From: Jay
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Correspondence re Item 7C
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:56:53 PM
Sorry for this last minute contribution to the 7C correspondence file, time permitting.
Thank you.
Jay Garfinkle
Honorable Councilmembers and Residents of Alameda,
The Correspondence file for Item 7C is comprised primarily of members of Bike Walk Alameda and residents of the slow streets. Obviously someone has been encouraging these people to put in their two cents.
Unfortunately, while they prefer that the Slow Streets be kept in place, they certainly do not represent the majority of Alameda, residents. The Staff’s studies alluded to by some of the writers were worded in such a manner as to garner the responses desired by Staff. In addition, the survey had absolutely no statistical significance notwithstanding Staff’s claim of significance. For the record, please, understand that when surveys are completed VOLUNTEER participants, they cannot, according to the established and accepted rules of statistics, be interpreted as representing the wishes or opinions of an entire, orders of magnitude larger, population.
Staff, themselves, stated that the reason for bringing this question to the Council is the hope that it will eliminate the large number of complaints they’ve been receiving regarding the Slow Streets.
Unfortunately, the dozens (hundreds ?) of complainants didn’t have a special interest group organizing them into a letter writing platoon.
Staff claims that something like 47% of Alameda residents are either strongly or vaguely in favor of being able to ride bicycles or walk along the proposed “safer streets”. Really? 47% of Alameda’s 70+thousand residents would prefer to bike and walk rather than use their cars, uber, buses, etc.? Are there really over 39,000 Alameda residents in favor of maintaining the slow streets.
Talk about manipulation by Staff and the special interest group that induced the mayor to change her vote re Grand Street’s proposed chicanery.
Can’t we approach this issue honestly, based on the facts, instead of depending on manipulation and distortion of the facts as Staff would have us doing now?
Jay Garfinkle
From: Erin Snyder
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on Item 7-C Slow Streets
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 11:20:34 AM
Hello,
I am an Alameda resident, and would like to submit my comment for item 7-C about the Slow Streets.
I am both a driver and bike-rider, and I am excited to see all of the plans coming together for speed bumps, bike paths, and other measures which will make it safer and easier for people to ride bikes around the island, and reduce the number of cars on the roads which makes life easier for drivers as well. Feels like a win-win!
My specific comment is about the decision to either keep the Slow Streets barricades in place, or to remove them and open up the streets until the neighborhood greenways are ready to go.
I'm not sure what percentage of Alameda residents follow the city's social media accounts, or receive emails, or read local news articles which would inform them of the plan for greenways.
My concern is that anyone who didn't hear about the plan for Neighborhood Greenways could interpret the removal of the barricades as a sign that the Slow Streets project is over. Then later, when the city is ready to implement the greenways, that could come as a surprise and could cause greater issues.
Leaving the barricades up doesn't seem to cause any harm, and I think it sets the expectation that those streets aren't "back to normal" after the pandemic. Removing the barricades once the greenways are in place makes sense to me.
Thank you for your time,
Erin Snyder
From: Trish Spencer
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Greenways Proposal September 17, 2024 Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:45:28 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Niland <[email protected]>
Date: Sep 16, 2024 1:59 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Greenways Proposal September 17, 2024 To: Scott Wikstrom <[email protected]>
Cc: Erin Smith <[email protected]>,Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>,Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,Christian Kazakoff <[email protected]>,Gail Payne <[email protected]>,Jennifer Ott
<[email protected]>,[email protected],Sandra Tanner
<[email protected]>,Warren Elliott <[email protected]>,Jeff Knoth <[email protected]>,Yibin Shen <[email protected]>,Rochelle Wheeler <[email protected]>,Lisa Foster
<[email protected]>,[email protected],Sarah Baroody <[email protected]>,Cody Lim <[email protected]>,Amy Wooldridge <[email protected]>
To: The City Council, Transportation Staff and the Mayor In Response to the City's Proposed Greenways before the City Council September 17 All, As I said before, I’m thoroughly opposed to this proposal.
