Exhibit 2
Fernside Blvd Traffic Calming & Bikeways Project Public Engagement Summary
February 24, 2025
Table of Contents
1. List of Public Engagement Activities Summer 2023 - January 2025
2. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Public Engagement Summary
3. Phase 2: Concept Alternatives Public Engagement Summary Jump to sections by clicking the table of content items
List of Public Engagement Activities, p. 1
List of Public Engagement Activities Summer 2023 - January 2025 Summary of activities:
• 200 attendees at 5 Fernside Project public workshops
• 5 total public hearings at the Transportation Commission and Commission on Persons with Disabilities
• 1,120 total responses to 3 online surveys
• 1,950 total flyers sent in 3 postal mail notices
• 17 email bulletin mailings
• 4 news articles
Community Workshops:
• 12/4/2023 Community workshop Phase 1 (85 attendees)
• 12/11/2023 Virtual community workshop Phase 1 (28 attendees) • 5/29/2024 Virtual community workshop Phase 2 (13 attendees) • 6/5/2024 Community workshop Phase 2 (40 attendees)
• 11/9/2024 Gibbons Dr at Fernside Blvd/High St Intersection Improvements Pop-up (50 attendees)
Public Hearings:
• 1/24/2024 Transportation Commission (discussed existing conditions) • 6/26/2024 Transportation Commission (provided input on design concept alternatives)
• 6/5/2024 Commission on Persons with Disabilities (provided input on design concept alternatives)
• 11/20/2025 Transportation Commission (endorsed draft final design concepts) • 1/22/2025 Commission on Persons with Disabilities (discussed draft final design concepts)
Online Surveys
• 11/21/2023-12/17/2023 Existing conditions survey (600 responses) • 5/29/2024-6/19/2024 Design concept options survey (longer survey with 305 responses)
• 11/8/2024 Gibbons Dr at Fernside Blvd/High St concept survey (210 responses to date)
List of Public Engagement Activities, p. 2
Postal Mail
• 11/27/2023 Flyer mailed to all Fernside Blvd addresses (400 addresses) • 5/20/2024 Flyer mailed to all addresses within 300' of Fernside Blvd (1,400 addresses)
• 10/21/2024 Gibbons/Fernside/High pop-up event flyer mailed to all addresses within 150' of Gibbons Dr (150 addresses)
Email Bulletins
• 20 email bulletins sent 8/30/2023 – 1/22/2025
• Additional email bulletins sent to advertise commission agendas with Fernside Project agenda items, or to agendize Fernside Project public workshops per Brown Act requirements so City Councilmembers and commissioners could attend:
Transportation Commission (4), City Council (3), Commission on Persons with Disabilities (1)
A-Frame Posters
Posters were placed on A-frames at 5 locations along Fernside Blvd during these dates:
• 12/1/2023-12/18/2023
• 5/31/2024-6/20/2024
Local Schools and Community Groups
The following groups were known to share information about this project: Fernside Homeowners Association (HOA), East Shore HOA, Alameda Vista View Neighbors, Edison Elementary, Otis Elementary, Lincoln Middle School, and Bike Walk Alameda.
Press Coverage
• 11/24/2023 City Asks for Input on Estuary Park, Fernside Boulevard Project, Alameda Post
• 5/8/2024 Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming Public Workshops, Alameda Post • 12/8/2023 City Gathers Input from Local Residents on Future of Fernside, Alameda Post
• 12/30/2024 Transportation Commission Hears Fernside Update, Alameda Post
Memorandum
800 Bancroft Way, Suite 203 • Berkeley, CA 94710 | 510.343.6400 | Parametrix.com DATE: February 5, 2024
TO: Lisa Foster, City of Alameda
FROM: Jimmy Jessup and David Parisi, Parametrix
SUBJECT: Community Input on Fernside Boulevard Existing Conditions PROJECT NAME: Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project Executive Summary: Fernside Boulevard Existing Conditions Feedback The Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming & Bikeways Project aims to reduce traffic speeds and improve safety and mobility for all roadway users. The first round of public engagement occurred in late 2023, and sought input on existing conditions and people’s experiences, priorities, and general desires for the corridor. The City of Alameda (City) and Parametrix team gathered feedback from the community via an online survey (600 responses), in -person community workshop (85 participants), a virtual workshop (28 participants), emails, and SeeClickFix reports.
Public Input consistently reflected concern over the following issues:
• High vehicle speeds,
• Difficulty of crossing the street,
• Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, and
• Illegal vehicle passing maneuvers and vehicles not coming to a stop at stop signs.
When asked what improvements would be appropriate for this project, pedestrian enhancements such as more marked crossing locations and flashing beacons throughout the corridor are the most commonly suggested improvements. This is closely followed by a desi re for safe bicycle facilities appropriate for children biking to school, most frequently described as bicycle facilities that are fully protected or otherwise separated from vehicle traffic, and that facilitate safe passage through intersections, for left turns, and across Fernside Boulevard. Additional concerns involving driveway access, noise, appearance of improvements, and suggestions for installation of speed humps or other traffic calming elements were also consistently received during this project phase. Across the multiple feedback gathering forums, a steady rate of approximately 5 -10% of respondents indicate that the roadway is sufficient as currently exists and accordingly do not desire to see improvements implemented.
The project team will use this feedback to guide development and evaluation of potential concept alternatives for Fernside Boulevard to guide development and evaluation of potential concept alternatives for Fernside Boulevard to guide development and evaluation of potential concept alternatives for Fernside Boulevard, and anticipate a second round of public engagement in the spring.
Note that while the team used multiple methods to get the word out and received a large response, the findings are not statist ically significant. The Active Transportation Plan includes a statistically significant survey about walking and biking attitudes and needs in Alameda, included in the plan’s Community Survey and Public Engagement Summary.
