4. Develop and implement a maintenance schedule for
bikeway infrastructure, including striping and separated bike lane barriers.

P.8. Develop a data‐driven school crossing guard policy that provides guidance on where to locate crossing guards and, in partnership with other public agencies, adequately fund the program.

P.10. Install additional bike parking throughout Alameda, including in‐street bike corrals and parking that accommodates longer wheelbase cargo bicycles
P.22. Develop program guidelines for street art and
placemaking, such as painted bulb‐outs, in‐street bike corrals and intersections.

P.4., P.19., P.20., P.21.

P.5, p.18, p.23, p.26
P.7 ‐ Update City design guidelines
P.8. Develop a data‐driven school crossing guard policy P.13 ‐ Revise the Bicycle Chapter in Alameda’s municipal code P.20 ‐ Outdoor pedestrian spaces, especially dining and gathering. Alameda Ave is a huge success!
P.8. School crossing guard policy: Consider hiring high school seniors for these roles. My hometown did this and it was very successful.

Page 62 of 122 ends

108
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P.7. Update existing City design guidelines for bicycling and walking facilities to reflect best practices and the range of new types of infrastructure.

P.20. Investigate opportunities to create pedestrian‐only spaces for outdoor dining and community gathering for special events or longer term.

P.25. Continue to support the community‐wide celebration of the annual Bike to Work Day and encourage a wider focus on more than just work trips and develop an annual event to promote walking.

P.29. Document the impacts of pedestrian and bicycle capital projects and programs on safety and mode shift. Conduct before‐and‐after studies of projects using a consistent methodology.

P.7. Update existing City design guidelines for bicycling and walking facilities to reflect best
practices and the range of new types of infrastructure.

P.17. Increase training opportunities for Public Works and Transportation Planning staff
directly involved in the planning and design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on best
practices for infrastructure design, implementation and maintenance
P.18. Where needed, install infrastructure such as benches, shelters, safe pedestrian
crossings and lighting along bus transit lines, prioritizing high‐ frequency bus corridors, equity
priority areas and stops near senior centers and schools.

P.29. Document the impacts of pedestrian and bicycle capital projects and programs on
safety and mode shift. Conduct before‐and‐after studies of projects using a consistent
methodology
P.8 P.1,
P2, P3, P34, P5, P6, P7, P9, and P10 Not necessarily in that order P.8, more crossing guards
P.10 more SECURE bike parking (cages please, thieves easily cut through bike locks)
P.15 repair sidewalks (my kid has tripped on jagged pavement so many times on her scooter I've lost count)
P.20 more ped only spaces, that's where we spend most of our money when we go out
P.3 just ticket speeders...

P.13
ticket and tow vehicles parked in bike lanes, especially buffered or divided lanes because those are extremely dangerous
P.17 please don't involved your staff in directly planning bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure unless any public works staff actually bike or walk work? They tend to do such a great job running stop signs in their trucks as it is 🙃 Maybe leave planning to professionals or those already self‐interested.

P.31
the safe routes to school program recommends routes where pedestrians and bicyclists have literally died or been injured in just the past few years. Could
we do something about that?

Page 63 of 122 ends

109
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P.8, P.7, P.4, P.2 Isn't P.6. (allow bicyclists to use LPI) unneeded now with the recent signing of AB 1909, the "Omni‐bike bill?"
P.9 P.26
P1‐ accessible bike repairs
P8‐crossing guards better placed (why no crossing guard at Santa Clara near Maya Lin many days a week??)
P21‐ printed bike map
P1, 4, 11, 18,
P1, P10, P11, P13
P1, P10, P11, P20
P1, P2, P5, P10
P1, P3, P8‐P10
P1, P4, P18, P31 I
am not sure what P3 means in terms of actions. Is it a toolkit meaning education or is it actually changing infrastructure to address the problem?
P1, P5, PP9, P10
P1, P6, P11, P13 Not so sure about homeowner sidewalk repair P1, P6, P17, P22
P10 ‐ Bike parking
P7 ‐ Bicycling and walking best practices
P31 ‐ SR2S
P19 ‐ Temporary street closure, aka Sunday Street
P10 (additional bike parking), P11 (bike share + equity), P18 (safe infrastructure), P23 (wayfinding).

Depending on use, perhaps a long‐term goal would be installing more sophisticated signals at busy car/bicycle/pedestrian intersections?
"Why the Dutch Wait Less at Traffic Lights":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knbVWXzL4‐4
P10 I believe we need a lot more bike parking. It's very common that the only place for me to lock up a bike is on a street sign, which isn't great for anyone.

P18 Supporting public transit corridors makes them more attractive alternatives to driving.

P22 Public art and engagement are so enriching for everyone, and have huge value in the community.

P24 unfortunately suffers a bit from the tragedy of the commons.

The freestanding repair tools at the library for example are, last I checked, not useable due to them being broken or otherwise vandalized.

P10 P5 P6 P4
P10
P19
P20
P23
P10
P3
P4
P5
I think are most important
P10, P14, P18, P25 P2
and 11 seem similar
P10, P4, P2, P7 There needs to be a public education plan on crosswalks: marked or unmarked carry the same requirements for pedestrians and drivers

Page 64 of 122 ends

110
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P10.
p13.

P3.
p7.

P11 ‐ bringing back lime or other alternatives to commute easily to ferry and Bart. Implementing electric bikes in this program would help me, never to use my car again
P11 ‐ city should never have stopped allowing bike/scooter rentals, bring them back!
P13 ‐ APD parking enforcement should be actively helping cyclists by ticketing automobiles interfering with bike traffic P23 ‐ signage will encourage people who are currently
driving/walking to consider biking next time
P26 ‐ community and equity is important; make sure programs are for all genders, ages, cultures, ethnicities
P11
P18
P29 ‐ let's actually find out what the impacts of what you have done so far have been on people, on accidents, on safety.

Pedestrians are now walking down the middle of a lot of streets that are not blocked off. We made sidewalks to keep me safe when I walk. Why is it good for me to be able to walk down the middle of a street? Also, how many people are using slow streets vs other streets?
P26
P15
P5
P8
P10 ‐ great, but no "in‐street parking corrals" That's distracting for drivers and dangerous.

P3
P19 ‐ Only on nonresidential streets. Someone always needs to use residential streets. What are handicapped people supposed to do? P20 ‐ overreach.

P22 ‐ dangerous
P11, P13, P19
P13
P3
P6
P21
P13, p18, p29, p3 Would
rather see support for all cyclists and pedestrians instead of focus on "marginalized" communities.

P‐15 is a bad idea, property owners don't own the sidewalks and should not be responsible for repairing them unless they are the cause of damage.

P15, P31, P8, P18 P8
Crossing guards are in t he best position to ID dark clothing pedestrians, which I consider to be at tremendous risk during hours of darkness for crossing Alameda corridors and feeder routes.

Page 65 of 122 ends

111
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P17 ‐ Can we please add a process for transportation and planning to sign off on every project that hasn't been reviewed in 12 months prior to construction, especially if they're developer led? (see Clement/Sherman/Atlantic)
P3 ‐ can we please design the NGs for peak traffic and speeds, not average traffic and speeds?
P6 is done!
p17, P13
p19 and p21 More
programs that encourage bike use across the island without alienating old timers that are stuck in their cars
P19, P20 No
P2 ‐ make it more accessible
P3 ‐Stuff that makes greenways safe
P11 ‐ mostly worried about scooters, they’re usually shorter trips that can be replaced by walking and have an enviro impact. So would rather focus on bikes and walking.

P2 Electric bike rebate
P8 Crossing guards
P2
P3
P4
P2, P3, P23, P31 They
are all relavant.

P2, p4, p10, p11, p16, p19, p20, p25, p31
P2, P4, P3, P14 No
P2. Electric bike rebate
P11. Bike/scooter share
P15. Sidewalk repair
P5. Integrate maintenance during planning
No
P20
P3
P1
P19
P20, P17, P18, P24 no
P21,
P5, P7, P14 and P17
P27. IF you don't have a sweeping schedule already in place, shame on the city. If it is in place, fire the people doing it because they miss most of it.

Active Transportation ‐ this is not a free handout for everyone.

Delete P1, P2, P18 which has nothing to do with this plan. P22 ‐ Street Art? that has ZERO to do with this plan and you need to back off your spending spree.

P3 Toolkit/greenways; P13 update/revise code; P14 bike gear for low income folks; P17 Train city planning staff
P3
P10
P11
P.23
P3
P10
P11
P27
P3
P11
P7
P27

Page 66 of 122 ends

112
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P3
P18
P3
P4
P10
P3
P4
P10
P20
P11 ‐ bikeshare should be deprioritized
P3
P5
P6
P4
I am not sure if P9 should be part of this program or a consideration in a broader community policing/safety plan
P3
P7
P10
P13
N/A
P3, 4, 9and 13
P3, P10, P11, P16
P3, P4, P10, P11 Is P24 useful?
P3, P4, P10, P20
P3, P5, P8 P1, P9 seem unnecessary given budget constraints P3, P6, P10, P1
P3, P6, P8, P10
P3, P7, P10, P2
P3, P8, I don't see any program related to education for drivers about how to navigate bike and pedestrian related street improvements. It seems like some drivers an unaware of how to share the road with bike paths, bike lanes, etc.

P30, 31, 1, 9
P4 ‐ 6, 8, 10.

But I would add educational programs like in Amsterdam and other cities for motorists about how to make road safe for cyclists. This is especially important where the infrastructure doesn't allow for "perfect" solutions. For example, if there is not room enough for a 3ft. door opening lane, put up signage reminding motorists to check their mirrors before opening the door (in Amsterdam they've trained drivers to use their right hand to open the door, forcing them to twist and look behind them!).

P4 ‐ bike lane maintenance; P10 ‐ bike parking P15 sidewalk repairP 18 infrastructure at bus stops
P4 ‐ maintain bike infrastructure
P 10 ‐ install more bike parking
P 11 ‐ we need a bike and scooter share program
P18 ‐ improve infrastructure
P4 & P27 (Maintenace)
P10
P13
P18
remove electric bikes program. These are expensive. If people need an electric bike to be encouraged, they have the wrong motivation.

Model our bike program after the bike friendly city like Amsterdam

Page 67 of 122 ends

113
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P4‐ maintenance for bikeway (safe smooth streets with clear markings)
P9‐ reduce bike theft
P10‐ increased safe bike parking, especially for cargo bikes P4, P10, P3, P2
P4, P10
P4, P15, P18, P27. Four choices are too few!
Many of the other ones are also important, especially P2, P5, P18, P26. This whole list is very bike‐centric, please balance it out a bit.

P4, P2, P1
P4, P5, P13, and P27
P4, P5, P7 No
opinion
P4, P5. P17, P21
P4, P7, P10 no
P4, P7, P5, and P3
P4. Bike infra needs to be as well maintained as the roads.

P10. Cargo bike parking at the grocery stores would be a beneﬁt. Also beƩer bike parking at Robert Crown.

Need to establish a bike bus program to take kids to school and back.

P4; P3, P18, P17
P4; P5; P7; P10
P5, P6, P7 All others not included in question 7.

P5; P10; P18; P31 For P24 please consider adding e‐bike charge stations and vending machines with bicycle tubes. For any educational program, please include in the material information on the hazards provided by use of high‐intensity, white ‐ led lights, particularly when blinking rapidly.

P7 and P4
P7 P8 P20 P18
P7
P10
P20
P7
P16
P4
P10
I would like to see programming aimed at educating drivers about driving safely, sharing the road, and opening doors safely.

P7, P10, P22, P23. P11,
not sure Alameda's size warrants bike share unless done in conjunction with a bigger city like Oakland. Would rather seen money spent on infrastructure (protected lanes, wayfinding signs, bike parking) than on a consultant for a project that might not be very successful.

P7, P20, P5, P25 P16,
P11, P2
P7, P8, P14, P18 P15 ‐ The City should be taking more of an active role in upgrading sidewalks instead of putting this burden on homeowners. Low and moderate income homeowners are doing their utmost to maintain their property and shouldn't be tasked with maintaining City property.

P7, P8, P3, P1

Page 68 of 122 ends

114
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

P8 crossing guard policy
P5 maintenance
P18 install infrastructure near bus lines and schools
P19 utilizing weekend low use streets for temp closures P23 wayfinding
P13 bike registration should be kept and expanded to help pay for this plan
P20 not if this includes parts of main thoroughfare streets such as Park, Otis, Webster, Central etc
P8 school crossing guards based on data. Almost all of these are a waste of time and money driven by bureaucracy and should be removed.

P8
P18
P29
P31
Remove anything that seems beholden to the bike lobby; I don't understand how or why the city is in so deep with the bike lobby.

P8, P18, The focus on bikes is commendable but unrealistic. Cyclists need training and must abide by street / car laws, not follow pedestrian rules when convenient. Without consistency from cyclists, drivers don’t know their intent.
p8,p7,p25,p29 P13
needs to be revised, bikes should be registered which would help with theft.

P8. Crossing guards. I don't see much concerning safety against cars. More bikes on the road will require to slow down.

Speed bumps would be nice.

P8: more school crossing guards rather than stop signs etc.

P12 develop policy regarding 20 mph ebikes: where
allowed/not allowed. DANGEROUS!
P13 bike laws currently prohibit bikes towing children in wheeled buggies
P15 City is responsible for most sidewalks. Few developments might have responsibility.

P16 sounds scary, invasion of privacy etc.

P19 I am against street closures
P28 signalized intersection policy is a failure
Program 8: I feel safety is the most important consideration! Infrastructure needs to exist, but enforcing safety at key intersections will remove barriers bicycle use.

Program 7: It is wonderful to see the implementation of dutch‐ style Protected Intersections (eg. Grand and Otis). There are many intersections that would benefit from these, and
increased use would add to both bicycle/pedestrian safety and increased vehicle driver awareness of bikes that are likely to be encountered during daily driving.

Program 10: If it is more difficult to find parking for a bike vs. a car, it discourages the use of bikes.

Program 6: Bicycle safety could be greatly improved at some high‐traffic areas (High St. & Fernside, Fernside & Tilden, Park St. Bridge)
Programs supporting safe biking for all ages: #10, 11, 1, 4. Page 69 of 122 115
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

Protected bike lanes is #1 priority Roundabouts should be scrapped. They are a very expensive solution in search of a problem and their effectiveness is dubious, despite what ginned up "studies" by "experts" say. They are designed to keep traffic moving which is completely antithetical to pedestrian safety, and drivers' unfamiliarity with them will cause many accidents.

Safe riding practices should be for everyone, including parents, so they can teach their children. The city and or schools should provide “ how to ride a bike safely in traﬃc” classes.

Sweeping of the street to ensure safe riding. School wide programs to teach how to ride safely. Adult programs on etiquette and safe riding practices.

The entire bicycle focus of the plans in table 9 are ridiculous. All of it.

The most important thing to do is to be realistic ‐ most people drive cars and will continue to do so. We live on an island.

Most people work off of the island. People who do ride bikes need to learn traffic laws and obey them. All your ridiculous "traffic calming" efforts just cause accidents and make people frustrated and then they drive more aggressively. Where do you come from? This is not what Alameda wants.

All programs should be removed. You should be working to limit the amount of housing being built on an island which already has significant traffic issues which you are making worse. You completely fail to understand the nature of the island of Alameda and what works here. Money should be used to house the homeless and provide everyone health care, not fix people's bikes,.

The only one I agree with is Point 8, Crossing Guards. Points 1 through 7 and 9 through 31 should be removed: P. 11, Highly against this. We have had Bike Share vehicles left in front of our house, blocking the sidewalk and preventing access to the disabled. The companies involved refused to retrieve them.

P. 13, This is counter‐intuative. Due to the notoriously high rate of bike thefts. Registration mitigates this. P. 14 Let the other agencies fund this. P. 15, The sidewalk belongs to the city. It is infrastructure and therefore the property owner is not responsible.

There are too many to read through. There are too many to read through.

There isn’t a link to table 9.

You could put all the bike corals you want, but I’d never park my bike there. Theft is rampant. How about focusing on
reducing crime and speeding and bad driving then biking will be safer.

Page 70 of 122 ends

116
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

They all seem very comprehensive. What I would like to see added is a training program for ALL cyclists sharing the road. I was knocked to the ground when a cyclist hit me from behind because they did not call‐out as they were approaching me.

And I've noticed lots of inconsistencies with all cyclists on this important safety etiquette. Training should also include how to handle STOP signs while in traffic (among other things). One evening (it was dark) while leaving South Shore via Park Street exit, we were stopped at the STOP sign, looked both ways and slowly proceeded to turn right. From out of nowhere, a cyclist came flying through the STOP sign and turned left onto Park Street, crossing our path. That cyclist was close to being killed.

P13. Why is bicycle registration being eliminated? Also, include in municipal code that any cycling event (promoted via social media or otherwise) taking over city streets should require appropriate permits and advance notice to the community.

P15. The city should shoulder the responsibility for sidewalk repairs as in years past. That way they can ensure volume pricing on repairs and consistency in quality of work.

P19. Eliminate Street Closure Programs. We have so many beautiful parks in our city that can be put to full use instead of closing any streets or major thoroughfares.

P26. Include bringing the community together by listening sessions for ALL parties sharing our city streets (yes, drivers too).

Underrepresented groups and equity priority does not sound inclusive for this venture.
they all suck. exclusively focused on bicycles needs. build a 2nd auto bridge off bay farm.

This is a hard question! All of them?
P3 ‐ Neighborhood Greenway plan. This is important to kickoff as soon as possible.

P20 ‐ This is my long‐term dream. Alameda has some great options for pedestrian only (or ped+bus) roadways.

