Council Infrastructure Committee
April 26, 2023

Wednesday, April 26, 2023
5:30 PM

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
Hybrid/Conference Room 2A
Council Infrastructure Committee
Agenda

April 26, 2023Council Infrastructure Committee Agenda
NOTICE: The Council Infrastructure Committee will hold a hybrid meeting in Conference Room 2A and virtually via Zoom
How to submit written Public Comment:

Send an email to [email protected] by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email. Emails will be compiled into one file, distributed to the Council Infrastructure Committee and City staff, and published on the City's Meeting and Agenda Center under Documents Received After Published Agenda.

How to provide live Public Comment during the Council Infrastructure Committee Meeting:

There are three ways you can provide live public comments during the meeting:

1. Attend in person in Conference Room 2A in Hayward City Hall

2. Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://hayward.zoom.us/j/82596300487?pwd=VGxLek5IL3gxenc5a2VpUmNXTFhvZz09 Webinar ID: 825 9630 0487
Password: CIC@042623

3. Join by phone
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 646 931 3860
Webinar ID: 825 9630 0487
Password: 5267516660
International numbers available: https://hayward.zoom.us/u/kcOXIsBc7b

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS:

REPORTS/ACTION ITEMS
Approval of Minutes of the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) Meeting Held on January 25, 2023
MIN 23-048

1. Attachments: Attachment I Minutes

April 26, 2023Council Infrastructure Committee Agenda
Review of Recommended Capital Improvement Program for
FY24 - FY33
ACT 23-0272.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Micromobility Feasibility Study - Receive and CommentACT 23-0333.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Draft Feasibility Study, March 29, 2023
Draft Local Road Safety Plan - Discussion and Recommendation to Council
ACT 23-0304.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Draft LRSP

ORAL UPDATES

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Proposed 2023 Agenda Planning Calendar: Review and
Comment
ACT 23-0295.

Attachments: Attachment I Staff Report

COMMITTEE MEMBER/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REFERRALS

ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 - SPECIAL MEETING

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: MIN 23-048
DATE: April 26, 2023
TO: Council Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Approval of Minutes of the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) Meeting Held on January 25, 2023

RECOMMENDATION
That the CIC reviews and approves the January 25, 2023 CIC meeting minutes...End

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I January 25, 2023 Council Infrastructure Committee Meeting Minutes CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/24/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE MEETING
Remote Participation - Digital Zoom Meeting
January 25, 2023
5:30 p.m.

MEETING MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5:32 p.m. by Chair Elisa Márquez ROLL CALL:

Members Present:
 Angela Andrews, City Council Member, Mayor Pro Tempore  Elisa Márquez, City Council Member, Chair
 Mark Salinas, Mayor
Staff Present:
 Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
 David Donovan, Waste Pollution Control Facility Manager  Suzan England, Senior Utilities Engineer
 Kathy Garcia, Deputy Director of Public Works
 Sammy Lo, Senior Civil Engineer
 Glenn Micko, Senior Utilities Engineer
 Cheryl Munoz, Water Resources Manager
 Salvador Navarro, Assistant Civil Engineer
 Erik Pearson, Environmental Services Manager
 Michael Wolny, Administrative Secretary (Meeting Recorder) PUBLIC COMMENTS:

There were no public comments.

1. Approval of Minutes of the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) Meeting Held on October 26, 2022
The item was moved by Mayor Salinas, seconded by Council Member Andrews, and approved unanimously.

2. Cargill Mixed Sea Salts Processing and Brine Discharge Project - Information and Discussion
Director Alex Ameri, introduced Jackie Zipkin, with East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) and Don Brown with Cargill, Incorporated who provided the presentation and update.

Public Comments
Eddie Alvarez, with the Building Trades Council of Alameda County, spoke in favor of the Cargill project as it would provide jobs for workers all throughout Alameda County.

Committee Questions / Discussion
Council Member Andrews asked EBDA what types of public comments have been received so far regarding the Environmental Impact Report. EBDA staff confirmed that they have not received any comments yet, but encourages the public to provide feedback before February 17, 2023. Council Member Andrews requested Cargill staff to include Chambers of Commerce throughout the region in their outreach efforts. Mayor Salinas added that Cargill staff should reach out to businesses along the proposed pipeline area, so they are educated on this project as well.

Mayor Salinas asked what the status is of the existing pipe. Director Ameri confirmed that the existing pipe easement was created in 1930 but never fully developed. A portion of that easement was used to construct a major conveyance pipeline from the City of Newark into Hayward’s well fields between 1961-1965. The pipeline easement goes throughout the city including an area under the airport. Cargill staff added that they will review the easement and most likely determine the existing pipeline as a conduit to run the new pipeline through it after their initial pipeline borings. Mayor Salinas asked Cargill staff if the pipeline exists under the airport, what is the process for getting the Federal Aviation Administration involved? Cargill staff said that after their pipeline boring investigation, and if pipeline is found under the airport, Cargill would most likely redesign and redirect the pipeline so that it does not go under the airport to minimize disruption for the area. Director Ameri expressed reservations for this project due to the large impact it would have throughout the City. Director Ameri added that, although Cargill could work in line with future City projects such as Fiber Optic Cable and a Recycled Water Pipeline, the impact on the City for this brine pipeline may not be justifiable on the current easement. City staff will continue to work with Cargill on the most optimal design for this pipeline after further review of the existing easement. Cargill staff confirmed that they would do their utmost to minimize the impact on the Hayward community as much as possible and thanked City staff for their partnership.

Chair Márquez emphasized to Cargill staff that outreach needs to be customized for the City of Hayward, especially for business and residential areas along the proposed pipeline. She encouraged Cargill staff to include the benefits of this project to the community of Hayward so they can grow support and help residents understand the overall impact of the potential construction throughout the area. She also would like to see the Sierra Club and the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA) added to outreach and education efforts.

Chair Márquez also asked Cargill staff to include quantifiable data of how this project will benefit the City of Hayward when the item is presented to City Council. Council Member Andrews asked to include how much of EBDA’s staff time is also being reimbursed for their research and review of this project in their report when this goes to City Council.

3. Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Improvements – Phase II Project Administration Building Update

Director Ameri introduced Suzan England, Senior Utilities Engineer who provided the presentation and update alongside MWA Architects Inc.

Public Comments

There were none.

Committee Questions / Discussion

Council Member Andrews asked staff about the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification for the new building design. Director Ameri confirmed that this building will meet the requirements of LEED Silver. Council Member Andrews asked staff what the placards in the front garden area would discuss. Staff confirmed that the placards would be focused on educational information for the wastewater treatment plant process and sustainable gardening using recycled water. Staff added that the placards are completely customizable to whatever they would like to showcase. Ms. Andrews asked staff to include a placard dedicated to the history of the land parcel if that information is available.

Chair Márquez asked about parking for staff and if electric vehicle (EV) charging stations would be made available. Director Ameri confirmed that with the expansion of this building, additional parking would be needed for increased staff which will most likely be added in the back of the building. EV charging stations will also be added as current staff already use the existing stations and provided positive feedback for additional EV stalls.

The committee expressed support for the building design concept that showcased more glass windows.

4. East Bay Community Energy’s Community Solar Program - Discussion and Recommendation to Council

Director Ameri introduced Erik Pearson, Environmental Services Manager, who provided the presentation and report.

Public Comments

There were none.

Committee Questions / Discussion

Mayor Salinas asked where the map in the presentation is from and how it was created.

Environmental Services Manager Pearson responded that the State of California created it

and the data presented considers household income, environmental factors, and other demographics to show which areas could see the most benefit from this new program.

The committee asked staff to clarify the ask for this program. Mr. Pearson confirmed there are two requests for the committee: 1) Overall support of the program so that the City can be an official sponsor and help with outreach and education efforts during the enrollment period and 2) should the City take 25% of the solar generation or use 100% of the solar electricity generated to expand the program to as many low income customers and rate payers in Hayward.

Chair Márquez asked what enrollment would look like, and if successful can the program be expanded. Mr. Pearson and Ms. Ventura with East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) confirmed that this program would first reach out to rate payers who are already enrolled in a low-income discount program and this new program would be an additional benefit.

EBCE staff confirmed that there is an existing system they use for another discounted rate program that can target those who are eligible to enroll in this new program. EBCE staff would do outreach to the low-income rate payers first and ask them to apply online, over the phone, or have EBCE representatives sign people up at community events if needed for outreach efforts. EBCE would prefer to lead the enrollment effort to gather as many applications as possible using their existing system and the City (as a sponsor) would support outreach efforts. To expand the program, funding would need to be secured from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and reviewed and then approved by them.

Council Member Andrews asked staff to provide educational resources to rate payers, so they understand what happens when they enter the program and what happens if a developer joins the program and installs solar on their private building.

Chair Márquez moved the item, seconded by Mayor Salinas, to approve staff’s recommendation to move forward with the commitment letter for City Council to vote on at a future council meeting and waive the City’s 25% allocation to expand the new program and service to as many low-income residents/rate payers as possible.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS Andrews, Márquez, Salinas

NOES: None

5. Proposed 2023 Agenda Planning Calendar: Review and Comment

Public Comments

There were none.

Committee Questions / Discussion

Director Ameri made a general comment that due to the incoming volume of agenda items; staff will try to keep the agenda to three substantive items at each meeting (not including

minutes, planning calendar or oral reports). If there are smaller items, the agenda can be expanded to include more if timing allows.

Chair Márquez asked staff to limit staff presentations to 10-15 minutes as she’d prefer to save time for council questions and discussion. She understands that may not always be possible due to the topic, but if presentation slides can be sent in advanced, that would be helpful for the committee’s review.

ORAL REPORTS

There were none.

COMMITTEE MEMBER/STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REFERRALS

Council Member Andrews announced the Keep Hayward Clean and Greek Task Force (KHCGTF) Beautification event for Saturday, January 28, 2023 from 8:00am-12:00pm at Rancho Arroyo Park.

Ms. Andrews added she would like to see if storm drains can be adopted, like the adopt-a- block program, so that storm drains can be upkept considering the recent storms. She suggested this can be a joint effort with community members, Public Works, Maintenance Services Department and KHCGTF.

Chair Márquez asked Director Ameri to schedule a meeting to discuss the City’s green infrastructure initiatives.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Márquez adjourned the meeting at 7:21 p.m.

MEETINGS
Attendance
Present
1/25/23
Meeting
Present
to Date
This
Fiscal
Year
Excused
to Date
This Fiscal
Year
Absent
to Date
This Fiscal
Year
Elisa Márquez ✓ 2 0 0
Angela Andrews ✓ 2 0 0
Mark Salinas ✓ 2 0 0

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: ACT 23-027
DATE: April 26, 2023
TO: Council Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Review of Recommended Capital Improvement Program for FY24 - FY33

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) reviews and comments on the recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY24 through FY33.

SUMMARY
The CIP is a planning document intended to guide the City’s capital project expenditures for the upcoming ten-year period. The proposed CIP budget includes approximately $115 million in FY24 and an estimated $905 million in the next ten years. Given that Hayward is a full-service city, the CIP covers a wide range of projects, which may include: street construction and improvements; bike and pedestrian improvements; traffic calming; wastewater, recycled water, storm water, and water system upgrades; groundwater projects; construction of public buildings; airport projects; replacement of major equipment; clean and renewable energy generation; and other miscellaneous projects. As in past years, the document also includes Identified and Unfunded Capital Needs, which currently total $511 million.

The Recommended FY24 - FY33 CIP can be found here:
<https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/documents/capital-improvement-program> on the City’s website and features a new online format. More information about navigating the new format can be found at the provided link.

Planning Commission Review
State law requires that the Planning Commission review the recommended CIP to ensure conformance with the City’s adopted General Plan. The recommended FY24 - FY33 CIP was presented to the Planning Commission at their April 13, 2023 meeting, and the Commission unanimously found that the recommended FY24 - FY33 CIP is consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/24/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

DATE: April 26, 2023

TO: Council Infrastructure Committee

FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT Review of Recommended Capital Improvement Program for FY24 – FY33

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) reviews and comments on the recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY24 through FY33.

SUMMARY

The CIP is a planning document intended to guide the City’s capital project expenditures for the upcoming ten-year period. The proposed CIP budget includes approximately $115 million in FY24 and an estimated $905 million in the next ten years. Given that Hayward is a full-service city, the CIP covers a wide range of projects, which may include: street construction and improvements; bike and pedestrian improvements; traffic calming; wastewater, recycled water, storm water, and water system upgrades; groundwater projects; construction of public buildings; airport projects; replacement of major equipment; clean and renewable energy generation; and other miscellaneous projects. As in past years, the document also includes Identified and Unfunded Capital Needs, which currently total $511 million.

The Recommended FY24 – FY33 CIP can be found here1 on the City’s website and features a new online format. More information about navigating the new format can be found at the provided link.

Planning Commission Review
State law requires that the Planning Commission review the recommended CIP to ensure conformance with the City’s adopted General Plan. The recommended FY24 – FY33 CIP was presented to the Planning Commission at their April 13, 2023 meeting2, and the Commission unanimously found that the recommended FY24 – FY33 CIP is consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan
.

1 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/your-government/documents/capital-improvement-program 2 CITY OF HAYWARD - File #: PH 23-018 (legistar.com)

BACKGROUND

The CIP process begins with staff’s preparation of projects and related cost estimates, which are framed by the guidance provided by Council, as well as the needs of the community. Capital projects are identified and prioritized with an emphasis on eliminating geographic inequities in the distribution of City services and infrastructure. Highest priority is given to areas in the community which have experienced a disproportionate level of improvements in past years, as well as those communities with the current highest need.

The projects in the Recommended FY24 – FY33 CIP have also been identified and prioritized based on their relevancy to the Strategic Roadmap. The CIP, by its nature, predominantly supports the Invest in Infrastructure Priority, but it also includes a number of projects which support the Confront Climate Crisis & Champion Environmental Justice, Enhance Community Safety & Quality of Life, Grow the Economy, and Strengthen Organizational Health Priorities.

The projects ultimately identified for inclusion in the CIP are designed to meet the requirements of the City’s General Plan, specific plans, and master plans. The capital project funding requests are then submitted for evaluation to an internal capital projects review committee. Once the review committee’s feedback is incorporated, the Recommended Ten- Year CIP is compiled and presented to the Planning Commission for determination of conformance with the General Plan. In May, the Recommended Ten-Year CIP will be reviewed by Council at a work session. The public has the opportunity to provide comments at each of these meetings, as well as at the last public hearing, which is tentatively planned to take place on June 6, 2023. It is at this final public hearing that the capital spending plan for the upcoming year will be considered by Council for adoption.

DISCUSSION

The CIP is a planning document intended to guide the City’s capital project expenditures for the upcoming ten-year period. The proposed CIP budget includes approximately $115 million in FY 2024 and an estimated $905 million in the next ten years. Given that Hayward is a full-service city, the CIP covers a wide range of projects, which may include street construction and improvements; wastewater, recycled water, storm water, and water system upgrades; groundwater projects; construction of public buildings; airport projects; replacement of major equipment; clean and renewable energy generation; and other miscellaneous projects. As in past years, the document also includes Identified and Unfunded Capital Needs, which currently total $511 million.

Below is a discussion of major projects in each category for which work will begin or continue into FY24. Please note that not all of the projects featured in this report are being recommended to receive new FY24 funding.

Livable Neighborhoods Projects

Projects categorized as “Livable Neighborhoods” include street lighting projects, pedestrian traffic signal improvements, parks, buildings, public art and engagement, transportation equity projects, and traffic calming measures, as well as sidewalk and wheelchair ramp

improvements throughout the City. Some examples of Livable Neighborhoods Projects in the Recommended FY24 – FY33 CIP include the Campus Drive Improvements, through which the City is implementing pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic calming improvements to address safety concerns and mobility needs in the 0.78 mile-stretch of Campus Drive between 2nd Street and Hayward Boulevard.

Another ongoing Livable Neighborhoods Project is La Vista Park, the 50-acre destination park located a quarter mile east of the intersection of Tennyson Road and Mission Boulevard in South Hayward. In FY 2022, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) report was updated to include the park expansion area, and staff are currently working with consultants to finalize the design. Construction bid documents are anticipated to be completed by Spring 2023, and construction is planned to commence in late Spring or early Summer 2023.

The Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Safe Routes for Seniors (SR4S) projects are two additional projects included in the Livable Neighborhoods category. The City's first SR4S effort is currently underway in four downtown Hayward intersections, including Foothill Blvd/Hazel Ave-City Center Dr, Montgomery Ave/A St, Montgomery Ave/B St, and Watkins Ave/D St. Improvements include increased pedestrian crossing times, installation of high- visibility ADA ramps, repositioning of cross walks and pedestrian push buttons to align with ADA improvements, and widening medians for pedestrian refuge, and more.

The City's first SR2S project is planned to begin construction in Summer 2023 near Cesar Chavez Middle School, and it includes installation of curb and median extensions, advanced stop and yield marking, yellow high-visibility crosswalks, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), and more.

Road and Streets Projects

Projects in the “Road and Streets” category range from curb and gutter repair to major gateway corridor improvements and are primarily funded through non-discretionary funding including Measures B (Fund 215 and 216) and Measure BB (Fund 212, 213, and 219), Gas Tax (Fund 210), Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) (Fund 218), Road 238 Corridor Improvement (Fund 410), Streets Improvement (Fund 450), Transportation System Improvement (Fund 460), and grants such as LATIP and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) funds.

A key project in this category is Phase 3 of the Mission Boulevard Corridor Improvement Project, located from A Street to the northern City limit at Rose Street. This is the last phase of the three-phase Mission Blvd Corridor Improvement Project and, like the phases before it, includes undergrounding of overhead utilities, electrical service conversions of private properties, construction of bicycle cycle track, sidewalk, curb and gutter, rehabilitation of pavement, installation of traffic signals and streetlights, installation of traffic striping, pavement marking and signage, improvements to storm drains systems, installation of irrigation system and landscaping, as well as City of Hayward monument signs. The construction bids received in 2021 to implement this project were significantly higher than expected and subsequently rejected, delaying the project timeline. Staff also applied for grant opportunities to help close the funding gap. The call for bids was reinitiated in March 2023 and construction is anticipated to start in Summer 2023.

Pavement Rehabilitation

Pavement Rehabilitation projects are a subsection of the Road and Streets projects which are typically discussed separately because they represent a relatively large part of the annual CIP. Approximately $16.5 million in Pavement Rehabilitation programming is recommended for FY24.

Street selection for pavement rehabilitation projects is based on several criteria. First, the Pavement Management Program (PMP) is used to evaluate current roadway conditions and future condition predictions. The PMP provides a logical and efficient method for identifying street rehabilitation needs and determining a path for implementation. Staff also refers to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) guidelines, Maintenance Services staff’s reports on streets in need of repair, especially after a severe rainy season, and public requests for street rehabilitation. The PMP is updated every two years and is a prerequisite for certain funding sources. The industry standard practice recommended by MTC is that a minimum of 15% of funding be spent on preventive maintenance and a maximum of 85% on pavement rehabilitation. The City improves on this standard with a minimum of 20% spent on preventive maintenance and 80% on pavement rehabilitation. Additionally, in 2014, Council approved the Economic Development Strategic Plan, which recommended additional improvements be made to streets in the Industrial area. Approximately 15% to 20% of the overall paving budget is allocated to improvements in that area. Staff also has an internal policy to allocate at least 10% of the overall paving budget to roads with a pavement condition index (PCI) of less than 30.

Municipal Facility Improvements

The “Municipal Facility Improvements” category includes projects that involve improvements to existing municipal buildings and construction of new municipal buildings.

One major project included in this category is the Fire Station No. 6 & Fire Training Center Project, which is currently budgeted at $76.5 million. The project includes deconstruction of the existing buildings and construction of nine new buildings and structures. These new structures include the Fire Station 6/Classroom Building; Apparatus Building; Burn Building; Training Tower; Storage Building; Hangar Building; Outdoor Classroom Building; Urban Search & Rescue/BART Training Structure; and the Entry Structure. Construction, which began in August 2020, is well underway and is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2023.

Sewer System Projects

The “Sewer Systems” category includes projects which are Enterprise Fund-supported, and which are related to the improvement of our sewer system, water re-use efforts, and Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).

The City’s sewer line replacement projects are examples of key projects in this category.

They typically involve the replacement of pipelines that are showing signs of age, or the upsizing of undersized mains to increase their conveyance capacity to handle current and future flows. With an ambitious goal of replacing an average of three miles of sewer mains

annually, the proposed CIP recommends $6 million in funding for the FY24 Sewer Line Replacement Program.

Other projects in this category include those related to the WPCF Phase II Facilities Improvements, which have been established following the recent development of a Facilities Plan Update, which is intended to guide the plant’s infrastructure and technology needs for the next twenty years. The Phase II Facilities Plan addresses future regulatory requirements restricting discharge of nutrients to the Bay. Although the San Francisco Bay has not been adversely impacted by nutrient loading, discharge of nutrients is a growing concern and, as a result, recent requirements have been developed regulating their discharge into the Bay.

The final plan update was completed in June 2020 and in Spring 2022, staff began the process of identifyng a consultant to recommend to Council for completion of the design work to implement the identified improvements. In addition to the design and construction of the Phase II WPCF Upgrade, the project includes a new administration building and laboratory, as well as other related improvement needs. Design and construction of the improvements is currently estimated to cost $258 million. Staff plan to apply for both a State Revolving Fund (SRF) and USEPA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to help fund the estimated construction costs.

Recycled Water Projects

The Recycled Water Projects are also included in the Sewer Systems category. These projects are intended to improve the City’s overall water supply reliability and conserve drinking water supplies through the delivery of tertiary treated recycled water to sites near the WPCF for landscape irrigation and industrial uses. Construction of the storage tank, pump station, and distribution pipelines for the system was completed in FY 2020.

Construction of the treatment facility was completed in Summer 2020, and recycled water deliveries to the first phase of customers began in March 2022. In FY 2024, staff will initiate development of a Master Plan to guide design and construction efforts for Phase II of the Recycled Water Program. Phase II will involve increasing the recycled water customer base, which will require designing and constructing an expanded treatment facility to meet the increased demand.

Water Systems Projects

“Water System Projects” are Enterprise Fund-supported and are related to the improvement of our water system, as well as projects which promote water conservation. One key program in this category is the Cast Iron Water Pipeline Replacement Program. Over the next ten years, the City will annually replace existing cast iron and asbestos cement pipes that are either reaching the end of their practical useful life, as evidenced by the frequency of the main and service connection breaks and leaks, or they are hydraulically undersized.

The Recommended CIP includes $500,000 in annual programming to support this effort.