February 5, 2024
Project Goal and Considerations
The goal of the Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project is to reduce traffic speeds and to improve safety and mobility for all roadway users. The project seeks to leverage community input to develop both a near -term “Early Action” concept plan that would allow for implementation in coordination with proposed 2025 pavement resurfacing of Fernside Boulevard between Tilden Way and High Street, and also to develop longer-term solutions to improve multimodal safety that would be in alignment with relevant adopted plans and policies. These include the Alameda Vision Zero Action Plan, which identifies Fernside Boulevard as a Tier 3 High Injury Corridor for all modes of transportation, and the City’s Active Transportation Plan, which identifies separated bikeways to be installed on Fernside Boulevard as part of the City’s 2030 Low-Stress Backbone Network.
Community Input on Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions Phase of this project took place in October -January 2023. This phase of the project focused on establishing a broad understanding of the current environment along the 1.3 -mile corridor. While data collection and physical condition observation were notable components of this phase, gathering input from community members that travel along or across Fernside Boulevard was also crucial to the Existing Conditions study. The upcoming project phases will consider potential improvement optio ns, and care will be taken to account for community needs. The intent is for proposed changes to address existing challenges and improve community experience with Fernside Boulevard.
Prior to starting the project , the
City had already gathered
information via over 30 Street
Safety Concern reports via
SeeClickFix and numerous emails
regarding Fernside Boulevard
traffic or safety issues in the past
few years. Various n ear-miss
locations were identified, and
comments were received
indicating high rates of vehicle
speed, illegal vehicle passing, and
difficulty crossing the street
safely.
Input regarding community experience with Fernside Boulevard was collected by various means, including a Community Workshop, Virtual Workshop, Online Survey, and other emails and submissions to the City SeeClickFix system. Invitations for the workshops and to participate in the survey were conveyed to the public through notices sent to all 400 postal mail addresses along Fernside Boulevard, 5 A-frame posters placed along Fernside Boulevard for 2 weeks, and through over 40,000 emails and text messages delivered via 10 newsletters/notices to various City of Alameda mailing lists. In addition, local schools and community groups, including but not limited to the Fernside HOA, East Shore HOA, Alameda Vista View Neighbors, Edison Elementary School, Otis Elementary School, and Bike Walk Alameda, shared information regarding the project with their communities and notified members of the upcoming engagement activities.
A summary of existing conditions community input collected through these forums about mode and frequency of travel, challenges encountered, and desired improvements along Fernside Boulevard are further described below.
Figure 1: Community safety concerns summarized from SeeClickFix submissions from 2021-2023.
February 5, 2024
Community Workshop
The Community Workshop was held on
December 4, 2023 from 6 -8 PM at Edison
Elementary School, which is located two
blocks from Fernside Boulevard. There were
85 participants in attendance. The agenda
featured a presentation from the project
team reviewing c ollected traffic and crash
history data, followed by an open house and
input session. During the open house,
attendees peruse d project information,
maps, and examples of potential traffic
calming and bikeway ‘toolkit’ measures for
potential future corridor improvements.
Large maps on tables welcomed attendees to offer feedback using various annotation materials.
Attendees were invited to write down input describing their challenges, or lack thereof, of traveling along and across Fernside Boulevard, and to comment on the li st of potential toolkit measures. In addition to the annotation maps, input was gathered via Input Forms that were handed to all participants and through individual conversations with attendees. 27 Input Forms were collected by the end of the Community Workshop. Of these, 93% of forms indicated safety or vehicle speed as one of their main concerns. Other key issues included vehicles passing in the two-way-left-turn-lane (west of High Street) or in the bike lanes to the right of the vehicle travel lane (east of High Street), difficulty crossing the street, and cars running stop signs. 7% of Input Forms desired that no changes be made to the existing configuration of Fernside Boulevard. Other important input reflected resident requests for barriers to be installed that would restrict turning from High Street on to Marina Drive in order to limit cut-through traffic, for installation of speed humps on Fernside Boulevard and side streets such as Liberty Avenue, and for increased traffic enforcement.
The annotation maps measured 10 feet by 3 feet and displayed Fernside Boulevard in three long ‘strips,’ which facilitated handwritten notes and comments directly connected to issue locations or locations where a ‘toolkit’ improvement measure was suggested. Overall, there were 155 individual comments collected on four large maps, scattered among post-it notes, drawings, and other descriptions made directly on the maps.
Figure 2: The Community Workshop on December 4, 2023, was attended by 85 participants.
Figure 3: 27 Input Forms were
collected at the Community Workshop
on December 4, 2023.
February 5, 2024
Figure 4: Four large annotation maps allowed Community Workshop participants to remark on transportation challenges and desired improvements along Fernside Boulevard.
Most comments described issues and user challenges, including driving failing to stop at stop signs, speeding, making illegal passing maneuvers ; bicycle facilities that felt unsafe ; and difficulty crossing the street. Approximately the same number of comments (25 -30) suggested specific pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements from the ‘toolkit’, and there were 17 suggestions for other traffic calming ‘toolkit’ measures, as summarized in the following table.
The geographic nature of the map exercise facilitated locational feedback on existing safety improvements and gave participants an opportunity to identify exactly where improvements may be needed. Comments included:
• Support for the flashing beacons currently installed at three uncontrolled crossing locations (Versailles Avenue, Harvard Drive, and San Jose Avenue), and numerous requests for crosswalks with flashing beacons at additional intersections, including Pearl Street, Cambridge Pedestrian Improvement
Suggestions
Bikeway Improvement
Suggestions
Other Traffic Calming
Improvement Suggestions
Flashing beacons 12 Protected bike lanes 13 Speed humps 6 Additional crosswalks 10 One-way separated bike lanes 7 Roundabouts 6 Improving sightlines 3 Two-way separated bike lanes 2 Speed feedback sign 3 Bulbouts 2 Protected intersections 3 Medians to prevent passing 2 Pedestrian refuge islands 1 Buffered bike lanes 0 Bus enhancements 0 Raised crosswalks 1
Table 1: Summary of traffic calming and bikeway ‘toolkit’ suggestions made on annotated maps by Community Workshop participants.