I listened in on the Transportation Commission meeting when greenways were discussed on August 28, 2024. It appears at the heart of this proposal (based on survey results from just 1800 respondents) is the City’s belief that there are many people who would ride bikes if there were more streets in Alameda that were bike friendly. With all due respect to our recycling company, that amounts to “Wishcycling” (the notion that if the City builds these greenways, cyclists will come).
Alameda is not short on safe bike lanes either east/west or north/south. The notion that hundreds or even thousands of people will begin riding bikes if greenways are established is flawed. Most residents aren’t going to give up their cars to ride bikes year-round. Alameda residents ride bikes during summer months. Existing bike lanes are not overused, and many of the proposed greenways run parallel to streets that already have safe bike lanes. For instance, Pacific is parallel to Clement, Santa Clara, Central, and Encinal, and Versailles is parallel to Broadway.
During the Transportation Commission meeting, it was stated greenways are designed so bicyclists can safely share space with cars. These already slow streets are already safe in that regard. As I said before, choosing to spend even more money on these already "slow streets" to create boutique ones in some neighborhoods while high accident corridors get nothing is wrong, and in no way achieves the goals established in “Vision Zero". The greenway plans should be scrapped and the money saved should be spent on improving safety on streets that need the improvements.
Bill Niland
Mayor EzzyAshcraft, CouncilmembersDaysog, Jensen, Spencer, andVella, I'mwritingregardingtheNeighborhoodGreenwaysandItem7-ContheSeptember 17th, 2024Agenda.
MyfamilyandIstronglysupportkeepingtheSlowStreetbarricadesinplaceandtransitioningtomorepermanentsolutionsinthefuture.Surveydatashowsmost Alamedanssharethisview, recognizingSlowStreetsasavaluableresourcefor makingour communitysafer andmoreenjoyable.
For us, SlowStreetshavebeenasuccess. Mydaughters(4and6)learnedtoridetheir bikesonPacificAve., twoblocksfromour house. Ifeelsafecyclingwiththemthere—andI frequentlyseekidsplayingor,likelast week, agroupof teenssingingtogether inthestreet. OnSantaClaraAve., just fiveminutesafter aferryarrives, it transformsintoaveritable"bikehighway" withbikecommuters. Thesestreetsaredoingwhat theyweredesignedtodo: slowdowntraffic, createsafety, andencouragemoreactive, car-freetransportation.
Surveyresultsreinforcethis: 50%of respondentswant PacificAve. toremainaSlowStreet, comparedtojust 33%whodon’t. Evenmoretelling,nearly75%of respondentsfear that if SlowStreetsareremoved,speeding, unsafecrossings, andtrafficwill return.
AlamedaCityCouncil andStaff showedboldleadershipwithcost-effectiveexperimentsduringthepandemicandresponsivetoAlamedan’sneeds—SlowStreets, parklets, roadre-striping, andtheCAREprogramareall examples. Our citytookaniterative, affordableapproach, usingpaint andplasticbarriersrather thanpavement toredesignstreets.
Assomeonewhobuildssoftwareproducts, thepathtosuccessisalwaysthroughiteration: identifytheproblem, put out asolution,gather feedback, improve, andrepeat. Myonlycritiqueisthat we'vebeenstuckinoneiterationphasefor toolong. I wishwewouldhavealreadytestedshort sectionswithmorepermanent changes—trafficcircles, plantings, funon-the-street art, andstopsigns—toseewhatworksbest.
Temporarilyremovingthebarricadesnowwouldbeastepbackward.Let’skeepmovingforwardandcontinuemakingourstreetssaferandmoreenjoyableforeveryone.
Your Neighbor,ThushanAmarasiriwardena, dadof 2SantaClaraAve., Central Alameda From: Rachel Lee
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C: preserve our slow streets! Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 8:48:30 PM
Dear City Councilfolk,
I'm writing to ask you to support the Slow Street program and to leave the existing barricades in place. I really appreciate the slow streets and the protection they provide to pedestrians and cyclists.