P8 ‐ Crossing guards (but see suggestion for improvement below)
P29 ‐ Documentation. This is important and it's also important to show people who are car‐only how it benefits the city as a whole, including them.

P8 ‐ Crossing guards. Maybe broaden this concept. The goal is safety of students getting to and from school. It's not clear that crossing guards are the best or only solution to this. Stop signs, speed bumps, flashing beacons, etc. are all possible options that should be on the table, and the study should inform these choices. For example, the intersection of High and San Jose should probably be a 4‐way stop with flashing beacons today, even before the greenway project gets underway. It may be beneficial to also have crossing guards there on school mornings, but that intersection is sufficiently dangerous at other times of day as well.

P2 ‐ Related: Please consider developing incentive programs to encourage installation of chargers in Alameda homes including rental properties.

P15 has a typo ‐ should be "property owners"
Toolkit for speed targets
Sidewalk improvements

Page 71 of 122 ends

117
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

7. What do you think are the most important programs in Table 9? Please list up to four, including the identifying numbers.

8. Should any programs be removed or changed? For changes, please include the program number.

Top priority:

P.15., P.27., P.18., P.26.

Near term:

P.4. Develop and implement a maintenance schedule for
bikeway infrastructure, including striping and separated bike lane barriers
P.8. Develop a data‐driven school crossing guard policy that provides guidance on where to locate crossing guards and, in partnership with other public agencies, adequately fund the program.

Medium term:

P.15. Develop strategies to assist and incentivize property owns to repair their sidewalks across the City, such as:
» Develop voluntary “opt‐in” neighborhood‐scale sidewalk repair efforts, allowing Public Works to help property owners address sidewalk maintenance; batching sidewalk repairs across a neighborhood creates an economy of scale and
potential cost savings.
» Evaluate requiring sidewalk repair when properties are sold as a condition of sale.
» Evaluate establishing a revolving “micro‐loan” fund, with options for deferred payment when properties change hands P.18. Where needed, install infrastructure such as benches, shelters, safe pedestrian crossings and lighting along bus transit lines, prioritizing high‐frequency bus corridors, equity priority areas and stops near senior centers and schools.

You need to fix all the streets in Alameda before anything else should be done and paid for.

Streets and traffic are first in my priority.

Page 72 of 122 ends

118
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
#2, and all the slow streets, need much clearer signage, clearer markings, and blocked intersections, similar to the Bicycle Boulevards in Berkeley, which only let EMS through. #7, Park street needs dedicated Bicycle lanes. Also, I'd love to close the core of Park Street to cars entirely. #4 is unnecessary. The base is fine and fun to ride a bike around. Please don't touch it. * The short segment of Mckay Ave south of Central should be included with buffered bike lines or better, since it's such a key connector with the trails and the class IV lanes on Central. There's enough room here it should be easy to do.
* It might be a bit gnarly of a project, and I don't know if it's feasible to do it without bumping another important project, but I _REALLY_ would like to see improvements made to Broadway: the existing class II bike lanes are too narrow and in the door zone for this important north/south corridor that I use to ultimately connect with Fruitvale BART. Maybe this can be put off IF AND ONLY IF the north/south low stress Park St corridor actually happens.
* Consider having projects focused on upgrading existing intersections to protected intersections, as well as projects focused on improving bicycle signaling. (As noted in my other comments.) * Maybe it's not the highest priority project if the city has to do all the work... but maybe the homeowner's association can help out with repairs and improvements to the shoreline path on Bay Farm island ‐ both in repaving it where it's bad, and also adding separated paths for pedestrians, and adding clear signs & markers? This path is so popular it's worth another look.

1. Not sure what the park street low stress solution is, but this is needed quickly.

2. very exited for San Jose to be the neighborhood greenway. Build this quickly.

Page 73 of 122 ends

119
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
21 ‐ Versailles should revert to being the neighborhood connector for cars that it used to be ‐ there is no alternative in the area. Pearl is already a lower‐traffic street and would require fewer traffic‐calming interventions, making it more cost‐effective for the city to make that into a greenway. Just shutting Pearl off entirely from Fernside would make it even slower. Most other streets in this neighborhood are bicycle‐friendly already due to low traffic. Putting in ugly traffic‐calming measures on Versailles seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Add a project for either widening existing shared‐use paths or (even better) adding separate sidewalks next to shared‐use paths. Relatively narrow shared use paths aren't low‐stress for pedestrians ‐ quite the opposite.

Separate sidewalks are lower‐stress for walkers. Shared use paths aren't low‐stress for bicyclists either because dogs and their leashes can make for sudden obstacles, and when more than one person is walking side‐by‐side it's tough to get by ‐ particularly if there are users going the opposite direction. If you MUST do shared‐use paths, make them a lot wider than the ones that currently exist.

I don't ride my bike for errands because I've had two bikes stolen and the police won't do anything about it because the thieves take them to Oakland to chop. I am not alone in this feeling.

The focus should be on getting people to WALK more for errands, building on Alameda's walkability, and the bicycle projects should focus on recreational cycling. Walking requires no equipment so all able‐bodied people can afford to do it. There is nothing you can do to make cycling on Park or Webster safer short of razing the existing downtown and rebuilding from the ground up. All the changes on Park and Webster have done is make things uglier and more confusing ‐ and confused drivers are dangerous drivers. [cont'd] You have made it look like most of these projects benefit pedestrians, but they don't. if there is already a sidewalk in an area, getting bikes off the sidewalk by making it illegal is all you need to do. Clearly the focus of this plan is on bicyclists, even though bicycling is only an option to those with money for bikes and helmets and locks (and replacement of these when they get stolen), and your own data show many more people walk than cycle for errands.

Also, no one seems to be concerned about the fact that many of these projects are just plain ugly. I'm not saying aesthetics should trump safety, but the city has not demonstrated that the ugliness has made things any safer. 4‐way stop at Buena Vista and Willow. This intersection is extremely dangerous for both pedestrians and vehicles. 9 ‐ Remove the Alameda‐Oakland Bike/Pedestrian bridge. Replace with a water taxi/small ferry (under 150pax USCG subchapter T). A small ferry program could implemented for startup costs including vessel construction of perhaps $10 million and operated for $1‐2 million per year. Ongoing maintenance / staffing costs of the bridge would likely equal that amount without the insane $200 million dollars initial cost and could be operational far more quickly.
11 ‐ Prioritize changes to the wooden bridge access for the alameda‐bay farm bike bridge. 29 ‐ Eliminate road diet on Encinal St and anywhere else it is being considered. More housing is being added to the island, which will result in a larger population and more traffic.

Add connectivity of Bay Farm trails ‐ particularly Robert Davey Jr crossing

Page 74 of 122 ends

120
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
Add the connection to make Clement a throughway (link between Paru and Grand).

Again, does this include proposed walk/bikeway at Clement/Broadway extension? This should be a priority Again, please prioritize improvements in areas with high population density and that have been historically underserved. I again point to census tract 4267 (Atlantic/RAMP to pacific from Webster to main). This tract has a population density of 21k per sqmi, the highest in the city and almost 3x higher than the city average. It have been overlooked for generations on this island due to largely unsavory historic inequity. Please consider prioritizing improvements in this and other similar areas that have high existing population density and have been historically underserved.

Again, the North end of Buena Vista is left off of any improvements or changes. This area of town is again treated with inequity. A road diet is proposed for Encinal Avenue which is a 4 lane street and already has several traffic lights. Yet Buena Vista, which is two lanes and has far fewer traffic calming features left with nothing. At minimum a road diet should be implemented here.

Anything that removes parking places, auto access installing greenways or any other unnecessary infrastructure.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not in support of the propsed changes to Grand. I write this as a daily biker who often uses Grand. Traffic on Grand is typically light, especially between Central and Shore Line. As a biker I feel less safe in separated bike lanes where parked cars form the separator.

AS long as they are executed :)
As mentioned earlier, I think some of our bus/comm roads should be reclassified to bus/main since they have a higher percentage of retail than commercial and we need to accommodate non‐car modes in those corridors.

Atlantic Ave between Jean Sweeney Open Space through to crossing Webster St is very dangerous for bikers. A safety improvement project in that area is needed. The lane are protected but drivers are constantly about to hit bikers at crosswalks and breaks in the bike lane.

Broadway street improvement, and Tilden/broadway intersection improvement are both missing Can you make this streets that cars drive on straight lines, for example the Webster Street Business District and the Park Street Business District have become a curvy, confusing, clusterfucks. cancel
Car congestion on the island has progressively gotten worse in the last 10 years. While I think increasing bike lanes is something that can improve this issue, this entire plan leaves out infrastructure suited for cars which no matter what the city does will still be around. You can't expect everyone to just ride bikes, as that's just unrealistic for those commuting to work or even for the elderly population who can't bike 2 miles every day.

City of Alameda needs to seriously reconsider installing speed cameras, especially on neighborhood connector streets. This is the most cost‐effective way to enforce 25mph limits and enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
commit to more fully protected lanes, less shared lanes Community input ‐ in particular, input from residents of proposed bike lanes & other projects ‐ need to he prioritized. The experience so far on the Grand Street project is an example of how NOT to engage the community.

Convert the bike lanes on shoreline and central back to care lanes.

Could we make the crossing at Buena Vista Ave at Tilden Way safer? There is only a crosswalk on one side of the road, and the intersection has blind corners for a street that has a 30+ mph speed limit.

Page 75 of 122 ends

121
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
Do not build walkway into Bay 37 community.

Don't underestimate how many people will use the Bay Trail if it hugs closer to the estuary and bays. Sections of the Bay Trail elsewhere are better when you can walk beside the water rather than have to keep heading along streets, as we have to on the island currently.

Especially support Cross Alameda trail gap closure and Miller Sweeney Bridge improvements Everything needs emphasis on safety.

Focus on infrastructure! Alameda needs a new bridge or expand the tunnel. We have irresponsible planners in Alameda. Adding thousand of people without access or egress. What’s wrong with you? For #2, I think that should be the entire length of Central, not just Sherman to Pacific.

Get rid of slow streets. Or rotate. I'd like my street to be a slow street. The streets were designed for cars. I think more bike lanes are great but get rid of the slow streets.

Grand Street needs a protected bike lane all the way through, why did the mayor vote this down? The Ralph Appezzato bike lane and pedestrian trail need lighting. It is dangerous to traverse at dark hours.

Grand Street should not be zig zagging. There will be accidents all the time. There has to be a different way.

Grand Street should not have a separated bike lane.

Greenways are great. Alameda has felt like a small town while I've lived here, and I think that keeping streets slow, or making them slower, are a fantastic way to keep this feel in Alameda.

I don't expect the standard bike lanes on the Miller‐Sweeney Bridge to bring any safety or access improvements.

I will simply continue to use the sidewalk if on bike or foot.

I don't understand what the projects entail from the table, and why so many completed projects still appear on the plan for approval?
I love project #9 ‐ the Oakland/alameda bike/ped bridge.

I only wish the timeline was sooner.

I see no attempt to implement any type of road diet between High St. and Broadway along Otis Dr. This is an ongoing issue that this stretch of Alameda is ignored, even though it is considered a neighborhood corridor.

There is no attempt to reduce the amount of traffic, where this instead is a main thoroughfare for individuals and commercial vehicles to ignore the speed limit. The stretch of highway, needs to be worked out between the City and Caltrans, so that it meets the needs of the neighborhood. A road diet needs to be implemented.

I seriously doubt even half of these items can be completed by 2030. I would like more focus and prioritization.

I think 2030 to get started on a pedestrian bridge over the estuary is overly generous. This should happen MUCH sooner. Eight years to think about a pedestrian bridge? It could have been built more than once during that time.

Page 76 of 122 ends

122
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
I think Alameda is pretty accesible to walking and biking but se need to upgrade and maintain current sidewalks and trails. Bay Farm Harbor Bay and Sea View trails are heavily used and poorly maintained. More safe crossing guard and speed bumps near schools may be best.

I think that generally these proposals all look great but it is critical to get these backbone greenways in place now. It can be done with little effort but should be done with urgency. So I take issue with the fact that we may stretch this out over 8 years.

I would add Eastshore Drive and the connector behind Lincoln middle School as a greenway to maximize access to the water.

I would like to know how much taxpayer money the City wasted on this plan. This is not a plan that works for Alameda and no one seems to have any understanding of what Alameda needs. We do not need "low stress bicycle facilities." We need less stressful traffic for drivers and we need to limit the influx of people who are congesting our streets. I'm sick of driving down narrowed, confusingly‐designed streets while empty bike lanes take up all of the previous driving lanes. No one is using the bike lanes while we sit in traffic!!! Most of all, your plans are anti‐seniors ‐ you ignore the needs of the disabled too. Only healthy young people who can ride a bike matter
I would make all of Central have separated class 4 bike lanes. Getting to Park/Webster is useful! I’m unclear on the neighborhood greenways and how they impact movement around the island. This plan really has lots of information to try and digest. Trying to see how all these ideas work together and what outcomes the will dictate is a challenge.

I'd encourage the city to consider merging the plans for #19 Lincoln Avenue/Garfield Avenue and #5, Lincoln/Marshall/Pacific Corridor, or opt for the more robust design treatments. Speed cushions, buffered bike lanes and other infrastructure to slow traffic and enable safer pedestrian/cyclist commuting, would be ideal.

I'd like to see all E/W transit streets be reduced down to one lane, each direction: the full length of Lincoln, Encinal, Harbor Bay Parkway
I'm uncertain about the Park Street and/or Oak Street Corridor plan, partly because it's not yet clear what it looks like, but also because in a future where the core part of Park St. from Lincoln to Encinal becomes pedestrian/bus‐ only, there would need to be a plan to divert car traffic to Broadway and/or Oak to allow access to parking options and points beyond (e.g. South Shore). That may be a distant dream, but I wouldn't want to prevent the possibility of that in the future by our actions now.

In general it seems weird that there’s nothing on high street. It comes off a bridge, is near Christmas tree lane, Lincoln park, Lincoln middle, and Otis elementary, but seems like it’s kind of ignored as a place to slow things down and make them more people friendly.

Include tree planting and maintenance and where possible planting areas that protect bicycle and ped areas.

It doesn't include any improvements, changes or plans for the area of Buena Vista Ave. To ignore this entire section of town while addressing all the other major neighborhood connecting streets smacks of discrimination.

This area houses more multi‐family households and people of many ethnic origins than several of the areas that are included in the infrastructure plan. Why is it being ignored? It should also includes ensuring that Otis Dr (between Park St and High St) is safer for bikers and pedestrians which is not the case at the moment
It’s a good start!
Its a start. We have to start somewhere
Just reiterating my plea to have a widened bike lane on 5th St., separate, dedicated bike lane on Constitution to the bike bridge.

Page 77 of 122 ends

123
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
Leave Grand St alone. Just paint crosswalks and bike paths and enforce the law.

Less concentration on physical changes (protected bike lanes, bulb‐outs, fancy paint jobs that become slippery) and more attention to a long‐term local shuttle.

Let's include Gibbons on the list of roads needing a road diet.

Link Shoreline to point via Crown beach, complete Appazato, Jean Sweeney, Clement fernside.. Create a single lane through tube (not 2 lanes) and a single lane over High Street.

Love all the bike and Ped improvements esp on school routes and near schools. I would also ask for any green belt dev on West side. I love the medians on Lincoln and Santa Clara Also what about incentives to property owners for creating bio swales, bee/ butterfly gardens, and/or food gardens in their yards?
Major water taxi a major priority with ondemand operation.

Many great projects on this list. I can't wait to walk, bike (and even drive) on many of them.

Why can't downtown Alameda get a permanent redesign before 2030? I imagine it will cost a lot of money. So maybe it needs to involve a tax assessment with the Downtown Alameda Business Association, or some more means of funding.

Other Bay Area cities have very nicely rebuild their downtown streetscapes. Alameda should look into doing so as well.

Boy, we're going to have to wait a while for the Oakland‐Alameda bike/ped bridge. But it'll be worth it! Many of these projects are exciting and I am optimistic the net positives will make Alameda much safer.

Regarding specific bike improvements to Webster and Park. I recognize the desire to make these routes work for cars, buses, bike and peds, but the resulting compromises sacrifice more than is satisfying. If bikes are to compliment these thoroughfares, we should be investing in truly separated/raised lanes. The current chicanes and gutter pathways are dangerous for all users and give cyclist a bad reputation. My hope is that emphasis lays on building the secondary networks and protecting neighborhood greenways before getting lost in compromised solutions for roadways that are overly constrained and over programed.

More emphasis on pedestrians, and less on bicycles. More consideration for seniors and less abled people who do not want to use a bicycle ‐ alternative transportation options.

Most of these would cost more than the benefit they provide. Please be more careful when spending other peoples money for what you have decided will benefit them.

N/A
Need it now not later. Your adding more housing and neglecting infrastructure.

Need to add bike lane from pacific to shoreline in the Eighth street. This is the way to get over to the crab cone from central alameda and it is very dangerous on a bike.

No current automobile lanes should be taken away. Parking spot removal, especially for the disabled should be minimized. The bike paths throughout Bay Farm need to be completely repaved.

No slow streets

Page 78 of 122 ends

124
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
Not enough details about the impact of adding new bike lanes, standard or buffered, on major 4 lane streets and how it will be mitigated, many of which are parallel and not far from one another. As with much of the plan, heavy on bicycling rather than walking and not addressing those who may have difficulties using one or the other or both. If climate is an issue here, where is the section on electric vehicle charging stations.

Oak Alameda bike bridge is good.

Overall it's good, but it seems that Bay Farm is sometimes forgotten compared to the main island Park & Webster need protected bike lanes.

Scrap the roundabouts.