February 5, 2024
Drive, Fairview Avenue, Garfield Avenue/Eastshore Avenue, Liberty Avenue, and Central Avenue.
• The Fernside Boulevard intersection with High Street and Gibbons Drive received the highest number of total
comments for a specific intersection (19), each of which described either confusing and dangerous situations for vehicles and/or bicyclists, or sugg esting consideration of a roundabout, turning restrictions, or other intersection reconfiguration.
• Protected and separated bicycle facilities throughout the corridor was frequently suggested, especially requesting connection to the existing two -way separated bikeway that currently ends at San Jose Avenue, and wider bike lanes that accommodate tricycles was suggested.
• Other ‘toolkit’ measures such as improved sightlines, curb extensions, speed feedback signs, and pedestrian refuge islands received a small number of comments. Though not listed as ‘toolkit’ improvements on the visual material used during the open house, there were six suggestions for raised crosswalks or speed humps along the corridor and six suggestions for roundabouts (at Encinal Avenue, Central Avenue, and High Street).
Individual conversation s with attendees at the Community Workshop also garnered feedback that vehicles often do not stop for pedestrians attempting to cross the street and frequently roll through stop-controlled intersections. Additional feedback gathered through individual conve rsations also indicated the desire to provide bicyclists with facilities that are appropriate for school -aged children, to reduce traffic noise, to consider protected intersections and roundabouts at larger intersections, and for more traffic enforcement.
Virtual Workshop
A Virtual Workshop was held on December 11, 2023 from
12-1 PM on Zoom. There were 28 participants in attendance.
The material that was presented at the Community
Workshop was also presented during this session, followed by a Question & Answer session during which 12 participants asked questions or made comments that were addressed
immediately following by the project team. In addition to comments that expressed desire for pedestrian
improvements, safe bicycle facilities, particularly bicycle routes to schools that accommodate children, consideration of s peed humps and roundabouts, and improved traffic
enforcement, commenters also emphasized the importance
of landscaping and for installed improvements to be visually pleasing. Concerns were also expressed regarding the
potential for parking -protected bicycl e lanes to increase difficulty of vehicles entering and existing driveways, and for the potential for traffic calming along Fernside Boulevard to result in re-routed traffic to other nearby roadways such as High Street.
Figure 5: The geographic nature of
participant map annotations
facilitated location-specific feedback
on desired improvements.
Figure 6: A Virtual Workshop was held on
December 11, 2023.
February 5, 2024
Online Survey
An Online Survey gathered 600 responses between
November 21 and December 17, 2023. The survey
consisted of 13 questions and took an average of just over seven minutes per user to complete. Of the 600
respondents, 61% answered that they lived along or within one block of Fernside Boulevard, and 50% answered that
they use Fernside Boulevard daily, as opposed to 7% that use Fernside Boulevard less than once per week.
Respondents were able to select one or modes of travel
they use when traveling along or crossi ng the roadway; 546 answered that they travel by vehicle, 385 walk, 314 cycle, and 29 take the bus. When allowed to select multiple destinations that prompt travel along or across Fernside Boulevard, the highest number of respondents (435)
answered that a bridge is their typical destination, indicating that the corridor serves as a major route between such access points as Bay Farm Bridge, High Street Bridge, Fruitvale Bridge, and Park Street Bridge. Respondents also indicated that residences (399) and shopping (382) destinations generated use of Fernside Boulevard, along with work (244) and school (138).
The survey listed 15 potential challenges, from which respondents were able to select up to seven issues to represent what they find most pressing when using Fernside Boulevard. Of these, the challenges of high vehicle speeds, crossing the street, safety o f people walking, and safety of people biking all garnered more than 300 responses. Traffic congestion, safety of people in vehicles, and noise were the next highest -selected challenges, garnering 122, 121, and 109 responses, respectively. Challenges with street lighting or visibility, roadway or sidewalk condition, and truck traffic 430
369
349
337
122
121
109
87 83
53 47
43 26
24 14
0 100 200 300 400
High motor vehicle speeds
Crossing the street
Safety of people walking
Safety of people biking
Traffic congestion
Safety of people in motor vehicles
Noise
Street lighting / visibility
Other
Condition of the roadway
Truck traffic
Condition of the sidewalk
Appearance
Finding parking
Wayfinding / navigation
Number of Respondents
What do you find most Challenging when using Fernside Boulevard? Figure 7: Information was gathered via an online
survey from November 21 to December 17,
2023
Figure 8: Online survey response results to the prompt “What do you find most challenging when using Fernside Boulevard?”
February 5, 2024
each collected between 40 and 90 responses. Wayfinding / navigation, finding parking, and appearance were the lowest-selected challenges, each selected by fewer than 30 respondents.
The survey also
included a free
response question,
with a field for text
to be entered in
response to a
prompt asking for
survey participants
to describe their
current challenges
using Fernside
Boulevard, as well
as any desired
improvements for
the roadway. Over
75% of all
respondents entered text for this question. As such, this body of responses represents the largest collection of qualitative feedback gathered throughout the project’s Existing Conditions study. Though most of the responses describe chall enges with high vehicle speeds, illegal vehicle passing maneuvers, vehicles not coming to a stop at stop signs, or pedestrian and bicyclist safety, five percent of respondents indicate that the street is satisfactory as it currently exists, and/or that improvements to the corridor are not necessary. Some participants describe difficulties in entering or existing driveways due to high vehicle speeds, limited sight lines when approaching Fernside Boulevard from a side street, issues with lighting and noise, a nd there are also some comments that bicyclists have been observed to not stop at stop signs.
The vast majority of improvements suggested in the survey free response question suggest pedestrian and bicyclist improvements such as additional marked crosswalks, flashing beacons, and protected bicycle lanes both in general and at specific locations. In addition to these, 12% of free response comments reflect a desire for increased traffic enforcement, 8% of comments suggest speed humps, and 3% of comments recommend roundabouts. Other suggestions include additional speed feedback signs, narrower travel lanes, median islands, and curb extensions.