The FY24 Water Line Replacement Program is another key Water Systems project, which involves the replacement of existing water mains to provide adequate capacity for fire flow and to maintain the operability of the water distribution system. Water mains are selected for a variety of reasons including having exceeded service life, frequency of breaks, and/or

upgrades needed for supply reliability. With a goal of replacing an average of three miles of water pipeline annually, the proposed CIP includes $5.5 million in funding for the FY24 Water Line Replacement Program.

Fleet Management

The “Fleet Management” category is comprised of projects involving the replacement of fleet units in various departments, divisions, and work groups. Fleet purchases benefitting the Fire and Police departments are predominantly funded by transfers from the General Fund, while fleet purchases benefitting the Airport, Stormwater, Sewer, and Water divisions are predominantly supported by Enterprise funding. Approximately $6.8 million in FY 2024 Fleet Management category projects are included in the proposed CIP, and involve projects supporting General Fund fleet replacement efforts, Enterprise Fund- supported fleet replacement efforts, and Electric Vehicle Infrastructure efforts.

The City maintains a fleet of approximately 450 vehicles and equipment units, and the useful life of these fleet units is maximized and managed via the 10 Year Fleet Capital Replacement Plan. The plan identifies replacement timelines based on age, mileage, maintenance, and safety. When it comes time to retire a unit, carbon emissions are a key consideration. This is in alignment with the City's Strategic Roadmap "Confront Climate Crisis & Champion Environmental Justice" Priority Project to transition 15% of total City fleet to EV/hybrid models.

Following a successful pilot program in FY21, Fleet Management adopted a new standard for Hayward Police Patrol Vehicles in which all replacement purchases will be hybrid- powered models. In FY 2022, a total of ten hybrid patrol cars were ordered to replace vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life, and an additional nine were ordered in FY 2023. Once received and placed into service, the fleet vehicle matrix will consist of 18% EV/hybrid units.

The Citywide EV Charging Projects are another key group of projects in this category. A recent report by East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) provided an analysis of the charging infrastructure that will be needed to electrify the City’s 129 light duty, non-emergency, fleet vehicles. The report concluded the City will need three Level 1 chargers (15-20 Amps each), fifty-four Level 2 chargers (40 Amps each) and four Direct Current Fast Chargers (80 Amps or more) installed across eleven City facilities. Staff is currently preparing an assessment of charging needs for City employees. Installation of charging infrastructure for the City’s fleet and employees will begin after the assessment is completed.

Staff are also working with EBCE to install one to three fast charging hubs for electric vehicle charging. Hubs would serve the general public, but would be sited to also serve residents of multi-family properties, many of which are older buildings that lack the infrastructure needed to support EV charging. Implementation of these projects will be contingent on receiving funding through the Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which staff plan to apply for.

Equipment and Software

The “Equipment and Software” category is predominantly comprised of equipment-related purchases supporting the Fire, Police, Maintenance Services, Public Works & Utilities, and Information Technology Departments, such as the purchase of Fire Department radios, purchase of fleet cameras, and replacement of aging fiber optic lines between City facilities.

The recommended FY24 CIP includes programming of approximately $4.7 million in this category.

Airport

This category encompasses all projects related to the improvement of the Hayward Executive Airport (HEA), the City’s self-supporting general aviation reliever airport which encompasses nearly 500 acres. One key project in this category is the Sulphur Creek Safety Enhancement – Design and Construction Project, which involves the installation of box culvert to place portions of Sulphur Creek underground adjacent to airport runways. These areas were identified by the local Runway Safety Action Team as a safety hazard. The project is designed to eliminate open ditches and create a flat surface near the runways.

This will prevent damage to aircraft that veer off the runway pavement. Implementation of this project has been delayed due to the issues related to inter-agency agreement related to location of a suitable environmental mitigation site, and the project is anticipated to begin after Fiscal Year 2025. The project includes a total budget of $8.3 million, which is being provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the City’s Airport Enterprise fund.

Miscellaneous

The “Miscellaneous” category includes projects which do not neatly fit into the other categories. Projects include the Comprehensive General Plan Update, Property Acquisition Management, Route 238 Property Projects, and Parcel Group Projects. The Parcel Group projects, which are currently budgeted at $451,000 combined in FY24, are used to facilitate the new cohesive development of former Caltrans 238 property parcels with the goals of eliminating blight, creating public benefits for the community, and generating excess land value to the City.

Identified and Unfunded Capital Needs

The last section of the Recommended FY24 – FY33 CIP is the Identified and Unfunded Capital Needs section. This list was last significantly modified for the FY 2016 CIP to remove projects that were funded with Measure C and Measure BB funds, like improvements to Fire Stations 1-6, construction of a new 21st Century Library and Community Learning Center, and $1 million per year for paving improvements. A significant reduction occurred with street and transportation-related projects, due to the passage of Measure C, Measure BB, and the Road Repair and Accountability Act (RRAA) (SB1).

While the approval of Measure C allowed the City to address many critical facility needs (e.g., the new Library, upgrades to Fire Stations, and the new Fire Training Center), significant needs still exist. The facility update to the City’s Corporation Yard (Corp Yard) is one such capital need that remains unfunded. The Corp Yard is comprised of six buildings on Soto Road which were originally constructed in the early 1980s and are in need of major

improvements. The necessary improvements to the Corp Yard were estimated several years ago to amount to more than $50 million. The Recommended CIP includes a “Corporation Needs Assessment” Project, which would fund the development of a revised assessment to determine the current improvement needs and updated costs.

Another significant need included in the Unfunded Capital Needs list as part of the Recommended CIP is the South Hayward Youth and Family Center, which currently has an unfunded need of an estimated $27,000,000 for the construction phase of the project.

Unfunded Capital Needs are generally broken down into the following categories:

Information Technology: $967,000
Street Improvement: $6,420,000
Airport: $18,000,000
Alternate Modes: $41,982,000
Interchange: $68,100,000
Pavement Maintenance: $90,000,000
Facilities and Improvements $285,600,000
Total: $511,069,000

It is important to reiterate that this list identifies critical needs that have, as of now, no identified funding sources. The number of projects will continue to grow over time, as will the amounts needed to fund these extremely important upgrades and repairs to infrastructure and equipment.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The direct economic impact of these projects is not quantifiable. However, maintaining and improving the City’s infrastructure, fleet, and equipment will have an unquestionable impact on maintaining and improving economic health and vitality of the City. It is also important to note that capital projects are identified and prioritized with an emphasis on eliminating geographic inequities in the distribution of City services and infrastructure.

Highest priority is given to areas in the community which have experienced a disproportionate level of improvements in past years, as well as those communities with the current highest need.

FISCAL IMPACT

The capital budget for FY 2024 totals approximately $115 million, with a total of approximately $905 million tentatively programmed for the entire ten-year period from FY 2024 through FY 2033. An additional $511 million of unfunded needs have been identified for the same period.

Five of the twenty-three CIP funds rely on transfers from the General Fund for project expenses. The following table reflects the proposed General Fund transfers to these five funds when compared to FY 2023.

CIP Fund FY 2023 GF
Transfer
FY 2024 GF
Transfer
Increase
/(Decrease)
from FY 2023
405/Capital Projects (General) $1,539,000 $1,200,000 ($339,000) 460/Transportation System
Improvement $500,000 $500,000 $0
726/Facilities Management Capital $757,000 $360,000 ($397,000) 731/Information Technology Capital $1,125,000 $300,000 ($825,000) 736/Fleet Replacement $161,000 $0 ($161,000)
Total Cost to General Fund $4,082,000 $2,360,000 ($1,722,000)

Four of the CIP funds are also Internal Service Funds, meaning they use Internal Service Fees (ISF) to finance project expenses. Internal Service Fees are collected when one City department provides a service to another, drawing those service expenses from the operating budget of the benefiting department. Although some departments are funded by Enterprise funds, many are part of the General Fund. The Internal Service Fees paid by General Fund-supported departments have an impact on the General Fund. The total proposed Internal Service Fees for FY 2024 are shown below.

CIP Fund

FY 2023 ISF

FY 2024 ISF
Increase
/(Decrease)
from FY 2023
726/Facilities Management Capital $350,000 $350,000 $0 731/Information Technology Capital $855,000 $810,000 ($45,000) 736/Fleet Management Capital (General
Fund) $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $1,000,000
737/Fleet Replacement (Enterprise
Funds) $606,000 $156,000 ($450,000)
Total ISF $4,811,000 $5,316,000 $505,000

As displayed in the tables above, there is an overall decrease of $1,722,000 in proposed FY 2024 General Fund transfers when compared to FY 2023, and an increase of $505,000 in proposed FY 2024 ISF. It is important to note that some of the ISF referenced above have General Fund impacts, as many Departments paying ISF are funded by the General Fund.

Fund 736 for General Fund Fleet Replacement, for instance, supports fleet replacement efforts for the Fire Department, Police Department, and other General Fund-funded departments, and therefore has a direct General Fund Impact.

Project Cost by CIP Category

The proposed project costs by CIP category are as follows:

Project Category
FY 2023
Adopted
FY 2024
Recommended
Increase/
(Decrease)
from FY 2023 CIP
Livable Neighborhoods $37,307,000 $18,327,000 ($18,980,000) Sewer System Projects $21,124,000 $28,135,390 $7,011,390 Water System Projects $19,500,000 $21,789,265 $2,289,265 Pavement Rehabilitation $10,888,000 $16,539,000 $5,651,000

Project Cost by CIP Fund

The proposed project costs in each CIP Fund are as follows:

CIP Fund
FY 2024
Recommended
(210) Special Gas Tax $4,192,000
(211) RRAA (SB1) $4,000,000
(212) Measure BB - Local Transportation $6,455,000
(213) Measure BB - Ped & Bike $2,019,000
(215) Measure B - Local Transportation $226,000
(216) Measure B - Ped & Bike $15,000
(218) Vehicle Registration Fund $900,000
(219) Measure BB - Paratransit $750,000
(405) Capital Projects $13,228,000
(406) Measure C Capital $8,971,000
(410) Rte. 238 Corridor Improvement $1,010,000
(411) Rte. 238 Settlement Admin $771,000
(450) Street System Improvements $5,356,000
(460) Transportation System Improvements $615,000
(603) Water Replacement $10,551,265
Livable
Neighborhoods
Sewer System
Projects
Water System
Projects
Pavement
Rehabilitation
Projects
Road & Street
Projects
Municipal Facilities
Improvements
Misc. Projects
Airport Projects
Fleet
Management
Equipment & Software
Projects
Road & Street Projects $6,455,000 $1,015,000 ($5,440,000) Municipal Facilities $6,000,000 $8,040,000 $2,040,000
Misc. Projects $912,000 $1,286,000 $374,000
Airport Projects $5,900,000 $8,727,000 $2,827,000
Fleet Management $5,380,000 $6,789,000 $1,409,000
Equipment & Software $4,656,302 $4,742,000 $85,698
Total Capital
Improvement Projects $118,122,302 $115,389,655 ($2,732,647)

(604) Water Improvement $9,902,000
(611) Sewer Replacement $9,953,390
(612) Sewer Improvement $19,318,000
(621) Airport Capital $8,727,000
(726) Facilities Capital $1,190,000
(731) Information Tech Capital $1,440,000
(736) Fleet Management Capital $5,270,000
(737) Fleet Management Enterprise $530,000
Total $115,389,655

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

The 2024 Vision and Strategic Roadmap adopted in 2020 are at the forefront of the City’s capital project planning efforts, and each CIP project is evaluated for consistency with the City's Strategic Priorities.

CIP Projects touch the Confront Climate Crisis & Champion Environmental Justice, Enhance Community Safety & Quality of Life, Grow the Economy, and Strengthen Organizational Health Priorities, but predominantly support the Invest in Infrastructure Priority.

Social Equity
Consideration of social equity has been an important element of selecting projects, such as roadway improvements, sidewalk improvements, traffic calming, complete streets, and landscaping.

SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES

While the proposed projects are aligned with and advance the Council’s Sustainability goals and policies, the action taken for this agenda report will not result in a physical development, purchase or service, or a new policy or legislation. Any physical work will Fund 405 Capital
Projects
Sewer System
Water System
Measure B/BB
Gas Tax/RRAA/VRF
Airport
Route 238
Measure C
Fleet Management
Street/Transportation System
Information Technology Facilities

depend upon a future Council action. Sustainability features for individual CIP projects are listed in each staff report.

PUBLIC CONTACT

The public has the opportunity to review and comment on the CIP at this evening’s CIC meeting and will again at the Council Work Session, which has been tentatively scheduled for May 16, 2023, as well as at the Council Public Hearing, which has been tentatively scheduled for June 6, 2023.

Staff previously presented the Recommended FY24 – FY33 CIP to the Planning Commission at their April 13, 2023 meeting, at which the Commission unanimously found that the CIP was in conformance with the Hayward 2040 General Plan. A notice advising residents about the Planning Commission Public Hearing on the CIP was published on March 31, 2023 in The Daily Review newspaper. Another Public Notice will be published in the Daily Review newspaper at least ten days in advance of the Council Public Hearing on June 6. A copy of the Recommended CIP is made available online at www.hayward-ca.gov/CIP, and printed copies are available at the Public Works & Utilities’ Department office, at the City Clerk’s office, and at both Libraries3. Additionally, individual projects receive Council approval and public input as appropriate.

NEXT STEPS

Once the Committee has reviewed and offered comments on the Recommended CIP, staff will incorporate this feedback. Then, the CIP will be reviewed at a Council work session, tentatively scheduled for May 16, 2023, and again at a public adoption hearing tentatively scheduled for June 6, 2023.

Prepared by: Kait Byrne, Senior Management Analyst

Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works

Approved by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

3 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/public-library/using-library/locations-hours

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: ACT 23-033
DATE: April 26, 2023
TO: Council Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Micromobility Feasibility Study - Receive and Comment

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) receives this report on the Micromobility Feasibility Study and provides feedback and recommendations to Council.

SUMMARY
The Micromobility Feasibility Study has been prepared to develop a micromobility program vision in Hayward: 1) to aid in determining vehicle types (electric and classic bikes and/or e-scooters); to analyze partnership models with, including but not limited to, transit agencies, private or public entities, and bike shops;2) to investigate the interaction of shared micromobility with transit access and mobility hubs; 3) to emphasize connections to educational centers and employment hubs; and 4) to identify specific actionable pilot projects.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Draft Micromobility Study
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/24/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

DATE: April 26, 2023

TO: Council Infrastructure Committee

FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT Micromobility Feasibility Study – Receive and Comment

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) receives this report on the Micromobility Feasibility Study and provides feedback and recommendations to Council.

SUMMARY

The Micromobility Feasibility Study has been prepared to develop a micromobility program vision in Hayward: 1) to aid in determining vehicle types (electric and classic bikes and/or e-scooters); to analyze partnership models with, including but not limited to, transit agencies, private or public entities, and bike shops;2) to investigate the interaction of shared micromobility with transit access and mobility hubs; 3) to emphasize connections to educational centers and employment hubs; and 4) to identify specific actionable pilot projects.

BACKGROUND

The City of Hayward received a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant to evaluate the feasibility of establishing a Micromobility program. Micromobility is a term used to describe forms of transportation vehicles that are small, low-speed, and human- powered or electric-assisted. They are built for one rider at a time and include bicycles, electric bicycles (e-bikes), scooters, and electric scooters (e-scooters). Shared micromobility refers to the organized operation of a fleet of micromobility vehicles that individuals can rent out. Bicycles and scooters have the potential to reduce vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions, and as such, are addressed in the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP is currently being updated and the draft list of actions/programs under consideration include several that are related to micromobility.

DISCUSSION

MTC is managing the Micromobility Feasibility Study (Project) on behalf of the City of Hayward. Toole Design consultant team was selected by MTC for the Project. To develop a micromobility program vision in Hayward, this Project pursued the tasks below:

1. Determining vehicle types (electric and classic bikes and/or e-scooters).

2. Analyzing partnership models with, including but not limited to, transit agencies, private or public entities, and bike shops.

3. Investigating the interaction of shared micromobility with transit access and mobility hubs.

4. Emphasizing connections to educational centers and employment hubs.

5. Identifying specific actionable pilot projects.

6. Reviewing capital and maintenance costs and funding options for bike/scooter share and bike/scooter libraries.

As part of the Project, community members across Hayward were asked about their travel patterns and preferences, familiarity with shared micromobility, and general perceptions, interest, and concerns for a potential shared micromobility program in Hayward.

The input gathered from this community engagement effort demonstrated that community members are generally supportive of the City introducing a shared micromobility program and hope that the City addresses infrastructure and safety concerns in combination with any shared micromobility program. Many residents are excited about the potential community, economic, and environmental benefits that will come from a shared micromobility program.

The Project also analyzed Hayward’s potential of sustaining the micromobility program on the basis of population and employment density, street infrastructure, travel characteristics, access to BART and other regional transit, equity, and topography. This analysis indicated that 75,000 Hayward residents commute to work in other parts of the Bay Area with a mean commute time of 35.6 minutes. Over 75% of residents commute outside of the City for work, including 35% of residents who travel outside of the County. A high percentage of commuters traveling outside the City for work provides an opportunity for shared micromobility to fill first- and last-mile gaps between workers’ homes and transit – in particular BART and AC Transit. This suggests that for Hayward, a micromobility program could significantly benefit first- and last-mile connectivity to regional transit.

The consultant reviewed peer city policies and regulations relating to Micromobility. In addition, staff from four peer cities as well as BART were interviewed to get a more in- depth understanding of their programs’ challenges, successes, and lessons learned. Every city interviewed expressed strong interest in shared micromobility but cited multiple challenges in sustaining their program. The key concern cited by peer city staff was the inability to sustain the program after its initial launch. Reasons for this concern included COVID related impacts, inability of micromobility operator to maintain the appropriate service, lack of user demand, and operator not able to provide service continuity.

Project Recommendations:

The Project is recommending a short term and a long-term approach to bringing micromobility to Hayward.

Short Term:

The Short-Term recommendations suggest that to gain a quick benefit of providing an alternative to driving and connecting to mass transit stations like BART, create an E-bike Rebate Clearing House. E-bike rebates can achieve many of the goals of this study, including reducing vehicular travel, traffic congestion, and parking demand and supporting walking, bicycling, and transit ridership.

There are currently several e-bike rebate programs that Hayward residents are already eligible for, but the details about the programs, including qualifications and steps to utilize them, are not always clear or widely known. These programs are also administered through many different agencies, and there is not a central location where Hayward residents can access this information and understand which program is the best fit for them.

Therefore, this strategy recommends setting up a clearing house and creating one central location where Hayward residents can find information about all the e-bike rebate programs they may be eligible for, as well as a communications and outreach campaign to promote these programs. Since these programs are already funded with outside resources, a relatively small investment from the City of Hayward has the potential to create a significant mode shift as the number of residents having access to e-bikes increases.

Long Term:

The Long-Term recommendations focus on creating a regional program that may include the cities of San Leandro, Hayward, Union City, Fremont and the Alameda County unincorporated area of Castro Valley. Dense cities in the Bay Area like San Francisco and Oakland have had long-running shared micromobility programs; however, smaller cities in the Bay Area have faced challenges sustaining programs long-term. Many Bay Area cities (e.g., Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Foster City, San Mateo, Burlingame, and South San Francisco) have had private operators remove service in 2019 and 2020 after deciding to prioritize other markets or pivoting from bikes to scooters or for other reasons.

In more recent news, Fremont paused their bikeshare program due to issues working with their contracted operator, Richmond paused their bikeshare program due to their operator leaving the industry entirely, and Pleasant Hill’s e-scooter operator suspended operations after not achieving a profitable number of rides. This demonstrates a need for program flexibility – if one operator leaves, the program should be able to continue and onboard a new operator. The Project is proposing the long-term strategy to work with neighboring cities and unincorporated areas to develop a regional service area and solicit potential private operators.

City Staff Concerns:

There are many benefits to micromobility devices, including their convenience and zero emissions, and their utility for transit riders to get to and from transit stations. However, staff also has serious concerns and reservations related to the micromobility implementation in Hayward for reasons listed below:

Safety:

Frequently, micromobility riders, especially e‐scooter users, are either unaware of, or they outright disregard the rules of the road. While the California Vehicle Code (CVC Sec. 21235) prohibits riding an e-scooter on the sidewalk, and limits e-scooters speed to 15 MPH (CVC Sec. 22411), they often ride very fast and weave around pedestrians, and generally create unsafe situations for themselves and other members of the public. Changing the behavior of the riders is neither easy nor a short‐term effort.

Contributing to blight:

Many cities with e‐scooters and bike share programs have experienced issues with riders dumping these devices on the public streets, sidewalks and parking lots, or in creeks and waterways as well as on private properties. There is very little that the cities can do to prevent these occurrences and there are little consequences for the offenders. This behavior contributes to blight in cities.

Impact on City staff:

The City’s Transportation Division is currently severely under‐staffed and implementation of a brand‐new, potentially challenging, program at this time is not feasible. Likewise, dealing with and effectively addressing collection of discarded devices will be very impactful on the City’s Streets Division staff.

Docked bikeshare:

Based on the experience of other similar sized cities, it appears that, from a program management perspective, docked bike share as opposed to dockless might be a better option for Hayward. However, with very few exceptions, docked bike share models have typically not survived in cities of our size in the Bay Area since they do not provide the convenience of the dockless devices, and as such their usage has been very limited.

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT

Agency staff time is required for oversight, implementation, and evaluation of shared micromobility programs and should be considered in developing the program’s fee schedule. Many cities launching a shared micromobility program underestimate the level of effort needed to set up and manage the program, and staff time tends to be driven more by the number of vendors than the number of devices.

Multiple city departments are often involved in launching and managing a program, including Procurement, Contracting, Planning, Public Works, the Mayor’s Office, etc.

Working with a smaller number of operators can reduce staff time needed to manage the program, foster closer relationships with the operator(s), and increase operator(s) attention on providing customer service rather than competition.

Staff costs can include time for oversight, reviewing permit applications, responding to media and public information requests, data analysis, operator coordination and communications, field checks, Council reporting, and other functions. Other costs can include removing or impounding vehicles, responding to community enquiries and information requests, parking enforcement, and costs to run programs and activities to promote and support the micromobility program.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP

This agenda item supports Confront Climate Crisis & Champion Environmental Justice.

Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of the following:

Reduce greenhouse gases and dependency on fossil fuels

PUBLIC CONTACT

Public outreach consisted of the following engagement activities:

 Project website - The project website included accessible project messaging, the project timeline, a summary of project needs and benefits, and links to surveys and flyers.
 Online survey - An online survey targeted people who live, work, or frequently visit Hayward for their feedback and perceptions of shared micromobility. The survey was promoted through the City’s website and Instagram account and at both in- person engagement events, where paper versions were also available. A total of 121 people took the survey, with 98 complete responses and 23 partial responses. See Appendix C for full survey responses.
 Two (2) in-person tabling events - Two public outreach events were held to gather feedback from the residents. One took place at the Hayward Farmers Market on February 4, 2023, and the other was at the South Hayward BART Station on February 23, 2023. Three quarters (75%) of people at the events (115 people) and 69% of survey respondents (121 people) were in favor of a shared micromobility program.