Park & Webster street could really benefit from having some car free sections. people will still drive cars..we need better signal crosswalks for children Permanent barriers for slow streets
Planning and construction of the bike/ped bridge should be a bigger priority. As described here, nothing more than planning will happen in the next 8 YEARS. 8 YEARS!!!!!! Need to move faster.

Please identify the sidewalk gaps that should be filled, in the same way bicycle improvements have been mapped. Tilden Way or Main Street, for example, shouldn't receive any grant money for repaving unless they also get sidewalks, for example.

Prioritizing the cross alameda trail and estuary crossing on the west end (either bridge or water shuttle) should be more highly prioritized.

Project 11 (updating the existing, heavily‐used trails on Bay Farm makes total sense; we know people bike there, including a lot of kids. Any projects that keep modifying our busiest thoroughfares (Webster? Really?) are excessive. We have plenty of routes across the island.

Project added: Reduce the lanes of traffic on Otis Drive to one lane in each direction for the ENTIRE of Otis Dr.

Including Broadway to High st.
re: Number 3 Grand Street ‐ I am not sure how well I like redone intersection at Otis and Grand. It feels confusing to me as both a bicyclist and a car driver, but maybe I just need to ride it more and get used to it. I would be curious if you have received other feedback on this intersection update.

Remove #3, adding bike lanes to Grand Street. There may be others, but it requires a degree in civil engineering to interpret what you already have planned and expect to accomplish. "Low Stress Backbone" requires an orthopedic surgeon or chiropractic degree. Your terminology is not understandable.

Remove 3 and 9
Remove all existing bicycle lanes and prohibit cyclists from riding in the street(s).

Remove bike lanes on Webster and Park Street. You are creating gridlock. Remove San Jose from Neighborhood Greenway. San Jose has never had that much traffic...well until everybody started having everything delivered...and it does not need some giant conversion. Versailles is an ARTERY, the only street that actually gets people from the neighborhoods near Otis Dr. to the Miller‐Sweeney Bridge without rambling through the circular streets in the Fernside neighborhood. That bridge is going to be increasingly important. People could (and do) bike down Pearl Street. It is not fair to expect the people living on Broadway to carry all of the traffic in the entire area of the island east of Park Street.

The proposed roundabout at Tilden and Blanding is going to be an expensive traffic disaster that is going to be hard to undo.

Page 79 of 122 ends

125
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
Remove proposed Gibbons Drive. Gibbons Drive residents did not request it. It is outlandish that "others" have proposed Gibbons Drive to be a Neighborhood Greenway with only a few weeks notice since the Draft ATP was released to the public for comment. UNFAIR. Not how the CIty should conduct business without the direct input of residents.

Remove the Slow Streets. They've done what they're supposed to do. We don't need to have people walking down the middle of the street.

Replacement need everywhere.
rom a pedestrian standpoint Grand st is terrible, I would add the intersection of grand and Otis is a danger with left turning vehicles and pedestrians crossing at the same time, Add a dedicated left turn arrow would eliminate this issue, I don't think the cost for adding bikes lanes to the park st bridge is needed.

Seaview Parkway on Bayfarm has a fantastic opportunity for shared use path, however it is very poorly maintained and it is not clear what area is for peds and for bikes ‐ this is an easy opportunity for maintenance and marking to make a huge improvement to an already great asset.

See following comment
Separated bike lanes on Grand are unnecessary.

Some of the projects and areas are suffering from increasing crime, security issues and unhoused population increases. The project impact can be at risk unless addressed Some of these, such as Grand Street, really don't need a huge overhaul. Remember that many on the island do still use and need cars. I would like to see traffic calming measures without aggravating motorists. I love using the slow streets like Pacific to avoid Buena Vista and Lincoln traffic, but it needs repaving and better barriers. I have noticed more cars driving down it for long distances lately. speed the backbone implementation
Streets and traffic first.

That's looks 👍 to me neatly 💡!
The bike lanes that cross between Webster and Constitution are an accident waiting to happen, particularly with the automobile right turn lane crossing the bike lanes at the corner of Constitution. We've seen many near misses between the right turn into the shopping center and the right turn at Constitution.

The Lincoln Marshall project can't start fast enough. This project has been in planning for at least five years and Lincoln is a Tier 1 street for accidents. I don't understand postponing work for more study.

The Oakland‐Alameda bridge must not be built. A colossal waste of money to bring Oakland's crime problems into Alameda.

The pedestrian bridge across the estuary is a bid waste of limited resources. Who will use it? Blocks a lot of precious views of the estuary on both sides. Don’t do this.

The plan leaves few pedestrian access routes to Sweeney park ‐ a huge city asset that is only growing. Please continue to help kids and bikes get to Sweeney from many different parts of the island. The north/south connections contain tons of tough crossings and streets with narrow sidewalks where cars often speed (like Sherman and constitution)
The slow street concept is a failure and just pushes traffic onto neighboring streets. All of the slow streets have sidewalks and the streets usage by bicycles is not higher than neighboring streets.

There should be a complete network of physically separated bike lanes in all residential areas. Nobody should need to travel more than 2 or 3 blocks to join this network.

Page 80 of 122 ends

126
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
These things all sound and look great on paper. Alameda had a small town feel. It’s nice that there have been some improvements made and bikers have more places that they consider to be safe to ride but biker still don’t watch for cars or stop at lights or stop signs. Also, I don’t live on the East End so normally I wouldn’t care literally at all but if you can implement these changes without changing the look and feel of that neighborhood that would be great. Same thing for the older homes section of The Base. It is a charming neighborhood with character. Fix the old sidewalks and leave it alone.

This is a huge list. I'll call out three specifics, and one general piece of feedback.

I would prioritize areas where there is no real bicycle infrastructure: 1. Between Crab Cove and Alameda Point on the southwest side, 2. between Clement and Alameda point on the northeast side. And here, conventional bike lanes are better than nothing, so let's do something, even if it's not perfect! 3. Grand Street‐‐again, perfect is the enemy of good here. Implementing a solution with enhanced buffered bike lanes (or semi‐separated/protected), using raised lane separators or armadillos and periodic vertical lane markers/separators, would greatly enhance the bike lane while still preserving usability for residents‐‐striking a practical balance until we have the money to actually create a true cycle track at some point. And then overall‐‐‐the overall plan is good. And each element needs to be fully vetted out and discussed with key stakeholders, including the neighborhoods involved in each section. We want neighborhood support; sometimes this may mean a modification or hybridization of the doctrinaire or "perfect" design. As we used to say in my line of work, we'd rather have a strategy that is 75% perfect, but that 100% support, than an approach that is 100% perfect but that only 50% support.

Versailles is a cross street for the neighborhood. PEARL would make a much better slow street.

Lincoln Ave is a wide street that now will now be narrowed. Again wide streets allow for better vision.

Versailles should not be a slow street.

Walnut willow and eagle are being ignored by traffic calming, as a result they are getting a huge increase in angry speeders avoiding adjacent streets.

Reviewing previous traffic studies, it looks like these streets have been ignored. They are in dire need of radical traffic shaping as they are all full of small children pedestrians and angry drivers now. This combos is not good.

We need to have the Park Street/Oak Street Corridor completed before 2030. This area is a huge gap in the current infrastructure.

I am a huge fan of changing some streets to neighborhood greenways! While some may find it frustrating, I'm guessing it may make those streets more desirable to live on in the long term as well as safer in general.

We need to return the streets to drivers.

What happened to projects on Harbor Bay? We need infrastructure upgrades to sewers, streets , paths and landscape maintence to reflect the taxes we pay.

Wooden bridge should be fixed much sooner. I bet some plastic decking could be put over it with minimum effort and it would greatly improve it. The shoreline bike path may need to be widened if more people use it.

Also roundabouts should be included because they make biking and walking safer.

If the bridge over the estuary doesn’t get built a gondola might be a good cheaper alternative.

Would prefer to keep Santa Clara as a neighborhood greenway. And add traffic calming (speed cushions) to Orion, which can be there even when safer bike facilities are built.

Page 81 of 122 ends

127
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

10. If you said the 2030 Infrastructure Plan projects list needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see. Should any projects be added or removed?
Yeah, all the bike projects. Maybe you should make good roads for cars and separate streets for bikes. You guys are always just making it harder and harder to get around Alameda. And that was the number one issue....getting off the island.

You are building a lot in Alameda. You are narrowing roads and creating driving hazards. Otis and Grand is a disaster!
You are not adressing improving transport to and from the island and the many cars your new buildings are going to mean as the population continues to increase.

This used to be a calm place to live.

Transport wise, this is becoming a nightmare!!
You have already restricted Webster with a farmers market, reduced lanes for restaurants (not a bad idea) and there is no parking either. Where are you going to put the bike lanes? Need to put it on a alternate street. There is no more room to screw with Webster just like you wouldn't do that to Park street. Also, we cannot afford a Oakland ‐ Alameda bike bridge.

Page 82 of 122 ends

128
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

12. If you said the 2030 Low‐Stress Backbone Bicycle Network needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see.

Overall is fine, but highlights the point that the overall plan in general is too bike centric, please do not lose sight of pedestrian and transit users, who your own data show use our streets much more often.

1. Should add the Island Drive to harbor bay connector.

2. Add Westline Dr between Shoreline Dr and Central Ave. Without this connection those of us on the south end can’t get to Webster street or Alameda Point safely. The alternative is meandering through Crown Beach and Crab Cove, which are not good for transportation.

3. There should be one or two low stress facilities at Alameda Point like West Tower or main St to get to Spirits Alley and the Skate Park.

4. Willow street to Otis. Again for those of us on this end, we have few north‐south connectors and those should be low stress soon.

A lot of the proposed things don’t seem high priority or necessary. Really need to focus on maintenance, providing kids safe routes to school and more bike storage at schools. More crossing guards and flashing intersections.

A place that could use a protected bike lane would be to the Main Street Ferry, specifically between Pacific Avenue and the Main Street Ferry.

A shorter connection from the proposed Webster Bike lane to Shoreline would be amazing! Add in bike lanes on Otis Dr for the entire road. It's a main thoroughfare, why aren't you encouraging people to use bikes and scooters on Otis? Otherwise it looks like you know cars are speeding and bicyclists and scooters are in danger.

Again focused on youth
Again, I'd encourage the city to opt for more robust design treatments where possible. Speed cushions, buffered bike lanes and other infrastructure to slow traffic and enable safer pedestrian/cyclist commuting, would be ideal.

Another waste of space and creates unnecessary and unwanted traffic problems .As always, differently abled people and seniors are completely ignored.

Anything that can help folks from Bay Farm connect to the major areas of interest (High Schools, etc) should reduce alot of traffic.

Anything to make Park easier to cross or go down on a bicycle will be welcome!! As mentioned above, there should be separated, bike lanes to all ferry terminals, especially along main street to the main street, terminal and from Central to Sea Plane Lagoon along W. Pacific or thereabouts Bring more bikes and less cars (& car parking) to Park St ‐ it's for pedestrians and people ‐ don't make the bikes ride on Oak "in the back alley and out of view".
buffered/separated bike lanes on central Webster to Grand. cancel
Central Ave. improvements and Park St. need to be a bigger priority.

Commendable but unrealistic.

Definitely need clarity on the Park/Oak st segment. This is one of the more challenging segment to address, but also likely the most impactful.

Do not build walkway into Bay 37 community.

Page 83 of 122 ends

129
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

12. If you said the 2030 Low‐Stress Backbone Bicycle Network needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see.

Enforce the speed limit along Otis Drive, especially between Park Street and High Street. Stop the speeders! Increase the Alameda Police Force. Bring back the 5 motorcycle officers/motorcycles. Issue speeding tickets! Reduce all of Otis Drive to one lane in each direction for vehicle travel. for the TBD lanes on Park or Oak, I'd like to see Park be shut down to car between Encinal and Lincoln. Many larger cities have done this with great success, and businesses still thrive‐ but the reduction in double parking, bad driving behaviors on what should be a shared pediestrian/bike space is eliminated.

Getting all the schools and sports areas on the backbone is critical for traffic safety and reduction.

Good start
Grand is a wide street and doesn't need a separated bike lane. Webster cannot support parklets and a separated bike lane unless you have full time enforcement of double parking Grand Street (#3) is a key part of the backbone but that plan was gutted by city council. I'd love to see an implementation exactly as mapped, but it's hard to take the plan seriously if council members will simply ignore staff recommendations in favor of the status quo. Painted bike lanes are insufficient and can never contribute to a low‐stress network.
harbor bay parkway from Doolittle to Maitland shows a shared separate bike/pedestrian pathway. This pathway is poorly maintained. As a consequence of the condition of the path, bicyclist ride on the road way as an alternative. There is no bicycle lane line and many drivers exceed the speed limit, especially during morning commute hour. The map leads the reader to believe there is a low stress bike path, but the reality is quite different.

Have bicyclists be safe and use Grand to cross the Island.

Honestly looks amazing. One more cross island path would be great. Along with traffic calming through out the island
I can’t use a bicycle‐ I need to drive and I’m stuck in traffic in Alameda! There used to be no traffic and now it’s horrible. Who is responsible for this nightmare?
I do not think bikes should be routed onto Park, given pedestrian density.

I don’t think bicycles should have the power over autos I prefer biking on dedicated bike lanes than a side‐street with random cars backing up.

I see a lot of proposed class 3 neighborhood greenways but even after reading the description, I don't know if these substantively change anything‐‐is it just painting sharrows on the roadway? I think it is a bit too reliant on neighborhood greenways. I would prefer to see more dedicated cycling/pedestrian infrastructure
I wish we could add some kind of trail or connection between Towata park and Bayview dr on Otis. Right now tons of cyclists just ride on the sidewalk for that small section of Otis. It’s such a small distance, it seems like a simple win given how popular it is.

I wish you respected the needs of drivers as well as bikers. Leave one wide street for cars, please....Lincoln.Page 84 of 122 130
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

12. If you said the 2030 Low‐Stress Backbone Bicycle Network needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see.

I would like to see better cycling paths/routes from the Bay Farm Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge to the proposed neighborhood greenway on Bayview Drive. This is an awkward section to ride and I do it almost every day.

Also we need a better plan for connecting Oak Street to South Shore Center for bicycles.

I would like to see additional infrastructure in Bay Farm as part of the low‐stress backbone network. Including a connection from Island Drive to the Business Park and a connection from Maitland Drive to the Ferry Terminal.

That street may be useful to consider as a semi‐gateway street since a lot of people use it for commuting off the island.

I would like to see Lincoln Ave as the east‐west neighborhood greenway rather than switch from Lincoln to Pacific at Park St. It seems more dangerous for cyclists to have to make those turns, and Lincoln has more businesses that could benefit from the extra bike traffic.

I would love to see the Central Ave bike lane continue west of Sherman, closing the existing gap. Central Ave is a great arterial because it is mid‐island (thus providing a central east‐west option between the proposed Pacific and San Jose greenways) and is shaded for most of its length (unlike Santa Clara!!).

I would make Central go all across the island.

I would put something class 4 on 9th St between Central and Shoreline. There's a very wide sidewalk in some sections, maybe continue it on down?
Additional N/S connecters should be:
* around St. Charles
* around (southern) 5th St.

More is needed on the Point.

I’d love to see something more like the existing full loop that has a protected bike lane down the middle of the island as well rather than only at the edges.

Generally just want to make sure the orange greenways really are legitimate keeping people safe and not just making people “feel” safe while putting them in danger from drivers. Make them hard to drive down in a straight line, have rumble strips if they try to pass someone, etc.

I'd like those calm streets to have permanent barriers to discourage cars I'd like to see a fully dedicated bike lane connecting directly to Edison Elementary School from other dedicated bike paths/lanes (e.g. on Lincoln & Versailles) vs Neighborhood Greenways.

I'm not sure about separated bike lane on Pacific. I am at 400 block of Pacific and we have no parking as is, I don't know if there is room for a bike lane. But do need something to handle traffic between Island High and the Academy on school days.

In the great cities of the world, they reduce congestion and traffic by moving people together in groups using public transit. Regardless of what you think, our public transit in Alameda is poor. It would make more sense to improve public transit than the tear up roads and pretend that people do not have to get places in less than several hours. I would love to see a streetcar to Fruitvale Bart. I would use that. I am in my 60s with an autoimmune disorder. You should not expect me to bike down any of these new corridors soon.

Page 85 of 122 ends

131
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

12. If you said the 2030 Low‐Stress Backbone Bicycle Network needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see.

Include Mckay and Westline in the backbone. We need to see Webster and Park with protected bike lanes. These are critical north south corridors.

It does not go far enough. This is not low enough stress. If it's not safe enough for elementary students to ride to school and back, then it needs to go further.

There should be a complete network of physically separated bike lanes in all residential areas. Nobody should need to travel more than 2 or 3 blocks to join this network.

It should also includes ensuring that Otis Dr (between Park St and High St) is safer for bikers (including students to Otis School) which is not the case at the moment
Just expand the bike trails. Separate bikes from cars as much as possible. They don’t mix. No pedestrian bridge anywhere.

Keep expanding separated lanes and deincentivize car trips. Congestion (making trips longer and more bothersome for drivers) is a good thing for overall safety! If a city like Paris can go all in on converting trips from cars to bikes in the span of the pandemic, surely Alameda can too. People won't bike as intended if they don't feel safe, please don't go go one foot in, one foot out on this plan.

Less shared paths and more protected bike lanes
Like it overall, but same reaction as for question 11:

More 4 way stop signs on Broadway
More more more 🙂
Most of these would cost more than the benefit they provide. Please be more careful when spending other peoples money for what you have decided will benefit them.

Mostly good. Webster is a done deal. There is no more room unless you REMOVE all of the in street dining and get rid of all the weird concrete abutments you put out into the street. It is not wide enough. Needs a MAJOR rework. You also need parking availability on Webster... just like the parking garage you put off Park by the theatre.