The online survey also asked demographic and socioeconomic questions. Of all survey participants, 26% were over 65 years of age, and 47% of participants had children under age 21 living in the household. Of these respondents, numerous households have children that attend local schools in the vicinity of Fernside Boulevard such as Lincoln Middle School (121), Edison Elementary School (78), St.
Philip Neri School (22), Rising Star Montessori School (10). 60 respondents have children that attend preschool or other schools. In terms of racial or ethnic identity, the vast majority of respondents (400) identify as white. 69 respondents identify as Asian / Asian American, 41 as multi-ethnic or multi-racial, 29 as Hispanic or Latino/a/x, 11 as African American or Black, 11 as Mid dle Eastern, and eight as American Indian or Indigenous.
Figure 9: A sample of online survey respondent free response comments describing existing challenges or improvements desired along Fernside Boulevard.
February 5, 2024
Online survey participants were 90% homeowners and 10% renters. The online survey was largely comprised of participants from higher reported household incomes, listed per the following ranges:
• 1% of survey participants reported household income under $40,000 • 9%: $40,000 – $100,000
• 20%: $100,000 – $150,000
• 40%: $150,000 – $300,000
• 30%: $300,000
Transportation Commission
Results of the Existing Conditions Phase were presented to the Alameda Transportation Commission on January 24, 2024. The feedback from commissioners to the project included:
• Ensure enhanced safety at marked crosswalk locations; • Consider the City’s neighborhood connector roadway classification in determining appropriate treatments and design guidelines;
• Consider the potential for traffic pattern evolution in a post-COVID future • Integrate treatments that sufficiently calm traffic such as hardened centerlines, narrowed travel lanes, rumble strips, vertical deflection elements, and other measures into the project; • Integrate lessons learned from other traffic calming projects in the City such as along Otis Drive, and set the current project up for measuring before and after metrics and success indicators.
Feedback from all forums will be considered by the project team to guide development and evaluation of potential concept alternatives for Fernside Boulevard in the coming months. An additional round of community engagement on concept alternatives will commence in late Spring 2024.
Figure 10: The number of online survey participants that identify as white greatly outnumber participants of other racial or ethnic identities.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
African American, Black
Hispanic, Latino/a/x
White
Asian, Asian American
American Indian, Indigenous
Middle Eastern
Multi-ethnic / Multi-racial
Not Listed
Prefer not to answer
Memorandum
800 Bancroft Way, Suite 203 • Berkeley, CA 94710 | 510.343.6400 | Parametrix.com DATE: July 12, 2024
TO: Lisa Foster, City of Alameda
FROM: Jimmy Jessup and David Parisi, Parametrix
SUBJECT: Community Input on Fernside Boulevard Concept Alternatives PROJECT NAME: Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project Executive Summary: Community Input on Fernside Boulevard Concept Alternatives The Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming & Bikeways Project aims to reduce traffic speeds and improve safety and mobility for all roadway users. The project’s second round of public engagement occurred in late spring 2024 and sought input on four (4) long -term and three (3) near-term potential concept alternatives for Fernside Boulevard. The City of Alameda (City) and Parametrix team gathered feedback from the community via a virtual workshop (28 participants), an in-person community workshop (45 participants), an online survey (304 responses), other submitted emails, and presentations at the City Commission on Persons with Disabilities and Transportation Commission.
Public Input reflected the following:
• Reducing vehicle travel speeds and p edestrian improvements such as additional marked crosswalks and flashing beacons were identified as being near -term and long -term project priorities.
• All four long -term concept alternatives received broad public support and were identified to align with project goals of reducing vehicle travel speeds and increasing safety for all roadway users, particularly pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Of the three near -term concept alternatives, feedback reflected high levels of concern regarding the on -street parking loss associated with the two separated bikeway concepts compared to the Buffered Bike Lanes concept, which does not result in substantial on -street parking reduction. This feedback does not necessarily support survey responses that indicated bicycle lane separation from motor vehicle traffic as a higher project priority than abundant on-street parking.
• Feedback from public commissioners include encouragement for project plans to align with the City’s Active Transportation Plan, to prioritize safety for vulnerable road users, and to consider accessible loading zones for residential visitors and transit st op accessibility when comparing concepts.
The project team will use this feedback collected on the Fernside Boulevard concept alternatives to guide development of one long-term and one near-term concept design plan for Fernside Boulevard.
Concept selection and concept design will progress through the upcoming months.
Project Goal and Background
The goal of the Fernside Boulevard Traffic Calming and Bikeways Project is to reduce traffic speeds and to improve safety and mobility for all roadway users. The project seeks to leverage community input to develop both a near-term “Early Action” concept plan that would allow for implementation in coordination with proposed 202 6 pavement resurfacing of Fernside Boulevard between Tilden Way and High Street, and also to develop longer-term solutions to improve multimodal safety that would be in alignment with relevant adopted plans and policies. These include the Alameda Vision Zero Action July 12, 2024
Plan, which identifies Fernside Boulevard as a Tier 3 High Injury Corridor for all modes of transportation, and the City’s Active Transportation Plan, which identifies separated bikeways to be installed on Fernside Boulevard as part of the City’s 2030 Low -Stress Backbone Network. This memorandum summarizes recent public input gathered regarding potential concept alternatives for the 1.3-mile Fernside Boulevard corridor.
The project team has completed an extensive survey of existing conditions throughout the Fall and Winter of 2023. These activities included data collection and physical condition observation , as well as gathering input from community members t hat travel along or across Fernside Boulevard.
Information such as corridor measurements, average daily traffic volumes, multimodal turning movements, motor vehicle speeds , parking utilization, past SeeClickFix service requests, and crash history analysis was presented to the public at a December 4, 2023 community meeting at Edison Elementary School and at a December 14, 2023 Virtual Community Meeting. An online survey was advertised to the public from November 21 through December 17, 2023. Through each of these forums, feedback was gathered from the community to gain deep er understanding of user’s overall experiences and challenges when traveling along or across Fernside Boulevard. Input consistently reflected concern over the following issues:1
• High motor vehicle speeds,
• Difficulty crossing the street,
• Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, and
• Illegal vehicle passing maneuvers and vehicles not coming to a stop at stop signs.