Takeaways from public feedback are listed below:

1. Shared bikes and scooters are convenient and good for the environment.

2. Micromobility can improve access to recreation, transit, and dining/entertainment destinations in Hayward.

3. The service area should be citywide to accommodate a variety of trip purposes.

4. Sidewalk clutter is a major concern.

5. Safe rider behavior and safer streets are needed for a successful program.

6. Docked bikeshare was the most popular system type, and e-bikes were the preferred vehicle type, although e-bike libraries and e-bike rebate programs were also popular.

The input gathered from this community engagement effort demonstrates that community members are generally supportive of the City introducing a shared micromobility program and hope that the City addresses infrastructure and safety concerns in combination with any shared micromobility program. Many residents are excited about the potential community, economic, and environmental benefits that will come from a shared micromobility program.

 Social media and email promotion - The project and survey were promoted in the City’s monthly newsletter in February 2023, with 215 click-throughs to the project webpage. The City’s social media accounts (Instagram, Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter) promoted the project and survey, with a 4.8% engagement rate (double the normal engagement rate) and over 2,000 impressions.

NEXT STEPS

Staff will accept CIC feedback based on the Micromobility Feasibility Study’s short and long term recommendations. Staff will also incorporate CIC feedback into the draft actions to be included in the updated CAP. The updated Study will be presented to Council for action.

Prepared by: Kathy Garcia, Deputy Director of Public Works

Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works

Approved by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manager

March 29, 2023 | DRAFT

CITY OF
HAYWARD:

MICROMOBILITY

FEASIBILITY
STUDY
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 1

CONTENTS

1. Baseline Conditions Assessment 3
Plan and Policy Review 3
Micromobility Program Current Practices 4
Local Context Analysis 24

2. O
utreach and Engagement Summary 35
Engagement Takeaways 35
Engagement Process 35
Detailed Public Feedback 39

3. E
valuation of Potential Program Options 44

4. R
ecommendations 49
Short Term: Promoting Existing E-bike Rebates and Resources 49 Long Term: Regional Shared Micromobility Strategy 52
Appendices 56
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review 56
Appendix B: Peer City Analysis 61
Appendix C: Survey Responses 66
Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any project. All results, recommendations, and commentary contained herein are based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 2

s
CHAPTER 1

BASELINE CONDITIONS

AS SESSMENT
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 3

1. BASELINE CONDITIONS

ASSESSMENT
This chapter includes a review of the suitability and type of shared micromobility program most appropriate for the City of Hayward. It includes an overview of local plans, policies, and regulations related to or impacting a potential shared micromobility program, an analysis of peer cities and cities in the Bay Area with active shared micromobility programs, and a review of the local context in Hayward and best practices that contribute to the successful adoption of shared micromobility.

Key findings from the Baseline Conditions Assessment include the following barriers and opportunities, which are detailed more throughout this chapter.

Barriers Opportunities
• The city’s relatively low population density and single- family housing land use designations compared to
other cities in the region are less appealing to private operators looking for profitable markets. If private
operators are sought to provide shared micromobility
services, the city should consider structuring its
regulatory environment to offset this challenge.
• Freeway interchanges (along Interstate 880 and
Highway 92) as well as large multi-lane arterials like
Hesperian Boulevard create infrastructural barriers for people riding bikes or scooters and could limit
ridership.
• Except for Bay Wheels, a patchwork of multiple
shared micromobility models across the Bay Area
creates challenges for regional collaboration. Bay
Wheels is unlikely to expand beyond its current
service area in the near future.
• The city does not currently have resources for the
capital investments required for docked bikeshare
(dockless options would be much less resource-
intensive).
• There are no significant local regulatory restrictions on micromobility, and shared micromobility is aligned with current city goals in the 2040 General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and Racial Equity Action Plan.
• City demographics are aligned with industry-wide
demographics of shared micromobility riders.
• A highly mobile commuter population with connections
to transit (BART and AC Transit) aligns with shared
micromobility as a first- and last-mile connection.
• Mostly flat topography allows for easy use of all
micromobility vehicle types (not just those with electric motors). E-scooters and e-bikes can be deployed
strategically to help navigate more challenging
topography (e.g., access to California State University East Bay).
• The bicycle network is generally well-connected and
includes multiple low-stress local streets that are
comfortable for bicycling or riding an e-scooter.
• The City is committed to bicycling and pedestrian
improvements.
• Multiple neighboring cities (Union City, San Leandro, unincorporated Alameda County) have not yet launched
shared micromobility, creating an opportunity for
regional collaboration. Fremont is also open to a future regional program.

PLAN AND POLICY REVIEW
The following local plans, policies, and regulations were reviewed as related to or impacting a potential shared micromobility program in Hayward:
• City of Hayward 2040 General Plan
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 4
• C
ity of Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Regulations Governing Use of Parks, Recreation Areas, and F
acilities
• City of Hayward Racial Equity Plan
• City of Hayward Municipal Code and Traffic Code
• City of Hayward Climate Action Plan
• BART Station Access Policy
• BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study
• CSU Hayward Campus Master Plan
• Alameda CTC Countywide Active Transportation Plan
Local and regional policy generally supports an increase in multimodal transportation, and most policies and plans prioritize improving the active transportation network. Most specifically call out the need for improved biking infrastructure, but only a few specifically point to the role of shared micromobility. Hayward’s parks, recreation areas, and public facilities have established regulations around bicycles and electric and non-electric scooters, but the use of e-bikes is not specifically addressed outside of state regulations.

To enable widespread availability and use of a potential shared micromobility program, the City may need to review and update certain regulations in the Municipal Code, including bike parking regulations, the prohibition of parked vehicles in the roadway if they are used for advertisement or selling a service, and the prohibition of riding bicycles in certain parts of Downtown and the Central Traffic District. Additionally, e-scooter requirements related to speeds and where they can be operated will be important to consider. See Appendix A for the full plan and policy review.

MICROMOBILITY PROGRAM CURRENT

PRACTICES
The following section details current practices for the setup, launch, operations, and evaluation of a shared micromobility program based on findings from peer cities across the region. For t

CONTRACTING AND PERMITS
A key step in establishing a shared micromobility program is determining the permitting and procurement process that will be used to secure equipment and a vendor to operate the program. For many new systems operating in the United States, the most common organizational model is for a jurisdiction to regulate and oversee the program and have a third-party (or third parties) pay a fee to use the right-of-way, provide the equipment, and operate the service. There are other organizational models, including agency or non-profit owned and managed programs. These typically require more significant funding and staff resources and were not considered here based on feedback from City staff. There are several ways that service can be initiated for programs overseen by a jurisdiction using third-party vendors:
• Permit: This is the most common form of regulation for bikeshare and scootershare programs in t he
U
nited States. In this model, a permit process is established for vendors to apply to operate bikeshare and/
or scootershare in the public right‐of‐way. The jurisdiction reviews applications and selects one or more vendors to provide service. There are typically fees associated with the permits that go towards paying for City staff time and other resources to oversee the program. Permits are often for a set period and
may be renewed or the application process restarted at the end of the period. The terms of the permit can be revised at the end of a permit period and incorporated into the new application process. The FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 5

permit mechanism can take a significant amount of upfront time to draft and be approved by Council, but reduces time needed for evaluation and contracting, which can streamline service. A permit process may have less flexibility for vendors to propose new, value-added, or innovative terms of service. • Request for Proposals (RFP): An RFP solicits proposals from vendors interested in operating a shared micromobility program. RFPs outline what funding and resources the jurisdiction and its partners are bringing to the program and what is expected of the operator. For traditional bikeshare programs, jurisdictions often included some level of capital funding, sponsorship, and/or other resources. However, most recent RFPs are for shared micromobility operators that are prepared to bring the equipment and operating services at “no cost” or lower cost to the jurisdiction.1 The benefit of an RFP process is that it allows the jurisdiction to be more flexible in its requirements and provides vendors with more scope to be innovative to stand out from their competitors. Some drawbacks include a longer review and contracting time than other procurement models, as well as not having the ability to communicate back and forth with applicants during the RFP process. Some cities issue Requests for Information (RFI) or Requests for Qualifications (RFQ), that are non-binding proposals and are often used to gather information about whether vendors are interested and what they can provide without (or prior to) releasing an RFP. • Direct Contract: A direct contract is where a jurisdiction enters a contract with a specific vendor and works solely with them to provide bikeshare and/or scootershare services. These often derive from direct communications between a City and a vendor and are relatively quick, streamlined processes. However, they are dependent on local procurement rules as this limits the choices to only the services offered by that particular vendor.
• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): An MOU is similar to a direct contract, except it has less legally enforceable elements. This is a less common procurement method but allows multiple bikeshare and scootershare vendors to provide service on an expedited timeline with the MOU outlining the service agreement between the jurisdiction and the vendor(s). One benefit of the MOU process is it removes the time needed to create a formal permit process.

Most of the peer cities reviewed utilize a permit model to procure shared micromobility operators except for San Ramon, Richmond, and Bay Wheels, who used an RFP and contract process. Many cities launched as a pilot for a year, before making the program permanent. Ten of the 11 peer cities had contract lengths of 1 year for their dockless shared micromobility operators. The exception is Bay Wheels which has a 10-year contract with MTC. A longer contract length is more commonly seen in traditional docked bikeshare, as the costs to set up, maintain, and expand docked bikeshare are significantly higher than dockless systems.

1 Note that there are still costs to the jurisdiction to manage and administer a micromobility program and provide any supporting programs such as educational, promotional, and safety programs.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 6

PROGRAM BUSINESS MODEL AND FUNDING
Apart from the Bay Wheels program which is a public-private partnership, all cities used an agency permit or contract with private operators for their programs. Within both models, there are various funding structures, as outlined below.

Public/Private Partnerships:
• Bay Wheels (Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose): The system is a partnership between MTC, the five local governments, and Motivate (a subsidiary of Lyft). When the system launched as a pilot in 2013, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District funded bikeshare service in Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Francisco, and San Jose. MTC utilized public funds to support the pilot through 2015, at which time they approved an additional $16.4 million to expand the system.

Motivate offered to operate the system at no cost to the public sector, and in 2015 MTC approved a contract to operate in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. These cities have a regional coordination agreement to participate in the Bay Wheels program, as well as specific agreements with Motivate, who shares revenue with MTC and the participating cities. The Bay Wheels model of docked bikeshare is fairly resource intensive and may only be available to cities where the operator believes revenues will be sufficient to cover costs. Smaller cities may need to significantly subsidize costs and staff would need to also coordinate program set up and installation and be involved in ongoing program coordination.
• Private Sector Supported (Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Santa Cara, San Jose, San Francisco, and Santa Rosa): Private companies provide the vehicles and operating services in return for user revenues.

The companies pay fees to the city for use of the right-of-way, which can be used to cover staff costs in administering the program.

The Role of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) in Shared Micromobility While Hayward does not currently have a TMA, other regions across the country have utilized TMAs to support small-scale shared micromobility programs:
• Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA): In Washington County, Oregon, WTA works with the transit agency and local employer Columbia Sportswear to provide bikeshare connecting the company’s headquarters to two MAX (light rail) stations.
• Chittenden Area TMA: In Chittenden County, Vermont, CATMA works with multiple local cities to provide bikeshare throughout the region. While their previous bikeshare operators have ceased operations, CATMA plans to launch dockless regional bikeshare in 2023.

TMAs tend to face issues of limited funding and staff capacity, as well as an inability to scale micromobility efforts beyond their boundaries and have found better success partnering with city, regional, or transit agency gled programs.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs and Shared Micromobility Hayward’s current TDM Plan includes a recommendation to establish bikeshare and encouraging ways for developers to support the program. Most Bay Area cities with TDM plans focus more on carshare than bikeshare as a shared mobility strategy, however, many of the strategies employed for carshare will similarly apply. These options include providing discounted or free shared micromobility memberships to residents/employees or relaxing parking requirements for developers who provide access to shared micromobility.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 7

Regional and State Agency Funding Sources:
• Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC): Alameda CTC distributes the following federal funds --
o Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA): Bikeshare is an eligible project for TFCA funding.

Bikeshare programs must share membership or be interoperable with Bay Wheels, unless they are free to use or were refused by the Bay Wheels operator. These funds can pay for five years of operations, and equipment. Funds are distributed by Alameda CTC through a call for projects for the Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP). The 2024 call for projects closed in June 2022, and the next call for projects is likely to take place in 2024. o Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Funds: Bikeshare is an eligible project (for capital costs only) under federal CMAQ funds. Like TFCA funding, CMAQ funds are distributed by Alameda CTC through a call for projects for the CIP.
• California Climate Investments - Clean Mobility Options (CMO): CMO is a statewide public program that provides up to $1.5 million vouchers to government entities and nonprofits to develop and launch zero-emission mobility projects. The program has a requirement to focus on disadvantaged communities under SB 535 and AB 1550, and the majority of Hayward’s census tracts are eligible as a project area.

Bike libraries, bikeshare, and scootershare are eligible projects, and CMO funds can support planning, development and implementation (including outreach and operations). Applicants must have completed a community transportation needs assessment prior to applying for funding. Phase 1 of the application process is open from March 1, 2023 to April 5, 2023.

Figure 1: Census tracts eligible for CMO funding

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 8

Source: cleanmobilityoptions.org

• MTC Bike Share Capital Grant Program – no longer available (Fremont and Richmond): MTC created a grant program to support micromobility programs in cities that were not included in the Bay Wheels program. These grants have been used to support this planning study and to launch bikeshare programs in Richmond and Fremont. Another system was planned in Marin and Sonoma Counties to be aligned with the new rail system; however the selected vendor has since gone out of business. In Fremont, the MTC grant was used to support capital costs, but HOPR (the vendor) is funding program operation through membership, user fees, and private sponsorships. As of 2022, MTC does not have plans to continue this grant program.

FLEET TYPES
There are a number of shared micromobility vehicle types, and these can be broadly categorized as bikeshare (including bikes and e-bikes) and scootershare (including stand-up and sit-down e-scooters). Other variations and vehicle types are in constant development including shared mopeds and other devices.

Figure 2: Fleet Types

The two most common fleet types (bikeshare and scootershare) cater to different use cases, trip lengths, and appeal to different user groups and demographics. Among the peer cities reviewed, e-scooters were the most popular vehicle type. Ten out of the 11 cities currently have e-scooters on their streets (Richmond is the only city reviewed that does not provide e-scooters). The majority (nine out of 11) had some form of bikeshare, whether it was Bay Wheels or another operator, and dockless e-bikes were the most popular bicycle type. Eight of the 11 cities had both bikes and scooters, and San Francisco was the only city with a moped operator, which is permitted separately from e-scooters as part of the Shared Electric Moped Parking Permit.

Jurisdictions can choose to have combined or separate contracting/ permitting processes for different vehicle types. Providing separate fleet caps, but a combined application and permitting process can streamline the application process for operators who would like to offer a multimodal fleet Fleet
Types
Scooters
2- or 3-
Wheel
Standing
Scooters
Seated
Scooters
Bikes
E-bikes
Pedal
Bikes

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 9

Bikeshare
A bikeshare program consists of making bicycles and/or electric bicycles available for a fee to individual riders for short-term rental. Bikeshare is often preferred for longer distances and by users who are more familiar with riding a bike or more comfortable in a seated position. Some shared micromobility providers may not offer a bikeshare option because the cost to manufacture bicycles (especially e-bikes) is higher and ridership tends to be lower. Because of the lower return on investment, some operators will only offer bikeshare with some sort of funding support or incentives such as being able to provide higher levels of scootershare, which is reported to have a higher return on investment.

E-Bikes vs Pedal/Human-Powered Bikes
E-bikes and pedal bikes are operated very similarly, with the difference being the battery pack that provides assistance to an e-bike rider. E-bike benefits over pedal bikes include the ability to carry heavier loads, go longer distances, bike in hotter temperatures, and climb steep hills.

While e-bikes are more expensive than traditional bicycles, e-bike sales have grown significantly in recent years, even outpacing growth rates for more traditional bicycles. Many private micromobility operators offer both e-bikes and pedal bikes to users.

Left: Bay Wheels e-bike. Right: Bay Wheels pedal bike.

Current California state law regulates e-bikes like human-powered bicycles, and e-bikes are not subject to the registration, licensing, or insurance requirements that apply to motor vehicles.

E-Bike Rebate Programs
In recent years, rebates for the
purchase of e-bikes have been
utilized to encourage wider adoption.

The state has allocated $10 million for
an e-bike rebate program which will
likely begin in 2023. The program will
be offered to residents who meet
certain income requirements
(<$51,000 for an individual and
$106,000 for a family of four) and will
provide $750 vouchers for a standard
e-bike and $1,500 vouchers for a
cargo e-bike.

Some local examples of organizations
that provide e-bike rebate programs
are listed below. Those that Hayward
residents may be eligible for are noted
with an asterisk:
• Bay Area Air Quality Management
District: BAAQMD’s Clean Cars
for All program offers up to $7,500
toward the purchase of an e-bike
or public transit for eligible
residents that retire their car.

Multiple zip codes in Hayward are
eligible to participate in the
program.
• City of Alameda: Alameda
Municipal Power offers an e-bike
rebate of up to $600 for all
residential customers.
• East Bay Community Energy:

EBCE has allocated $2 million
dollars to promote an e-bike
adoption program in 2023, with $4
million more set aside for 2024
and 2025. The program will
include both a lending program
(like a bike library) and an
incentive or rebate program.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 10

There are three classes of e-bikes under state law, and most shared micromobility providers offer Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes in their fleets:
- Class 1: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph. - Class 2: Bicycle equipped with a throttle-actuated motor, that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph.
- Class 3: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 28 mph.

Helmets are required for all e-bike riders 17 years of age and younger. There are no age restrictions on Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, but Class 3 e-bike riders must be at least 16 years of age. Class 3 e-bikes are not allowed on bike paths or shared-use paths unless the local jurisdiction explicitly allows it – Hayward does not currently have an ordinance that would allow Class 3 e-bikes on those paths.

Scootershare
Similar to bikeshare, a scootershare program makes e-scooters available for a fee to individual riders for short- term rental. Most private shared micromobility operators prefer to include some level of e-scooters in their fleet, as they have a lower unit cost and are usually more popular than bikes amongst users, resulting in a higher return on investment.

Like dockless bikeshare, cities usually have rules about where e-scooters can be parked and how to address poorly parked vehicles, as well as equity requirements to deploy e-scooters in specific neighborhoods within their service areas.

Table 1: Types of E-Scooters
Vehicle Type Description
Standing E-
Scooter

Riders stand on a platform mounted on two or three wheels and utilize a handlebar for steering and to engage the electric motor.

Two-wheeled devices are the most common e-scooter vehicle type.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 11

Seated E-Scooter
and/or Adaptive E-
Scooter

Riders are seated and utilize a handlebar for steering and to engage the electric motor. Multiple private operators have developed seated/adaptive e-scooters.

Higher costs to manufacture adaptive vehicles, as well as lower usage rates, have led to many operators not offering these vehicles unless required. Some operators offer separate programs where adaptive vehicles are provided at certain locations or where an adaptive vehicle can be delivered directly to a disabled user.

SYSTEM TYPES
This section summarizes the range of potential system types within a shared micromobility program, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Shared Micromobility System Types

Docked vs Dockless
Docked shared micromobility systems are generally more expensive and time-intensive than dockless systems given the capital cost of purchasing the docks and station infrastructure and identifying, permitting, and installing stations in the public right-of-way. While a docked, station-based system creates more organized pick-up and drop-off, the availability of bikes and scooters is limited to the station locations.

Dockless systems provide more flexibility in where vehicles can be parked allowing closer access to destinations.

There can be some issues in reliably knowing that a bike or scooter (or multiple devices for group rides) will be Shared
System
Library
Docked
Dockless
Hybrid

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 12

available nearby, but this has been (at least partly) addressed in other systems by ensuring a sufficiently large fleet of vehicles and encouraging regular rebalancing, particularly to identified high-demand and equity areas.

Left: Dockless bikeshare (foreground) next to docked bikeshare (background). Right: Dockless e-scooters.

Dockless systems are more likely to have issues with clutter and bikes or scooters being parked blocking sidewalks, curb ramps, and other features in the right-of-way. Efficient and effective parking management is a critical aspect of a dockless program (see below).

In the peer cities, all programs other than Bay Wheels and Richmond’s bikeshare used dockless systems. Bay Wheels offers docks in the cities where it operates, but e-bikes can also be parked at any public bike rack.

Richmond’s program included has bike hubs where bikes are required to be parked, though it is currently not operating.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 13

Bike Library
Bike libraries lend bicycles to riders for short-term use. Users sign a bike out from a central location and return it when finished. Bike libraries operate similarly to brick-and-mortar bike rental stores, but often offer bikes for free or very low cost. Bike libraries are often run by community-based organization and non-profits, public libraries, or by private organizations like bike shops or employers. Bike libraries operated out of public libraries can often use the same check-out system and are often free to anyone with a library card.

Bike library operators who do not otherwise provide bikes for rental should ensure that they meet the necessary liability and insurance requirements (e.g., liability waivers, membership terms, safety checks, etc.).

Bike libraries require a staffed physical location for pick-up and drop-off, a fleet of bikes (that are often refurbished), regular maintenance, and a check-out process. As bike libraries usually operate out of only one or two physical locations, they should be conveniently located based on demand and use (e.g., near transit or areas with limited access to other transportation options).

A bike library in Golden, Colorado.

Some local examples of bike libraries include:
- City of Oakland: The City of Oakland received a $1,000,000 grant in 2022 a s part of the CMO voucher
program (see above) to develop a bike library that makes 500 e-bikes, cargo bikes, and adaptive bikes available for medium- and long-term rental to priority communities. - S onoma County Bicycle Coalition: The Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition operates a bike library that members can borrow for free for a week at a time. Members must reserve bikes at least one week in advance using an online reservation system.

Adaptive Bike Lending Programs

An adaptive bike user in Oakland.

Standard e-bikes and pedal bikes do not
serve the full range of disabled users.

Adaptive bikes (which can include tricycles,
handcycles, recumbent bicycles, and other
modified bicycles) make bicycling easier
and accessible for people with different
needs.

Adaptive bike lending programs are
operated similarly to bike libraries, and
usually require users to pick up and drop
off the bicycles at a specific location.

The majority of shared micromobility
programs do not offer adaptive bikes (e.g.,
in 2021 only 21% of programs offered
adaptive vehicles). However, both Oakland
and San Francisco have run adaptive bike
lending pilot programs in recent years. San
Francisco made their lending program
permanent in 2022 and riders can access
bikes at two locations on Saturdays from
April to October by appointment only.