N/A
Need a low stress connecting Littlejohn and Franklin parks ‐ use Benton. Low stress does not need straight lines people can walk and bike using some cone timing streets.

Need better north south routes, with safe, fast, predictable crossings across central, encinal, etc

Page 86 of 122 ends

132
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

12. If you said the 2030 Low‐Stress Backbone Bicycle Network needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see.

Need more room for drivers. Hardly see many bikes or pedestrians. Do actual study on this please.

Need more separated bike lanes. And by separated, I mean like we have on Fernside b/n BFI Bridge and LMS, *not* what we have on Shoreline. At least 1/3 of my rides on Shoreline include at least one scary encounter where some idiot drives into the bike lane while making a u‐turn, parking, or just plain driving on the bike lane.

Need to add bike lane from pacific to shoreline in the Eighth street. This is the way to get over to the crab cone from central alameda and it is very dangerous on a bike.

Needs improved paths and better connectivity on Bay Farm None of it should be implemented. It will contribute to more congestion and the city does not seem to be interested in people who cannot ride a bike or walk very far.

Not agreeing that Oak St. Is a place for any bike path. It’s very narrow and congested not in favor
Not needed.

Not requested by Fernside residents. Why are "others" able to force changes to Fernside who do not live on Fernside?
Not sure‐ did not seem complete
Noted in the answer to question 10.

Otis Drive should be part of the network. Seems like there is a North/South gap between Nineth and Grand.

Park street needs a separate bike lane, as well as the entire Mecartney road where cars go very fast in the morning and the road is bumpy (especially east end)
Park street will be even more of a disaster if bike lanes are added. Have you ever driven down Park street? Especially after they took 2 lanes away and added outdoor seating? This is simply not practical and seems like whoever came up with this idea has never seen the street.

Please please make this happen
please restrict or discourage car traffic in problematic areas (e.g. Morton Street etc. around Franklin Park) and other similar locations.

Please see my other comments
Please take San Jose off of the Slow Streets/Low Stress Network. It has two schools on that street, neither of which are considered neighborhood schools, which makes it difficult for parents to get their kids to school. It is a major street to get from one end of the island to Grand St. It also has a lot of single family, multi‐family, and apartments on that street, so not the best street to try to stop congestion on because of the many cars and delivery vans that need to access that street.

Same comment as above, would add Eastshore to the plan.

See above
See above. We need more enforcement of current laws and a local shuttle.

See comments on 10.

Separated bike lanes are much safer than paint only bike lanes.

Several north‐south connections missing. Westline, Sherman to connect to Jean Sweeney Park, more in central Alameda such as Willow toward Park.

Shared‐use paths are not low‐stress. If you made them 12 or 15 feet wide it would help to enable bicycles, rollerbladers, dog walkers and other pedestrians to more comfortably use them, but separating actual pedestrians from faster‐moving vehicles would be even better.

Slow streets are no longer effective.

So good!

Page 87 of 122 ends

133
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

12. If you said the 2030 Low‐Stress Backbone Bicycle Network needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see.

Some of the projects and areas are suffering from increasing crime, security issues and unhoused population increases. The project impact can be at risk unless addressed Streets and traffic first.

That's all you need.

That's looks 👌 and more thinking positively and more moves on with it as well as more focuses on this more importantly is more improvement on that! But looks good ways on that! Accepts it!
The "shared path" on Bay Farm should be extended the entire length of the lagoon past the shopping center and over to Robert Davey Drive.

Also, please minimize the distraction on city streets of over‐kill on striping, multiple colors, signs painted on the ground, signs on poles.

The network looks fabulous, but please, let's get this in place by 2024...not 2030! The three major ways on and off the island Webster, Park, and the road leading to Miller Sweeney bridge are very narrow road as they are. By adding separate bike lanes the traffic will be further backed up. Building separate bike over pass is the real solution with more and more development being built on the island.

There should be signage for education purposes. Wherever new infrastructure is out in (ex: which button to push for bike crossing to jean sweeny‐ someone had to tell me) There’s a missing east‐west route between the two commercial strips. Encinal or central should have protected or buffered lanes
There's no changes proposed for Bay Farm !!
This looks fantastic, and I hope the approach is more solid than the current slow streets signs. Not included here, but I'd like to see additional four‐way stops along the routes like Pacific in situations where the slow street bicyclists have a stop and cross traffic does not. Crossing that fast‐moving traffic with limited visibility is not low stress for anyone, especially children or inexperienced cyclists.

This looks great overall. Please separate bikes and pedestrians whenever possible. Shared paths don't work well for either, particularly when so many people are using headphones. Only combine paths when absolutely necessary due to space constraints.

Page 88 of 122 ends

134
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

12. If you said the 2030 Low‐Stress Backbone Bicycle Network needs changes, please describe the changes you’d like to see.

This looks like a really good grid. Could help me and my kids much more safely and comfortably reach the places we currently go on bike. Would also give me much more confidence to let them ride their own bikes to school and elsewhere someday.

Given that this relies on the neighorhood greenways so much, it's going to be very important to make major changes where those cross larger roads. This entire plan would be a bit of a waste if you're directing less skilled cyclists to use their minor roads but then leave them waiting for all the cars when they need to cross Lincoln or High (or any of the other arterials). Please consider marking on this map the intersections that will get cyclist crossing treatments ‐‐ or consider making an additional map that focuses just on the intersections that need to be redesigned.

I do think there's a "desire line" right there between Webster/RAMP and the Target shopping center that should be met. Same from Webster/Central down McKay.

A question: What does "Webster phased approach to ultimate separated bike lane" mean? A rhetorical question: Why is Caltrans putting a bike lane on Encinal Ave later this year (or next year?) that doesn't fit the criteria of this safe cycling network? Maybe the City of Alameda can't change that ‐‐ but please do regularly remind your counterparts at Caltrans that their bike/ped designs could be so much better. What a waste of money to build bike/ped things that are 10 or 15 years behind best practices...

Too many new lanes. I think looking and studying traffic patterns might be also very helpful Way to much modification and significant impact on vehicular traffic and neighborhood transit We need a slow street connecting san jose and pacific
We need to go back to being a normal city.

What does this mean?
Where neighborhood greenways cross larger roads, they should get signalized intersections that automatically detect people on bicycles. Too many existing slow streets have dangerous, unsignalized crossings without even any marked crosswalks (Pacific and Grand, for example).

Why are you putting Bike Lanes on the Streets that are most heavily trafficked by automobiles? It doesn’t make any sense if a you claim safety is an issue.

Why doesn't Pacific Ave bike lanes continue all the way to the Seaplane ferry? Why isn't Otis on the Low‐Stress network?
Why isn't the bike lane from Sea Plan lagoon onto Pacific not contiguous? I have an issue with bike lanes to nowhere. We need dedicated bike lanes even more on Alameda Point.

Would prefer more buffered lanes over "protected" lanes as I find the protected ones more restrictive. Buffered lanes make it easier to merge into traffic to make left turns and such while still providing enough space to feel safe.

You're dreaming.

Page 89 of 122 ends

135
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? * The treatments here look great and should be widely implemented beyond just the existing slow streets. Stuff like raised crosswalks? Do it everywhere, please!
* That said, I do wonder if the proposed treatments will be adequate to dissuade car traffic vs the temporary barricades.

Absolutely won’t work. We have plenty of signage and sharrows that don’t work now. Only way to realistically create a proper slow street is to prohibit vehicles unless local.

Absolutely, we should prioritize the NGs, but I'm curious what proactive measures will be taken to ensure cars choose other roads to drive down. I appreciate the removal of the temporary barriers, but what will replace them to discourage drivers? And if drivers do choose or need to drive down a NG, how will we ensure they will do so slowly and with caution, giving priority to pedestrians and cyclists? Add roundabouts to two areas on Bay Farm to enhance traffic movement. #1:Mecartney and Island drive and #2: the 3way stop at Melrose, Maitland, and Mecartney.

Add transverse streets to plan, such as walnut and willow. Slow streets make angry drivers adjacent.

Add stop lights, crosswalks, traffic shaping (planters), slow signs, and pedestrian priority signs on small "angry shortcut" alleys intersecting slow streets such as walnut.

Make walnut willow not high traffic angry "shortcut"through streets using selective road closure (e. g. Not connecting to Beuna Vista or Lincoln)
Again ‐ get real. Alameda is not Disneyland; we are a bedroom community. The auto is here to stay; stop discriminating.
agree with the approach
Agreed that the Slow Streets were a great rapid response during the pandemic. They're overdue for changes, although I totally understand that it takes time.

My family uses San Jose Ave to bike across the island. Would love to see that become a full bike boulevard with intersection/crossing treatments.

I'd be fine with either Versailles or Pearl becoming the north/south bike boulevard. Can see the advantages of how Versailles already has four‐way stop at Encinal and some other crossings.

Please look into doing neighborhood traffic circles ‐‐ not just along the Slow Streets but also along the nearby streets that may see slightly increased thru‐traffic as a result All looks good to me! Impressive!
All slow streets should be eliminated. When I drive around town, I am probably the only person that does not drive down the streets. I turn right or left all the other cars go straight. I have seen so many near misses when cars turn right and they have to go around the barrier and there is a car going through.

It is very unfair to the other streets that are take in the extra traffic so some have the luxury of a "slow street." There was a need when the pandemic hit, but it is no longer needed. To pick and choose a few streets is so unfair. We have parks and open areas that people can use now. It is time to close that chapter.

All streets are the same to me align the traffic lights with the flow of cars.

All streets should be slow streets. Loud cars and motorcycles should be banned.

Page 90 of 122 ends

136
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? Anything that is better is good. But we need more slow streets and even roads with no cars! Anything that keeps drivers under 30 and off of side streets I’m all for.

Anything that resembles shoreline drive needs to be re‐examined and redesigned. Seems much less safe and usable since the recent changes.

As a frequent user of slow street via bicycle, I can say that it won't make too much of a difference if they return to bicycle boulevards or class II or III bike routes. The slow streets benefits the residents with kids who play on that street the most, it is less of a transportation matter in my opinion.

As a West End Santa Clara Ave resident, I will miss the Slow Streets status, and am worried about the car traffic turning bad once the Slow Streets barriers are removed, especially since Central will be getting a road diet. I fear many cars may turn to Santa Clara Ave as their preferred route. I would like the traffic consequences observed closely after this transition, and traffic calming measures considered if it results in increased traffic and/or speeding.

As I have already said, Versailes is a community cross street for cars. Please look at Pearl instead. Please consider involving people who live on these streets make choices about their streets.

As I’ve stated, the city is focusing way too much on bike‐cycle accessibility. How are these bike lanes going to help me get off the island quicker, especially given the fact that Alameda is increasing housing? Shutting these medians of traffic off from car use or even limiting them is troubling. Traffic is just going to get worse which means more emissions and therefore worse for the environment AS long as there is proper calming method. The barricades right now are not doing enough. Cars, in high traffic period, are still using these streets to cross the city faster.

Adding speed cushion, elevated cross walks, diverters, signs and monitoring.

As per the plan, I strongly feel that the "Neighborhood Greenway" of San Jose should extend farther than the current slow street that ends at Park St.

As someone who lives on a slow street AND uses other slow streets to bike around with two small children, I am beyond excited about this plan. Please consider paving these new neighborhood greenways, Versailles, San Jose and pacific has some major sections of road with huge potholes which makes it hard to ride around. (Our most used section of Versailles between San Jose and Calhoun is terrible and the only part of Versailles that has not been replaced in the recent future)
As with the permit process, I think you should do personal outreach and canvass the people who own and live on these Streets, not depend on this survey. In addition, still need to analyze the impact and mitigation needs, both specific to the proposed slow streets or green ways but also as a whole with the many other proposed changes.

Before you change neighborhoods why not fix the sidewalks on Gibbons. My wife and I no longer walk ther because the sidewalks are unsafe. Maybe fixing existing problems before creating new ones would be helpful Best to listen to residents on those streets.
bike only streets
Bring back slow streets but for commercial areas and create walking districts. These are the best types of places to visit for shopping and dining.

By its nature, Slow Streets presumes there are Fast Streets. I'd prefer the City spend its money and resources on reducing speeds and making fast streets like Lincoln safer, rather than making already slow streets slower. I'm sure its nice for the Slow Street neighborhoods, but at its heart, it smells like favoritism Cameras might help slow streets for drivers who still remain unsafe on slow streets.

Do not build walkway into Bay 37 community.

Page 91 of 122 ends

137
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? Do not have traffic circles. Remove all slow streets, they are not needed now and only cause disruption to getting to where you need to go.

Don’t know
Eliminate them.

Eliminate them.

End the Slow Streets program.

Enthusiastic yes
Every slow street I encounter is not being used. why create something that will never be used.

Focus on improvements where Slow Streets cross arteries and corridors.

Get rid of slow streets. this is not 2020 anymore, move on.

Get rid of the barriers. Asap. Don’t wait for something new to be installed. It’s been years, you’ve had long enough.

Get rid of the unsightly barricades which force traffic to drive on the wrong side of the street to get around.

Replace with numerous speed humps.

Get rid of them!!!
Getting rid of the hideous barricades would be an improvement, and allowing local traffic back if they drive slowly seems like a much better idea. But I still think Pearl makes much more sense than Versailles for this designation. Block off Pearl for cars from Fernside and use that instead. If the issue is that flashing crossing of Fernside at Versailles, just put good signage having bikes turn from Versailles at Buena Vista and then onto Pearl.

And honestly, not that many bikes turn from Fernside onto Versailles anyway.

Good idea
Great approach! I would love to see speed bumps, each with a slot to accommodate bicylces.

How many bicycles are we talking about to justify the costs? I 100% agree with this. Current system does not have much rhyme or reason, and helps adjacent residents only.

Most are in SFH districts in any case, again perpetuating inequalities in access to pedestrian amenities.

I agree all barricades should come down as the intention of slow streets is not being currently effective. Not sure why Versailles would need to have calming measures but understand around Edison school. San Jose is a complete mess now with barricades and not sure what proposals will be made but this is a major through fare across the island. Pacifc Is very quiet and should also be taken off as a slow street.

Page 92 of 122 ends

138
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? I agree that Greenways are important. As infrastructure, however, they must be efficient to provide value. The proposal to make Lincoln and Pacific Greenways would form a broken line (at Park Street, no less). This will heavily discourage use. Low use means low efficacy, i.e. low return on investment. I would like to see a more radical approach to Greenway planning, such as Central Avenue. It would provide a backbone for trans‐island bicycle commuting with minimal impact to commercial access. It's wide enough to continue to support parallel automobile traffic (albeit with a lane reduction). De‐emphasis as an automobile route would require promoting the favorability of an alternative, such as Lincoln Avenue (this could be achieved by developing the avenue into a parkway, as an example).

Regardless of how it is achieved, the key takeaway is that Greenways should be considered major infrastructure.

Retrofitting side streets (especially disjointed, indirect routes) will not precipitate a substantial shift in the mode of inter‐island transport.

I agree with this approach.

I am fine with transitioning Pacific, San Jose and Versailles to Neighborhood Grrenways. I would like the Santa Clara Slow Street designation removed sooner rather than later. I live on this street and am afraid to walk on the Slow Street because so many cars and trucks ignore the barricades altogether. Additionally, it has driven traffic over to 100‐200 Lincoln, where drivers routinely run the stop signs as they think Santa Clara is blocked off. It’s a mess.

I am so glad the barriers are going away. I prefer no speed bumps… I get sharp back pain (herniated disk) on the ones going into the Lincoln park parking lot. The rest of the plan seems fine.

I appreciate the Slow Street barricades being removed since people don't obey them anyway, but I'm not sure the greenways are going to feel comfortable to bike on with small children even with the propsoed treatments. It is scary when there is oncoming traffic and they are biking in the middle of the street. Every effort should be made to reduce traffic and speeds on these roads.

I cannot speak to the two slow streets being removed but I think it would be good to know more why they were selected to be discontinued.

I love the greenway project and fully support the streets that will be retained (I am also a resident of one). The greenway project is urgently needed in our flat, small‐town, family‐focused city.

I can't tell where on Pacific, San Jose and Versailles the neighborhood greenways are. I liked the concept of slow streets and would like to see something like them in the future I do, but I would like to see Santa Clara included. It took a little getting used to, but I think it works well as a slow street.

Page 93 of 122 ends

139
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? I hate the Slow Streets program with a passion. Every single time I have to go somewhere, I curse this plan. You have privileged some residents over others, giving them their own private streets. Other residents, those on Broadway, Clinton, Pearl etc then have to take the bulk of the extra traffic. You have also declared those of us for whom biking is not an option to be the enemy. That is not how you go about effecting lasting change in a community. I will leave it to the people around Pacific to speak for themselves, but Versailles is an artery needed by people in the neighborhoods around it to get on and off the island and San Jose is the only street that goes directly from Fernside to Franklin Park without dealing with the congested nightmare of Encinal Avenue...which I am guessing you plan to reduce to two lanes. Neither street should be turned into a greenway.

Just exactly how much support ‐ outside of the very vocal members of Bike Walk Alameda ‐ do you actually have for this plan. When last asked, a majority of respondents wanted the Slow Streets to go away immediately or after another year. A majority did not ask you to turn three of those streets into permanent slow streets.

I like having it be more explicit that the roads are not to be used as thru streets; that drivers should really avoid those streets. I'm not sure if the bike boulevard approach is that explicit.

I like it better than slow streets baricades
I like the idea of Pacific and San Jose as bike boulevards.

I like the implementation of slow streets.