During the Spring of 2024, the project team has developed concept alternatives for Fernside Boulevard considering this first round of community input and the compiled multimodal transportation data. Four (4) long-term concepts reflecting a long-term vision for the full corridor, and three (3) near- term concepts reflecting projects that could be implemented with 2026 resurfacing were developed:
Long-Term Concept Alternatives:
• LT1a: One-Way Curb-Protected Bikeways
• LT1b: One-Way Raised Bikeways
• LT2a: Two-Way Curb-Protected Bikeway
• LT2b: Two-Way Raised Bikeway
Near-Term Concept Alternatives:
• NT1: Buffered Bike Lanes
• NT2: One-Way Separated Bikeways
• NT3: Two-Way Separated Bikeway
Example cross-sections depicting these concept alternatives are included on the project website and in the appendix of this report . These concepts have been presented to the public as the project’s second round of community engagement. Input on these concept alternatives were collected during May and June 2024 by various means, including a Community Workshop, Virtual Workshop, Online Survey, and other emails submitted to City staff. Invitations for the workshops and to participate in the survey were conveyed to the public through the following:
• Notices sent to all 1,400 postal mail addresses within 300’ of Fernside Boulevard • 5 A-frame posters placed along Fernside Boulevard for 2 weeks 1 A fully detailed overview of all existing conditions input gathered is available on the project website at www.alamedaca.gov/fernside.
July 12, 2024
• Multiple email bulletins sent to various City of Alameda mailing lists • Local schools and community groups, including but not limited to the Fernside HOA, East Shore HOA, Alameda Unified School District, and Bike Walk Alameda, shared information regarding the project with their communities and notified members of the upcoming engagement activities.
• Press announcement of the workshop dates
A summary of community input collected through these forums on the long -term and near -term concept alternatives for Fernside Boulevard are further described below.
Second Virtual Workshop
The second Virtual Workshop was held on May 29, 2024, from 12-1 PM on Zoom. There were 13 participants in attendance. The agenda featured a presentation from the project team reviewing collected information on existing conditions and results from the first round of outreach, followed an explanation of the various long -term and near -term concept alternatives, and how each alternative would change the experience of various roadway users. The presentation was followed by a Question & Answer session during which 18 questions or comments were offered by eight different participants.
In addition to comments that expressed desire for more detail about additional traffic calming measures and focused
improvements at specific locations such as at the intersection of Fernside Boulevard with High Street, commenters also
emphasized the import ance of selected designs to
accommodate ancillary activities such as delivery vehicles and trash pickup. Concerns were also expressed regarding the potential for some concepts to reduce the number of parking spaces along the corridor. Some participants ask ed for further explanation of how the concepts would accommodate for
existing bus stops and for further explanation of the differences between concepts.
The Virtual Meeting concluded with the project team
encouraging attendees to participate in the online survey, which would gather specific input regarding each of the concept alternatives in a comparable and quantifiable manner.
Second Community Workshop
The second project in-person Community Workshop was held on June 5, 2024, from 5:30 – 7:30 PM at the Alameda Free Library. There were approximately 40 participants in attendance. The agenda and presentation was similar to the Virtual Meeting, starting with the presentation and followed by an additional open house and input session. During the open house, attendees were free to peruse prototypical designs and visual graphics depicting the long-term and short -term concept alternatives on large maps which welc omed attendees to offer feedback using various annotation materials.
Attendees were invited to indicate how each alternative would compare to their experience with the Figure 1: Invitations for the Second
Community Workshops, both virtual
and in-person, were distributed widely.
July 12, 2024
existing streetscape, and to write down input describing their desired locations for and types of pedestrian improvements along the corridor on the large posters as well as on individual input forms.
Most written comments reflected the difficult tradeoffs presented by the various concept alternatives.
For instance, it was presented that all long-term concepts would meet the project objectives of slowing vehicle travel speeds, improving safety for pedestrians crossing the street, and aligning with the City’s Active Transportation Plan by providing a separated bicycle facility. However, all long-term concepts would also result in reduction of on -street parking to various extents and would also introduce interactions between vehicles entering and exiting driveways and people riding bicycles between parked vehicles and the sidewalk in a manner that differs from existing conditions. Numerous comments reflect these tradeoffs, with such examples as “ We have to implement one of these solutions as soon as possible. As it is, this street is dangerous and discouraging to go out walking.. any bike infrastructure is amazing” juxtaposed against expressions such as “I fear that as I advance in age, I won’t be able to back out of my driveway with any of these proposals.” When considering the long -term
concepts, p articipants identified
similar compromises when
comparing one-way and two -way
bicycle facilities, noting that the
former avoids complex
intersection and driveway
crossings, while the latter affords
more room for users to ride a
bicycle safely and also for
vehicles to safe ly wait to merge
onto the roadway. Comments
were also received identifying the
pros and cons of raised bikeways
compared to those at roadway
grade; raised bikeways help
make bicycles more visible to
Figure 3: Example of input forms that were collected at the Community Workshop on June 5, 2023.
Figure 2: The in-person Second Community Workshop included a presentation on existing conditions along Fernside Boulevard, results from the first round of outreach, and an explanation of the concept alternatives. An open house session to gather input on the concept alternatives followed.
July 12, 2024
motor vehicles and would be easier to keep free of debris , but also may introduce conflicts with pedestrians at intersections.
Participants also had the opportunity to evaluate the near-term concepts at the Community Meeting.
Input centered largely on compromises of each concept. For instance, comments on the buffered bike lanes concept highlighted that it would not provide cyclists with physical protection from the vehicle travel lanes, does not prevent illegal vehicle passing maneuvers and parked vehicles in the bike lane, and is least likely to result in reduced vehicle speeds. Conversely, comments highlighted the substantial impact to on-street parking with the one-way and two-way separated bikeway concepts and the visual busyness of the designs.