Oakland’s pilot ran in 2019 at Lake Merritt
and was available for free to people with
disabilities.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 14
-
University of California, Santa Cruz: UCSC provides bikes free of charge that are loaned on a quarterly basis. Students must submit an application with a short description of why the need a bike. The library is funded by student fees.
- East Bay Community Energy – Ride Electric E-Bike Adoption Program: EBCE has alloc ated $2 million dollars to promote an e-bike adoption program in 2023, with $4 million more set aside for 2024 and 2025.

The program will include both a lending program (like a bike library) and an incentive or rebate program.

FLEET SIZE AND SERVICE AREA/DISTRIBUTION
Establishing minimum and maximum numbers of vehicles, as well as criteria for when the program can be expanded and by how much, provides jurisdictions with greater control over shared micromobility programs.

Minimums help ensure that the system remains viable and provides utility to users. Maximums ensure that new programs are introduced in a controlled fashion and allow the public to get used to them and build support for expansion. Seasonal changes in ridership due to winter weather and flexibility for fleet expansion according to operator performance and ridership should also be considered when defining fleet sizes.

Shared micromobility devices need to be conveniently located a walkable distance from key origins and destinations. The North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA) found that cities with populations under 200,000 had an average of 1.8 bikes available per 1,000 residents and approximately 4.0 scooters available per 1,000 residents, and around 200 scooters and 200 bikes.2 With a population of approximately 160,000 people, this would equate to approximately 288 bikes and 640 e-scooters in the City of Hayward. Bay Area peer cities with fleet caps often had less vehicles than the NABSA average – for example, San Ramon has 30 e-bikes and 120 scooters (0.2 e-bikes and 1.3 scooters per 1,000 residents), and Fremont had a fleet of 150 bikes and 100 scooters (0.66 bikes and 0.44 scooters per 1,000 residents).

Fleet minimums and maximums varied in the peer cities. Emeryville and Richmond do not have defined minimums or maximums. For cities that had specific fleet size requirements, minimums of 50 devices per operator were common, while maximum fleet sizes ranged from 200-2,000 for cities that had caps. Oakland, Santa Clara, San Jose, and San Ramon all included the opportunity for operators to expand their fleets if high utilization was achieved. Bay Wheels currently has 7,000 bicycles and 550 stations across all the cities in which the program operates.

Most often, the service area of a shared micromobility program is defined as the entire area under the jurisdiction of the regulating agency, e.g., the city boundary. However, some cities use defined boundaries that restrict operations to specific areas within a city – especially during the pilot period. These are often limited to central business districts and high-activity centers. All peer cities reviewed had city-wide service areas, although many had no-ride zones in parks or on trails. For example, Santa Rosa restricts riding at a few large shopping malls, local schools, and at specific areas in Downtown. Bay Wheels bicycles can be ridden anywhere bicycles are allowed throughout the Bay Area, although all rides must end within the boundaries of a city that is part of the regional program.

NUMBER OF OPERATORS
No peer city had more than five operators. The majority (except for San Francisco, Oakland, and Emeryville) placed caps on the number of permitted operators allowed. Peer cities tended to have either 1 operator or 3-5 operators. City size did not correlate to the number of operators, as cities with smaller geographies and/or populations did not necessarily have fewer operators than their larger counterparts. 2 North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association. (2022). 3rd Annual Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report - 2021. These statistics include permitted fleet caps and programs in varying stages of maturity and expansion.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 15

STAFFING AND PROGRAM COSTS
Agency staff time is required for oversight, implementation, and evaluation of shared micromobility programs and should be considered in developing the program’s fee schedule (see below). Many cities launching a shared micromobility program underestimate the level of effort needed to set up and manage the program, and staff time tends to be driven more by the number of vendors than the number of devices.

Multiple city departments are often involved in launching and managing a program, including procurement, contracting, planning, public works, the Mayor’s Office, etc. Working with a smaller number of operators can reduce staff time needed to manage the program, foster closer relationships with the operator(s), and increase operator(s) attention on providing customer service rather than competition.

Staff costs can include time for oversight, reviewing permit applications, responding to media and public information requests, data analysis, operator coordination and communications, field checks, Council reporting, and other functions. Other costs can include removing or impounding vehicles, responding to community enquiries and information requests, parking enforcement, and costs to run programs and activities to promote and support the micromobility program.

Santa Clara was the only city reviewed that had publicly available information about staffing resources and costs.

The City planned for staff time to include 13 hours ($3,500) to process each application, 306-1,067 hours ($82,000-$280,000) annually for program management (depending on the number of devices), and 1.5 hours ($300) per device for any necessary vehicle impoundments.

FEE STRUCTURE
Fees are used by jurisdictions to cover the staff time and other resources needed to oversee and monitor the program (see above). The typical types of fees are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: Fee Types
Fee Description
Application
fee
Due every time an operator applies for the program or renews their permit. This fee is mostly used to pay for staff time to process the application and varies significantly between jurisdictions.

Annual fee Typically a one-time, upfront fee that may be a fixed amount or assessed based on the number of vehicles deployed. This fee varies significantly between jurisdictions.

Per-trip or
per-device
fee
Ongoing fees that are often assessed monthly or quarterly depending on deployment or usage. Best practice is increasingly moving away from per device fees and towards per trip fees (usually $0.10 - $0.20 per trip) that are proportional to usage and incentivize both operators and agencies to support and promote the program.

Security
deposit/bond
Some cities require operators to pay an upfront security deposit that is held in reserve until required to pay for any city resources needed to impound or relocate vehicles or address other issues.

I
n some cities, fees are also used to support costs related to active transportation infrastructure. For example, the City of San Francisco uses its e-scooter fees to accelerate its bike rack installation program and the City of Arvada (in Colorado) funded trail wayfinding signage from its fee collection.

Fees varied for the peer cities. Bay Wheels as a contracted operation does not have a fee schedule. Two pilot programs (San Ramon and Santa Rosa) had no fees and in two programs fees were waived by the City (Fremont and Richmond). The city with the highest fees was San Francisco, which charged a minimum of $43,734 in application and annual fees (not including per-vehicle fees). Of the seven cities who charged application fees, these ranged from $1,500 to $5,400. Of the five cities charging annual fees, these ranged from $5,260 to $30,000 per year. For ongoing fees, counter to trends in other parts of the USA, only one of the peer cities (Pleasant Hill) utilized a per-ride fee ($0.15/ride), while five cities had vehicle fees ranging from $64-$100 per vehicle per year.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 16

PARKING MANAGEMENT AND GEOFENCING

Left: Screenshot of a no-ride zone in San Ramon.

Middle: An e-scooter in San Francisco locked to a pole.

Right: Screenshot of scooter parking and no-ride zones in Oakland (orange indicates no parking allowed, grey indicates no riding allowed, and green P markers indicate incentivized parking location).

Docked systems have minimal parking issues, while improper parking is the most common complaint about dockless systems. Parking complaints can be addressed using some of the following techniques:
• Regulation and Enforcement: Jurisdictions should include clear regulations for where devices can and cannot be parked. This should address use and parking on streets, sidewalks, in parks, and on pathways.

Micromobility devices should be required to be parked in an upright position and improperly parked devices should be corrected by the operator within a specific amount of time. Enforcement of parking varies – operators can program rides so that users are unable to end their trip until they are parked in a designated parking zone, operators (and cities) can issue fines for mis-parked vehicles, and operators can incentivize good parking behavior by providing credits or discounts to users. Operators have the ability to track the locations of all their vehicles and usually actively monitor their fleet activity. When peer cities get reports (via 311 or other public complaints) of improper parking or other issues, they alert the operator who then must respond in a timely manner. Five peer cities charge additional fees for improper parking or for city staff removal/impounding of micromobility devices. • Parking Areas: Jurisdictions can provide a sufficient supply of conveniently located micromobility parking by creating or expanding formal parking areas. These can range from “heavier” infrastructure such as bike racks, on-street bike corrals, and docking stations, to “light” infrastructure such as delineated parking areas that use paint, flexible delineators, and/or stencils. During pilot or early stages of a shared micromobility program, light infrastructure is more flexible and can be easily moved and adapted to respond to demand. Some cities do not require any infrastructure to delineate parking zones – for

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 17
ex
ample, San Francisco, CA allows e-scooters to be parked at any bike rack or in the area of the sidewalk closest to the curb (as long as they do not obstruct pedestrian space or obstruct access to transit, driveways, or utilities). Parking regulations varied across peer cities. All Bay Wheels bicycles must be parked at a docking station (e-bikes and pedal-bikes) or locked to a bike rack (e-bikes). Cities with dockless programs, which allow users to end their ride anywhere in the service area, generally have requirements for where bikes and scooters can be parked to reduce clutter and avoid obstructing pedestrian paths. Berkeley and Fremont are the only peer cities that require riders to end their trip at a designated parking area. Cities with designated parking areas generally communicate these through the vendors’ apps.
• Geofencing: Geofencing can be used to define areas where devices can or cannot be used or parked.

These areas can be updated for special events (e.g., parades, marathons, etc.), and operators can also remove all devices from a special event zone if provided advance notice. The City of Hayward can require operators to communicate “no-ride” or “no-park” zones as well as incentivized parking areas to users via their apps (for example, designating a parking area near BART stations or other high-use transit stops).

While the technology continues to evolve, geofencing relies on on-vehicle GPS devices, and its accuracy can be affected by obstructions such as tall buildings. The two-dimensional nature of GPS can also create constraints, e.g., geofencing a bridge would also affect a trail or street located underneath the bridge.
• “Lock-to” Requirements: These regulations are less common and require devices to be fitted with a
b
uilt-in lock (often a cable lock) that must be deployed to end the trip or some operators require users to photograph their parked device to complete a trip. Some cities have used these regulations to better organize parking. However, this does require that an adequate supply of bike racks or parking infrastructure be provided to be convenient to users. Four peer cities (Berkeley, Emeryville, San Francisco, and Santa Rosa) have “lock-to” requirements that require devices to be locked to a bike rack or other infrastructure to end their trip. Attendees at a mid-pilot community meeting in San Francisco expressed that the addition of a locking mechanism and lock-to requirement improved parking behavior and reduced scooters blocking accessible travel paths.
• New Parking Technologies: Operator technology continues to advance to support improved parki ng
beha
vior. As an example, in 2022, Bird and Lime launched new tools that use a Google API to allow the companies to geo-locate parked micromobility devices within “less than a meter” accuracy – it is not clear if this technology has been deployed at scale.3 Operators also can provide parking information and tips on their website or using in-app pop-ups at the end of a trip to remind users about proper parking.

VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS AND MAINTENANCE
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) recommends that all micromobility devices should comply with the safety standards established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and all other federal, state, and city safety standards. Combined vehicle requirements from NACTO and Transportation for America are detailed in Table 3 below.4,5 3 Bellan, Rebecca. “Bird, Lime use Google’s ARCore to power scooter parking solution.” TechCrunch, 22 May 2022. https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/11/bird-lime-to-use-googles-arcore-to-power-scooter-parking-solution/ 4 National Association of Transportation Officials. Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility. (2019). https://nacto.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/NACTO_Shared_Micromobility_Guidelines_Web.pdf 5 Transportation for America. “Shared Micromobility Playbook.” https://playbook.t4america.org/ FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 18

Table 3: Standard Vehicle Requirements
Vehicle Requirements Description
Safety Standards
Compliance
All vehicles should meet national safety standards such as those established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). All vehicles must be certified as safe to operate under any applicable standard by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) or an equivalent safety rating agency.

For e-bikes/electric-assist bikes, refer to CPSC Public Law “107-319” (low speed electric bicycles) for maximum engine wattage. Note that these standards are evolving.

For e-scooters, refer to CPSC in Public Law “107-319” for weight bearing standards. Note that these standards are evolving.

Speed Maximum speeds should be set for vehicles at:

1. E-scooters: No greater than 15 mph

2. Class 1 e-bikes: No greater than 20 mph

3. Class 3 e-bikes: No greater than 28 mph
Vehicle ID Each vehicle should have a unique identifier number prominently displayed to identify and track vehicles as needed.

On Vehicle GPS Each vehicle should be equipped with on-board GPS capable of providing real-time location data.

Batteries Operators should detail their battery safety practices, including:

1. Information on battery charging, storing, and disposal

2. Any prior incidents with battery tampering and procedures to prevent future tampering

3. Information about battery management systems

4. How operator identifies at-risk vehicles and responds to risks Visibility Each vehicle should have daytime running front and rear lights visible from 300-feet under normal conditions.

Remotely Disable
Vehicle
In case of an equipment safety issue, operators must be able to remotely turn off and disable all potentially affected vehicles.

As shared micromobility devices are maintained by private operators, cities often include specific maintenance requirements in their regulations. Common requirements include meeting state vehicle codes, providing a maintenance and repair plan or an up-to-date record of maintenance activities, tamper-resistant security hardware on all devices, and monthly maintenance checks conducted by the operator (i.e., checks for tire condition, brake function, handlebar grips, brake levers, bell, lights, kickstands, etc.).

In the peer cities, most vehicle requirements were the typical requirements outlined above. Additionally, Oakland required that wheel sizes were no smaller than 9”. Berkeley and Santa Rosa do not allow third party advertising on dockless vehicles. San Jose also required dockless operators (not including Bay Wheels) to pilot anti-sidewalk riding technology. In terms of maintenance, most programs require that the operator be responsible for maintaining the vehicles and any associated infrastructure and keep a record of maintenance. Most cities also require operators to include a way for a user to report that a vehicle is damaged, and to remove vehicles that are reported within a certain period. Some permits have additional requirements, such as San Francisco which requires operators to submit a maintenance plan and perform a maintenance check on each vehicle at least every two months.

EQUITY
There are multiple regulatory tools that jurisdictions can use to promote equitable access to shared micromobility.

There is significant variation in the deployment of these tools and some jurisdictions request that operators submit FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 19

an “equity plan” to show how low-income and historically marginalized populations will be engaged in the program. Some techniques to improve access that can be included in city regulation and requirements for shared micromobility in Hayward in alignment with the city’s Racial Equity Action Plan include:
• Equitable distribution: Operators provide and rebalance a certain percentage of vehicles in underserved or defined “equity” zones. Jurisdictions can incentivize operator deployment in underserved areas by reducing fees for trips that start or end in these zones. • Discounted pricing: Operators provide discounted pricing for low-income individuals - often partnering with community-based organizations and/or using already established low-income qualification programs to confirm eligibility.
• Non-digital/underbanked access: Operators provide alternative access programs for people who do not have access to a smart phone or the operator’s app or are unbanked/underbanked and need cash or pre- paid card payment options.
• Multilingual access: Operators provide their apps and communications in different languages. • Outreach/engagement with underserved communities: Operators conduct digital and/or in-person outreach targeting underserved communities. This can include ad/social media campaigns, tabling/pop- up events, and demonstrations of the micromobility devices. Jurisdictions should ensure that underserved populations are engaged consistently and meaningfully throughout the program (not just during launch). • Access for users with disabilities: Operators provide adaptive vehicles for users with disabilities or partner with other organizations that provide these services.

The City of Oakland requires 50% of e-scooters to be deployed in “Communities of Concern”.

Eight of 11 peer cities had equity requirements for micromobility operators. Common requirements included discounts for low-income riders (8 cities), alternative payment methods (7 cities), adaptive vehicles (6 cities), and

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 20

distribution in pre-determined equity zones (5 cities). A few cities also required user surveys and the development of a community engagement plan. Multi-lingual access requirements were also common across peer cities.

Left: Instructions for cash payment in the Bird app. Right: Advertisement for Spin’s Access Program.

A mid-pilot review of San Francisco’s program reported that more robust community engagement was needed to effectively serve historically disadvantaged communities, especially low-income individuals. Specifically, the participation in the low-income discount program was too low, and the report recommended additional engagement and multi-lingual outreach to increase participation.

ENCOURAGIN G CONNECTIONS TO TRANSIT
Shared micromobility is often used as a first- and last-mile connection to transit. ITDP recommended the following ways that shared micromobility could be better integrated with public transit6:
• Physical Integration: Shared micromobility devices should be available near transit. This can include designated parking areas at bus stops and transit stations, active transportation infrastructure that connects to transit, or mobility hubs where multiple modes of transportation are available. The City of Berkeley, BART, and a dockless scooter operator (SuperPedestrian) launched e-scooter parking at BART stations for quick and easy access.
• Payment and Fare Integration: Allows users to reserve, transfer between, and pay for multiple modes of transportation. This can be costly and time-consuming to implement but can be (at least partially) achieved using smart/RFID cards, mobile payment apps, or reduced fare transfers. Currently, Bay Wheels membership can be linked to Clipper Cards. However, the Clipper Card cannot be used to pay for rides or membership, but only to check out a bike (users maintain a separate Bay Wheels account that is used to pay for rides/membership). Bay Wheels is the only shared micromobility program in the region integrated with Clipper.

6 Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. (2021). Maximizing Micromobility: Unlocking Opportunities to Integrate Micromobility and Public Transportation.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 21

• Informational Integration: Clear, accessible information is key for informed trip-making decisions.

Wayfinding signage, trip-planning applications (optimized for mobile use), and multimodal maps in public transit stations can promote use of micromobility. For example, BARTs “Trip Planner” website and smartphone app show real-time availability of Spin scooters in San Francisco, LINK scooters in Oakland, and HOPR scooters in Fremont.
• Institutional Integration: Cooperation across departments, agencies, organizations, and levels of government can increase opportunities to integrate micromobility with transit. Expanding micromobility service areas beyond city partners can improve access and align with regional transit routes. For example, BART currently allows micromobility operators to deploy their vehicles on BART property if they enter an agreement, and California State University previously worked with a now-defunct operator to provide bikeshare service on campus.

Scooters at the Downtown Berkeley BART station plaza.

Jurisdictions can also incentivize operators to propose ways to integrate with transit by encouraging pilots. Some recent examples include “deep linking” an API to allow riders to see all transportation options in the same app or reducing fees for deploying micromobility devices near transit.

SAFETY
Ensuring safe operations is a critical component of a micromobility program. Given the industry is relatively new, it is difficult to estimate collisions or injury rates and long-term trends for e-scooters and other shared micromobility devices. However, between 2018 and 2019, the estimated number of e-scooter injuries treated in emergency departments in the United States nearly doubled as e-scooter ridership increased across the country.7,8 Data from 2014-2018 from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), which provides national estimates of injuries that present to emergency departments in the United States, found that nearly one-third of patients with e-scooter related injuries had a head injury.9 This is more than double the rate of head injuries experienced by bicyclists, and is likely related to low helmet use among riders. A 2021 systematic review of injury patterns and circumstances associated with e-scooter collisions found that 92.8% of riders were injured in single

7 Aizpuru M, Farley KX, Rojas JC, Crawford RS, Moore TJ Jr, Wagner ER. Motorized scooter injuries in the era of scooter-shares: a review of the national electronic surveillance system. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(6):1133-1138. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2019.03.049 8 Namiri NK, Lui H, Tangney T, Allen IE, Cohen AJ, Breyer BN. Electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States, 2014-2018. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(4):357-359. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5423 9 Namiri, Nikan K., et al. "Electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States, 2014-2018." JAMA surgery 155.4 (2020): 357- 359.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 22

road user events, and 7.2% were injured in multiple road user events.10 Single user events included falls, collisions with objects, excessive speed, and unfavorable road conditions. The limited data available suggests that the likelihood of a fatality or emergency department visit is similar for e-scooter riders and bicyclists. Overall, a trip by car in an urban area is for more likely to result in a fatality than a trip on an e-scooter or bicycle.11 Some jurisdictions request that operators submit a “safety plan” to show how safety will be addressed. Some of the more common techniques include:
• Helmet distribution programs: helmets are only required by state law for riders under 18 years old.

Studies have shown that the majority of e-scooter riders do not wear helmets, but that the prevalence of head injuries for e-scooter riders involved in crashes is almost double that for bicyclists.12,13,14 Helmet requirements in other cities have been difficult to enforce, are challenging for operators to implement, and result in lower ridership. These factors can limit the financial viability of a program if helmets were to be required for all riders. More common, operators will provide regular helmet distribution and mail-outs. • Rider Education: many jurisdictions require that operators develop outreach and education campaigns to support safe rider behavior. These campaigns can take the form of pop-up events and safety trainings, traditional and social media campaigns, and in-app education. • Sidewalk Riding Detection and Support of Bike Infrastructure: many jurisdictions are concerned about conflicts between pedestrians and shared micromobility devices being operated on the sidewalk. A 2022 study that reviewed e-scooter rider behaviors in Salt Lake City, UT and Tucson, AZ found that infrastructure and street design influenced rider crash and injury rates

15. Riders who predominately rode
on a sidewalk were 151% more likely to report experiencing a crash, while those who rode in bike lanes were 52% less likely to report experiencing a crash. The best way to limit sidewalk riding is to provide safe on-street or separated infrastructure for micromobility users - observations of riders in Salt Lake City suggest that e-scooter riders are less likely to ride on sidewalks when bike lanes are available, and e- scooter riders and bicyclists are more likely to use sidewalks on roads with more than six lanes or when light rail is present. A number of operators are developing technology that can detect sidewalk riding to help enforce sidewalk-riding bans; however, the technology is not yet available at scale.

Most peer cities require operators to include rider education in their apps and on their vehicles to inform riders where riding is allowed or not allowed, especially rules around sidewalk riding. Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland require a free or discount helmet give away. San Francisco requires operators provide one in-person safety training program every quarter.

LESSONS FROM PEER CITY INTERVIEWS
As follow up to the review of peer city policies and regulations conducted as part of the best practices review in the previous section, staff from four peer cities as well as BART were interviewed to get a more in-depth understanding of their programs’ challenges, successes, and lessons learned. Every city interviewed expressed strong interest in shared micromobility but cited multiple challenges in sustaining their program. An overview of

10 Toofany, Manish, et al. "Injury patterns and circumstances associated with electric scooter collisions: a scoping review." Injury prevention 27.5 (2021): 490-499.
11 ITF (2020), "Safe Micromobility", International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 85, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0b98fac1-en.
12 Namiri, Nikan K., et al. "Electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States, 2014-2018." JAMA surgery 155.4 (2020): 357- 359.
13 Currans, Kristina M., et al. "Scooting to a New Era in Active Transportation: Examining the Use and Safety of E-scooters." National Institute for Transportation and Communities (2022).
14 Todd, Jay, et al. Behavior of electric scooter operators in naturalistic environments. No. 2019-01-1007. SAE Technical Paper, 2019. 15 Currans, Kristina M., et al.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 23

lessons learned from each interviewee is included below, and additional detailed takeaways are provided in the following section.
• Pleasanton: Pleasanton completed a feasibility study in 2019 to set up a pilot program, but pandemic challenges put a program launch on hold. The city is currently looking into launching the program with Bird as an interested operator, and they are in the process of updating e-bike regulations in their municipal code to more accurately define electric micromobility devices and where riding is allowed. • Pleasant Hill: Pleasant Hill launched a pilot shared micromobility program with Bird in October 2022. The program has been indefinitely suspended, which is likely due to a combination of Bird staffing issues, service area limitations, wet weather impacting ridership, and industry-wide pivots to other markets. • San Ramon: San Ramon launched in December 2022 with Bird as their e-scooter operator. The city had hoped to be part of a regional micromobility program as part of Contra Costa County’s Innovate 680 initiative but ended up contracting directly with Bird due to delays in other cities participating. • Fremont: Fremont launched a shared micromobility program with pedal bikes, e-bikes, and e-scooters in 2019 with Hopr as the operator. Unlike the other peer cities interviewed, Fremont had received grant funding to purchase its vehicles. The city noted issues with a lack of on-the-ground operator staff contributing to maintenance and vandalism issues. The program has now been paused, but there is interest in restarting the program on a more regional level. • BART: Staff were generally supportive of shared micromobility programs, and have a standard property use license agreement for any shared micromobility operator wanting to place vehicles on their property.