I like these in Berkeley, but I fear it will force more vehicles onto adjacent streets or for those that ignore the slow street language, dirty looks and a false sense of security from non‐car users will lead to confrontations‐‐all difficult to enforce.

I like this approach of transitioning Slow Streets to Neighborhood Greenways for the 3 proposed streets.

I likke Pacicifc ave as a slow street, needs to add stop signs on cross streets such as Chestnut, don't think San Jose is a good street for a slow street as well as Versailles.

I love the slow streets approach and future greenways. As Alameda becomes more built up we have a greater need for greenways and green places
I love the slow streets. We should be keeping the barricades. And we should keep Santa Clara as a protected street.

I love the slow streets.

I advocate for a slow street mid main island running perpendicular to San Jose and pacific.

I see many thru traffic cars on Versailles slow street near Edison. Roadblocks ignored.

I support the bike lanes and traffic calming/ road diet engineering. I'm not really a fan of closing the streets completely because it creates a division within the city. Why are some streets chosen for street closure as opposed to others? Also, I think it creates confusion for some vehicles who may have to ride down the street for delivery or for the distribution of other goods and services.

I support transitioning to the use of different traffic calming methods. While I wholeheartedly support infrastructure that encourages safe and easy bicycle and pedestrian access, barricades on these streets are not very equitable, eg. why can't my street have barricades? Dedicated Neighborhood Greenways (eg. Shafter Ave in Oakland with roundabouts) strike a good balance between bike and vehicle access.

I support turning them into greenways but we shouldnt remove any slow streets. There should be more slow streets. There are great. People need to stop driving and slow down when they do drive.

I think either Versailles or Broadway should be a slow street to safely commute to fruitvale Bart station I think greenways are the way to go. I would even go further and place barriers at intersections that prevent automobiles from traveling straight while allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to travel straight.

Page 94 of 122 ends

140
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? I think it is time for slow streets to retire. I don’t feel a need for transitioning them to greenways. Repainting exiting bike route signs and crosswalks should happen.

I think it really all comes down to the traffic diversion strategies put into place. In Portland, shared streets and neighborhood greenways are nearly indistinguishable from one another.

I do think removing the slow‐streets designation from Orion and Santa Clara is a mistake, though. Even some kind of "soft" barricade, like the large concrete planters that Portland has been installing, would make those streets more hospitable to pedestrians and cyclists, and reduce cut‐through traffic:
https://bikeportland.org/2021/07/29/pbot‐will‐install‐80‐concrete‐barricades‐to‐make‐safe‐streets‐more‐ permanent‐335767
I've traveled down Santa Clara on my bike plenty over the years and have seen my fair share of bad behavior from drivers.

I think it’s fine to keep these streets slow, but you must plan for the additional car traffic on adjoining streets like Buena Vista and Lincoln.

I think it's a great idea, but unless we have by default, modal filters (traffic diverters) tabletops, and traffic circles as part of the default implementation plan, I don't see them reducing traffic enough to make them safe NGs.

Let's not fight over each specific treatment for every block. Let's change the process to meet our challenges! I think keeping safeties and calming elements to those streets would be great, especially ones that make it much harder to speed in those sections (which people do already) I think permanent barricades would be more effective, but otherwise yes.

I think slow streets don't make sense unless they connect in a way to make a riding path through Alameda. It doesn't make sense to have them as isolated slow streets otherwise.

I think that's ok, but even with the barricades, cars occasionally zoom down the block, so will the "traffic calming" really be effective? Please don't make it like Berkeley where some roads just stop and you can't drive through. Maybe speed bumps and something similar to the current barricades that you can go past in a car if you need to.

I think the barricades have been a failure since they allow people to cross blocks on a slow street.

Taking out Santa Clara seems really odd: it's useful for an E/W connector, and I often saw it in use by bikes/peds during commute hours.

I suspect you'll have to raise some of the street pavement or narrow the streets to Willow St width to slow people down. Repave with the bumpy bricks. Add lots of trees. A lot of work is going to be needed to make cars continually go slow. It might be easier to add more barricades at the street crossings! Of the methods given, turn restrictions are probably the most effective for keeping traffic from racing through. If that is something like through street restrictions. Most of those streets are so wide, that you're going to have some serious work to signal to cars that they should go slower. More barriers in the middle of the block would help. Dig up the center of the street and turn it into a 6' opening and put in oak trees.

I think the barriers should be maintained and made permanent and bigger. Like some I see in Berkeley. Unless you actually close the street to traffic you will still get idiots racing down streets like Versailles at way over 25 mph. It happens now even with the barriers as they do not look serious enough.

Page 95 of 122 ends

141
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? I think the current signage and enforcement amount to lip service. Through traffic goes along San Jose all the time and rarely at the reduced speed required. Hoping to see San Jose and Saint Charles added to the greenway list as well.

I think the greenways should go even further: in addition to traffic calming and other design improvements, the most dangerous intersections should prohibit car traffic entirely. For instance, there is no need for drivers to have the option to use Versailles as a north‐south route ‐‐ cars should be blocked from turning onto Versailles from Encinal. We should be more actively dissuading drivers from using these streets by taking away any cause for them to do so outside of local destinations.

I think the real problem is addressing drivers speeding constantly through neighborhood streets. I've biked through one of these slow streets and noticed most drivers dont care if its classified as a "slow street" they continue driving at speeds above 25 mph+. Would be nice if the city can remedy this by issuing more speeding tickets and more speeding deterrence measures.

I think the Slow streets if made permanent will have the effect of pushing traffic onto neighboring streets to their detriment. I think Slow streets should be a moveable feast in that each neighborhood should be the recipient of this advantageous element. Schedule each area for 6 months or a year and make this plan truly equitable.

I think the street selection seemed thoughtful and data‐driven. I'm very happy that Alameda is the type of city that embraced this innovative approach to meet resident need during a difficult period, and then decided to integrate it for the longterm. Being a resident near one of these slow streets, I'd encourage the city to consider really robust infrastructure to reinforce the status of the street. When walking or cycling with young children on the street, I've noticed motorists who clearly aren't residents on the block itself accelerating dangerously down the street. With temporary barriers, I believe some neighbors who prefer driving on the street moving them when possible. I hope the city can commit to these valuable new assets to the community and implement them in a way that actually improves safety and improves the quality of life in our community.

I think this is a good solution, but Santa Clara should be included.

I think this is great and should go further. Neighborhood Greenways should provide dedicated space for bicycles in favor of traffic and parking lanes. Consider providing "1.5" lanes of car travel space so that local traffic must go slow and take turns if/when passing (which should not occur often on a low volume street) giving favor to dedicated and protected bicycle/scooter space.

Once the "Street Closed" signs are removed, Google Maps and other apps will start routing lots of drivers through these connectors again, and they don't care to read signs or be polite ‐ a barrier is the true way to reduce this stress for cyclists and children.

I think this is the right approach. The Slow Streets program has been such a huge benefit to the affected neighborhoods.

I think this is the wrong approach. Stupid and unnecessary are the words that come to mind. You are sacrificing and inconveniencing drivers for something that isn’t necessary. There are never people out on the streets you are making slow neighborhoods. What is the point?
I think this sounds good.

I walk the slow streets but never on the street itself, on the sidewalks. I don't see a need for them. There are already traffic calming, called stop signs on them.

I worry removing the barricades completely will just mean increased traffic ‐ especially for streets that feed to stop sign crossings that are easier for cars such as Versailles and Encinal. Curious if there’s a way to keep a small remnant of the sign but permanently (eg 1‐2 concrete poles similar to what’s done in Berkeley but smaller scale… so cars can still easily drive around but it slightly slows them)

Page 96 of 122 ends

142
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? I would encourage a very liberal use of speed humps. The ones that currently exist on Bayview Dr. make a huge difference in terms of safety and keeping cars from speeding.

I would have preferred to keep Slow Streets
I would like Santa Clara returned as a car friendly street.

I would like to see more impediments to automotive traffic using these streets ‐ if not the barricade, then other structures that really inconvenience drivers from using these streets.

I would prefer cars not be allowed on slow streets (unless they are people who live on that street).

I would prefer to keep the slow streets as they are, with barricades.

I would rather see streets that prohibit cars entirely, but I don't see the community liking that so I think this is a good compromise.

Ideally I would choose streets with more park‐like settings (think Encinal between Fernside and High, Chochenyo park area, Gibbons) and streets that border existing parks like Krusi. I realize though, that the streets that were chosen are more ideal for transportation and connection, vs walking/biking for pleasure and exercise.

If you remove Santa Clara west of Webster as slow streets, it won't be as safe for cyclists. That road is used by kids going to Encinal High and other west end schools. There won't be any slow streets on the West End. What's the rationale for removing this slow street?
I'm concerned that removing the barriers will increase the flow of traffic. A lot of the Greenway changes are about making it more bicycle friendly and less about discouraging cars, other than the speed humps. I don't know the solution but I think some kind of additional discouragement similar to the barriers would be good.

I'm concerned that Slow Streets creates a false sense of safety for bicyclists. We currently use San Jose as a slow street, but quite often cars will swerve around the barricades, speeding down the street, completely ignoring that it is a designated slow street. Hoping that greenway improvements will help with this.

In general, I'm a big fan of this concept. If these are done well, they can balance practicality with an appealing place to ride, making it more likely that people use bikes and walking to get around Alameda. This isn't guaranteed, however. From experiences in other cities, e.g. the bicycle boulevards in Berkeley, these efforts can be next‐to useless if not done thoughtfully, but can be quite effective when the city engineers them carefully to actively divert traffic elsewhere. Careful planning needs to be done at cross streets, and the design of the streets itself should discourage speeders. Under the current "slow streets" people regularly ignore barricades, speed, and even brag about it on a certain local social media platform like it's a badge of honor. Traffic calming designs can deal with this. Overall, I love this approach, and think it should be a high priority, but it needs to be engineered somewhat aggressively — some signs and a coat of paint will not achieve the goal of safety for all.

One problem point that will need careful attention is the complex intersection of Versailles, Central and Gibbons.

I don't have a brilliant solution, but that's a frequent place of near‐misses, high speeds (on Central) and challenging visibility.

In my experience, the slow street on Santa Clara has become considerably less safe in 2022, with drivers moving around the barriers in unexpected ways and backing out of driveways as though the street is always empty. transition to bicycle boulevards for the other streets is reasonable approach It depends on how this will look when complete. Will this be too colorful or change the look of neighborhoods.

We can modernize Alameda without such imposition.

Page 97 of 122 ends

143
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? It is, but it doesn’t go far enough. *All* streets parallel to the current slow streets that aren’t major thoroughfares should have the same traffic calming put in place. I live on San Jose and welcome the proposed traffic calming but drivers are just going to tear down Clinton instead.

It’s ok. I wish there were more dead ends to prevent cars zooming through. it's ok but I would consider more aggressive methods to get cars off these roads like Berkeley dead end street It's OK. I'd like to see the analysis of Pearl St. vs. Versailles Ave before stating a firm opinion.

Jury is still out. I am seeing more people ignore that and drive block to block on the safe streets. It is a good idea.

Santa Clara is one of the best cross town paths but now with the one along the estuary opening up and the one along the shoreline (if you swept it more often) then Santa Clara can be a secondary.

Keep Santa Clara and Orion as slow streets. Block intersections on slow streets, similar to Berkeley's Bicycle Boulevards.

Looks good.

Looks great! Definitely should discourage cars on Slow Streets. Would like to see more Slow Streets on the West End of Alameda as well
Loooks good. the sooner the better for closing Pacific to traffic.

Love the Slow Streets Program. Should probably post a maximum speed so there is a way to enforce SLOW Streets.

Love this plan. If any adjustments could be made, it would be to add steel bollards or cement planters to prevent car crossings in some high risk intersections, or to adjust the flow of traffic to 1‐way along some of the greenway street segments.

Love this, wish we could more ( esp for Santa Clara as it’s a school route) )
Mini roundabouts should be added to intersections.

Missing access to schools
More more more slow streets. More permanent bicycle/pedestrian safety measures.

More STOP SIGNS. Painted crosswalks and flashers are helpful, but stop signs need to be seriously considered at all intersections with neighborhood greenways. Cyclists and pedestrians should not feel like they are in a game of chicken while crossing an unprotected intersection.

No
NO ‐ it is not right. Slow Streets and Greenways and traffic calming methods are an imposition and major burden on the owners and residents of the affected streets. My private property is adversely affected when the City has invited and encouraged people not from my street to bring their dogs to do their business, leave their litter, make noise, pick my flowers, and impose themselves on me. Why can't people walk along the shore or go to a park or walk on their own street?
No i do not. Traffic calming should be spread out on many of the other streets in Alameda. These streets are very low as frequently traveled streets and don't need the traffic calming as much as several other streets in town.

No‐ it feels inequitable and prioritizes the needs of only certain residents.

No opinion. It’s fine as is or would be fine removing entirely.

No slow streets.

Page 98 of 122 ends

144
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? No
We need to be able to drive on the streets that were created for cars. Instead the city is making them off limit or converting them to bike lanes. At the same time the city is adding more and more residents.

No, I do not. I believe the correct course of action is the aforementioned temp closures of commute thoroughfares on weekends.

No, I don’t think anyone will actually use them as slow streets and traffic will continue as usual No, I prefer to keep the barricades, but also add bike Blvd lettering.

No, the slow street concept is misguided at best. All it does is push traffic onto other streets. City staff should actually go out and look at the amount of use they get. The one on Versailles has very little bicycle and pedestrian traffic. We have sidewalks for pedestrians.

No, this should not be implemented anywhere especially on a narrow street like Versailles that passes through a business district and is not an actual thoroughfare. In addition, proposing expensive infrastructure devices such as traffic circles that will require time consuming maintenance does not make sense since you are proposing that property owners be responsible for city owned property such as sidewalks.

No. Get rid of them. Seemed like a nice idea when we were all stuck inside at the beginning of the pandemic, but now they're pointless. Drivers basically ignore the barriers now. You still have to drive the length of the island, so doesn't that mean the traffic moves to Clinton or San Antonio if San Jose isn't available? In two years, I have not seen any uptick in walking or biking on those streets. Folks will walk on the sidewalk (which is why we have them!) or the occasional biker will stay to the side.

NO. I am thankful that Santa Clara Avenue will be returned to a regular street. Those of us who live on it, DIDN'T ASK FOR IT, we never wanted it, and it has been a real pain in the butt.

No. I think Santa Clara is currently the best east/west corridor on the island and keeping parts of it a slow street/greenway would utilize existing bike lanes and infrastructure more efficiently.

No. I think you are privileging younger, more physically able people over seniors and those with disabilities.

People who need cars are not evil
No. I would like to keep the barricades but make them less restrictive for pedestrians and cyclists by using spaced out bollards (I believe Jean Sweeney Park has them). If the roads are easier for motorists to ride, they can and will ride them more often and abuse the speed limits. While opening them up as greenways with speed bumps seems like a good compromise, it makes the road harder for bikes to travel easily on them too and creates dangerous conditions (easy to fall from bike if you hit a speed bump the wrong way) No. Orion and Santa Clara should not be removed as Slow Streets, and barring that, SHOULD be converted to Neighborhood Greenways.

No. Please remove the slow street designation for Versailles. It is a major thoroughfare. Put the bikes on the less used adjacent streets. There are near misses everyday on Versailles. Very very dangerous.

No. Slow Streets is a bad move. Another approach needs to be found instead of disabling already existing streets to vehicular traffic.

No. Slow streets should be removed. Of course folks on these streets want to keep them, since traffic is greatly reduced. However, this puts huge stress on the adjacent streets. not at all
Not necessary
Not sure
Not sure, but open to try
ok

Page 99 of 122 ends

145
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? Once the signs come down, cars will start to use those streets again (not that they aren't doing so now, but more people will take advantage of another driving street being open). Whatever the plan is to calm traffic, I hope it works better than the signs are now, especially if you're encouraging more bikers to use them.

Oppose ALL streets from being converted to "Neighborhood Greenways." Streets are supposed to be just that:
streets.

Paint and signage don't go far enough. Infrastructure needs to be added in order to see a safer street.

Partially. I think adding dedicated bike lanes/paths to the Greenways is better though.

Permanent bike lanes should replace slow streets
Please add speed humps!!
Please don’t get rid of grid system by blocking streets and forcing traffic on to parallel streets causing new issues.

Please emphasize actual infrastructure changes to reduce speeds as opposed to things like paint and signs.

Drivers need to feel uncomfortable to drive slower and paint won't accomplish this. The speed that you are allowed to travel through the toll gates on the Bay Bridge is 25 mph and that is a very uncomfortable experience; to make 20 mph a reality it needs to be a similar feeling of discomfort (aka tighter feeling streets). I support wider sidewalks, medians in the road, and any other measures that would make drivers feel less comfortable while traveling in these pedestrian/biker focused spaces. Drivers drive more safely when they are uncomfortable or unsure!
Please keep Santa Clara ‐ it's super important for commuting via bike to the ferry Please make it impossible to drive from one end of San Jose to the other ‐ put in permanent barriers like in Berkeley
Please take San Jose off of the Slow Streets/Low Stress Network. It has two schools on that street, neither of which are considered neighborhood schools, which makes it difficult for parents to get their kids to school. It is a major street to get from one end of the island to Grand St. It also has a lot of single family, multi‐family, and apartments on that street, so not the best street to try to stop congestion on because of the many cars and delivery vans that need to access that street.

Prefer current slow street setup
Reduce traffic jams by adding a new bridge or expanding the tube. I don’t care for slow streets, I care about the traffic all this new development is creating.

Remove all slow streets
Remove slow streets, alameda doesn't have enough throughput for traffic as it is. Entitled bicycle riders who think they own slow streets and do not yield to traffic, veer into the middle of the street when cars approach fosters an unsafe environment which could possibly lead to more bicycle rider injuries.