Please vote Option 1 and keep the barricades!
Thank you,
Rachel Lee
From: Ezra Denney
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support Our Slow Streets (Item 7-C) Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 3:31:13 PM
Hello Alameda Representatives,
I write in support of the Slow Street program and to urge council to listen to the results of the community survey, where overwhelming support was expressed to keep and to make permanent the slow street barricades.
I live a block from San Jose, and walk it daily. The slow street allows me to walk safely and quietly, and is so appreciated. Please support this very popular program, and listen to the survey responses, and your Transportation Commission.
I urge you to vote for Option 1: Keep all the Barricades.
Thanks!
Ezra Denney
From: President PTA
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Changes to Safe Routes to School
Date: Sunday, September 15, 2024 11:40:50 PM
Attachments: haightes_suggestedroutes_28sept20181.pdf
Hello Council Members,
It has been brought to the attention of the Love Elementary PTA that the city of Alameda is considering changes to the Slow Streets, notably the removal of barricades on streets near our school.
I am following up with our administration to determine whether or not our school (or any other school for that matter) was notified of this change to our
suggested Safe Routes to
School,
which are designed by Alameda County's Safe Routes to Schools program. Is the Council aware of any such communications?
I have attached our suggested safe routes to school map for reference. The PTA provides those suggested routes to school community members at events like Back to School night or our Kindergarten ice cream social. Those routes aren't just on paper, and any changes to them will affect actual children walking and biking to school.
Schools should be given time to respond before such changes are implemented.
Efforts should
be made to specifically inform the relevant school site staff and families when changes like this are to be decided and voted upon.
Furthermore, I would like to remind the council that close calls have been a pervasive and persistent issue at Love elementary and the surrounding area for many years. See more here:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/11/04/spike-in-kids-being-hit-by-vehicles-near- schools-in-east-bay-city-has-parents-pushing-for-safety-measures/ Thank you for your time.
--
photo Tim McQuillan
President, Love Elementary PTA
415-990-3451
(mobile) | [email protected]
lovepta.org
Create your own email signature
!
HAIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0 0.1 0.2
MILES
C
C
Crossing Guard
Traffic Signal
All Way Stop
Crosswalk
C
C
Crossing Guard
Traffic Signal
All Way Stop
Crosswalk
Off-Street Shared-Use Path
On-Street Bicycle Lane
Suggested Route to School Crossing Guard
Traffic Signal
All Way Stop
Crosswalk
C
C
Crossing Guard
Traffic Signal
All Way Stop
Crosswalk
C
C
Crossing Guard
Traffic Signal
All Way Stop
Crosswalk
Off-Street Shared-Use Path
On-Street Bicycle Lane
Crossing Guard
Traffic Signal
All Way Stop
Crosswalk
HOW TO USE THIS MAP
This suggested route to school map
is intended to encourage adults and
students to consider walking or
bicycling to school. Adults are
responsible for choosing the most
appropriate option based on their
and the skill l evel of their student.
knowledge of different routes
SUGGESTED ROUTES FOR WALKING & BIKING TO SCHOOL
C C On-Street Bicycle Route
September 2018
Park St
!
!
!Alameda
High
Franklin
Elementary
!
Wood
Middle
10 MIN WALK / 4 MIN BIKE
Rittler
Park
Union
Point
Park
Little
John
Park
Tilden Way
Stanford St
Park Ave
Laurel St
Encinal Ave
Kitty
Hawk
Rd
Webb
Ave
Broadway
Everett St
Pearl St
Hibbard
St
Franciscan Way
Sandcreek Way
Stanton
St
Minturn
St
Schiller
St
Grand
St
Regent St
Benton St
Eagle Ave
Otis Dr
Paru
St
Willow
St
Chestnut
St
Lafayette StAlameda Ave
Union
St
Walnut
St
Clement
Ave
Clinton
Ave
Park St
San Antonio Ave
Oak St
Pacific Ave
San
Jose
Ave
Central Ave
Buena
Vista
Ave
Lincoln
Ave
Santa Clara Ave
Thompson
Field
ESTUARY
Haight
Elementary
Grand St
Oak St
Park St
Drive Safely
SLOW DOWN in school zones. The safe speed
may be less than 25 miles per hour.