When asked to indicate how each concept compares with existing conditions on Fernside Boulevard, tallies were gathered at the Community Meeting as indicated in the table below.
Much Better Better No Different Worse
Long-Term Concepts
LT1a: One-Way Curb-Protected Bikeways 8 4 1 2
LT1b: One-Way Raised Bikeways 8 3 1 1
LT2a: Two-Way Curb-Protected Bikeway 8 4 0 1
LT2b: Two-Way Raised Bikeway 13 1 1 2
Near-Term Concepts
NT1: Buffered Bike Lanes 10 6 3 1
NT2: One-Way Separated Bikeways 4 3 0 6
NT3: Two-Way Separated Bikeway 9 2 0 5
The figures above reflect general support for all long-term concepts at relatively equal levels. Near - term responses indicate a slight preference for Buffered Bike Lanes, and only one response indicated that that this concept would be worse than existing conditions.
Individual conversation with attendees at the Second Community Workshop also reflected other important input collected on the posters. The project team was requested to consider how both long- term and near -term designs would accommodate trash pickup and to emphasize slowing vehicle speeds along the full corridor, which would in turn serve to facilitate easier entrance to and egress from driveways. Additional feedback was received to consider additional vertical and horizontal Table 1: Results gathered from large feedback posters at the Second Community Workshop on June 5, 2023.
Figure 5: Examples of annotation feedback received on posters at the Second Community Workshop on June 5, 2023.
July 12, 2024
deflection traffic calming elements, and also for the project to provide more pedestrian safety improvements such as marked crosswalks and flashing beacons.
Second Online Survey - Overview
An Online Survey gathered 304 responses between May
29 and June 19, 2024. The survey was extensive,
consisting of design drawings and explanations of each
long-term and near -term concept, and asking for
responses that compare each concept with existing
conditions for people walking, biking, taking the bus,
driving, and living. Another set of questions asked for participant indication of Fernside Boulevard
improvement priorities for the long -term and the near- term, and the survey concluded with a set of
demographic questions.
The respondents were well familiar with Fernside
Boulevard, as demonstrated by the following response
statistics:
• 61% of respondents live along or within one block
of Fernside Boulevard
• 52% use Fernside Boulevard daily
• 7% use Fernside Boulevard less than once per
week.
The survey also included a free-response prompt for how to improve each long -term and near -term concept, as
well as a prompt to provide any additional feedback. Over 75% of all respondents entered text in one of these free- response questions, and there were 1,781 free-
responses submitted amongst all collected surveys. As
such, this body of responses represents the largest
collection of qualitative feedback gathered throughout
the entire project’s community outreach to date.
Second Online Survey – Long-Term Concept Responses
Participants responses to how each long-term concept would compare to existing conditions for those walking, biking, taking the bus, driving, and living on Fernside Boulevard are listed below. The table below combines “Much Better” and “Better” selections, and also does not include “I don’t know,” “N/A,” or skipped answers; as such, figures do not add up to 100% for each column.
Each long-term concept was determined to result in a generally improved overall Fernside Boulevard by between 55% and 62% of participants, whereas the long-term concepts were determined to result in a worse overall experience by between 28% and 31% of participants. Survey responses reflect how each of the long-term concepts improve user experience substantially for individuals walking and biking. When asked how the concepts would impact those taking the bus or driving, the responses were more varied; around one in four participants were unsure how the concepts would impact transit users, and text responses reflected varied opinions on how concepts would alter the driver experience, identifying both positive impacts such as reduced vehicle speeds leading to ease Figure 6: Example page from the Second Online
Survey
July 12, 2024
of entering the roadway and improved driver safety, alongside negative sentiment addressing parking reduction, center turn lane removal, and opinions that drivers would feel less safe.
There was substantial participant input describing individual preference for both the one-way and two- way bikeway concepts. Similarly, tradeoffs between curb -protected and raised bikeways were discussed. Perceived advantages of these concept alternative comparisons are summarized below:
One-Way Bikeways Two-Way Bikeway Curb-protected bikeways Raised bikeways • Simpler for vehicles
to cross driveways
or side streets
• Wider overall path
of travel for
bicycles
• More clearly
separates bicycles
from pedestrians
• Simpler to maintain
and keep free of
debris
• Simpler for
pedestrians to
cross the bikeway
• On-street parking
only impacted on
one side of street
• Provides better
bicyclist visibility to
motorists
• Easier for bicycles
to access side
streets
• Connects with
existing two-way
bikeway at Lincoln
Middle School
• Wider buffer strip
can accommodate
more uses
• Simpler to integrate
with services such
as trash pickup
• Better concrete
bulb-out integration
• Retains more on-
street parking
Most of the free -response comments on long -term concepts highlight the increased pedestrian and bicyclist safety and accessibility that would result from all concepts. There were also numerous free responses that cast doubt that any of the concepts would result in reduced vehicle speeds or would sufficiently increase safety for vulnerable road users. Over 50 free -response comments requested speed humps along the corridor; a similar number of comments requested increased police Figure 7: Survey responses to the prompt “How would each long-term concept compare to walking, biking, taking the bus, driving, and living along/across Fernside Boulevard today?” reflect broad support for all proposed long-term concept alternatives.
Walking Biking Taking the bus Driving Living Overall
No Different 32% 7% 35% 26% 8% 5%
Worse 12% 12% 16% 34% 28% 28%
Walking Biking Taking the bus Driving Living Overall
No Different 26% 7% 35% 25% 10% 5%
Worse 14% 12% 16% 31% 27% 27%
Walking Biking Taking the bus Driving Living Overall
No Different 30% 7% 35% 27% 6% 6%
Worse 16% 20% 18% 33% 32% 31%
Walking Biking Taking the bus Driving Living Overall
No Different 26% 7% 34% 24% 9% 7%
Worse 16% 21% 17% 34% 31% 29%
How would each long-term concept compare to walking, biking, taking the bus, driving, and living along/across Fernside Boulevard today? 19% 31% 46% 55%
48%
19% 33% 50% 62%
Much Better / Better 50% 68% 19% 28% 48% 57%
Much Better / Better 52% 67%
LT1a: One-Way Curb-Protected Bikeways
LT1b: One-Way Raised Bikeways
LT2a: Two-Way Curb-Protected Bikeways
LT2b: Two-Way Raised Bikeways
60%
Much Better / Better 54% 76%
Much Better / Better 52% 78% 17% 33%
July 12, 2024
enforcement to assure motorist compliance. Numerous other comments indicated desire for additional traffic calming devices not proposed as part of the concepts such as traffic circles, raised crosswalks, or horizontal deflection measures.