Remove them altogether. It is certainly desirable for those who live on those streets, but it simply pushes traffic onto surrounding streets. Where are they to go, otherwise? It doesn't remove traffic anywhere ‐ it just shifts it and makes other streets more dangerous & crowded.

Right approach
Right approach. Central Ave is the back bone.

Santa Clara seems like a vital street for kids biking to Encinal. Why not turn SC into a Greenway? At least on the West End.

Seems reasonable, though I hope that you can ensure that traffic calming actually occurs. I'd love for my kids to be able to use the greenways independently. Regular use of bike‐friendly speed cushions would be really nice.

Cars should be truly considered lower priority than pedestrians and walkers.

Seems very bike‐centric. How will pedestrian safety be ensured?

Page 100 of 122 ends

146
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? sharrows do not appear to work w/ motorists frequently speeding past or worst swerve and use their cars to physically threaten to run bicycles off the road. Ideally one side of the sidewalks can be widened with a separated & painted outer lane for bicycles.

Slow street barricades were and are really effective‐ the Pacific slow street has really improved my life as an Alameda resident and cyclist for the past few years. I hope whatever transition is planned still preserves the qualities of these streets
Slow streets are great for the folk that live on them but terrible for the folk on the next street over Slow streets are important to encourage people who are averse or afraid to riding their bikes. Education on bike safety starting in schools will ensure a generation who will adopt bike riding as a life style.

Slow Streets are under‐utilized currently and should be removed. This was originally started during the pandemic and I don't believe it has caught on. This seems like a very low priority to me. I do understand the concept of the Neighborhood Greenways but don't think it is necessary.

Slow streets aren’t effective. The traffic calming is also bad for emergency vehicles Slow streets may not be necessarily being used as "slow". Versailles is not a slow street it's a speed street.

Slow streets need to be eliminated. The initial reasoning behind the creation of slow streets is sound and I supported their initial creation. However, now they simply remain a reminder of an awful period of isolation.

Plus, cars don't obey the closures anyway. Turning some of the existing slow streets into bicycle boulevards is a good option. Otherwise, we should simply return the slow streets to their pre‐covid status and focus on the creation of safe and protected bike lanes throughout the island. These streets all have sidewalks, so there really is no need for "slow streets".

Slow streets were great in 2019 and 2020 but should be opened now Slow streets work great when the calming measures are respected. However, I regularly rode with my 6th children to school and witnessed many commuter cars zooming along Santa Clara av. bet. 3rd st. & Webster st. I informed the police but there were no changes. Suggest that slow streets be monitored and transgressions trigger an automatic, pre‐planned escalation in calming measures.

So you're allowing some people to have their house values increase by making their streets into slow streets. Not very equitable.

Some of the projects and areas are suffering from increasing crime, security issues and unhoused population increases. The project impact can be at risk unless addressed Sounds great
Sounds great.
sounds like a good plan
The more slow streets the better but this plan makes sense.

The only way to ensure this method will work will be to install the needed infrastructure ‐ barriers, bollards, and roundabouts will be beneficial. Drivers do not adhere to speed limits or stop signs and APD has abandoned traffic enforcement so building the infrastructure is the only way.

The Slow Street program is great, but it should be deployed in more areas of Alameda, not just the Gold Coast.

The Slow Streets program should be dumped. The barricades make it look like a construction zone, and it is not fair to all the other streets in the city whose residents don't get this protection. Make every street slow by enforcing the speed limit, which is now so widely ignored as to be no‐existent.

There are enough bike paths without Slow Streets. They should be eliminated.

Page 101 of 122 ends

147
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? There is little to no representation for the West End in this Slow Streets future. I understand that the current West End slow street will be converted to Greenways, but why have this transition if slow streets are seen to be safer? Would rather see the Slow Streets on the West End be made permanent.

There's no way to remain safe from Alameda drivers without separating cars. Who knows if this will help make things safer or just encourage people to speed more down my street so they can take a "shortcut" down one of the greenways. Traffic shaping will need to be aggressive, with smaller traffic circles for smaller streets like oak, walnut, willow, eagle.

These should be made slower, not faster. Seems great that we will have more streets, but am very worried that people will not understand what these new words mean, esp if from out of town, and will treat them just like any other road and people will get hurt or die because of it. The giant orange signs are ugly. But there are prettier ways to do it that can achieve the same purpose.

In general just seems like need to look at what Dutch cities do more. these things don't work
This is a good idea, but are limited in distance of the actual streets being designated.

This is an acceptable start.

This is the worst aspect of a very poor plan. The city needs to focus on making a few transit arteries work well for vehicles and a few for bikes/pedestrians. This approach of changing everything will slow traffic leading to vastly higher green house gas emissions and stressed drivers which will increase auto accidents, This seems like a reasonable approach.

To be a proper greenway on Pacific we need to have stop signs for every street that crosses.

Too focused on bikes when bike licensing policies should be in place Versailles is the continuation of main traffic way from High Street bridge down Gibbons. Move the slow street to Pearl or Mound.

Also: Why is San Jose not labeled on any of the maps?
Versailles should not be a Neighborhood Greenway ... as per earlier Alameda Transportation Commission vote.

Your goal to reduce greenhouse gasses increases when you force vehicles going to/from Encinal businesses must use street diversions into other neighborhoods.

We can't leave the base out of slow street programs
We need a slow street connecting san jose and pacific
We need more slow streets, not less. I'd vote to make Lincoln a slow street from Main St. to High St. Alameda PD are not doing their job to enforce traffic laws, so we need to build infrastructure that slows cars down to the speeds the city claims it wants.

We need slow streets in Alameda Point. Trident Avenue and parts of west Atlantic would be great.

We use Pacific as a biking street all the time, and it's great because it's a slow street, but it was fine before also. I don't think these changes are needed.

What do you mean by Slow Streets? The streets with bike rides are prioritized? Yes, it looks good.

Why pay taxes to closedown streets? Open them up.
would like to see even more slow streets
Yes
Yes
Yes

Page 102 of 122 ends

148
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
yes
yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes ‐ I don't like "Slow Streets"
Yes ‐ love it! I vote for as many mini‐circles and speed humps as possible. Cars still speed on slow streets even though they are marked, so these would help.

Yes for slow streets but concerning how many cars still speed through them.

Yes it is the right approach
Yes prioritize these streets for pedestrians and bicycles. Add additional road blocks or raised speed bumps to discourage car traffic.

Yes with special importance on the major intersection streets.

Yes!
Yes! Can't wait for San Jose between Oak St to Fernside.

YES! Please keep Pacific a slow street.

Yes, although I would like to see more of these speed bumps and slowing tools on streets that are not greenways, such as this slow street segment of Santa Clara.

Yes, and excited for signage, lights, and raised crossings to better increase visibility and awareness from cyclists, pedestrians, AND motorists all around. I even wonder if some of the calmed intersections and streets can make the stop signs redundant to help traffic move smoothly.

Yes, as long as Santa Clara remains a slow street until the Central project is completed. It is currently the only "safe" way to bike to Encinal High Scool and Encinal boat ramp.

Yes, but the transition of Santa Clara to a class III bikeway only makes sense after the protected bike lanes are available on Central.

Yes, cars need to be slowed down so that pedestrian and bicyclists will fee safe.

Yes, current slow streets suffer from one key problem. a certian percentage of drivers just ignore the "slow down" signs and just drive as normal. Please improve the clarity of expectations and please ticket them.

Yes, greenways are ideal for slow streets! I would love more greenways. We love walking and biking the current slow streets and improving the traffic calming and clearly identifying them will do a lot to keep them slow and safe.

Page 103 of 122 ends

149
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? Yes, I strongly support making all of San Jose a Neighborhood Greenway / Bike Boulevard.

Also, slow streets still have cars go through them, but making more systematic changes will enforce these streets to become slower due to infrastructure changes.

Yes, I think the need for the existing slow streets has passed. This slow street idea seems to work but I would defer to residents who live on those streets. Has there been a count of traffic (vehicle, pedestrian, bike, other) changes on existing slow streets over the past 6 months as all COVID restrictions were removed? Yes, I think this evolution to neighborhood greenways / bike boulevards is a fantastic idea! And the streets chosen for it are great choices. My one concern is that Pacific in particular would absutely need to be repaved—its surface is terrible.

Yes, looks great
Yes, please move forward with this plan
Yes, right approach
Yes, slow streets has become ineffective at providing a safe avenue for biking/walking. Cars routinely exceed the speed limit and transverse multiple blocks. I do not feel safe on Pacific.

Yes, slow streets work and there should be as many as possible.

Yes, sounds good!
Yes, sounds good.

Yes, this is the right approach.

Yes, this is the right approach. Thank you for keeping them until neighborhood greenways are in place. Please make sure they are designed well, so that young kids can use these streets safely and independently ‐‐ these will be key to our safe network. There should be minimum design requirements (like speed cushions midblock) that are implemented routinely, by default, and regular data collection and monitoring to ensure design goals are met. Goals and metrics should be around *peak* hour traffic and maximum speeds so people feel comfortable in their worst state, not only the average. Also, would like to make it clear that on these streets, cars are a lower priority cyclists and pedestrians. Slow streets have been great for group walks, people recovering from injuries, dog walkers, etc. It should be made clear that neighborhood greenways welcome those activities, too.

I support keeping Santa Clara and Orion as neighborhood greenways at least until lower stress facilities are in place on those streets or nearby, and I support Versailles and Gibbons as well.

Yes, this is the right approach. Those shitty barricades have outlived their usefulness. Particularly on Versailles where everybody ignores them.

Also please fix the Gibbons intersection to prevent drivers who routinely go 75 mph onto Gibbons from Central.

Yes, this seems great. Directing people with calming measures (like forced right turns) will be better than current slow streets where people still use the streets as cut throughs and force small children on bikes off the road.

Yes.

Yes.
yes. dedicated corridors for safe travel to bridge the gaps between larger arteries is essential. especially through dense neighborhoods.

Page 104 of 122 ends

150
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

13. Do you think this is the right approach for Slow Streets? If not, what adjustments should be made? Yes. Makes lots of sense...and ensure we engage the neighborhoods involved with workshops, discussion, alternatives, etc.

Yes. Red to prioritize low speeds and low vehicle volumes.

Yes. Remove the barriers, and speed humps will preserve the same effect.

Yes. Currently, I see cars using the barricaded streets as their personal express lane. Today I saw a city of Alameda pickup truck speed all the way down San Jose Ave, driving around the barricades at each intersection.

People have learned that police do not enforce these streets.

Yes. Please use modal filters to block cars from key intersections and prevent through car traffic.

Yes. Thank you for keeping them until neighborhood greenways are in place. Please make sure they are designed well, so that young kids can use these streets safely and independently ‐‐ these will be key to our safe network.

There should be minimum design requirements (like speed cushions mid‐block) that are implemented routinely, by default, and regular data collection and monitoring to ensure design goals are met. Goals and metrics should be around *peak* hour traffic and maximum speeds so people feel comfortable in their worst state, not only the average. Also, would like to make it clear that on these streets, cars are a lower priority than not just bikers, but walkers. Slow streets have been great for group walks, people recovering from injuries, dog walkers, etc. It should be made clear that neighborhood greenways welcome those activities, too.

I support Versailles as a neighborhood greenway – your rationale makes sense.

Yes. The slow streets are great but the car barriers are confusing and unsightly. By now local drivers have become habituated to taking other routes, so the transition to bike routes should be smoother.

Yes. This is a great approach. As I noted earlier, slow streets are a great idea, with a challenged implementation.

Yup!

Page 105 of 122 ends

151
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

A lot of it looks good. Please take the drivers in town into consideration. We live here, too. We want live at peace, live in fear of hitting someone on a bike not paying attention, and care about our city too. Narrow streets cause accidents.....

Add more specific goal that are measurable.

After many discussions with the City, there still has not been any progress to implement a road diet along Otis Dr between High St and Broadway. The City needs to mandate that Caltrans implement the changes to reduce traffic in the neighborhood corridor.

Again, I would like to see the plan address a way/method where concerned citizens can communicate more quickly and effectively with those who have the authority to implement street design improvements. Also in chapter 3 about the existing conditions, I see no mention of rampant speeding and drag racing in the Alameda Point area, where the old navy tarmacs are often used by race car enthusiasts and create extremely unsafe situations for residents living there. I would like to see the plan acknowledge that wide, open plain areas of asphalt road there has created an invitation for these folks to come into the island and race off in residential neighborhoods, and that there definitive road design treatments that can be implemented to deter them.

Again, it's hard to take any of this seriously without the support of city council. After the recent scrapping of the plans for a low‐stress Grand Street backbone, I have little confidence that a low stress network is possible in this environment of political cowardice.

Again, please prioritize improvements in areas with high population density and that have been historically underserved. I again point to census tract 4267 (Atlantic/RAMP to pacific from Webster to main). This tract has a population density of 21k per sqmi, the highest in the city and almost 3x higher than the city average. It have been overlooked for generations on this island due to largely unsavory historic inequity. Please consider prioritizing improvements in this and other similar areas that have high existing population density and have been historically underserved.

Alameda has a unique opportunity to set a standard for a city that is motorist‐, cyclist‐, AND pedestrian‐friendly.

With how many new homes are being built, I'm excited to see how the city will empower its residents' choices of mode of travel away from the car.

Alameda is just getting worse and worse. And you guys are one of the reasons it's going down the drain.

Alameda Point needs major infrastructure upgrades to make it safe to both walk and ride a bicycle. The planning for those upgrades are far into the future. There should be some short‐term solutions ‐ bus shelters & benches, crosswalks painted, lighting installed, road markings, painted bike lanes.

Alameda point needs serious safety measures put in place dealing with side shows. This should be the number 1 priority in all of Alameda.

All fantastic, really impressed.

All looks great! Fantastic to see and looking forward to all of this.

FROM OPEN HOUSE
Already gave my feedback in other text fields. Excited to see this happen! Although this is a noble idea, please pay close attention to the increased population due to the increased housing being built. Please do not grind the traffic to a halt. Try to create a good flow for BOTH cars and bikes.

Please realize NOT EVERYONE CAN RIDE A BIKE. Think about adding better public transportation! Streetcar system would be so charming
Am strongly opposed to Slow Street, greenway, traffic calming. Let the Slow Streets expire.

Page 106 of 122 ends

152
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

As both a pedestrian and a driver I love the flashing crosswalks like the one near Lincoln School. They enable peds and bikes to cross safely but don't require cars to stop any longer than necessary.

Shared use paths are not low‐stress. They are always too narrow. It's fine when there is only one bike and one pedestrian at a given point, but trying to pass a ped (especially someone walking a dog or two people walking together) while cycling when there is someone riding or walking in the opposite direction isn't safe. Please don't add any more shared use paths, and widen the existing ones. That would make things both safer and more stress‐free.

Regarding the Street Types Map, you don't show any neighborhood connector streets in the area between Broadway and High , Santa Clara and Fernside. In fact both Gibbons and Versailles (before it was turned into a Slow Street) serve this purpose and I'm not sure why you are hiding that fact.

I am disappointed that there aren't more projects related to getting people to use public transit or walk. The vast majority of this plan seems to be about trying to get people to bicycle on errands, which isn't going to happen with the expense, bike thefts, difficulty in carrying purchases without still more expensive equipment, and the impossibility of making pleasant routes in the existing business districts. It's great to create bike paths in areas of new development, where there is space to make them pleasant. I wish the city would just focus on that.

I tried the new path on Clement, and found it very unpleasant. I think it's because all that additional asphalt absorbs heat, and there are no trees for shade. Landscaping that doesn't involve trees isn't providing much benefit.

Keeping smelly piles of trash and dumpsters away from sidewalks would make walking in the downtown area much more pleasant. You probably can't use the grant money for things like making walking and cycling routes more pleasant, but that is one thing that would increase my own likelihood of walking or biking instead of driving.

Awesome!
Biased pmanning.

Building plans don’t adress the transport problems. Your Grand and Otis and antiquated tunnel is an example of that. Stop building !
Do not build walkway into Bay 37 community.

Effective communication of basic elements.

Eliminate noisy leaf blowers.

Eliminate the slow streets.

Enforce the speed limit along Otis Drive, especially between Park Street and High Street. Stop the speeders! Increase the Alameda Police Force. Bring back the 5 motorcycle officers/motorcycles. Issue speeding tickets! Reduce all of Otis Drive to one lane in each direction for vehicle travel. excited to see it coming to fruition!
Fantastic. Thank you!
Finish clement st bikeway and we need a better way to cross the bridge to bay farm island as the area is a mess coming from the water.

Page 107 of 122 ends

153
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

For active transportation, the plan is fabulous. For walking/biking for pleasure and exercise, a few elements could be added to make it more attractive/interesting.

FROM OPEN HOUSE
FROM OPEN HOUSE
Getting people out of their cars on trips of less than 2 miles will help with congestion, environment and health. It is an investment in the future
Goals and performance metrics should be fleshed out more. Each performance metric should include target numbers and dates. Mode shift goal in particular should be clearly defined. Like the data focus in general, and should be reflected here.

Also, there was a paragraph about staffing constraints and how projects might suffer. I think instead we should plan to invest to make sure projects get done.

Thank you for this great work!!
Great to see expansion and prioritization of pedestrians and cyclists over cars! We should leverage the beauty and size of the island for people and not create more car highways and parkings lots. It creats so much more value to think about homeowners looking onto a green street filled with people and bicycles instead of looking at a two rows of rusting and empty cars.

Great work!
Grrrrrr.