BE AN EXAMPLE Follow instructions from
safety patrol/crossing guards.
LOOK FOR CHILDREN walking, crossing, and
bicycling on the street from all directions.
STOP FOR PEOPLE crossing in crosswalks,
intersections, and in the middle of the street.
GO WITH THE FLOW
pick-up rules. Pull all the way to the curb rather
than letting kids out in the street.
FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD Avoid mid-
block u-turns, turning against “No Right on Red”
RESPECT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Park
in legal spaces and avoid double par king
or blocking driveways. Consider carpooling,
walking, or biking to school.
AVOID texting, phone calls, and other
distractions while driving, biking, or walking.
BE SAFE Protect your brain;
it’s the law. Fit your helmet
snug and level on your head
just above your eyebrows.
BE PREDICTABLE Follow all
signs, signals, and rules of the
road, just like a driver.
BE ALERT Look for drivers
turning or exiting a driveway.
Stop for peopl
e in crosswalks.
Ride a safe distance from
opening car doors.
BE CAUTIOUS Go slowly when
riding on sidewalks and stop
at all intersections. Consider
walking your bike through
crosswalks.
BE ALERT Stop, look, and listen
for cars (including from behind!)
before crossing. Look left, right,
left.
BE SMART Cross at street corners
where drivers can see you.
BE VISIBLE Make eye contact
with drivers before crossing the
street.
BE SAFE Wear your helmet and
safety gear while skating or using
a scooter.
Bike Safely
Walk, Skate & Scoot Safely
Let’s Get to
School Safely!
Get Involved
PLAN your travel route to school
CREATE OR JOIN a “walking school bus”
or ”bike train”
LEARN MORE about how to implement
SR2S at your school by visiting
www.alamedacountySR2S.org or
Suggested
Routes to
Haight
Elementary
School
ALAMEDA COUNTY
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS
About Safe Routes to Schools
“Healthy Kids, Safer Streets, Strong
Communities” is the mission of
Alameda County’s Safe Routes to
Schools program (SR2S). We organize
and support fun, educational activities
that encourage families to walk, bike,
carpool, and take transit to school.
Map printing funded by Measures B & BB, Alameda
County's transportation sales tax.
From: Ashley Lorden
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on 9/17/24 Meeting Item 7-C Removing Select Slow Streets Barricades Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 6:42:23 PM
Hello,
The majority of Alameda community members spoke in favor of maintaining all existing Slow Streets Barricades in the recent public survey, and the Transportation Commission also supported maintaining them in their August 28 meeting. The barricades are the only way most road users know about Slow Streets, so without them, these critical routes for Alamedans
cease to be slow and are less safe.
As a daily user of Slow Streets as a safe route to school with my children, to connect to public transit for my commute, and to move around Alameda, I depend on you to maintain all of the existing Slow Streets Barricades until each section can be transitioned to a neighborhood greenway.
Thank you,
Ashley Lorden
From: Caitlin Schwarzman
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item (7-C)
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 3:45:26 PM
Alameda City Council Members,
I am glad to hear you are moving forward with the Neighborhood Greenways project.
As a driver, cyclist, pedestrian, parent, Alameda educator, and homeowner on San Jose Ave, completion of these Greenways is very important to me.
Until the Greenways are complete, please do keep the barricades in place (item 7-C on Tuesday’s City Council agenda). Without the barricades, traffic on San Jose—especially in the morning commute to school hours when kids are biking—is dangerously fast. We can’t risk tragedy by going back to that.