When prompted to indicate level of priority for a number of design aspects for the long-term concepts, participants most strongly indicated pedestrian improvements such as additional marked crosswalks and flashing beacons as important or extremely importan t. Participants identified one-way bikeways as more important compared to two -way bikeways. Ease of entering and exiting driveways was indicated as more important than abundant on-street parking.
Second Online Survey – Near-Term Concept Responses
Similar to the prompts for long -term concepts, survey participants were also asked about the three near-term concepts. The table below contains results for how each near-term concept would compare to existing user experience. These results also do not add up to 100% for each column, as participants responding “I don’t know,” “N/A,” and blank responses are omitted.
Narrower travel
lanes to reduce
speeds
Shorter
pedestrian
crossing
distances
Additional
marked
crosswalks
Flashing beacons
at crossings
without stop signs
One-way bikeways
so bicyclists trav el
the same direction
as drivers
Two-way
bikeway that
provides a wider
combined space
for bicyclists
Bikeways that
are raised to
sidewalk level
Abundant on-
street
parking
Ease of
entering /
exiting
driveways from
the street
Extremely Important 45% 42% 48% 52% 33% 18% 17% 23% 35% Important 25% 30% 36% 32% 23% 22% 19% 22% 29%
Neutral 9% 16% 12% 11% 24% 21% 23% 16% 18%
Less Important 7% 5% 2% 3% 7% 11% 12% 18% 11%
Not Important 14% 8% 2% 3% 13% 28% 29% 21% 7%
How important is it to include these design aspects on Fernside Boulevard in the long term? Walking Biking Taking the bus Driving Living Overall
No Different 55% 21% 51% 42% 34% 24%
Worse 10% 14% 12% 21% 15% 17%
Walking Biking Taking the bus Driving Living Overall
No Different 35% 8% 38% 21% 11% 7%
Worse 18% 20% 21% 44% 40% 38%
Walking Biking Taking the bus Driving Living Overall
No Different 31% 7% 35% 21% 8% 7%
Worse 22% 26% 23% 44% 43% 41%
How would each near-term concept compare to walking, biking, taking the bus, driving, and living along/across Fernside Boulevard today? 41%Much Better / Better 40% 60% 15% 19% 36%
36% 44%
Much Better / Better 31% 62% 9% 14% 38%
NT2: One-Way Separated Bikeways
Much Better / Better 46% 67% 15% 20%
50%
NT1: Buffered Bike Lanes
NT3: Two-Way Separated Bikeway
Figure 8: Survey responses to the prompt “How important is it to include these design aspects on Fernside Boulevard in the long term?” indicate that reducing vehicle speeds and pedestrian safety improvements are most clearly prioritized by respondents.
Figure 9: Survey responses to the prompt “How would each near-term concept compare to walking, biking, taking the bus, driving, and living along/across Fernside Boulevard today?” reflect perceived improvement for active transportation users by all concepts, but the separated bikeway concepts are foreseen as having a more neutral overall impact those living on the corridor and overall.
July 12, 2024
Unlike the long-term concepts, where all alternatives were seen as a general overall improvement, the three near-term concepts reflect more muted support. While the concepts are seen as improving the experience for individuals on bicycles, responses indicate that near -term concepts do not improve pedestrian experience as much as the long-term concepts would. This is not necessarily surprising, as the painted bulb-outs described as part of the near-term concept crosswalk improvements are not as robust as permanent concrete bulb-outs associated with all long-term crosswalks. However, whereas respondents indicated that all long -term concepts would be approximately neutral for drivers and result in a better life for residents on the corridor, the two near -term separated bikeway concept s reflect a predicted worse driving and living experience. While only 17% of participants indicate that the Buffered Bike Lanes concept would be overall worse than existing conditions, 38% and 41% of participants indicate that the One-Way Separated Bikeways and Two-Way Separated Bikeway concepts would result in an overall worse Fernside Boulevard.
Many respondent comments on the Buffered Bike Lanes acknowledge that that concept does not narrow vehicle travel lanes, prevent illegal passing maneuvers, or seem to achieve sufficient pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements, whereas other comments note that it is the least “invasive” or most “sensible” near -term alternative. Comments addressing the One -Way Separated Bikeways and Two-Way Separated Bikeways alternatives are more firm; while some participants voice support for these concepts, more numero us participants remark on downsides ranging from the substantial loss of on -street parking spaces and different driveway access experience to the visual confusion and aesthetic shortfalls.
Responses on priorities for the near-term seem to contrast slightly with these figures and comments.
While pedestrian safety improvements are again indicated as broadly important, eliminating illegal passing maneuvers that motorists currently execute in the center left turn lane is identified as the highest priority in the near -term. The Buffered Bike Lanes concept was clearly described as not including countermeasures to prevent these vehicle passing maneuvers, whereas both separated bikeway concepts do. Furthermore, 55% of respondents indicate “bikeways separated from vehicle travel lanes by on-street parking” as either important or extremely important, whereas “abundant on- street parking” received only 44% of the same level of prioritization. Here again, Buffered Bike Lanes do not include physical separation from vehicle travel lanes, and while the two separated bikeway concepts do provide this separation, they result in more on-street parking removal. This demonstrates that participants may answer prompt s more enthusiastically when simply asked about priorities, compared to when presented with concrete design alternatives, especially those that have the potential to substantially alter existing conditions.