I am quite confident that the city of alameda has no clue nor common sense, regarding what they have done to the streets. While the cross city trail seems to be a good idea, no doubt in my mind it will get screwed up sooner or later. Look at what has happened to our streets. It is extremely difficult to get around anymore, in Alameda, with all of the main thoroughfares having been SQUEEZED from four lanes down to two. Completely idiotic. We have more vehicles and yet, the stupid city reduces the streets down to two lanes. I mean, how stupid is that? I am appreciative that so many people are working to make it safer to bike and walk around Alameda.

I am completely against the pedestrian bridge. We need more isolated bike paths.

I am excited about the improvements for active transit. My family of 5 walks and bikes, and this looks like a safer and more enjoyable Alameda that will help reduce car emissions in favor of active transit. Thanks for helping the climate and safety.

I am excited for the future of Alameda!
I wanted to share that the figure on p. 14 "How do Alameda residents get around?" doesn't add up to 100%, so this should probably be looked at.

I would also like to see even more crossing lights for pedestrians and encouragement for pedestrians to use them every time they cross. :)
I'm a recent convert into cycling around Alameda and I hope this plan encourages more people who are curious to take that leap as well.

I am excited to be part of a City with a vibrant action plan like that! Can't wait for my Son to grow in this safe environment.

Page 108 of 122 ends

154
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

I am proud to live in a city that is prioritizing walkability and biking over car‐based transportation. I would love to see more safe ways to get off the island on a bike or by foot. Whether it's the water shuttle or a pedestrian/bike bridge, building a connection to Jack London Square will be transformational for Alameda and I would love to see it happen.

I am so excited that Alameda has such vision! It makes me want to fast forward 5 years.

I am so grateful to the City of Alameda for all of the work on the transportation plan. As a bicyclist and pedestrian I love being able to travel around the island without using a car, but I don't always feel safe (especially biking) because of speeding or careless drivers. This plan will provide more safety in multiple ways. Thank you!! I am very happy with the philosophy and approach you are using in developing and implementing this vision, and with your priorities. Great job!!
I appreciate the charm Alameda has to offer in not only appearance, but in how it feels. You have been building ALL OVER THE PLACE on the West End creating a lot more traffic (car) and we are constantly narrowing streets for bikes. Give them a street or to bike on with cars in the 2 directions and call it a day. Like I stated earlier, bikers don’t follow the rules of the road anyway.

I appreciate the effort to make it safe for cyclists but am concerned that it is at the expense of the older and disabled
I believe we are on track. Need to budget for large ticket items.

I commend these goals. As a 24 year resident of mainland Alameda and 44 year resident of Bay Farm island, I believe the 2 main actions that can make bikers and walker safer, are reduced speed limits with constant enforcement and additional pedestrian rapid flashing signs.

I don’t like the bridge from seaview to shoreline. Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure and building up on it before starting something new.

I don't agree with this plan and I don't believe that the city is taking into consideration the overall island population especially property owners who are heavily financially invested. There is too much consideration to outside influences.

I frankly think that bicycling has been overprioritized and would rather focus on pedestrian safety and enforcement of current speed limits and stop
Signs.

I keep hearing about all these wonderful things but then everything is Vision 2030. There are projects, like the Clement extension at Grand that desperately need to be completely. It’s a serious hazard for my kids to get to school.

I like the direction approach Alameda is going. Nice job staff! I live on Broadway near Clement (this why I'm asking so much about this proposal) and I truly think that this proposed extension will support biking and walking in Alameda. I would love to see more accessible walking/biking paths in this area of the island!!
I love it
I love it. We need to drive cars less and this plan is a great step to making biking and walking less stressful and dangerous in Alameda. While not everyone can walk and ride the more of us who do benefits everyone with less pollution, less traffic and congestion, less of a need for parking, and overall a better city experience I love that you are planning a bike path to Oakland near the tunnel, I love that alameda goes green and encourages feet and bikes!!!
I LOVE the emphasis on bike safety. This should be a top priority for city administrators.

Page 109 of 122 ends

155
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

I really appreciate all of the work and thought that went into this plan, and overall am very pleased with the direction this is taking.

One piece of feedback: not everyone will be as positive about this as I am. People will, of course, object to certain projects on a street‐by‐street basis — that's unavoidable. But there are also people who are not bought into the overall goals of the work, notably people that only use cars and are already unhappy with the state of traffic on the island. From a messaging standpoint, I think it's important to underscore how these projects will benefit everyone by increasing safety for everyone who uses our streets while not meaningfully impacting travel times. In some cases, as with roundabouts, it may even decrease travel times and rush hour backups. The point is to dispel the myth that these improvements just benefit a small number of dedicated cyclists, which is a common narrative.

You will also likely hear "Why are we doing these new projects when sidewalk X has needed repairing for over 5 years?" And, frankly, this isn't a bad point. If we get a new protected bike lane on Clement, but the bike path on Island Drive remains hazardously bad, this sends a message, intentional or not. It would be helpful for people to be able to see a rough schedule of upcoming work so that they know they haven't been completely forgotten in favor of new, shiny projects.

Thank you all for your work on this plan. It's much appreciated, and I have greatly enjoyed seeing the progress in Alameda over the recent years.

I see a big push towards the almost criminalization of using an automobile. As I mentioned, as a disabled woman with a disabled child, using a bike or walking to commute, go grocery shopping or even traverse the island is not possible. I should not be penalized or shamed for this. I see nothing within this plan addressing the needs of the disabled. Where are the extra parking spaces for handicapped parking? What happens when you remove parking spaces and there is even more competition for the remaining parking spaces? In fact, portions of this mission statement and plan could be viewed as discriminatory against the disabled.

I see that the plan does not address public transportation. Given that the extremely limited shuttle has been discontinued, there really aren't any decent "island‐centric" options. I would probably drive half as much if we had a decent and regular island shuttle. Something like West Virginia U's PRT would be amazing.

I think it all looks good. I would say the design of each of those maps was so complicated, so many lines, dotted and otherwise on one map is confusing and hard to parse out what looks good. I had to magnify, then memorize what was on the tables.

I think it is great that Alameda is proactive about sustainable modes of transit and want to encourage more drastic approaches (physically reducing vehicular speed). We have a great opportunity to be a leading bay area city when it comes to safe transit and i hope that this work is not undone by NIMBYs and people living on bay farm island. It is also good that we recognize the urgent need for a west alameda‐oakland connection.

I think it stinks. Where was the Community input. I do not recall notice of any public process. We aren’t talking about putting a couple of stop signs. You are talking about completely changing the make up of our city and I think it is shameful.

Page 110 of 122 ends

156
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

I think it's a good start, but there's many pieces that need to be strengthened ‐ including access to bikes for more folks, repair stations, parking ‐ it's very inadequate ‐ and educating e‐bike riders who are now using bike paths and bike lanes.

I think people are taking advantage of the slow streets, they have become front yards. Put speed bumps and get rid of the barriers please.

I think that, having passed Vision Zero, it would be a good idea to take a look at how, where and why accidents are happening. We have had 2+ years of Slow Streets, so you should be able to see some results from that.

Traffic deaths are increasing across the region. If someone hits a cyclist because they are texting, drunk, stressed beyond endurance, then a separated bike lane is not going to solve the problem. Making decisions without knowing why people are being injured doesn't reduce injuries.

Building bike lanes without taking into account who can and cannot use them creates an unfair double standard.

Turning every road into a bike boulevard is overkill and is really angering more people than just me. And most of the people I have spoken with will not fill out your survey. But that does not mean they are not upset and don't feel that this is unfair.

I think the emphasis upon safe school commutes for bikers and pedestrians is fantastic. I also support connecting the length of the island via bike paths.

I think the plan looks good and I’m excited for the future. I do want to make sure that safety from drivers is considered at all times, since the good infrastructure built is often negated by poor driving.

I think the plan really gets at what we want to make Alameda feel like a very livable community. People should feel safe being out and about, walking and cycling. Driving cars is just the wrong way of being out and about. Our community should feel like a community, not a series of residences alongside automobile transportation corridors. There appears to be a lot of thought about trying to make that happen with this transportation plan.

I wholely embrace the goal for a more bike‐friendly and connected Alameda. This proposed active transportation plan needs to be mapped with the housing development plan so that increased traffic forecasts are accounted for. This plan needs to also cross‐over/drive a larger vehicle traffic plan; especially at school drop‐off time and end‐of‐work‐day times.

I would like to see more blocks converted into permanent pedestrian thoroughfares. Connection across the estuary would be fantastic. More traffic calming/bike routes would be great.

I would like to see more focus on accessibility for people with disabilities. There are so many sidewalks that are in accessible for people who use wheelchairs because of tree roots and disrepair. There are other spots in the city where sidewalks don’t even exist.

Putting more seating and dining on sidewalks in business districts makes it very difficult for people with disabilities to safely access that corridor.

All way finding efforts need to include accessible versions.

Accessibility needs to be a consideration in all projects.

Consider working with BORP to get some accessible bikes available on the island.

Page 111 of 122 ends

157
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

If we have to keep street parking on Park St, it should be twice the cost of the parking lot or of parking elsewhere. It should be expensive and quick.

We should pedestrian mall at least two blocks of both Park and Webster, and probably more. Make the street crossings be disabled parking. Right now Park St is very confusing for cars (why are there two lanes of parking in front of Toy Safari?) and forboding for bikes. This street could be so much nicer! Webster is just confusing to drive down: the chicanes are annoying. Constitution is next door, it can take all the car traffic.

If you want to encourage people, esp. families to use their bikes, one major issue is to get cars to slow down and adhere to the speed limit. This plan with bike lanes is wonderful, but speeding cars are still a hazard and people will not feel safe, even in a bike lane. The city should have more speed traps !! I'm a homeowner on Central Ave in the West End. I didn't see details among the plans on the traffic circles. I think it's a good idea for this patch of the Central/Main because of the accidents I've seen. This corner of the city attracts cyclists on weekends for the recreation and commuters on weekdays. The attention to bike paths creation would alleviate the dangers here for all kinds of cyclists.

I'm excited about and appreciative of these plans!
I'm excited about it! So much work has gone into this!! Thank you, all who worked on it!! I'm excited about this overall, but I think there are small changes that can be made today that would improve connectivity in the near term. I'll say it one more time ‐ safely connect the lagoon paths on Bay Farm across Robert Davey Jr Dr.

I'm really excited overall, and bummed I couldn't make it to the in person events. I truly believe the best way to get cars off the road is to make people feel safe riding their bikes. Also as people are introduced to electric assist bikes, I think it will really change minds (especially for people less comfortable in their ability to ride long distances). I know that some projects will move faster than others, but there are many that I'm very excited about. Can't wait for Clement to finish up between Willow and Broadway!! Impressively thorough and well‐thought out. I'm exceedingly grateful to the city staff and residents who carefully thought through so many options. Would love for our city to have increased biking options, more greenways and fewer cars.

Improve the Grand/Otis intersection by either implementing the planned roundabout, or at least install left‐only traffic signals.

In regards to the next page:

Why is there no $75,000‐$99,999 household income listed?! And I'm Caucasian, not White.

It all seems like a waste of time if the proposed plans are rejected or made into a half‐measures.

It does not address the need for bicycle training for adults. Children receive some fifth grade safety classes but no requirements for safety classes for adults which are the majority bike riders who fail to use bells or horns on shared paths with pedestrians and who speed through intersections.

It is a start. The opposition to these improvements confuse me. People need to rethink short trips and get out of their cars. Its healthier physically and mentally
It looks good but should also includes ensuring that Otis Dr (between Park St and High St) is safer for bikers and pedestrians which is not the case at the moment
It looks good! Continue to prioritize low stress biking options so that we can safely bike around town with children!

Page 112 of 122 ends

158
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

It’s an irresponsible plan because it doesn’t address the 20k new people and the traffic at the access and egress points. First build a new car bridge or expand the tunnel and then add more units. As a planner the access and egress expansion is your problem to solve. Stop ignoring it and stop giving excuses.

It’s wasteful.

It's an okay start but there seems to be a lack of political will to move the plan forward quickly.

It's overwhelming and it would be better to break it up into smaller pieces. I appreciate all the work you have done on this but it's really tough to digest it all.

It's really cool that the city has a plan like this. When I moved to Alameda, this was a huge reason for moving here. The bike infrastructure has really improved, but the driver's have gotten worse. I used to fear the police when I drove and now I don't worry about speeding. The city needs to step up to slow cars, keep bikes and peds safe, to create the best version of our city.

Just don't. Please. This will forever change the island and not in a good way. We moved here because it was a nice, quiet little town. This will surely make it on par with Berkeley and Emeryville. Think of the residents and please listen to their voices. Thank you.

Let's implement it
Looking good! Proud to live somewhere that includes the voices of its actual residents. Let's see it put into action.

Looks good
looks good
Looks good and more positively and more practical on everything and that's it will do in any good! looks good.

Looks good. Lincoln needs some work to make pedestrians and cyclists feel safe. The crosswalk at Ninth and Lincoln is currently a death trap. Also, if you are turning on to Lincoln from a side street, cars are often parked in the red curb on Lincoln and you cannot see. Even if cars are parked legally, it's still impossible to see. You need to sneak out in to the right turn lane and if a car is speeding, they will hit you. This is a legitimate fear of mine on a daily basis.

Looks great! Please do it all and do anything it takes to get people out of cars! Looks great. Please add walnut and willow and other streets that angry drivers are using as shortcuts to next year plan.

Traffic shaping desperately needed in this young kid ped neighborhood streets.

Lots of effort put forth in this and I greatly appreciate it. A bit disappointed in the Public Engagement Activities in that it seemed limited in participation for a city of 70,000+. Would also be helpful to have more demographic info on the 2019 Community Perceptions where 1,000 people were surveyed. Again, seems like a narrow sampling for a city of our size. Hopefully not intended to sway the outcome of the results of the study.

Lots to read and to figure out. Look forward to the actual numbers of people involved in bicycles. No percentages, please ‐ they are easy to fudge the truth.

Love it. I’d encourage public messaging that says, if you don’t like traffic, you should welcome all of these ways to get people out of cars.

Love that you're putting more effort into making Alameda a more ped and bike friendly place! Greener spaces all around!
Love the slow streets
Hate the proposed shoreline to seaview bridge

Page 113 of 122 ends

159
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

Love the thought that went into creating a comprehensive network across the island! Many people (who are not part of the Bike Walk Alameda lobby) are strongly opposed to the Oakland‐Alameda bridge. It should not be a goal or part of the vision.
more bike and walking paths, greenways, open space are all great ‐ no pedestrian bridge to jack London square. its a huge costly inconvenience to all the neighborhoods surrounding it. also jack London square is not really a destination and the converse is even more true.

More emphasis needed now on helping motor vehicle traffic flow thru Alameda during commute times.

Better efforts needed to confront pedestrians disregard for being more visible when crossing streets in dark hours.

More ferry times and more frequent bus schedules to encourage people to use public transportation and unload Alameda streets from more vehicles.

Must admit I have mixed feelings reading this. Many of the projects look great ‐‐ I hope to be able to cycle and walk along them someday! At the same time, it looks like there are a lot of hard decisions that will need to be made. How to prioritize the projects, how to fund them, how to staff them... The fact that everyone who cares about safe cycling in this city is still advocating on behalf of less than a single mile of Grand Street is frustrating.

Then again, it's great to see how many people really do care about and need these improvements. The appendix with the market research survey is a useful call to action.

My biggest asks: strong safety measures for cyclists on a central‐island east‐west artery (at minimum, give the neighborhood greenways real teeth), and the same for north‐south routes near to Park and Webster.

My biggest complaints as a cyclist are the number of cars parked on side streets blocking sight lines and the terrible conditions of our roads. I live off Buena Vista in Central Alameda and there is no traffic calming between Sherman and Grand on Buena Vista. Since Clement/Atlantic opened behind the Del Monte project, motorists have been speeding through my neighborhood with zero regard for children and pedestrians. I've nearly been run over 2x in the past week from cars trying to get around the construction traffic by speeding down side streets. Get APD out there ticketing people hard! Enforcement of speed limits is such an easy start. My neighbors and I have also asked for traffic calming at Stanton and Buena Vista for years and have been met with deaf ears to our concerns. We live here, we see the problems every day. Listen to residents who are asking for solutions to make their neighborhoods safer! I feel like our area of the island has been ignored.

MY personal feeling is that Alameda has regressed in substantially as far as mobility impaired people are concerned. If this were any other Bay Area City there would be hell to pay. I ride a bike every day BUT I also have mobility issues. There is very few Handicapped Parking spaces in Business Districts, You took away Parking spaces that could be used and gave them to gig workes and you eliminated the Alameda Shuttle. It is disgusting!!!!
N/a
N/A
Need more attention to long‐term thinking and less to bandaid fixes.

Need more patrolling especially on Otis drive between Broadway and high streets to reduce speeding, yielding to pedestrians and reduce property damage to park cars.

Need Otis Drive, between Broadway and High Streets addressed. Too many large vehicles, too many vehicles speeding, unsafe for pedestrians to cross, etc.

Page 114 of 122 ends

160
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

Need start implementing this faster. We are in a slow death by process paralysis. It should be approved once and be done with it. Having to vote and fight over every single item will keep this plan from being implemented until 2050.

No opinion.

No slow streets.

Not enough educational content and definitions as part of the actual survey (before the questions) or enough detail in general, especially on potential negative consequences, intended or otherwise, and what will be done to anticipate and mitigate them. Also not enough information on cost/benefit. Seems like most of the focus is on biking, not enough on walking or potentially unrealistic proposal for much pedestrian use, like the bike/walk bridge to Jack London. In addition, must address directly impacts on those due to age or disabilities that are precluded from either biking or walking. Also autos will not disappear, despite the "calming and road diets", so why not include surveys/plans for other climate action like making it easy and cheap to have electric vehicle charging?
Our family is excited to see this vision come to fruition in the coming years. We have loved in Alameda for over 15 years and look forward to many more!
Overall I'm very excited by this plan to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety across Alameda. However, the City of Alameda needs to seriously reconsider installing speed cameras, especially on neighborhood connector streets. This is the most cost‐effective way to enforce 25mph limits and enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

Overall it looks good.