The agreement includes specific requirements that are detailed in the Local Context Analysis.

Both operators and agencies need financial incentives
Two of the four cities interviewed did not contribute any city funds (beyond staff time) to launch and manage their shared micromobility program. In Pleasant Hill and San Ramon, private operators owned and operated the vehicles and equipment, providing a portion of their revenue back to the city. While this means that the program was cost-neutral or even brought in revenue for these Cities, operators who are not seeing high enough returns are more likely to exit the market, as seen in Pleasant Hill.

In Fremont, the city received a grant from MTC to purchase bikes and scooters for their program and contracted with Hopr, who was paid to manage the program. In this case, the direct contract with the operator did not provide strong incentives to innovate or encourage ridership. Fremont staff also stated that they thought the financial burden and capacity issues of a small city managing a shared micromobility program might be alleviated if multiple neighboring jurisdictions worked together to manage a vendor that could provide at-scale service to a larger area.

All cities noted that not having enough field staff was a significant issue and may have been a result of their markets not generating high enough returns to hire more staff.

Public complaints were minimal
All cities interviewed had mostly positive feedback and stated that they had not received many complaints. The few complaints received were mainly for dockless vehicles left near residential driveways or blocking sidewalks, and staff stated that the operators addressed these concerns quickly. Cities did note that the low number of vehicles operating in their cities many have reduced the number of complaints.

Transit integration can boost ridership
Connections to transit, and particularly BART, were seen as crucial for ridership in the smaller cities interviewed.

Pleasant Hill shared that one challenge to achieving high ridership was that the Pleasant Hill BART station is outside of the city’s boundaries in Walnut Creek, and therefore inaccessible on a shared micromobility vehicle as Walnut Creek does not have a shared micromobility program. Pleasanton anticipated that ridership in a future shared micromobility program would likely be concentrated between the BART station and the business district.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 24

BART staff were supportive of the lock-to requirements in Berkeley, San Francisco, and Oakland, stating that it helped ensure that BART property remained accessible to people entering and exiting the station.

Policy and infrastructure must support shared micromobility A few cities noted that their focus is on building out their active transportation infrastructure to support mode shift, support public health, and reduce emissions and pollution. Many cities have significant gaps in their active transportation network, which they noted as a primary reason for not seeing higher shared micromobility ridership.

Supportive policy is also critical - Pleasanton is working on updating their municipal code to better define and regulate electric micromobility, which they are hoping will set the program up for success. In San Ramon, current East Bay Regional Parks regulation bans shared micromobility vehicles from the Iron Horse Trail, which may prevent less confident residents from utilizing shared micromobility as they would need to ride on city roads.

LOCAL CONTEXT ANALYSIS
A market analysis for shared micromobility in Hayward was conducted looking at geospatial, infrastructural, and demographic attributes that correlate with micromobility demand.

MICROMOBILITY IN THE REGION
The project team reviewed all cities in the Bay Area with currently operating shared micromobility programs including Berkeley, Emeryville, Fremont, Oakland, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Santa Clara, San Jose, San Francisco, San Ramon, and Santa Rosa. The regional Bay Wheels program (operating docked and dockless pedal-bikes and e-bikes in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose) was also included in the review. Detailed findings from this analysis are included in Appendix B. Several other cities with similar characteristics to Hayward, including Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City, and Walnut Creek do not currently have shared micromobility programs.

PREVIOUS MICROMOBILITY OPTIONS IN HAYWARD
Zagster provided a bikeshare program between 2015 and 2020 on the CSU East Bay campus. The service provided 10 bikes that could be checked out by students, faculty, and staff at two locations on campus. It closed when Zagster shut down due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The University has expressed interest in working with the City to re-establish a bikeshare or shared micromobility program.

GEOGRAP HY AND POPULA TION
Hayward is the sixth-largest city in the Bay Area, with a population of around 160,000, an area of 45 square miles (18 square miles of which is in the waters of the San Francisco Bay), and a population density of 3,557 people per square mile (5,295 people per square mile not counting the area of the City in the Bay). Higher population density is generally linked to higher demand. Hayward has lower population density citywide than San Francisco or Oakland but has higher density than multiple other peer cities that currently have shared micromobility programs.

Table 4: 2020 US Census Population Densities in Peer Cities City Population Density
(persons per land square
mile)
San Francisco 18,629
Berkeley 11,917
Emeryville 10,138
Oakland 7,878
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 25

Santa Clara 6,984
Hayward 5,295
San Jose 5,684
Pleasant Hill 4,892
Santa Rosa 4,189
San Ramon 3,995
Richmond 3,875
Fremont 2,943
Source: 2020 US Census
While many small cities across the country have successful shared micromobility programs, private operators often prioritize large, densely populated markets where ridership is likely to be higher. One way to encourage operator interest in smaller cities is to offer an exclusive permit/contract to operate.

Most of the dense and urbanized parts of the city are on a relatively flat plain, and steep hillsides define the eastern edges of the city. While hills can pose a challenge for pedal-powered devices, e-bikes and e-scooters have been successful in other hilly Bay Area cities.

EMPLOYMENT
Employment density is another key indicator of demand – especially commuters traveling from home-to-work, to access public transit, or to run errands or make social trips through the day or after work. The city’s location provides access to major employment hubs across the region (e.g., Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Silicon Valley, etc.). The City of Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan found that 75,000 Hayward residents commute to work in other parts of the Bay Area with a mean commute time of 35.6 minutes. Over 75% of residents commute outside of the city for work, including 35% of residents who travel outside of the county. A high percentage of commuters traveling outside the city for work provides an opportunity for shared micromobility to fill first- and last-mile gaps between workers’ homes and transit – in particular BART and AC Transit. Although 2021 American Community Survey data estimates that only 3% of workers in Hayward utilize public transit to get to work, there are multiple census tracts that have high percentages (15% or more) of transit commuters (see Figure 4).

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 26

Figure 4: Percentage of Commuters Taking Transit

Source: MTC Vital Signs

LAND USE
The western part of the city along the San Francisco Bay and the southern border is primarily industrial.

Residential land uses are concentrated in the central part of the city and consist mainly of single-family residential housing. Medium-density housing is located primarily in the northwest portion of the city, and there is limited high- density residential. Mixed-use is mostly found along Mission Boulevard, and retail/commercial uses are concentrated in the downtown area and at the Southland Mall.

Key destinations and areas of focused future development within Hayward are listed below:
• Downtown City Center*
• Cannery Transit Neighborhood*
• Mission Boulevard Mixed-Use Corridor*
• South Hayward BART Mixed-Use Corridor & Urban Neighborhood* • Manufacturing headquarters and plants (Annabelle Candy, Columbus Salame, Shasta, Pepsico) • Educational institutions (California State University East Bay, Chabot College, Life West Chiropractic College)

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 27

• Retail (Southland Mall, other shopping centers)
• Hospitals (St. Rose Hospital)
• Regional parkland and open space (Don Castro Regional Recreation Area, Dry Creek Pioneer Regional Park, the Hayward Regional Shoreline, Garin Regional Park) *Priority Development Area for focused housing and employment growth as defined by the 2040 General Plan

DEMOGRAPHICS
The following demographic analysis uses NABSA’s 2021 State of the Industry Report and 2020 US Census data to compare demographics of shared micromobility users to Hayward residents. • Race: In North America, White riders are over-represented in micromobility, while people of color are mostly under-represented. Lyft (Bay Wheels) ridership data in the East Bay included 53% of riders identifying as members of racial and/or ethnic minority groups. Hayward’s diverse population (39.5% Hispanic or Latino, 27.9% Asian, 16.1% White, 9.8% Black, 9.5% two or more races, and 13.3% other races) may require additional outreach effort to engage typically under-represented racial groups. • Income: In North America, the highest income earners (household incomes of $100,000+) are highly over-represented in shared micromobility ridership, while the lowest earners (household incomes of <$15,000) are also somewhat over-represented. People between these incomes are typically under- represented. Bay Wheels riders in the East Bay had a $77,000 median household income. The median annual household income in Hayward is $98,857and 8.5% of residents live under the poverty line. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan found that in Hayward low-income workers, high-income workers, and people below the poverty line biked more than other groups. There may be opportunities to better engage low- to medium-income earners to use discount programs offered by most shared micromobility providers.

BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
A connected network of bike infrastructure is critical to supporting a successful shared micromobility program.

There are currently around 82 miles of bikeways in the city, including Class I, II, III and IV facilities as shown on Figure 4. The 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan found that Hayward’s street network is predominantly comprised of low-stress local streets, although most of the major arterials in the city are high-stress due to limited bike facilities as well as high volumes and speeds of vehicular traffic (see Figure 5). Currently, city municipal code bans sidewalk riding in Downtown (the shared area in Figure 5 bound by A Street, D Street, Foothill Boulevard, and Watkins Street). Studies show that when bike lanes are present, micromobility users (specifically e-scooter riders) use the sidewalk less frequently.16

16 Currans, Kristina M., et al. "Scooting to a New Era in Active Transportation: Examining the Use and Safety of E-scooters." National Institute for Transportation and Communities (2022).

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 28

Figure 5: Existing Bicycle Facilities.

Source: Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

Figure 6: Existing Level of Traffic Stress

Source: Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 29

TRANSPORTATION MODES AND TRIP PURPOSES
According to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, most commute trips in Hayward are taken in private vehicles (82%), while walking is 2.3% of trips and biking only 1.1% of trips. Over 80% of workers in Hayward have two or more vehicles available at home, but this is not a predictor of commute mode (over 40% of Hayward workers who bike to work have 3+ vehicles, while half the people who walk to work own 2+ vehicles).

The 2013 California Household Travel Survey found that 28% of all non-work trips made by Hayward residents are less than one mile in length and an additional 31% of non-work trips are between one and three miles.

According to the North American Bikeshare Association (NABSA) 2021 State of the Industry Report, the average micromobility trip length is 1.5 miles for bikeshare trips and 1.3 miles for e-scooter trips. Almost two-thirds of all non-work trips in Hayward are within a three-mile range and could potentially be served by micromobility.

TRANSIT
Shared micromobility is increasingly viewed a as an important first- and last-mile connection to transit, and deploying vehicles and providing parking at or adjacent to transit stations can contribute to higher ridership.17 Within Hayward, the major transit options include BART, local bus lines (AC Transit), and regional rail (Amtrak).

Figure 7: AC Transit Stops and BART Stations in Hayward

Source: Hayward Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
BART
Two BART stations are located within the city – South Hayward Station (28601 Dixon Street) and Hayward

17 Mohamed Abouelela, Emmanouil Chaniotakis, Constantinos Antoniou, Understanding the landscape of shared-e-scooters in North America; Spatiotemporal analysis and policy insights, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 169, 2023,103602, ISSN 0965-8564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2023.103602.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 30

Station (699 B Street). Currently, most riders access the station via driving or carpooling. See Table 4 for more detailed station characteristics from the BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study.

Table 5: BART Station Characteristics
Station BART Lines
served
Daily
Station
Entries
(2015)
Daily Station
Exits
(2019)
Ridership
(compared to
all 48 BART
stations)
Access Mode
(2015)
Parking
Spaces (2019)
Walking Biking Bike Vehicle
Hayward
Station
Green (Daly City-
Berryessa/North
San Jose)
5,592 4,597 43rd highest 29% 6% 116 1,449
South
Hayward
Orange
(Richmond-
Berryessa/North
San Jose)
3,469 2,950 32nd highest 25% 6% 102 1,272
(often
full)
Source: BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study (2020)
Based on 2022 ridership data, Hayward Station had an average of 1,500 daily station entries and 993 daily station exits, while South Hayward Station had 1,491 daily station entries and 957 daily station exits. The most popular trip pairings, based on station entry/exit data were between the two Hayward BART stations and the Downtown San Francisco stations as well as the Fruitvale and Fremont stations, reflecting larger commuting patterns (see Table 6 ).

Table 6: Station entries and exits at Hayward and South Hayward BART stations Entry Station/Exit Station Most used entry stations Most used exit stations Hayward Station 1. Embarcadero

2. Powell

3. Fruitvale

4. Montgomery

5. Fremont

1. Embarcadero

2. Montgomery

3. Fruitvale

4. Powell

5. Fremont
South Hayward Station 1. Embarcadero

2. Powell

3. Montgomery

4. Civic Center

5. Fruitvale

1. Embarcadero

2. Montgomery

3. Powell

4. Civic Center

5. Fruitvale

Biking and walking currently account for 35% of trips to and from the station Hayward Station and 31% of trips South Hayward Station, as noted in Table 4. This means that approximately two-thirds of BART riders are potential shared micromobility users, especially when considering most of these people are traveling less than three miles and the majority of them are going to or coming from San Francisco, which also has a robust shared micromobility and transit system.

As detailed in a previous section, BART is supportive of shared micromobility on its property. Interested operators must apply for a $2,000 annual property use license agreement and agree to the following requirements:
- Vehicles must only be locked to approved bike racks outside of BART stations and operators must reimburse BART if additional racks are required to accommodate shared micromobility vehicles. - Vehicles must be deployed and rebalanced during off-peak hours (outside of the hours of 6-9am and 4- 7pm).
- Operators must share relevant and useful data with BART. - Operators must have the following insurance: worker’s compensation, commercial general liability, automobile, property, and network security and privacy liability.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 31

Alameda Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit)
AC Transit provides service to the western portion of the East Bay, as well as Transbay routes to San Francisco and some areas in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

Hayward is served by multiple AC Transit lines: 10, 28, 34, 41, 56, 60, 86, 92, 95, 97, 99, and 801. These lines connect downtown Hayward and the city’s two BART stations to multiple neighborhoods in Hayward and to cities across the East Bay, including Oakland, San Leandro, Castro Valley, Union City, and Fremont.

Amtrak
The Hayward Amtrak station is located at 22555 Meekland Avenue and is served by seven daily round trips of the Capital Corridor route (which connects San Jose to Auburn). There are currently 4 BikeLink lockers for bike storage at the station, and 73 vehicular parking spaces.

Analysis of Population and Job Density around Transit
Best practices indicate that shared micromobility service areas in dense, mixed-use areas have the highest potential for trip-generation and demand, though attention should be paid to ensure that the service area extends to lower-density areas to provide connectivity where there may be limited public transit.18 Population density within a one-mile radius of the BART and Amtrak stations was evaluated – as a reasonable shared micromobility trip length. Figure 7 shows that population density is almost five times higher within a mile of the stations compared to the entire city (14,915 people per square mile vs 5,295 people per square mile). Job density was also much higher near BART and Amtrak – with over three times as many jobs within one square mile of the stations compared to the citywide average (3,892 jobs per square mile compared to 1,081 jobs per square mile). These high population and job densities indicate that the areas around the transit stations are likely to have higher potential shared micromobility ridership. These densities were also compared to the neighboring city of Fremont, which also has a BART station and a shared micromobility program – Hayward had much higher population densities near transit, and about half the job density in comparison to Fremont (see Table 7).

18 Yanocha, Dana, et al. "The bikeshare planning guide." (2018).

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 32

Figure 8: Population Density within 1 mile of Hayward BART Stations Source: 2019 American Community Survey

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 33

Figure 9: Job Density within 1 mile of Hayward BART Stations

Source: 2019 LODES WAC

Table 7: Population and Job Density in Hayward compared to Fremont Average density within 1 mile of
Hayward BART and Amtrak
Stations
Average density within 1 mile of
Fremont BART Station
Population Density 14,915 people / square mile 9,001 / square mile Job Density 3,892 jobs / square mile 8,645 jobs / square mile Source: 2019 LODES WAC, 2019 American Community Survey

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 34

CHAPTER 2

OUTREACH AND

EN GAGEMENT SUMMARY
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 35

2. OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT

SUMMARY
As part of the Feasibility Study, community members across Hayward were asked about their travel patterns and preferences, familiarity with shared micromobility, and general perceptions, interest, and concerns for a potential shared micromobility program in Hayward. A total of 236 people engaged directly with the project team to share their thoughts and feedback.

ENGAGEMENT TAKEAWAYS
The majority of people engaged with during this project support micromobility options (such as bikeshare and scootershare) coming to Hayward. Three quarters (75%) of people at tabling events (115 people) and 69% of survey respondents (121 people) were in favor of a shared micromobility program.

Takeaways from public feedback are listed below and detailed further in the following sections.

1. Shared bikes and scooters are convenient and good for the environment.

2. Micromobility can improve access to recreation, transit, and dining/entertainment destinations in Hayward.

3. The service area should be citywide to accommodate a variety of trip purposes.

4. Sidewalk clutter is a major concern.

5. Safe rider behavior and safer streets are needed for a successful program.

6. Docked bikeshare was the most popular system type, and e-bikes were the preferred vehicle type, although e-bike libraries and e-bike rebate programs were also popular.

The input gathered from this community engagement effort demonstrates that community members are generally supportive of the City of Hayward introducing a shared micromobility program and hope that the City addresses infrastructure and safety concerns in combination with any shared micromobility program. Many residents are excited about the potential community, economic, environmental benefits that will come from a shared micromobility program.

ENGAGEM ENT PROCESS
Public outreach consisted of the following engagement activities:
- Project website
- Project flyer
- Online survey
- Two (2) in-person tabling events at the Hayward Farmers Market and the South Hayward BART Station - Social media and email promotion
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 36

PROJECT WEBSITE
The project website included accessible project messaging, the project timeline, a summary of project needs and benefits, and links to surveys and flyers. The website also included the dates and locations of the two tabling events so residents knew when and where they could talk to project staff. The City of Hayward’s website also offers on-demand translation into 10 additional
languages to ensure the content is accessible for
as many community members as possible.

PROJECT FLYER
A project flyer was developed with accessible
content and made available in Spanish and
English. A large-scale version of this flyer was
created with additional project information that
was displayed at both tabling events. The flyer
and display board provided residents a brief
description of micromobility, an overview of the
project, project schedule, and invited residents to
learn more and provide feedback through a
survey they could access through a QR code
and link to the project website.

SURVEY
An online survey targeted people who live, work,
or frequently visit Hayward for their feedback and
perceptions of shared micromobility. The survey
was promoted through the City’s website and
Instagram account and at both in person
engagement events, where paper versions were
also available. A total of 121 people took the
survey, with 98 complete responses and 23
partial responses. See Appendix C for full survey
responses.

Survey Demographics
● 85% of respondents live in Hayward, 31% work in Hayward, and 8% go to school in Hayward (the survey did not take responses from those who did not meet at least one of those criteria). ● 86% of respondents lived within zip codes in Hayward – 40% in the 94541 zip code, 36% from the 94544 zip code, 11% in the 94545 zip code, and 11% in the 94542 zip code. Other zip codes represented among respondents were from the Castro Valley, Dublin, Oakland, Piedmont, Kentfield, San Francisco, and Fremont.
● 8% of responses indicated that they had a mobility-related disability. ● 63% of respondents currently own either a bike or scooter, and 58% of respondents indicated that they have not used bikeshare or scootershare before.

Additional detailed demographics from the community survey are described in Table 8 below in comparison to citywide statistics.

Table 8: Demographic Data

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 37

Demographics Survey respondents Citywide statistics
Gender Male: 46.9%
Female: 45.9%
Prefer not to answer: 7.1%
Male: 50.7%
Female: 49.3%
Race/Ethnicity White: 42%
Asian: 18%
Hispanic or Latino: 18%
Black: 4%
Native American or Indigenous: 1%
Prefer not to answer: 16.3%
White: 25%
Asian: 29%
Hispanic or Latino: 39%
Black: 9%
American Indian and Alaska Native: 0.9%
Annual Household
Income
Less than $20,000: 1%
$20,000 - $34,999: 3.1%
$35,000 - $49,999: 3.1%
$50,000 - $74,999: 10.3%
$75,000 - $99,999: 12.4%
$100,000 - $149,999: 20.6%
$150,000 - $199,999: 10.3%
$200,00 or more: 16.5%
Prefer not to answer: 22.7%
Less than $24,999: 13.3%
$25,000 - $34,999: 5.5%
$35,000 - $49,999: 6.5%
$50,000 - $74,999: 13.3%
$75,000 - $99,999: 13.2%
$100,000 - $149,999: 20.4%
$150,000 - $199,999: 10.9%
$200,00 or more: 17.0%
Age 0 – 18: 1%
18 – 24: 4.1%
25 – 44: 53.1%
45 – 64: 28.6%
65+: 8.2%
Prefer not to answer: 5.1%
0 – 19: 24%
20 – 24: 5%
25 – 44: 32%
45 – 64: 25%
65+: 14%
Source: 2023 Hayward Micromobility Survey, 2020 US Census, 2021 American Community Survey

TABLING EVENTS
Two tabling events shared information about the study, promoted the survey, and gathered feedback on a potential shared micromobility program. Events were conducted at the Hayward Farmers Market and at the South Hayward BART Station to promote feedback from a diverse cross-section of community members and offered tote bag giveaways as an incentive to reach more people. A total of 115 residents were engaged across the two pop-up events, and 106 flyers were distributed.

At the Hayward Farmers Market, about two thirds of people supported a shared micromobility program, while about a third of people had concerns about safety or were skeptical about its success due to past experiences in other Bay Area cities. Some expressed their concerns about reckless use and disorder. Other community members suggested having low-cost riding fees to make it accessible to everyone.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 38

Hayward Farmers Market tabling event
At the South Hayward BART station, the community was generally interested in the project and most people (approximately 84% from a short in-person poll) thought it would be beneficial if Hayward had a shared micromobility program. Many community members suggested having bicycles and scooters at BART stations.

Individuals who were not in favor (approximately 16% from the poll) were concerned about people discarding the bicycles/scooters in random locations and general safety concerns. Several people commented on wanting to have docking stations for the bicycles/scooters.