Thank you,
Caitlin
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Michael Patterson
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Safe Streets
Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 1:27:30 PM
Hello,
I am writing in reference to the Safe Streets Item on the September 17th City Council meeting (Item 7-C). I am fully in support of keeping the Safe Streets barricades up until work on the Greenways has started.
I bike on the Santa Clara Safe Street multiple times a week with my two-year old daughter.
We use it as our primary way to get to Webster, the library, and Washington park. My wife refuses to ride with me on unprotected streets like Central or Lincoln, and Santa Clara is the only safe route we have to get to the Crab Cove area.
Thank you,
Michael Patterson
17 Bertero Square
From: Deborah Goldberg
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Item 7-C – Keep Barricades in Place (Option 1) Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 1:04:22 PM
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for Item 7-C, specifically Option 1, which calls for keeping the barricades in place until they are replaced with Neighborhood Greenways. This option offers the most effective path forward for the following reasons:
1. Preservation of Reduced Car Speeds and Volumes: The primary goal of the program is to enhance safety by reducing car speeds and traffic volumes. Option 1 best preserves these crucial safety gains.
2. Alignment with Community Feedback: The results of the community survey show strong support for keeping the barricades, and Option 1 respects the will of the residents who favor this approach.
3. Support from the Transportation Commission: The Transportation Commission generally favored Option 1, reinforcing its viability as the best solution.
4. Consistency with the Active Transportation Plan: Option 1 is aligned with the Active Transportation Plan and adheres to the original direction set by the Council.
5. Avoiding Confusion for Residents: Removing barricades from some streets but not others could confuse residents. Option 1 ensures a consistent and clear approach across all affected streets.
6. Maintaining Program Momentum: Option 1 allows the program to maintain its forward momentum, ensuring we don't lose ground with incremental or confusing changes.
I urge the Council to support Item 7-C, Option 1, to keep the barricades in place and continue progressing toward Neighborhood Greenways. Thank you for considering this input.
Sincerely,
Deborah Goldberg
1611 San Antonio Avenue, Alameda
From: Max Blum
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on 9/17/2024 Agenda Item 7c (Slow Streets) Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 12:40:52 PM
Hi,
I live on Pacific Avenue.
I was disappointed to see staff recommend that slow street signs be removed from some of the intersections on our street.
The staff report describes this as a
"priority" without giving any reason why.
The survey responses in exhibit 4 clearly show that
most respondents prefer that the signs be kept in place until the neighborhood Greenway measures are in place.
The staff recommendation to remove some signs lacks justification and should be rejected.
The signs keep people safe walking on our slow street.
Thank you,
Max Blum
From: Sean McQuillan
To: CityCouncil-List; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment: Slow streets barricade removal near Love Elementary Date: Friday, September 13, 2024 10:38:06 AM
Ahoy City Council and Love Elementary PTA
Re:
https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6852356&GUID=53C632D7- E5E6-4216-895A-7C499CBC2CCC&FullText=1
I am once again emailing in because of an agenda item where city staff is proposing removing
slow streets barricades
from our safe-route-to-school which is used daily by dozens of kids at Love Elementary to walk, bike, scoot, and skateboard.
The proposed new design would leave our children
vulnerable to an increase in uncontrolled
automobile traffic
along the Pacific corridor between Lafayette and Oak for an entire school term - to be replaced by as yet undesigned safety improvements.
Dear city council, please maintain our safe-route-to-school as an automobile restricted corridor
until appropriate student safety improvements can be designed and implemented.
Going back in time and decreasing student safety at Love Elementary
due to "ongoing
maintenance time or the community complaints" is not the right direction for the City of Alameda.
According to the survey results, the proposed removals directly impacts
the section of
slow streets with the highest resident concern about aggressive automobile behavior.
It is also a well-trafficked safe-route-to-school.
The data from the community survey is clear - a plurality of residents support safety for our students, and a small but very vocal minority complains. Please make the right decision and continue to restrict traffic along the safe-route-to-school of Pacific Avenue until safety impromentents for students are designed and implemented.