Overall plan is great.

Overall the draft plan is well developed with thoughtful consideration for the community safety and comfort. I appreciate the team providing community many opportunities to provide input and look forward to seeing many of the inputs being put into revised plan.

Overall very good work. Thank you to the preparers and contributors.

Overall, I am excited by the plan and the vision for the low stress backbone and greenways. I ride from end to end of the island on a regular basis to commute to the ferry and for recreation. I'd love to feel like it is safe enough to bring my young kids on their bikes, too. It would also be fantastic to have a bike/ped bridge into Oakland near the tube.

I live, bike, and walk on Santa Clara Ave, east of Broadway. This is identified as a high injury corridor and cars speed east of Gibbons toward Lincoln Park often. I want traffic calming/slowing somewhere if possible, but it didn't seem like that was planned. The Santa Clara/High Street intersection is also super scary when my kids are with me on bikes. We have almost been hit multiple times crossing the street with the signal because turning drivers aren't paying attention. Improving safety at that intersection would be helpful. This is such a busy, kid‐ filled area with the schools and park nearby.

Thank you!
Overall, I think the design and approach is thoughtful and well done. As a West End citizen, I encourage you to consider that in the past couple years vehicles have become more reckless and treat the West End as a racetrack.

I see speed bumps have been deployed in more well‐represented ($$$) areas of the city. We sorely need these in our school zones (AoA, NEA, Love). Thank you for your work to make biking and walking safer for all!

Page 115 of 122 ends

161
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

Overall, I'm super excited by what the City has in mind! In addition to Alameda, I've spent a lot of time cycling around Portland, and the density of cycling infrastructure outlined in the Active Transportation Plan could very well elevate Alameda's cycling infrastructure beyond that of Portland. I like the fact that you're thinking big, and I hope this plan comes to fruition.

As a pedestrian, I think Alameda is already a great city for walking, so I am encouraged by further investments in this area.

Overall, it looks good. I was originally thinking that you are developing separate bike lanes on all streets by reducing 2 car lanes into one. But it look like allocated fairly into the streets. Nice work.

Overall, this is a very solid plan that will make Alameda a safer, more liveable city.

Park street is a mess both with parking and biking. I feel that park street has become unsafe with people parking wherever there is room. This also affects riding bikes to downtown businesses,I refuse to ride my bike downtown due to extremely poor decisions regarding traffic. Why put in a bike lane if it’s going to become parklets and vehicle parking. It is a free for all and bicycles lose.

Part of what wasn't covered was driver behavior, and enforcement when bad behavior is taking place‐ this is something the City must address as part of the plan to make our island safer to walk and bike on.

People who drive because of disabilities are not being consideted.planning staff that tell Alameda residence who are elderly to take a bus if they cannot ride a bike shiuld be terminated.

Planning for Link21 transbay tube, and the possible station(s) in Alameda seems relevant to start considering early!
Where will that station be located and how will the construction and development around that station(s) fit into the active transportation plan? This will bring big changes to Alameda and we should be prepared for those changes.

Nice work on this report, it is very appreciated!
Please do something about the traffic and people speeding through Alameda. It seems like nothing is being done to address the rampant reckless driving on the island.

Please rename this plan to reflect what it is, a alternative transportation ie biking, walking plan. It does not address public transportation or private vehicle transportation. The word "active" is missleading.

Poor
Prioritization for truly safe routes to schools is lacking. Drivers are becoming more reckless and kids lives are in danger. There have been so many near misses and things have to be implemented quickly before something way more tragic happens.

Reduce the lanes of traffic on Otis Drive to one lane in each direction. Enforce the speed limit along Otis Drive, especially between Park Street and High Street. Issue speeding tickets. Bring back the 5 motorcycle police officers. Increase the Alameda Police Force.

See previous comments
Seems bike centric to me, Ebikes need to have further thought. An Ebike exceeding 20 miles an hour is more of a vehicle to me. We live in a flat city and should promote standard bikes instead of adding to battery pollution.

Seems like you have made up your minds already, and are asking for sign off. There are too many cooks in the kitchen, resulting in a confusing mess of a plan. You should have a civil engineer, WITH NO STAKE IN THE OUTCOME, review this. It's way too confusing and will result in increased traffic problems.

Page 116 of 122 ends

162
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

Seems pretty comprehensive. Currently Buena Vista is over‐used by bikes so thanks for improving that.

Seems to overall neglect the importance of using bollards to demarcate and protect pedestrians/bicyclists.

Otherwise, can't happen fast enough...

Seniors and disabled people are not just ignored ‐ they are made to feel irrelevant, ignorant and civically irresponsible. And everyone else is just inconvenienced. This is Alameda, an island, not a city in Europe with lots of reliable, accessible, convenient public transportation. We are surrounded by water and yet you make no accommodations for getting more people off the island in a disaster or emergency. This is fantasy land stuff, the dreams of people who live in a world where everyone is young and healthy and works down the block.or better yet moved here on their tech millions. Start working for the majority of Alamedans. And fix the potholes.

So excited to see protected bike paths! The need for enforcement of vehicle speeding violations will be even more important, though.
solid vision. not overreaching. attainable goals for 2030. need to execute.

Some of the projects and areas are suffering from increasing crime, security issues and unhoused population increases. The project impact can be at risk unless addressed Strongly oppose the new proposed, expensive, pedestrian and bike tunnel. See previous comments Supportive of this overall. Specific applications are where the most work needs to be done! The key is to fully vet out and discuss the plan with key stakeholders in each area, especially the neighborhoods involved in each section, including alternatives. We want neighborhood support; sometimes this may mean a modification or hybridization of the doctrinaire or "perfect" design. As we used to say in my line of work, we'd rather have a strategy that is 75% perfect, but that 100% support, than an approach that is 100% perfect but that only 50% support. Can't emphasize this enough!!!!
THANK YOU
Thank you for all your work and for providing so many opportunities for public comments. You're all wonderful! Thank you for doing all of this work. I very much appreciate it.

Thank you for the comprehensive suggestions
Thank you for working to keep Alameda a safe place for people to walk and ride their bikes.

Thank you for your proactive approach on making bike riding and walking safe and appealing for all! Thank you very much for working so hard on the Active Transportation Plan for our community. As the bike lanes and other changes develop, I will do my best to encourage friends and relatives to walk and bicycle more often. Re: the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Greenway (currently slow street) ‐ the pavement on Pacific is quite rough in some places. I hope that it gets repaved soon . . . or maybe it has already? I have avoided it for a while now, since it is so bumpy!
Thank you. Please continue partnering with Bike Walk Alameda. I was a part of the community meetings organized by Gail Payne and others for Shoreline bike path, which has been a big success.

FROM OPEN HOUSE
Thanks for letting me express my thoughts. Rock on!
The emphasis on bicycles is overblown and caters to a small group of people. The slow street concept is a bust, ugly and a waste of money.

The entire plan is wonderful, especially the proposed Neighborhood Greenways, 2030 Low Stress Backbone Network, and Bay Trail.

Page 117 of 122 ends

163
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

The existing conditions was a little confusing on the map because some aren't existing yet. Overall plan looks good. Water shuttle sounds interesting. Glad something is going to be done about the bridges ‐ can you work with Oakland so that on the other side of the bridge a bicycle isn't dumped into a place unsafe to ride? Please pay special attention to intersections near schools. Please also create routes for cars that will have fewer pedestrians/bicycles so it is efficient for them too as well as safer for walking/biking. Thanks for doing this! The goals and visions as stated are wonderful. However, i do not believe that they are being met by what has been proposed. To be truly equitable all areas of the City need to be included and it is obvious to me that they are not. However, since I am only one voice with objections, I don't see anyone listening to me and so I am very disillusioned by this whole process.

The Goals in Chapter 2 are well stated!
Personally I feel that the environmental benefits of the Mode Shift goal could be stated more strongly‐‐ Alameda has the potential to be greatly impacted by climate change due to sea level rise as compared to neighboring cities, and having more strongly worded goals with supporting infrastructure plans can help raise awareness within the community of our connection to climate change and how we can be an example. AMP's 100% clean power is a great example of this‐‐ many Alameda residents that I know are proud of how all of our power comes from clean sources and are leading the way on this transition, and emphasizing the environmental benefit of biking plus having area‐leading infrastructure would make Alameda a great example city.

The major comments are:
1) Eliminate the Oakland‐Alameda Bike Ped Bridge and fund more immediate implementation of a free small ferry/water taxi operating between Alameda and Oakland. Quicker implementation than a bridge, no issues with USCG operations, massively lower startup costs, likely similar operations/ongoing costs. 2) Eliminate road diets anywhere on Alameda, new housing is being put in with no plan to improve traffic that is already bad. It is unreasonable to think every new person moving into the new housing is not going to have a car and rely on public transportation.
3) Require (able‐bodied) middle / high school students to either bus, bike, or walk to school and implement bus route improvements/expansions as required. The traffic caused by school pickups and dropoffs is ridiculous and unnecessary, no students on Alameda are so far from school that they need to be driven to school by their parents.

The premise is flawed. Lots of fancy data, but it seems contrived by and for a tiny minority of extreme bike enthusiasts. Particularly there is no way to tell from the data if folks would start biking for which kind of trip.

Yes, if it's made safer, maybe more able‐bodied people bike for leisure, but let's be honest ‐ carting kids to functions or shopping or any other myriad tasks aren't going to be done by bike. And the arguments about climate change ‐ I 100% agree we need to act, but to make real progress, we need to adapt with some infrastructure. Bike enhancements won't make a dent. And the kicker ‐ California is mandating no gas cars by 2035. That's a much more useful step. So maybe we should look at finding space for charging stations and pause on the bike infrastructure. We're fine as we are in that regard.

The quicker this plan can be approved the better. You are the professionals in this situation and citizen input should not be held in higher regard than your own. You serve the City, not the individual, so I encourage you to do what you feel is best for the City as a whole and not bow to the noisy few.

Page 118 of 122 ends

164
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

The town is family oriented and families are not going to shop, dine, travel to out of town locations on bikes. It’s unrealistic. Cyclists are a vocal, dedicated group and have the attention of the City but the majority of residents may not agree.

The urban planning focus on bicycles is a waste of resources.

This is a very detailed, thorough, and well thought out plan.

This is very exciting, thank you for all you do!
This plan will be amazing ‐‐ IF it's implemented in its current form.

This survey assumes basic understanding of the Plan which I don't have.

This survey is ridiculous. People need to have the whole city plan in front of them like a textbook to take it.

References to specific figures? It’s not a good survey.

Two other things I didn't see covered are protection from the elements and crime safety.

For the first point, people may not want to bike or walk a route because it is too sunny or windy. In a car, you can protect yourself from the elements you cannot when walking.

The plan covers safety from motorists, but not safety from crime (for lack of a better word). A reason parents don't allow their kids to walk to school is they are afraid their kid will be kidnapped. Two solutions for this I have seen are blue lights on college campuses and the Japaness walking bus for school children.

UNFAIR to publish a draft plan with only three weeks for public input. Why was there little done in 2021. Public awareness of this plan is lacking. Low attendance of the recent ATP meetings on Zoom and at the library show the poor marketing job by the City. Expect lawsuits.

Very disappointed
Very exciting!
Very Thorough and Bike centric
Would like to see something about enforcement
What to do with people behaving badly??????
Vision Zero is bullshit
waste of money focus on enforcing driving have police walk the streets waste of tax payer money
We have a neighbor in a wheel chair. It is hard for him to get around on our sidewalks. The small mitigation of shaving down the root lift on the sidewalk has not done anything for smooth and even sidewalks. I would assume most of our sidewalks are not ADA compliant

Page 119 of 122 ends

165
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

We have done some great improvements on the island. But we don't have to keep adding these huge projects.

Projects that only benefit a small group on the island. We should focus on the majority of the people in Alameda.

The majority are families with multiple kids. Kids that go to school, play sports, dance, theatre, after school classes, martial arts, etc. Most families carpool when they can, bus and bike does not work for all these programs. The fixes are minor, make the crosswalks safer by adding blinking lights. APD should enforce our 25 MPH on the roads. Stop spending millions of dollars on projects that don't benefit the majority of the residents.

It is disappointing when our city staff, mayor and council members only focus on satisfying the loudest and smallest organizations in the name of climate control. We are all going to be driving electric cars in a little over 10 years.

Please stop wasting so much money on things that are not needed. So much of that money should be spent on the families who need help with the basics. Adding unneeded bike lanes and bike/pedestrians bridges are not needed, they are wants.

Stop creating solutions to non existing problems. Please think of Alameda and not your own personal agendas.

We need more policing of speed ‐ when we moved here we were warned that Alameda PD really enforces the 25 mph speed limit and that's simply not true anymore. It's unsafe on most roads.

Page 120 of 122 ends

166
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).

We need to significantly reimagine how our main business districts look (Park/Webster).  It will be controversial, but I honestly think we need to TOTALLY ELIMINATE PRIVATE VEHICLES from these streets and REBUILD THESE STREETS FROM SCRATCH.  These streets should be reserved for bikes, pedestrians, outdoor dining, public transportation, and very attracting landscaping/hardscaping ONLY.  It will cost money.  It will be controversial.  It will be WORTH IT.  This would have a multitude of benefits:
* Far more space for outdoor dining and shopping in a city blessed with great outdoor weather.  The parklets look like an afterthought.  We should make the street look like it was designed for these purposes from day 1. * Visually attractive landscaping/hardscaping with far more space allocated to this than a few scrawny trees that impinge on the already‐narrow sidewalks today.
* These streets are NOISY due to the car traffic, and honestly makes the outdoor spaces, such as outdoor dining, less attractive.  Not Just Bikes has an excellent segment discussing this problem and how cars are the primary contributor to noise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV‐wwszGw8 * Safety concerns related to traffic & parklets are almost completely eliminated. * Smelly, toxic exhaust gasses from vehicles are eliminated ‐ improving both the health and the comfort of those using this outdoor space.
* Few cities seem to be willing to make such a controversial step, yet walkable spaces are attractive to the public.

I believe this would make Alameda more of a regional destination that people would go out of their way to visit ‐ ultimately helping our businesses and also gain more tax revenue.

As a driver, I actively go out of my way to avoid Park St entirely when exiting the island. It makes no sense to have our main business district be a gateway road to the island. There are better options.

A good street configuration for Park St might be:

Page 121 of 122 ends

167
Draft Active Transportation Plan: Online Survey (October 4‐23, 2022) Open‐Ended Responses

14. Please share any feedback you have about the overall plan or about chapters 1‐3 (Introduction, Vision & Goals, Existing Conditions).
[cont'd] * Two lanes for vehicular traffic, but limited only to busses and delivery vehicles. With some creative signaling and/or restrictions on delivery vehicles, maybe it can even be reduced to a single bidirectional lane with periodic pull‐offs for passing (similar to how trains do single‐tracking). * Limited to no space for pulling over: since traffic is so limited, it is reasonable for a bus to stop in the lane of traffic. I think even OK for a delivery vehicle to stop in the lane of traffic, and allow other vehicles to pass them by entering oncoming traffic. But if necessary, a FEW, VERY LIMITED pullover spots could exist only on ONE side of the road at a time.
* Attractive bike paths that are COMPLETELY SEPARATED from the vehicle traffic lanes by very wide hardscaping.

They should be raised to be more sidewalk level than street level. * The sidewalks should be CONSIDERABLY enlarged so that businesses have room to sprawl outdoors without impinging on disabled pedestrians in wheelchairs.
* Clear barricades that discourage all entry to the street to thru‐traffic.

The guiding principle is to ELIMINATE AS MANY VEHICLE LANES AS POSSIBLE, because that leaves more space for the sidewalks, which we want to be as wide as possible.

People will undoubtedly bitterly complain about this plan, but I don't get it. The few times I have driven to Park St (both pre‐COVID and post‐COVID), there is no street parking available because it is all taken, so I either park in the garage or on a side street. Therefore, I didn't really need to drive on Park St either. I would rather walk there. I'd probably walk there A195more often (read: pay restaurants more money) if it was a nicer place outdoors without the cramped sidewalks and noisy vehicle traffic.

We're building a lot of housing in Alameda Point that will exacerbate traffic through Webster and Posey tubes.

Suggest incentivizing the building of car‐free housing, with deeds or rental agreements legally restricting car usage in Alameda. Then set up an enforcement system to make sure they don't just park away from their home.

Then set up a mixture of public transport, bikeways, and fractional car rentals to make it livable What about bicycles having to obaying the law !!!!!!!!!! Whoever does any of these planning needs to go around and observe traffic and see the congested areas and fixed those areas.

Why are we wasting money on this???
Wonderful overall. Please don't shy away from trying lower cost techniques to implement programs quickly (e.g., signs and restrictions vs. speedbumps and concrete). The sooner the better. yet again..not everyone can or is able to ride a bike. Bikes are great cars are great..Don't make it an ugly conversation or deal breaker..moderate
You are ignoring older adults that do not feel safe on bicycles. Children are not learning the rules of the road and parents will have a false sense of safety because instead of teaching their children. Please remove the Slow Streets.

You have many pie in the sky artist/underserved/homeless stuff in this plan. That is not what the plan is for. Page 122 of 122 168

Alameda City CouncilDecember 6, 2022

Alameda City Council
December 6, 2022