South Hayward BART station tabling event

EM AIL OUTREACH AND SOCIAL MEDIA
The project and survey were promoted in the City’s monthly newsletter in February 2023, with 215 click-throughs to the project webpage. The City’s social media accounts (Instagram, Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter) promoted the project and survey, with a 4.8% engagement rate (double the normal engagement rate) and over 2,000 impressions.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 39

DETAILED PUBLIC FEEDBACK

CONVENIEN CE AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
The community members engaged generally see micromobility options as a convenient way to travel for short distance trips and could see potential benefits such as revitalizing businesses by encouraging more traffic, thereby creating a more vibrant Hayward. The community was also excited about the positive environmental impacts and the potential for increased transit use.

Of all survey respondents, the top reasons that people supported micromobility included:
● “Scooters and bikes help reduce carbon emissions” (49%) ● “Scooters and bikes make it easier and faster for people to get where they need to go” (38%) ● “Scooters and bikes make using public transit easier” (32%).

During the tabling events, some specific feedback examples from community members included:
● “These micromobility options will help people be more active! I would love this!” ● “This is the future of transportation”
● “I would be interested in seeing bikeshare and scootershare. It would benefit young people when buses and BART run late”
● (Translated from Spanish) “It would be a good idea to implement because I do not have a bicycle. If we had them by the BART station, I would be able to access them”.

IMPROVED ACCESS TO RECREATION, TRANSIT, AND

DINING/ ENTERTAINMENT
The most popular survey responses to the question “What purposes would you use bikeshare or scootershare for in Hayward?” were for fun or to ride with friends and family (51.5%), to get to or from a transit stop (44.4%), and to go to restaurants (43.4%) – see Figure 10. The most suggested locations for shared micromobility in Hayward included:
● BART stations and bus stations (35% of survey respondents indicated that they use transit at least once a week and up to multiple days a week, with the Hayward BART Station being the most used transit station (45%)
● Downtown
● Parks
● Colleges including California State University, East Bay, and Chabot College.

Shared micromobility cannot serve every trip purpose and 40% of respondents noted that having too much to carry (e.g., children, pets, tools, shopping bags, etc.) would prevent them from using the service (see Figure 11).

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 40

Figure 10: Responses to “What purposes would you use bikeshare or scootershare for in Hayward?”

CITYWIDE SERVICE AREA
The top response to the survey question “What might stop you from using shared micromobility (bikeshare or scootershare) in Hayward?” was “I don’t think they’ll be located where I need them” (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: Responses to “What might stop you from using shared micromobility in Hayward?”

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 41

Based on responses to how community members would use shared micromobility (see Figure 10), this indicates that shared micromobility devices should be located across the city and in particular near transit, colleges, commercial areas with dining options, and throughout more residential areas.

SAF E RIDER BEHAVIOR AND SAFER INFRASTRUCTURE
Over a quarter of survey respondents (28%) indicated that they would not use bikeshare or scootershare. Many concerns about a potential program were related to safety. However, the majority of survey respondents were either neutral or disagreed with the statements “scooters and bikes are unsafe to ride” and “scooters and bikes should not be in the road with drivers” – see Figure 12.

Figure 12: Responses to “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements”

The main public feedback around safety centered on safe rider behavior and the need for safe infrastructure:
- Micromobility users need to be properly educated and rules should be enforced on safe use of the shared bicycles and scooters. One survey respondent stated, “it would be better to offer people vouchers to purchase their own bikes, have community rides, and day fairs teaching people basic bike care.” Another respondent shared their experience with the Berkeley shared micromobility program, saying, “riders almost never stop at stop signs… riders zip through crowds of people causing a pedestrian hazard.” Some community members at the tabling events mentioned concerns that minors may be able to gain access to the devices and that users may not know about the rules and regulations. - More bicycle and pedestrian-friendly streets are needed - 19% of survey respondents stated they would not feel safe riding a bicycle or scooter in Hayward and multiple community members at the tabling

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 42

events stated that Hayward’s current active transportation infrastructure does not support safe and seamless use of micromobility. One survey respondent stated, “I have the physical means, access, and passion about bikes to bike more - but I rarely use it to travel to BART, downtown, to the farmers market, etc. because biking down B Street is dangerous,” while another said “I live in Downtown Hayward and it just does not seem like a safe area to ride a bike in.”

SIDEWALK CLUTTER AND ACCESS ISSUES
Over three quarters of survey respondents (76%) agreed with the statement that shared micromobility options would not be parked properly and create obstacles in the public right-of-way (see Figure 12). Many respondents elaborated on their answers, stating things such as, “dockless shares are basically litter,” “bikes will be scattered throughout the city unless there is a docking station,” and “people might just leave them everywhere”, as well as voicing concerns that shared micromobility may cause “accessibility issues for members of our community who are disabled.”

USER COSTS AND EQUITY ISSUES
Of the 73 survey takers who were willing to pay to use shared micromobility (74%), the majority of those 73 respondents (67%) would be willing to pay $2-$4 for a 10-minute or approximately 2 mile ride. About a quarter (26%) of survey respondents stated they would not be willing to pay for bikeshare or scootershare at all. Two- thirds of the respondents who were not willing to pay for shared micromobility and who shared their incomes had annual household incomes of over $100,000 (above the median annual household income in Hayward of $98,857), which indicates that those who are not willing to pay for services are not necessarily low-income. Some respondents noted the importance of equitable access to the program. One person stated “I think an equity focus is really important - most Hayward residents who could use these services do not have a lot of money,” while another said that the service “might be too expensive or inaccessible to people who need them the most.”

PREFE RRED FLEET AND SYSTEM TYPE
Survey respondents were most interested in seeing docked bikeshare (67% were either somewhat or very interested) that offered e-bikes (63% were either somewhat or very interested). Over half (53%) of respondents said they would be more likely to use shared micromobility if the devices were electric (e-scooters or e-bikes).

Community members at tabling events also noted that docking stations would help prevent street clutter and safety hazards.

Many survey respondents were also supportive of other programs that could alleviate congestion, support the environment, and encourage mode shift: 57% supported an e-bike library and 62% supported an e-bike rebate program. One survey respondent stated that their preferred micromobility option would be to have devices “free for people to use and stored in a central area [with] staff or public demonstrations on how to use them.”

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 43

CHAPTER 3

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

PROGRAM OPTIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 44

3. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

PROGRAM OPTIONS
Potential shared micromobility fleet and system types detailed in the Micromobility Program Best Practices section were evaluated based on a set of nine criteria developed in collaboration with City staff and informed by public feedback:

1. City staff time: Day-to-day staff needs to oversee the program.

2. External costs to the city: Capital funds/grants needed, costs of purchasing equipment, and potential revenues.

3. Breadth of coverage/potential ridership: Vehicle access and availability across the city.

4. Market appeal: Ability for private operators to launch, operate, and sustain a profitable program.

5. Parking deployment, rebalancing, and right-of-way management: Complexity of managing distribution and par
king of vehicles citywide.

6. User affordability: Costs to user compared to Bay Wheels and transit; opportunity to offer low-income di
scounts.

7. Partnership and regional collaboration opportunities: Potential for sponsorship/advertisement, interoperability with Bay Wheels, ability to expand to neighboring jurisdictions.

8. Implementation timeline: Ease and speed of launching the system.

9. Theft Prevention / Security: Security of vehicles and locking capabilities.

The scoring criteria is detailed in Table 9 – with each potential system/fleet type scored out of a possible 27 points. E-bike rebates were not included in this evaluation.

Table 9: Evaluation Criteria and Scoring
Criteria High Score
(3 points)
Medium Score
(2 points)
Low Score
(1 point)
City staff time - Requires minimal city staff oversight on a day-to-day basis
- Requires some city staff oversight on a
day-to-day basis
- Requires significant city staff
management day-to-day
External City Costs - No city funds or grants needed to launch AND/OR
- Can levy fees on operators to cover
staff costs
- Some funding, grants, sponsorship, or
partnerships needed to launch
AND/OR
- Can levy fees, but some subsidies may
be needed to encourage operators
- Funding, grants, sponsorship, or
partnerships required to launch
AND/OR
- Subsidies or paid contract required
to encourage operators
Breadth of Coverage
/ Potential Ridership
- Provides micromobility access
citywide including at high-use transit
stations
- Provides micromobility access to key
areas of the city, but not citywide
- Provides limited micromobility
access (i.e., 1-2 neighborhoods at
most)

Market appeal
- Private operators can easily launch,
operate, and sustain a program with
very limited capital investments and
see a potential for profitable
operations

- Private operators can launch and
sustain a program with some capital
investment and see a potential for
profitable operations
- Private operators need to provide
significant upfront capital investment
to launch and the program will need
to be subsidized for operations
Parking,
Deployment,
Rebalancing, and
Right-of-Way
Management
- Minimal management of vehicle
deployment and rebalancing
required by city staff
- The technology supports organized
parking in the right-of-way
- Regular management (at least daily) of
vehicle deployment and rebalancing
required from operator and/or city staff
(assuming adequate regulation)
- The operator has a track record of
putting in place systems to manage
parking, remove misparked vehicles,
and encourage good parking behavior
- Significant management (multiple
times a day) of vehicle deployment
and rebalancing required from
operator and/or city staff (assuming
adequate regulation)
- The operator does not have systems
in place to manage parking, remove
misparked vehicles, and encourage
good parking behavior
User Affordability - On-par or less than Bay Wheels
and/or transit costs per-ride/per-mile
AND/OR
- Can easily implement low-income
discounts
- Within range of Bay Wheels and/or
transit costs per-ride/per-mile AND/OR
- Providing discounts would require city
staff coordination
- Significantly higher costs per-
ride/per-mile than Bay Wheels
and/or transit AND/OR
- Low-income discounts are not
possible
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 46

Partnership and
Regional
Collaboration
Opportunities
- High potential for sponsorship/
advertising to offset city costs
AND/OR
- Easily interoperable with Bay
Wheels or other nearby shared
micromobility services
- AND/OR
- Able to expand the program to
neighboring jurisdictions at low cost
and minimal administrative effort
- Some potential for sponsorship/
advertising to offset city costs AND/OR
- Somewhat interoperable with Bay
Wheels or other nearby shared
micromobility services AND/OR
- Able to expand the program to
neighboring jurisdictions with some
effort
- Limited/no potential for
sponsorship/advertising to offset city
costs AND/OR
- Not interoperable with Bay Wheels
or other nearby shared micromobility
services AND/OR
- Expansion to other jurisdictions
would be a lengthy and complex
process
Implementation
timeline
- Can be implemented within 6
months
- Can be implemented in 6 - 12 months - Would need over 1 year for implementation
Theft Prevention /
Security
- Devices are secured to infrastructure
(station/rack/pole) when not in use
- Anti-theft technology is enabled and
deployed at scale
- Device is locked to itself (not
infrastructure)
- Anti-theft technology is enabled
- Devices have history of theft or
security issues
- Limited or no anti-theft technology

The following assumptions were made for each of the options considered:
- Bike Library: City would need to raise/contribute significant funds to procure equipment and launch the program, but that a third party would manage day-to-day operations with minimal city oversight. Bikes would be available for free rental (like a regular library). - Docked Bikeshare: City would need to raise/contribute significant funds to procure equipment and launch the program and a third party would manage day-to-day operations and receive some funding from the city for operational costs - Dockless Bikeshare: No capital costs to the City, but City staff time would be needed for program setup and oversight of a private operator with potential to levy fees to bring in revenue. - Dockless Scootershare: Assumes no capital costs to the City, but City staff time would be needed for program setup and oversight of a private operator with potential to levy fees to bring in revenue.

Some scores were variable, as they would be dependent on how the program is regulated. For example, City staff time needed for a scootershare program would depend on a variety of factors, including enforcement requirements, number of operators in the program, and complexity of rules around parking and deployment. In these cases, a range of points was provided.

Based on this scoring system, dockless scootershare and dockless e-bikes scored the highest based on the evaluation criteria (with high end scores of 23 out of 27), but this assumes that there is high operator interest in Hayward as a potential market and that the program requirements ensure limited staff oversight and incentivize operators to promote wide-ranging vehicle availability and comply with keeping the right-of-way clear.

FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT
TOOLE DESIGN | 47
W
hile program requirements can be structured to achieve most of these assumptions, lessons from peer city interviews demonstrate the precariousness of a shared micromobility program in a smaller Bay Area city.

Table 10: Final Scoring
Evaluation Criteria Bike Library Docked Bikeshare
(e-bikes and
pedal bikes)
Dockless E-
Bikes
Dockless Pedal
Bikes
Dockless
Scootershare
City Staff Time 1-2 2 1-3 1-3 1-3
External Costs to the City 1 1 3 3 3
Breadth of Coverage / Potential Ridership 2 1 3 3 3
Market Appeal 1 1 1-3 1 1-3
Parking, Deployment, Rebalancing, and
Right-of-Way Management
3 3 1-2 1-2 1-2
User Affordability 3 2 2 2 1
Partnership and Regional Collaboration
Opportunities
2 2 3 2 3
Implementation Timeline 1 1 2-3 3 3
Theft Prevention / Security 2 3 2 1 2
TOTALS 16-17 16 18-23 17-19 18-23
CHAPTER 4

RECOMMENDATIONS
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 49

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
SHORT TERM: PROMOTING EXISTING E -BIKE

REBATES AND RESOURCES
Although not technically a shared micromobility program, e-bike rebates can achieve many of the goals of this study, including reducing vehicular travel, traffic congestion, and parking demand and supporting walking, bicycling, and transit ridership.

There are currently several e-bike rebate programs that Hayward residents are already eligible for, but the details about the programs, including qualifications and steps to utilize them, are not always clear or widely known.

These programs are also administered through many different agencies, and there is not a central location where Hayward residents can access this information and understand which program is the best fit for them.

Therefore, this strategy recommends setting up a clearing house and creating one central location where Hayward residents can find information about all the e-bike rebate programs they may be eligible for, as well as a communications and outreach campaign to promote these programs. Since these programs are already funded with outside resources, a relatively small investment from the City of Hayward has the potential to create a significant mode shift as the number of residents having access to e-bikes increases.

REBATE RESOURCES
In Table 11, current and proposed local/regional, statewide, and national e-bike rebate programs are listed. Based on recent interest at all levels of government to encourage e-bike adoption, this list will need to be updated regularly to stay accurate.

Table 11: Current and Proposed E-bike Rebate Resources
Program Administering
Agency/
Organization
Amou
nt
Eligibility
Requirements
Estimated Eligible
Hayward Residents*
Notes Link to more
Information
Local/Regional Programs
Vehicle
Replacement
Program
Clean Cars for
All / Bay Area Air
Quality
Management
District
Up to
$7,500
Must live in
qualified zip
code, meet low-
income
requirements,
and trade in
eligible vehicle
~82,800 individuals Income limits are 400 times the federal poverty level; 6 of Hayward’s 9 zip
codes are eligible; and only those with a
qualifying vehicle to trade in (model
year 2005 or older, under 10,000 lbs.)
are eligible.

https://www.baaqmd.gov
/?sc_itemid=CBAE9738-
E434-49FE-A090-
FDF74F655AD3

E-bike
Incentive
Program and
E-bike
Lending
Program**
East Bay
Community
Energy (EBCE)

TBD EBCE customers
in Alameda
County
~12,675 households
are eligible for 40% of
the incentive budget
dedicated to support
income-qualified
customers.

All EBCE customers
would be eligible for the
remaining 60% of
incentives. (EBCE is the
default provider in
Hayward)
30,000 residential accounts are on
CARE throughout Alameda County;
about 9.75% of Alameda County
population lives in Hayward. Estimated
eligibility assumes equal distribution of
CARE customers throughout the
county.

This program is not yet active but
expected to launch in 2023.
https://ebce.org/news
-and-events/east-bay-
residents-will-soon-
enjoy-new-local-
electric-bike-
programs/
Statewide Programs
E-Bike
Voucher**
California Air
Resources
Board,
administered by
Pedal Ahead
TBD,
~$1,00
0 Californians
living at or below
300% of the
federal poverty
level
~62,611 individuals This program is not yet active and will be launching second quarter of 2023.
https://www.calbike.org/
e-bike-purchase-
incentives-faqs/
E-bike
purchase
Discount**
University of
California
TBD UC Students No estimate available This program is not yet active. University of California graduate student
FEASIBILITY STUDY | DRAFT

TOOLE DESIGN | 51

workers end strike, ratify
three-year contracts
National Programs
Tax credit** US Internal
Revenue Service
30%
tax
credit
up to
$1,500
TBD No estimate available This tax credit is not currently approved.

The Electric Bicycle Incentive Kickstart
for the Environment (E-BIKE) Act
legislation was introduced in 2021 and
re-introduced in March 2023.
https://panetta.house.go
v/media/press-
releases/reps-panetta-
blumenauer-thompson-
and-schiff-reintroduce-e-
bike-act
E-bike
purchase
low interest
loans

Clean Energy
Credit Union

Varies Member of Clean
Energy Credit
Union via
membership to
“field of
membership”
orgs listed on site
No estimate available https://www.cleanenergy
cu.org/personal/electric-
bicycle-loans/
Low interest
loans for e-
bike
purchases
Various e-bike
manufacturers

Varies Varies No estimate available A variety of manufacturers and retailers offer loan programs through Affirm
Synchrony, Klarna, Bread, and PayPal
Credit. Loans range from 10-30% APR,
sometimes with 0% APRs for short term
loans (usually 6 or 12 months).

For example, RadPower offers a 0%
APR on a 6-month loan; APR is over
15% for 1 or 3 year loans.
https://easyebiking.com/
best-electric-bike-
financing-options-in-the-
usa/
*Estimates are based on 2022 federal poverty levels and 2020 Census data; they do remove children or others that do not drive. **Program not yet active or passed through legislation.

COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION AND PROMOTION STRATEGIES
Clearing House Examples
Below are a few examples of clearing house sites related to e-bikes and other resources that provide ideas for what is effective and ineffective.
• Climate Action Center
• Ride Review: E-bike Incentives
• Vermont Electric Vehicle Incentive Programs
• Denver Sustainable Transportation Programs
• Banff Environmental Rebates and Incentives Programs
• California Energy Efficiency Programs Clearing House
• California Department of Community Services & Development Assistance Program Clearing House

Based on these and other examples, the key components to explain in the clearing house site and in related communications are:
• Types of Programs: With a wide range of programs types available, it is crucial for residents to understand how each one works and the pros and cons of each, including purchase vouchers, rebates, discounts, and car replacement programs. Direct links to applications for each program should be included and should be easily accessible.
• Eligibility Requirements: The eligibility requirements for programs differ, with some based on where you live or what energy provider you have, or your income level. • Timing of Funding Availability: Depending on the program type and structure, some require the applicant to pay the cost up front and are later reimbursed versus receiving a discount or voucher at the time of purchase. This is critical to understanding what program makes sense for each individual’s budget. • Deadlines: With so many new programs coming out and older programs changing or being phased out, it is critical to have current information publicized and advertised regularly, particularly around any key deadlines or around new program launches.

LONG TERM: REGIONAL SHARE D MICROMOBILITY

STRATEGY
While large, dense cities in the Bay Area like San Francisco and Oakland have had long-running shared micromobility programs, smaller cities in the Bay Area have faced challenges sustaining programs long-term. Many Bay Area cities (e.g., Mountainview, Sunnyvale, Foster City, San Mateo, Burlingame, and South San Francisco) have had private operators remove service in 2019 and 2020 after deciding to prioritize other markets or pivoting from bikes to scooters or for other reasons. In more recent news, Fremont paused their bikeshare program due to issues working with their contracted operator, Richmond paused their bikeshare program due to their operator leaving the industry entirely, and Pleasant Hill’s e-scooter operator suspended operations after not achieving a profitable number of rides. This demonstrates a need for program flexibility – if one operator leaves, the program should be able to continue and onboard a new operator.

While multiple bikeshare and scootershare operators have an interest in expanding their footprint in the Bay Area (for example, the recent program launch of Bird scootershare in San Ramon and the upcoming launch of LEAP e- bikeshare in Richmond), the history of market exits has shown that it can be difficult for both public agencies and private operators to sustain a successful program in a smaller service area like Hayward. The Bay Wheels program dem
onstrates an alternative to multiple small city programs by providing the operator (Lyft) with a regional service area that creates better connectivity and a larger potential rider pool. As Bay Wheels does not currently plan to expand its docked bikeshare to other cities in the region, the long-term strategy proposed is to work with neighboring cities and unincorporated areas to develop a regional service area and solicit potential private operators.

Table 12: Potential Partners for Regional Shared Micromobility Program Potential Partner Agencies Population Shared Micromobility Status City of Hayward 159,827 No program
City of Fremont 227,514 Paused Program
City of Union City 68,681 No program
City of San Leandro 88,868 No program
Alameda County (Castro Valley, San Lorenzo) 94,509 No program TOTAL 639,399

CASE STUDIES
There are multiple funding and governance models to consider for a regional program, which can be explored more when the Implementation Plan is developed. The following case studies illustrate a few examples of how other regional programs have been launched and maintained.

SACOG Regional Shared Micromobility Program (Sacramento Region, CA) Owner Lime
Operator Lime
Total Population Served 645,477
Vehicles and System Type Dockless Bikeshare and Scootershare Number of vehicles / stations ~600 bikes and scooters
T
he Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) launched a regional bikeshare system in the cities of Davis, Sacramento, and West Sacramento in 2018. The system is a public-private partnership under which the operator (Lime) owns and operates the system and provides certain service level requirements, advertising and sponsorship revenue sharing, and the implementation of an equity plan. SACOG and each of the cities have a program agreement with Lime to operate shared bikes and scooters, and SACOG has contributed funding for public bike racks across the region for shared bike parking.

Roaring Fork Valley Bikeshare Program (Roaring Fork Valley, Colorado) Owner WE-Cycle (with funding support from public and private partners) Operator WE-Cycle
Total Population Served 23,431 (does not include 1 million+ visitors to the region each year) Vehicles and System Type Docked Bikeshare
Number of vehicles / stations 228 pedal bikes, 25 e-bikes / 49 stations T
hrough a public-private-non-profit partnership between the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA), the non- profit bikeshare operator (WE-Cycle), and the cities of Aspen, Willits, Basalt, El Jebel, and Snowmass Village, the Roaring Fork Valley region has a bikeshare system of 284 bikes and 55 stations. The program originally started in Aspen in 2013 and has since expanded to additional jurisdictions. In 2021, most (62%) of the funding for the system came from RFTA, the local cities, as well as the county, who commit funds as part of their annual budget. The system was also supported by sponsorship, donations, and private sector support (26%), as well as user fees (3%).

WE-cycle employs multiple full and part-time staff to manage the regional program.