Dear Love Elementary PTA, I am writing to inquire if city staff have worked with you, the school administration,
or done any parent outreach to validate the proposed changes that would reduce student safety along the safe-route-to-school at Love elementary? Thanks,
Sean
--
Sean McQuillan
415.990.0854
From: Cyndy Johnsen
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk; board
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 9/17 Council Meeting Item 7-C
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 12:32:54 PM
Attachments: 9-12-2024 CC Neighborhood Greenways_SS.pdf Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the City Council, We hope you will consider our comments regarding this item, attached.
Thank you,
Bike Walk Alameda
Board of Directors
Denyse Trepanier
President
Brian Fowler
Treasurer
Tim Beloney
Secretary
Cyndy Johnsen
Board Member
Maria Piper
Board Member
Lucy Gigli
Founder, non-voting
September 12, 2024
RE: Item 7-C: Neighborhood Greenways Implementation and Slow Streets Barricade Removal
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the City Council, The Slow Streets barricades have helped reduce automobile speeds and volumes, and made these few streets feel safer and more welcoming for many people walking and rolling. We’re very eager for more effective infrastructure to be implemented, and lament every delay, but we discourage potentially jeopardizing the gains that have been made by removing or scaling back on barricades in any way. We strongly prefer Option 1 (keeping the barricades in place) over the other options because it:
● best preserves reduced car speeds and volumes, the primary goal of the program;
● best aligns with the community survey results, which show support for keeping the barricades;
● was favored by the Transportation Commission;
● is consistent with the Active Transportation Plan and Council’s original direction; ● avoids any risk of confusing residents by removing barricades on some streets but not others; and
● best maintains forward momentum of the program.
We’re opposed to Staff’s recommendation for several reasons. It’s hard to imagine that removing so many barricades won’t result in increased car volumes and speeds, degrading the low stress experience for non-motorized traffic, and undermining program goals.
Furthermore, we don’t believe the motivations to remove the barricades justify risking a setback: the maintenance needs are relatively modest, and Staff’s recommendations won’t achieve significant savings anyway, since more than half of the barricades will still need servicing under their proposal. The complaints around barricade safety and ineffectiveness are unfounded, and should be countered with education, not used as a basis for removal. A better barometer of community preference is the survey, and input from the Transportation Commission, both of which favor keeping the barricades.
Regarding the broader implementation strategy, we hope you will consider the thoughtful proposal made by Transportation Commissioner Dara-Abrams , copied here verbatim for convenience:
● Keep barricades in place, per existing Council direction (as in Option 1) ● Have the consultant team select a single quick build treatment such as "mini neighborhood roundabouts" or "speed humps" that will have relevance to many locations across the entire network (even if it is not a perfect, complete, or
permanent solution; note that this has to be a treatment that actually affects driver speeds, as opposed to the flexpost paddles in Option 3) ● Put together a budget estimate for deploying that treatment to all relevant locations across the entire network, and spread this budget estimate over 1–3 years (not longer)
● In the next fiscal year (or sooner if funds can be secured), begin to broadly install the one single treatment wherever appropriate across the entire network, at the same time as the bespoke planning/engagement/design process narrowly focuses on select corridors (to provide additional treatments that are site- specific, more complete, and given more public airing)
● Perhaps this process of deploying the chosen "spot" quick-build treatment could be handled fully by Public Works engineers and operational staff, rather than led by PBT planners, to balance out responsibilities and timelines. .
This approach would deliver safety benefits across the network quickly, enabling mode shift, and putting us back on track to achieving the Low Stress Backbone Network by 2030 as envisioned in the Active Transportation Plan. As you know, this network is one of the most powerful tools in our climate action arsenal — the sooner we get it built, the better. We urge you to take this opportunity to help our City live up to its claim of being an innovative climate leader by giving this important project the on-going support it well deserves.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bike Walk Alameda Board