Narrower travel
lanes to reduce
speeds
Eliminating
illegal vehicle
passing
maneuvers
Painted bulb-
outs at
intersections
Additional marked
crosswalk
locations
Flashing beacons
at marked
crosswalks
without stop signs
Bikeways
separated from
vehicle travel
lanes by on-
street parking
Abundant on-
street parking
Ease of
entering /
exiting
driveways from
the street
Extremely Important 45% 59% 32% 46% 48% 35% 27% 37%
Important 23% 22% 26% 35% 34% 20% 17% 26%
Less Important 6% 5% 10% 3% 2% 11% 17% 9%
Neutral 13% 9% 21% 12% 13% 15% 19% 20%
Not Important 12% 5% 11% 3% 3% 19% 21% 8%
How important is it to include these design aspects on Fernside Boulevard in the near term? Figure 10: Survey respondents indicate that eliminating illegal passing maneuvers is one of the highest-ranked near- term project priorities, along with pedestrian safety improvements and measures to slow vehicle speeds.
July 12, 2024
Second Online Survey – Demographics
The online survey also
asked demographic and
socioeconomic questions.
Of all survey participants,
22% were over 65 years
of age, and 53% of
participants had children
under age 21 living in the
household. Of these
respondents, numerous
households have children
that attend local schools
in the vicinity of Fernside
Boulevard such as Lincoln
Middle School ( 56),
Edison Elementary School
(53), St. Philip Neri School
(7), and Rising Star
Montessori School (8). 33
respondents have children that attend preschool or other schools. In terms of racial or ethnic identity, the vast majority of respondents ( 191) identify as white. 39 respondents identify as Asian / Asian American, 24 as multi-ethnic or multi-racial, 11 as Hispanic or Latino/a/x, six as American Indian or Indigenous, three as Middle Eastern, and two as African American or Black.
Online survey participants were 86% homeowners and 14 % renters. The online survey was largely comprised of participants from higher reported household incomes, listed per the following ranges (14% of participants declined to respond to this question):
• 1% of survey participants reported household income under $40,000 • 7%: $40,000 – $100,000
• 18%: $100,000 – $150,000
• 32%: $150,000 – $300,000
• 29%: $300,000
Second Online Survey – Summary
As mentioned, the amount of input gathered from the online survey was vast. In addition to thousands of voting selections comparing the concepts to existing conditions and voicing priorities for the corridor, the survey collected nearly 2,000 free response comments addressing a wide range of aspects associated with all the concepts. The comments expressed a range of support and dislike for the concepts, and many also encouraged the project team to go even further toward improving safety and experience for all roadway users. According to the input gathered, most participants seem to broadly support all long-term concepts, with little measurable variation between concepts. The near -term concepts reflect stronger input that though more beneficial for pedestrian s, the separated bikeway concepts would result in a worse design for transit users, motorists, and residents overall compared with the Buffered Bike Lanes concept.
The comments collected in the survey reflect the tradeoffs inherent among indicated user priorities.
While numerous individuals express desire for greater visibility when entering the roadway from Figure 10: The number of online survey participants that identify as white greatly outnumber participants of other racial or ethnic identities. 0 50 100 150 200
Not Listed / Prefer not to answer
Multi-ethnic / Multi-racial
Middle Eastern
American Indian, Indigenous
Asian, Asian American
White
Hispanic, Latino/a/x
African American, Black
Number of Survey Participants
July 12, 2024
driveways, there is also much concern over loss of on-street parking spaces. Several individuals note that it will be difficult to access parked vehicles with narrower travel lanes, but others express desire for further narrowed vehicle travel lanes. Though the means of achieving slower vehicle speeds is far from agreed upon, the overall majority of survey participants seem to agree that traffic calming is generally a benefit to the community.
Overall, key takeaways from the second online survey include:
• Fernside Boulevard needs to be safer for pedestrians crossing the street • It is important to reduce vehicle speeds and prevent illegal passing maneuvers • There is need to provide bikeways that will allow for use by riders of all ages and abilities, and that will be designed to ensure safety at intersections • Opinions on parking are mixed. Some responses indicate that on -street parking is important to retain, while others do not indicate that on-street parking is sufficient or not a priority Through the first round of community engagement, a consistent 5 -10% of participants indicated that they preferred that no changes be made to the Fernside Boulevard corridor. In this second round of engagement, approximately 15% of written comments indicated a desire for no changes to be made to the corridor. This increase is likely due to the concrete nature of the second round of engagement; actual concept proposals are now part of the feedback process, and potential impacts to user experience becomes more tangible. Participants that desire Fernside Boulevard to remain as it currently exists primarily describe potential difficulties with entering and exiting driveways and finding available on-street parking.
In addition, participants made numerous suggestions for further improvement of all the concepts. The survey collected hundreds of comments desiring additional traffic calming elements as well as detailed design implementation that facilitates bicycle turns at all intersections, bicycle signals, and activity such as home delivery, street sweeping, and trash pickup.
Commission on Persons with Disabilities
The project team presented the concept alternatives at the Alameda Commission on Persons with Disabilities on June 5, 2024. Concept alternative tradeoffs for various users were discussed in detail.
Commissioner feedback was positive overall, and also included a request to include further evaluation of how the concepts would accommodate accessible facilities, such as loading zones for residences and accessible bus stops, and to take these differences across design alternatives into account through the concept selection process.
Transportation Commission
The concept alternatives were presented to the Alameda Transportation Commission on June 26, 2024. Concept alternative tradeoffs for various users were discussed in detail. Commissioner feedback to the project included:
• Consider impacts to all roadway users, including residents living near the corridor as well as those traveling through the corridor
• Prioritize safety improvements over retention of on-street parking, especially considering a high percentage of residences along the corridor will retain off-street parking July 12, 2024
• Incorporate additional traffic-calming measures along the roadway in addition to a perceived emphasis on delivering improved bikeway facilities
• Preference for near-term concept selection to conform with the Active Transportation Plan for a separated bicycle facility