ValleyBike Share (Pioneer Valley, Massachusetts)
Owner Cities of Northampton, Amherst, Chicopee, Springfield, West Springfield, Easthampton, Holyoke, South Hadley; and the University of Massachusetts Operatorv Bewegen Technologies
Total Population Served 402,066
Vehicles and System Type Docked e-bikeshare
Number of vehicles / stations ~700 e-bikes / 61 stations P
ioneer Valley Planning Commission, the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, collaborated with multiple cities in Pioneer Valley, MA and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst on a regional docked e-bikeshare program. The MPO received $1.3 million in CMAQ funding to support the system launch. This is a public-private partnership between the public agencies and the operator (Bewegen Technologies), with one city (Northampton) as the lead agency responsible for grants, contracts, and coordinating among the other partners. Each city owns its own equipment and is responsible for its own stations. The operator (Bewegen Technologies) provides the operation and maintenance of the system for no cost to the participating agencies and keeps all user and sponsorship fees.

APPENDICES

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PLAN AND POLICY R EVIEW
CITY OF HAYWARD 2040 GENER AL PLAN (MOBILITY ELEMENT

AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN)
The General Plan’s Mobility Element aims to provide strategies with the goal of a balanced transportation network that supports and encourages walking, bicycling, and transit ridership. The Mobility Element incorporates several items from the Climate Action Plan, and includes policies around implementing multimodal connections, creating streets that serve all users, improving bicycling amenities, and providing alternative transportation modes.

Bikeshare is called out as a policy (M-8.6) for the city to pursue, with the City encouraging large employers and BART to host bikesharing programs available to the public.

CITY OF HAYWARD BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan establishes the city’s vision and approach to improving walking and biking in Hayward, focusing on a comprehensive, integrated, and connected network of active transportation facilities and services. The Plan provides an extensive evaluation of the state of walking and biking in Hayward and found that certain groups of people are walking and biking more than others, as shown on Figure 1. The Plan does not specifically mention micromobility, however, the 153 miles of bikeways recommended in the Plan will also benefit shared micromobility users. Shared micromobility can also be a tool to increase the number of users of the bikeway system and the visibility of people requiring safe, comfortable, and connected bike facilities.

Figure 13: Demographic Summary of Walking and Biking in Hayward

HAYWARD AREA RECREATION AND PAR K DISTRICT

REGULATIONS GOVERNING USE OF PARKS, RECREATION

AREAS, AND FACILITIES
The ordinance guiding use of parks, recreation areas, and facilities in Hayward was last updated in 2019. Electric bicycles are not specifically addressed, but regulations applying to bikes and electric and non-electric scooters include:
• No bicycles or scooters allowed at any District facility specifically designated exclusively for skateboards or in-line skates.
• Bicycles and scooters are permitted on designated paths and trails only • Individuals 17 years and younger must wear a helmet when using bicycles or scooters on District property

CITY OF HAYWARD RACIAL EQUITY ACTION PLAN (2020)
The Racial Equity Action Plan is an aspirational roadmap for organizational change and improving service to the community, intentionally addressing racial inequities in Hayward. While micromobility is not mentioned specifically, the Plan’s vision for service provision should be incorporated into the development of any future micromobility program. This includes ensuring that the following elements of the plan are represented:
• All people in Hayward have access to important information from the City in a language and a format that they can understand.
• All people in Hayward are represented in an equitable manner regardless of the language they speak, access to technology, and familiarity with government processes. • All people in Hayward receive high-quality City services that meet their needs.

HAYWARD MUNICIPAL CODE AND TRAFFIC CODE
The Hayward Municipal Code does not include any regulations that would not allow e-bike or e-scooter operations, or the operation of a shared micromobility program. Bicycle parking, which can be utilized by micromobility devices, is required for multi-family residential, recreation, civic, education, entertainment, office and service, and retail and food uses.

The Hayward Traffic Code permits bicycles on public streets, specifying that bicycles must be ridden in a bicycle lane on streets where such lanes have been established (Section 10.02). Riding bicycles, mopeds, and skateboards is prohibited in certain parts of Downtown Hayward (Section 10.01). Bicycles cannot be parked against storefront windows, the main-traveled portion of sidewalks, or in any manner that creates a hazard to pedestrians, traffic, or property (Section 10.03). A shared micromobility program would have to align with these Traffic Code regulations, which could be achieved with rider education, geofencing and specific parking management requirements. Two requirements that may be more challenging are Section 6.10, which does not allow vehicles to be operated in the Central Traffic District (an area designated by the Traffic Engineer) if they are used for advertising purposes, and Section 8.13, which does not allow vehicles to be parked in the roadway for the purpose of advertising/selling.

Further clarification is needed regarding whether the branding and information provided on micromobility devices or in designated micromobility parking areas qualifies as advertising.

Both the Municipal Code and the Traffic Code do not include specific regulations for electric bicycles or electric scooters. Current California state law regulates e-bikes like human-powered bicycles, and e-bikes are not subject to registration, licensing, or insurance requirements that apply to motor vehicles. There are three classes of e-bikes:
- Class 1: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph.

- Class 2: Bicycle equipped with a throttle-actuated motor, that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 20 mph.
- Class 3: Bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the electric bicycle reaches 28 mph.

Helmets are required for all e-bike riders 17 years of age and younger, and all riders of Class 3 e-bikes must be 16 years of age and wear helmets. Class 3 e-bikes are not allowed on bike paths or shared-use paths unless the local jurisdiction explicitly allows it.

California state law defines e-scooters as motorized scooters with two wheels, a motor, handlebars, and a floorboard that can be stood on while riding. State law requires a maximum speed of 15 mph, prohibits e-scooter operation on sidewalks, requires helmets for users under 18, and e-scooters must be operated in bike lanes or trails whenever they are available. E-scooters may not be operated on streets with speed limits greater than 25 mph unless operated in a Class II or Class IV bike facility, although local jurisdictions may authorize operation of e- scooters on streets up to 35 mph. Riders must have a valid driver’s license, but scooters do not need to be registered or insured like motor vehicles.

BART STATION ACCESS POLICY (2016)
The BART Station Access Policy aims to support the broader livability goals of the Bay Area, reinforce sustainable communities, and enable riders to get to and from stations safely, comfortably, affordably, and cost-effectively. The policy includes primary modes to invest in for all BART station types. South Hayward Station is defined as a “Balanced Intermodal” station (where 25-40% of riders are expected to walk, bike, or take transit, and 25-40% are expected to drive) and Hayward Station is a split between a “Balanced Intermodal” station and an “Urban with Parking” station (where 60-75% of riders are expected to walk/bike/take transit and 25% expected to drive). BART’s policy prioritizes investments in walking and bicycling access to both stations. These priorities are aligned with the policy’s station access design hierarchy (see Figure 2). The policy also calls out the importance of innovation and partnerships, specifically mentioning bikeshare operators as a group to build partnerships with and committing to research and piloting emerging technologies.

Shared micromobility devices are not allowed onboard trains. While not currently available at the BART stations within Hayward, 16 BART stations across the region have Bay Wheels bikeshare available either right outside the station or within a block of the station.

Figure 14: BART Station Access Design Hierarchy

BART WALK AND BICYCLE NETWORK GAP STUDY (2020)
The Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study evaluates existing conditions and identifies conceptual access improvements to and from 17 BART stations, including Hayward and South Hayward. While the study does not focus on micromobility, it does call out the need for buffered and separated facilities for bicyclists, scooters, and other new modes of mobility, and recommendations included for improved pedestrian and bicycling access would positively impact micromobility.
• Hayward Station: Since 2008, there have been growing numbers of people walking and bicycling in the station area. Current access to the station by walking or bicycling is high-stress, and the Study recommends

i
mproving pedestrian and bicycling facilities for safer, more comfortable travel. The station may connect to the East Bay Greenway alignment through Hayward (a planned 16-mile bikeway between Lake Merritt and Hayward BART stations).
• South Hayward Station: There have been growing numbers of people walking and bicycling in the station area, although the station area was developed primarily for vehicular access. The train tracks on Tennyson Road are a major barrier to accessing the station and significantly increases the walking or bicycling time for people who live close to the station. The Study mostly recommends sidewalk improvements but notes that the most impactful improvements to active transportation access are long-term and could be addressed by the East Bay Greenway.

CSU HAYWARD CAMPUS MASTER PLAN: ACCESS,

CIRCULATION, AND PARKING FRAMEWORK
The Access, Circulation and Parking Framework aims to improve conditions for sustainable transportation, ensure commuters and visitors have multiple convenient modes of access, and reduce the number of car commuters through physical, operational, and policy changes. Currently, most students, faculty, staff, and visitors commute to campus by car and once on campus, walking is the primary mode to get around.

Topography is a barrier for bicycling to and on campus. The campus is relatively compact, but terraced, and the nearest BART station is two miles away, but separated by steep terrain. Cross-campus bicycling trips utilize two 25 mph roadways or use the wider pedestrian walkways. The plan also includes adding bike parking to encourage bike use at key destinations throughout campus. Electric-powered micromobility devices could address topography issues and allow students who live near campus or near BART to access campus without using a personal vehicle.

Increased shared micromobility volumes may require the campus to reconsider whether designated dismount zones are needed to reduce conflict between pedestrians and bicyclists or e-scooter riders.

The plan also includes a Transportation Demand Management Program, consisting of improved transit service, parking management, and incentives for alternative modes (transit, carpools, guaranteed ride home, car sharing; no incentives specifically related to biking). Bicycling incentives and/or discounts for a future shared micromobility program should be considered.

ALAMEDA CTC COUNTYWIDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Countywide Active Transportation Plan identifies the regional goals of safety, multimodal connectivity, encouragement, and impactful investment. The plan analyzed the stress of the bikeway network, high injury networks (HIN) for pedestrians and bicyclists, identified major barriers, and established a framework for prioritizing projects. There are approximately 12 miles of bicycling HIN and 12 miles of pedestrian HIN in the City of Hayward, each representing about 3% of the City’s local roadway network. The plan shows that bikeway connectivity and comfort is low, with freeways and major arterials creating barriers to improved connections. This also provides challenges for micromobility, which primarily utilize bikeway infrastructure.

Emerging mobility is included in the Plan as an Area of Focus for the Future, and the county intends to provide resources related to shared- and micromobility to local jurisdictions, although specific resources are not defined.

The Plan includes micromobility best practice resources for local jurisdictions, specifically referencing San Francisco’s scooter share pilot and evaluation program and Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which encourages docked and dockless bikeshare opportunities at a local level in the county.

AP PENDIX B: P EER CITY ANALYSIS
Table 13: Overview of Program History, Operators, and Staffing City
Population Bay
Wheels? Start Date Operators Business Model # of Operators System Type Contract/ Permit Length Partnership Roles City Staffing
(as of 2020
census)
Berkeley 124,321 Yes May-22 Veo, Link, Spin
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Not including Bay
Wheels, max 3 [3
currently]
Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permiting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing N/A
Emeryville 12,905 Yes Aug-21 Lime, Link, Spin,
Veo
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Not specified [4
currently, not including
Bay Wheels]
Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permitting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing Environmental services - 2 staff Fremont 230,504 No
Pilot: Fall 2019,
Permanent: June
2021
Hopr
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Not specified [Currently
1 operator] Dockless Contract: 2 year
agreement
City is using $250,000 from 2017 MTC grant of $350,000
to support program: $200,000 to HOPR to lease
equipment and use $50,000 for program administration.

Because of grant restrictions, city’s contribution won’t be for leasing e-scooters or program operation. HOPR is
funding program operation through membership, user
fees, and private sponsorships.

N/A
Oakland 439,349 Yes 2019 LINK, Veoride,
Lime
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
No max - must score at
least 70 during
application evaluation
[3 operators currently,
not including Bay
Wheels]
Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permitting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing
N/A - can follow up with MTC during
Task 4
Pleasant Hill 34,613 No October 2022 Bird
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
1 currently (pilot, did
not do competitive
process)
Dockless 1 year
Regional effort by 511 Contra Costa (funded by Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air and Measure J), Pleasant Hill opted in
N/A - can follow up with MTC during
Task 4
Richmond 226,610 No
Summer 2021,
relaunch Sept
2022
LEAP Mobility
and element
LEV
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
1 (sole source contract) Dockless
Contract: August
24, 2022, to
June 30, 2023
E-bike program launched in the summer of 2021 via a $1
million grant from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission; relaunch Sept 2022 with Charleston Mobility as sole source contract of $345,000 for ~10 months of
service
N/A - can follow up with MTC during
Task 4
Santa Clara 127,647 No Summer 2022 Bird, Veo
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Max 3 [Currently 2] Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permitting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing
Staffing: Principal Planner, Senior
Civil Engineer, and Associate Civil
Engineer.

Application staff time: 13 hours
($3,466.94) per application
Program management staff time:
306-1,067 hours ($82,287.85-
$280,452.26) annually, depending on
# of devices
Impoundment staff time: 1.5 hrs
($304.92) per device
San Jose 1,013,240 Yes Feb-19 Lime, Bird, Veo
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Max 3 - not including
Bay Wheels [Currently
3]
Dockless Permit: 1 year City administers permitting program, private operator responsible for operation and marketing N/A

City
Population Bay
Wheels? Start Date Operators Business Model # of Operators System Type Contract/ Permit Length Partnership Roles City Staffing
(as of 2020
census)
San Francisco 873,965 Yes
Pilot fall 2018;
Yearly permits
starting May
2019
Lime, Spin, Bird,
Revel (Revel is
operating as
Shared Electric
Moped
Organization)
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Not specified [currently
4, not including Bay
Wheels]
Dockless
Permit: 1 year,
with option to
extend 1 year at
SFMTA
discretion
City administers permitting program, private operator
responsible for operation and marketing N/A
San Ramon 84,605 No Pilot: Nov 2022 Bird
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Max 1 [Currently 1] Dockless
Pilot Operating
Agreement: 1
year with 2
optional 1- year
renewals
Regional effort with $8 million from Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (funded by Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Transportation Fund for Clean Air and Measure J). San Ramon opted into program, CCTA
issued RFP
N/A
Santa Rosa 178,127 No Jul-22 Bird
Agency
Permit/Contract and
Private Operator(s)
Max 1 [Currently 1] Dockless Pilot Permit: 1
year
City administers permitting program, private operator
responsible for operation and marketing N/A

Berkeley,
Emeryville,
Oakland, San
Francisco, San
Jose
2,463,780 Yes
Pilot program:
2013 (San
Francisco,
Redwood City,
Palo Alto,
Mountain View
and San Jose),
Permanent
program: 2015
Bay Wheels
(Lyft)
Agency Owned and
Private Operator(s) Max 1 [Currently 1] Docked AND
Dockless
Contract: 10
years
Partnership between MTC, the five local governments
(Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San
Jose), and Motivate (a subsidiary of Lyft). Cities have regional coordination agreement, as well as specific
agreements with the operator. Each city can dedicate
additional costs. Operator revenue shared with MTC and
cities.

N/A

Table 14: Detailed Fees, Vehicle Types, Parking Management, and Equity Requirements City
Population
Fleet Caps
Fees Vehicle Type(s) Currently in Operation
Service Area
Parking Management (for
dockless vehicles) Equity Requirements (for dockless vehicles) (as of
2020
census)
Application Fee
Annual Fee
Per-Ride Fee
Per-Vehicle Fee
Other
E-scooters
Dockless Bikes
Docked Bikes
Dockless E-bikes
Docked E-bikes
Seated Scooters
Mopeds
Lock-to Required
Designated Parking
(Virtual and/or Physical
infrastructure)
Free-floating
Geographic distribution
Low-income discounts
Adaptive vehicles
Require ways to use and
pay without credit card or
smart phone
Berkeley 124,321
Min: 50 per
operator
Max: none

[As of July
2022:

Veoride: 250
standing
250 seated
scooters;
Link: 250
standing, 0
seated
scooters
Spin: 400
standing
scooters,
100 electric
bikes]
$1,500 $15,000 None $64
Improper Parking
Fee ($ amount not
specified)

X X X X X
Citywide -- no
geo-fencing
without City
permission; UC
Berkeley
currently
geofenced as
no-ride zone
Yes
Yes -
Virtual
and
Physical
No
Yes - at least
50% Equity
Priority
Communities
(MTC)
Yes -
Discount
varies based
on operator.

Yes -
permit
specifically
available
to
operators
with
seated
devices
Yes
Emeryville 12,905
No min/max,
but city can
set max at
later date
$2,630
(Renewal:
$1,052)
$5,260 None None
Confiscation and
Retrieval: $131 per
device;
Storage: $263 per
device;
Disposal: Actual
cost per device

X X X X X
Citywide but
only in City
ROW (City may
add parks,
plazas,
campuses etc to
service area at
its discretion)
Yes
Yes -
Virtual
only
Yes No Yes Yes No
Fremont 230,504
50 pedal
bikes, 100 e-
bikes, and
100 e-
scooters
None
assumed
None
assumed
None
assumed
None
assumed None assumed X X X
Citywide;
Portions of
Fremont Central
Park are
restricted
No
Yes -
Virtual
and
Physical
No N/A N/A N/A N/A
Oakland 439,349
Min: 50
vehicles
Max: None

Operators
may request
additional
Dockless
Vehicle
permits to
increase
fleet size on
a weekly
basis
$2,500 $30,000 None $64
$0.10 every time a
Scooter is parked
or left standing in a
metered zone
during
meter hours of
operation; $50 per
improperly parked
vehicle, $140/hr for
confiscation.

Upon request,
Operators must
pass at least 50%
of the fine amount
for improper
parking ($25) on to
the user
responsible.

X X X X Citywide Yes
Yes -
Virtual
and
Physical
Yes
Yes -- 50%+ of
scooters must
be deployed in
MTC's
Communities
of Concern.

Yes - SNAP
or CARE
participants.

Discount
varies based
on operator.

Yes Yes

City
Population
Fleet Caps
Fees Vehicle Type(s) Currently in Operation
Service Area
Parking Management (for
dockless vehicles) Equity Requirements (for dockless vehicles) (as of
2020
census)
Application Fee
Annual Fee
Per-Ride Fee
Per-Vehicle Fee
Other
E-scooters
Dockless Bikes
Docked Bikes
Dockless E-bikes
Docked E-bikes
Seated Scooters
Mopeds
Lock-to Required
Designated Parking
(Virtual and/or Physical
infrastructure)
Free-floating
Geographic distribution
Low-income discounts
Adaptive vehicles
Require ways to use and
pay without credit card or
smart phone
Pleasant
Hill 34,613
150 e-
scooters in
pilot
None None $0.15 None
City staff scooter
removal: $75-$250
per incident

City storage of
improperly parked
scooter:
$100/device/three
business days
X
Citywide, not
allowed on the
Contra Costa
Canal trail
No
No
parking
areas
Yes -
scooters
must be
parked in
specific
parts of
the
PROW
None None None None
Richmond 226,610
N/A - former
e-bike fleet
was 250
None
assumed
None
assumed
None
assumed
None
assumed
None assumed, as
city is
compensating
operator

X X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Santa
Clara 127,647
Min: 60 per
operator
Max: 3,000
across all
operators
(1,000
bikes/e-bikes
and 2,000 e-
scooters)

[Current
permits:

Bird: 800 e-
scooters &
200 e-bikes,
Veo: 300 e-
scooters;
max
numbers can
be adapted
for special
events]
$3,470 $27,430 None
<60
vehicles:

No fee
60+
vehicles:
$70 per
vehicle
$35/vehicle
for
additional
vehicles
Improper parking:
($100 for the first
violation, $200 for
the second
violation
$500 for third and
subsequent
violations; then
$305 impound fee)

$20,000
performance bond
for any public
property repair and
maintenance
required,
removal/storage of
vehicles, or unpaid
fines.

X X
Citywide, with
no-ride zones in
City parks
(excluding the
san Tomas
Aquino/Saratoga
Creek Trail)
No
Yes -
Virtual
only
Yes
Yes - 5% of
fleet must be
deployed in the
City’s Equity
Priority
Community
Yes.

Discount
varies by
operator.

No No
San Jose 1,013,240
Min: 50 per
operator
Max: 2,000
per operator
(can apply
for
expansion
based on
ridership)
$1,953 None None $97
Property repair and
maintenance
deposit: $10,000

X X X X
Citywide, can be
restricted by
Director
No
Yes -
Virtual
only
Yes
Yes - 20% of
fleet in
“Community of
Concern”
defined by
MTC
Yes - waive
customer
deposit fees.

Yes No
City
Population
Fleet Caps
Fees Vehicle Type(s) Currently in Operation
Service Area
Parking Management (for
dockless vehicles) Equity Requirements (for dockless vehicles) (as of
2020
census)
Application Fee
Annual Fee
Per-Ride Fee
Per-Vehicle Fee
Other
E-scooters
Dockless Bikes
Docked Bikes
Dockless E-bikes
Docked E-bikes
Seated Scooters
Mopeds
Lock-to Required
Designated Parking
(Virtual and/or Physical
infrastructure)
Free-floating
Geographic distribution
Low-income discounts
Adaptive vehicles
Require ways to use and
pay without credit card or
smart phone
San
Francisco 873,965
Max: 10,000
across all
operators
[Current
permits:

Lime up to
2,000
Spin up to
2,000
Bird (Scoot)
up to 1,500]
$5,394 $38,340 None
$200 to
SFMTA for
every two
vehicles to
pay for
bicycle
rack
None X X X X X
Citywide,
Restrictions:

Promenade path
of the
Embarcadero
No
Yes -
Virtual
only
Yes -
scooters
must be
parked
on bike
rack or in
area of
sidewalk
closest to
curb
Yes - limited
deployment in
Downtown
Core, minimum
requirements
in Key
Neighborhoods
Yes -
minimum
50%
discount off
rental fees,
or a plan
that offers
unlimited
trips under
30 minutes;
waive
customer
deposit fees
Yes Yes
San
Ramon 84,605
Current
permit: 120
electric
scooters and
30 electric
bikes; will
start with 75
at "nests".

Fleet size
can be
adjusted with
CCTA and
city
permission.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X
Citywide, with
multiple small
no-ride zones.

Bird e-bikes are
allowed on the
Iron Horse Trail,
e-scooters are
not allowed on
the Iron Horse
Trail.

No
No
parking
areas
Yes -
discounts
for
parking
in "nests"
N/A Yes N/A
"desirable"
but not
required
as per
RFP
Santa
Rosa 178,127 min 50, max
200 N/A N/A N/A N/A Security deposit:
$10,000 X
Citywide, with
no-ride zones at
large shopping
malls, specific
areas in
Downtown,
Santa Rosa Jr
College, and
Santa Rosa
High School
Yes
No
parking
areas
Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Berkeley,
Emeryville,
Oakland,
San
Francisco,
San Jose
2,463,780
7,000
bicycles
(both
traditional
bikes and
hybrid
electric
bikes) at 550
stations.
4500 in SF,
1000 in SJ,
1400 in East
Bay Cities
(as of 2015).

None None None None None X X X
Entire Bay Area
(where cycling is
permitted), but
trips must ends
within service
area. Some no-
ride zones in SJ
and SF.

Yes at
docking
station
or to
bike
rack
Yes -
Virtual
and
Physical
X - only
for
ebikes
Yes - $5
annual
membership,
discounted
rides
Yes - Can
pay cash
with
Clipper
Card; can
also buy
prepaid
card with
cash at
local
stores or
online, no
social
security
info is
needed

TOOLE DESIGN | 66

APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESPONSES

1. What language do you want to take the survey in? ¿Qué idioma prefieres?

Note: While 3 people opted to take the survey in Spanish, they did not fill out any subsequent questions.

2. Please select all that apply for you:

3. How often do you travel using the following modes?
Never Less than
once a
month
1-3 days
a month
At least
once a
week
Multiple
days a week
Daily Responses
Drive alone

5 5.0%
4 4.0%
4 4.0%
13 13.0%
45 45.0%
29 29.0%
100
Carpool with
others
40 40.0%
16 16.0%
12 12.0%
11 11.0%
19 19.0%
2 2.0%
100

TOOLE DESIGN | 67
Public transit 35

35.0%
33 33.0%
10 10.0%
6 6.0%
16 16.0%
0 0.0%
100
Bicycle 57

57.0%
21 21.0%
8 8.0%
7 7.0%
7 7.0%
0 0.0%
Walk 13

13.0%
14 14.0%
17 17.0%
12 12.0%
27 27.0%
17 17.0%
100
4 . How often do you take transit from the following locations? Never Less than
once a
month
1-3 days
a month
At least
once a
week
Multiple
days a
week
Daily Responses
Hayward
BART station
31 31.0%
39 39.0%
14 14.0%
4 4.0%
12 12.0%
0 0.0%
100
South Hayward
BART station
68 68.0%
18 18.0%
3 3.0%
3 3.0%
8 8.0%
0 0.0%
100
AC Transit (any
bus stop)
72 72.0%
17 17.0%
4 4.0%
3 3.0%
4 4.0%
0 0.0%
100
Amtrak Hayward
Station
88 88.0%
9 9.0%
2 2.0%
1 1.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
100

5. How far do you typically travel from home (one-way) for the following types of trips? Please make your best guess about distances
I do not
travel for
this purpose
<1 mile 1-3
miles
3-5
miles
5-10
miles
10+miles Responses
Work 18

18.2%
3 3.0%
9 9.1%
8 8.1%
13 13.1%
48 48.5%
99 School 77

77.8%
2 2.0%
7 7.1%
7 7.1%
2 2.0%
4 4.0%
99 Shopping or
errands
1 1.0%
7 7.1%
27 27.3%
35 35.4%
22 22.2%
7 7.1%
99 Visit friends or
family
7 7.1%
6 6.1%
9 9.1%
13 13.1%
21 21.2%
43 43.4%
99 Other
social/recreational
8 8.1%
2 2.0%
11 11.1%
16 16.2%
20 20.2%
42 42.4%
99 TOOLE DESIGN | 68

6. Do you currently have access to a working personal bicycle or scooter?

7. 7. Have you used shared micromobility (bikeshare/scootershare) before outside of Hayward?

8. Where have you used shared micromobility before?
Open Ended Response
San Francisco
San Diego
Vancouver, Canada
Several cities throughout the bay area, but most often in Oakland. Also outside of California in Cities such as Portland, Oregon.

San Francisco
Sacramento, Oakland and various cities around the country and within CA such as San Diego.

New York City Oakland
San Francisco, Oakland, Washington DC
Scooters in San Jose. Bikes in Boston.

San Jose, CA, San Francisco, CA and Portland, OR
San Francisco

TOOLE DESIGN | 69

San Diego, Berkeley
Portland Oregon
San Diego Hawaii UCSB UCLA
Long Beach CA and Boston MA
San Jose and San Francisco
San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego
San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago, Sacramento
Bikeshare in Hawaii and scooters in San Francisco
San Francisco
San Diego, CA
SF city
Oakland, Portland, Washington DC
San Francisco Vancouver, Canada
South Lake Tahoe
Oakland San Francisco
San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles
CSU East Bay
Oakland; San Francisco; Berkeley
I've shared micromobility multiple times in San Francisco San Jose, California
San Jose, Emeryville, San Francisco, San Diego
San Jose
San Jose
Oakland
In Oakland
Oakland
Mexico city
Seattle WA, Lake Tahoe area
Berkeley & San Francisco

9. H
ow interested are you in seeing the following shared micromobility options in Hayward? Very
interested
A little
interested
Neutral Somewhat
disinterested
Not at all
interested
Responses
Docked/station based
bikeshare (all rides
start and end at a
bikeshare station)
Count
Row %
40 40.0%
27 27.0%
11 11.0%
4 4.0%
18 18.0%
100
Dockless or "free-
floating" bikeshare
(no stations, and rides
can start and end
anywhere

within the bikeshare
service area)

23 23.0%
25 25.0%
16 16.0%
7 7.0%
29 29.0%
100
E-bikeshare
(bicycles are equipped
with electric motors to
assist riders while
pedaling)

41 41.0%
22 22.0%
8 8.0%
8 8.0%
21 21.0%
100
Dockless or "free-
floating" e-
scootershare (no
stations, and rides can
start and end anywhere

within the service area)
33 33.0%
16 16.0%
14 14.0%
6 6.0%
31 31.0%
100

10. How likely are you to support a shared micromobility program in Hayward? This kind of program would allow for short-term rental of shared micromobility vehicles like bikes, e-bikes, and escooters.

11. What would you be willing to pay for a 10 minute/2 mile ride using shared micromobility?

12. The following options include things that someone might dislike about shared micromobility (bikeshare/scootershare). How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Responses
Scooters and bikes will not be
parked properly and create
clutter on sidewalks
34 34.3%
42 42.4%
12 12.1%
7 7.1%
4 4.0%
99 Scooters and bikes are unsafe to
ride and could result in injuries to
their riders
12 12.1%
14 14.1%
32 32.3%
29 29.3%
12 12.1%
99 Scooters and bikes should not be
in the road with drivers
16 16.2%
21 21.2%
21 21.2%
27 27.3%
14 14.1%
99 E-scooters and e-bikes go too fast
and could be a crash risk to other
road users
9 9.1%
12 12.1%
30 30.3%
31 31.3%
17 17.2%
99 13. The following options include things that someone might like about shared micromobility (bikeshare/scootershare). How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Responses
Scooters and bikes make it easier
and faster for people to get where
they need to go
38 38.4%
43 43.4%
12 12.1%
4 4.0%
2 2.0%
99 Scooters and bikes make using
public transit easier
32 32.3%
35 35.4%
25 25.3%
4 4.0%
3 3.0%
99 Scooters and bikes help to reduce
car traffic
32 32.3%
31 31.3%
16 16.2%
13 13.1%
7 7.1%
99 Scooters and bikes save people
money on transportation
25 25.3%
30 30.3%
32 32.3%
8 8.1%
4 4.0%
99 Scooters and bikes help reduce
carbon emissions
49 49.0%
35 35.0%
10 10.0%
1 1.0%
5 5.0%
100

14. What purposes would you use bikeshare or scootershare for in Hayward? Select all that apply.

Other:

General mobility from place to place, saving huge amounts of time walking. It would also make railfanning trips more quick, easy, and fun.

I feel people will just park them everywhere and disregard the safety of others NONE
To get around town
To get home from BART
To visit family & friends, to EXPLORE Hayward communities Unlike denser cities like San Francisco and Oakland, amenities, schools, work and other essential destinations are further than a 2+ mile radius for most people. Which makes the car more convenient to use. Instead of implementing micro mobility options that have the potential of creating a problem for the city, I'd prefer that these funds and resources be better utilized and spent on improving and creating safer and more reliable public transit connections around Hayward that will be affordable for everyone in the community - not just those that have a credit card to spend on a short term rental scooter/bike.
library

15. What might stop you from using shared micromobility (bikeshare or scootershare) in Hayward? Select all that apply.

Other:

As previously mentioned, amenities and essential destinations may be further for 1 some people that will actually benefit from these micro mobility option. Improving affordable public transit connections should be a priority instea d of the micro mobility option. The ones benefitting from this would be the companies who charge a fee to use the bikes instead of the funds being directed back into the community.

Bikes should not be treated as vehicles. I am uncomfortable without separate bike lanes with dividers.

Harzardous Joyriding
Hills
I am an avid bike rider. I feel Hayward has very limited access to "safe" routes/ paths for bikes and scooters I am too old (76)
I have the physical means, access, and passion about bikes to bike more - but I rarely use it to travel to BART, downtown, to the farmers market etc because biking down B st is dangerous.

I think that they should be easy to find, ex. Infront of grocery stores, big box stores, schools, libraries, hospitals/clenics, parks, churches and malls/plazas, etc.

If none are nearby, if most are being used already, or if batteries are low.

N/A
Not enough places to park
Safety in traffic concerns, drivers don't slow for pedestrian even with right of way. I can foresee hazardous situations.

Some Hayward streets feel unsafe on a bike or scooter
They are too dangerous to use.

They will be filthy dirty, broken.

Too dangerous
You have to make sure that locations are within biking distance. Also that there are safe bike friendly routes between those locations
driving might be easier esp with multiple stops
Hygiene safety
Lack of policing support
Never used one so not sure what to expect
Not safe for pedestrians
traffic

16. Would you be more likely to use shared micromobility if the vehicles were electric (e.g., e-scooters or e-bikes)?

17. Would you be interested in participating in either of the following programs? Select all that apply.

18. Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns about shared micromobility in Hayward? Responses
Although I know the city is working on it, the lack of safe, maintained, and protected bike lane infrastructure will be a barrier to adoption. Also, having ebikes will likely be a game changer for local college students who have a big hill to climb and a ( pre- pandemic, at least) heavily impacted and under resourced shuttle.

I have concerns that if micromobility is implemented before proper bike infrastructure then it will be unsuccessful. The micromobility will be blamed instead of the root cause. ebike library is a really good idea.

Im concerned that in the downtown are where the bars are people can and will drive under the influence on a e bike or scooter.

We need more protected bikelanes to make this safe for riders No
Would want to keep sidewalks clear and safe for pedestrians and make sure riders know safety rules and where to ride etc so it's safe for them and others on roads
Thanks for doing it. I am a strong supporter for this idea and it will facilitate public transportation usage for sure! i have been to two locations with micromobility: portland, or and san francisco. it seemed to be okay in portland. in san francisco the bikes and scooters often block the sidewalk/road. they get stolen or the companies dont maintain them well. if there is an organized effort to keep them functional and available, i think it could help others. but my concern is it will create issues instead. i would love if bus was expanded instead Oakland found a lot of their scooters in the lake. New york's bikes have bent rims, broken gears, and damaged seats. it would be better to offer people vouchers to purchase their own bikes, have community rides, and day fairs teaching people basic bike care.

Just don't want to see abandoned bikes all over. This would be my biggest concern.

What happened to walking from A to B
I think an equity focus is really important- most Hayward residents who could use these services do not have a lot of money.

Personally I can afford to buy a e bike etc but don't have one currently since I have a 4yo to transport.

As a resident of the newly built apartment complex on the foothill (Lincoln Landing), I think the residents would benefit from micro-mobility near or around this area. It would increase additional foot traffic to and from downtown Hayward and nearby restaurants and shops.

The Loop is proof that Hayward is doing everything for cars and nothing for people. Give one lane to buses and micromobility, only.

Hayward should embrace a future with micro mobility vehicles sharing roads. But the already-very-busy Hayward PD also needs to be prepared to enforce laws and help with theft or reckless riding.

The idea sounds good on paper but not sustainable. First, I used to ride my ebike 50 miles daily to/from work for years so am a big fan of ebikes and public transit. However there is a big difference between owning and riding your own ebike (that you paid for), and using a bike/scooter as a service (which you don't own). The vast majority of people won't care to not damage or keep the rental
in good usable shape. Most people won't keep it clean either. So in time you'll have a fleet of costly scooters/ebikes/bikes that will be broken and filthy. People won't want to use them, instead they'll want to avoid them. Look at how similar programs failed in San Francisco. Second, there needs to be a safe place for people to ride. The city need to create safe places for riders. For over 5 years
I've been trying to get the city to just add green paint to an bike lane along my neighborhood because it's too dangerous to ride a bike. To this date it's still not done. People need to be able to feel safe before riding anything next to cars.Third, when it relates to safety we need more traffic enforcement. Once people feel that automotive or motorcycle riders are driving in a safe manner then
they'll entertain riding bikes/scooters etc. Nobody will want to risk their health and safety. In all it's the big picture that needs to be considered for this progam to be successful in the long term. There are a few pieces of the picture that need to be addressed before investing in this program.

I know for sure people in Hayward would utilize this service. In Portland they require you to take a picture of the scooter or bike where it was parked to verify it isn't parked improperly. Failure to do so invokes an extra fee. This usually motivates people to not be rude or careless when parking their scooter after their trip. I think this would be great for Hayward.

My concern is the lack of support from the Hayward police for property crimes. This type of activity would only increase the opportunity for property crimes. Unless there is a stronger focus from the police to help with property crimes, I fear this will result in a failed investment. Additionally, your minimum is too high above. I might be willing to pay to rideshare but not $2- 4/10 min. That is too much for the service, given what Hayward currently has to offer. If you created a community share with Castro Valley and San Leandro and/or increased the "things to do" in Hayward (which would likely happen if the policing were better) then it might be more enticing too.
-Could be great for high school students, will need to review laws if helmets and being 18 years old is a requirement. MEHS traffic is heavy -Laws should be enforced if broken by riders -Designated parking spots for these vehicles at shopping centers would be a benefit -May see unhoused community using the vehicles, but could reduce stolen bikes/ scooters -I imagine families/ people using the micromobility which could increase local business I hope they set up specific lanes for shared micromobility to use. I wont be comfortable using them, or even driving around them if there's no specific lanes. Need to build more bumps especially in highly congested areas like wide intersections for safety.

Might be too expensive or inaccessible to people who need them the most. Will probably clutter sidewalks and curbs.

It would be great if the city micromobility program worked with local schools/university/colleges.

It's all about safety for riders and drivers. Parking them everywhere and disregard where they can park after each use. I don't want Hayward to be SF that in the end cost a lot of issues.

The people that have credit cards to rent them probably already have bikes of their own. The people that need them the most probably won't have credit cards! And with so few renting stations returning them would be a problem in my view and we would have them scattered around like shopping carts! Confusing where to drive (pedestrian or vehicle road?). So installing the signs on streets help for sure. this study was not open to real study looking for information but geared to what you want - I travel to different cities they are left all over, used for joy riding, dangerous down streets and sidewalks, pull off the power grid - have EMF's, litter the streets- I dont go near those streets anymore - my friend in berkeley tripped overone and is suing the city- knee surgery I believe I've shared my concerns in the previous questions.

I answered the question above, but dockless shares are basically litter. It's also noteworthy that scooters are more dangerous to their users than bicycles because the tiny front wheel increases the risk of a crash.

In my opinion this is a great idea! I think it's time for HAYWARD to be just like a lot of the other townships-LET'S KEEP "MOVING" FORWARD (no pun intended)! ;-D My family and I would WELCOME the micro/e-mobility in our community. We support it STRONGLY. It is an excellent idea to get around the city. VERY clever, indeed! I generally support this program. However, Hayward needs to focus on creating safe bike and scooter paths across the city first. As a resident of Hayward and active cyclist, I do not feel safe riding on most of Hayward's roads, especially Mission Blvd (except short section in South Hayward)
The city does not have adequate infrastructure for bikes/e-bikes (e.g., separate bike lanes). The city also lacks adequate policing resources to manage traffic (speed enforcement, bike lane infractions, cycling on sidewalks) and theft/vandalism.

Without policing, risks of accidents and injury go up with bikes/e-bikes. Shared bikes/e-bikes will be vandalized and stolen, adding to the existing problem of abandoned bikes, shopping carts, etc. throughout the city. Please allocate these funds to more policing.

Biggest concerns is micro-mobility causing accessibility issues for members of our community who are disabled. Also, there aren't many protected bikes lanes in Hayward and many of the main roads have speed limits that don't make bike/scooter riders feel safe. Thus they ride on the sidewalks creating possible collisions with pedestrians.

I would love to see this happen! However, I think in order for it to happen safely we would need a) some way to keep scooters/bikes from cluttering sidewalks, b) clear rules about where different vehicles can be used, and c) safe routes for all types of vehicles.

SF is a good example on how scooters and other micro vehicles are unsafe and cause nothing but another problem for pedestrians and motorists.

Just do it already. Hayward says it is a progressive city, but mircomobility scooters, e-bikes and shared programs - has been implemented throughout the country for years now.

19. What is your age?

20. What is your gender identity?

21. What race or ethnicity do you identify with? Check all that apply.

22. What is your annual household income level?

23. Do any of the following disabilities currently affect your daily life? Select all that apply.

24. What is your home zipcode?
Responsese
94110
94541
94541
94541
94541
94544
94544
94541
94904
94545
94544
94541
94544
94542
94541
94541
94541
94545
94542
94544
84541
94541
94544
94545
94541
94541
94545
95455
94544
94541
94545
94618
94541
94542
94544
94542
94545
94541
94544
94541
94545
94545
94541
94541
94541
94541
94544
94542
94568
94541
94544-8211
94542
94541
94544
94541
94544
94544
94544
94544
94544
94542
94541
94542
94544
94541
94544
94544
94546
94541
94544
94544
94545
94542
94544
94544
94542
94544
94544
94612
94541
94544
94539
94541
94544
94541
94541
94541
94541
94541
94544
9454 1/4
94544
94544

25. W
hat are the nearest cross-streets to your home address? Responses
27th and dolores
D st. Winton
Windfeldt
D and Grand
City Center Drive and Second Street
industrial and mission
Hesperian
D and Grand
El Portal and Via Casitas
Morningside
Harder/Patrick
b st
Elmhurst and Larchment
Hayward Blvd and tribune
Staley Ave
mlk and burbank
Mission
92 Fairview Ave
santa clara
Madeiros and Dst
Burbank St
Kay and Avondale
C & D street
Mission and Hampton
Tennyson
garin
Elmhurst and Townsend
Foothill
Dodge Ave
College Ave. & Patton St.
2nd street, Bland street
Valle Vista and Hub Lane
Mission/Highland
Industrial
B street center street and Kelly street
Garin and industrial blvd
5th and D
Hesperian Blvd, Turner Ct.

Hesperian
Winton and santa clara
Atherton St & D St
C and Myrtle St
C and Atherton
Mission and Carlos Bee
Hayward Blvd
Dublin Blvd/Hacienda
Bryon and Kelly
Mission Blvd & Lafayette
Hayward Blvd
B street
Mission blvd
hackermore/spur
Mission Blvd
Vanderbilt
Mission Blvd.

Garin
mission and industrial
Fairview
Hazel & Main
Fairview Ave and Five Canyons Pkwy
Tennyson and Mission
A st. and Montgomery St.

Mission and Alquire parkway
Harder Rd. & Huntwood Autobahn
redwood/grove
Prospect and Simon streets
Tampa
26460 mockingbird ln
Frey and Calaroga
Shaffer/Gading
Mission blvd and Fletcher ln
Jackson & Winton Ave
Tennyson
Thomas L Berkeley Way & Martin Luther King Jr Way
Second street and campus
Mission & Garin
Scotts creek Blvd and Milpitas blvd
B st
Tennyson and Mission
Rose, prospect
4th St and C St.
1st and d st.

B St
Tennyson
Huntwood and Meekland Avenues
harder
Ruus and Snowberry Ct

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: ACT 23-030
DATE: April 26, 2023
TO: Council Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Draft Local Road Safety Plan - Discussion and Recommendation to Council

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) reviews and comments on this report on the Draft Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and provides feedback and a recommendation to Council.

SUMMARY
This plan uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in Hayward, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions with an implementation plan. Ultimately, this LRSP creates a data-driven decision-making framework to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways.

The plan is organized into five main sections:
· Vision and Goals: Establishes a larger vision for transportation safety in Hayward and sets goals for how to get there.
· Plan Development: Details the collaborative and data-driven planning process that involved stakeholder and community engagement.
· Existing Conditions: Provides an analysis of traffic safety trends in Hayward. · Toolbox: Lists proven engineering countermeasures and strategies that can improve roadway safety.
· Recommendations and Implementation: Prioritizes short- and long-term projects and sets a strategy for assessing progress toward established goals. · Evaluation: Provides a framework for evaluating Hayward’s progress toward achieving the safety goals presented in this plan.

The plan also recommends site specific as well as systemic safety improvements, based on which, the City submitted an application for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 11 funding program.

CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/24/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #: ACT 23-030

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II LRSP Draft
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/24/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

DATE: April 26, 2023
TO: Council Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Draft Local Road Safety Plan – Discussion and Recommendation to Council

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) reviews and comments on this report on the Draft Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) and provides feedback and a recommendation to Council.

SUMMARY
This plan uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in Hayward, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions with an implementation plan. Ultimately, this LRSP creates a data-driven decision-making framework to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways.

The plan is organized into five main sections:
 Vision and Goals: Establishes a larger vision for transportation safety in Hayward and sets goals for how to get there.
 Plan Development: Details the collaborative and data-driven planning process that involved stakeholder and community engagement.
 Existing Conditions: Provides an analysis of traffic safety trends in Hayward.  Toolbox: Lists proven engineering countermeasures and strategies that can improve roadway safety.
 Recommendations and Implementation: Prioritizes short- and long-term projects and sets a strategy for assessing progress toward established goals.  Evaluation: Provides a framework for evaluating Hayward’s progress toward achieving the safety goals presented in this plan.

The plan also recommends site specific as well as systemic safety improvements, based on which, the City submitted an application for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 11 funding program.

BACKGROUND
LRSP is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports the City’s efforts to improve the safety of its transportation infrastructure for all modes and for

people of all ages and abilities. In order to pursue safety grant funds through the Highway Safety Improvement Program administered by Caltrans, a local agency must have a LRSP or equivalent planning document. This draft LRSP adopts a multi-disciplinary approach to traffic safety that creates partnership opportunities with stakeholders (including other agencies) who can help implement recommendations. The plan is also aligned with 2020- 2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan’s guiding principles that integrate social equity and encourage implementation of proven countermeasures and emerging technologies. The plan uses the Safe System approach endorsed by the United States Department of Transportation and Caltrans commitment to achieve its vision of no fatalities and severe injuries on California roadways by 2050.

The plan uses the Safe System approach to identify ways Hayward and identified partners can protect all roadway users. It identifies safety emphasis areas for the City and includes engineering and non-engineering recommendations to improve traffic safety in Hayward, especially in identified emphasis areas. This plan and its recommendations will help create a Safe System in Hayward.

DISCUSSION
Vision and Goals:

Based on the findings from the existing conditions analysis and feedback from the public, the project team developed a vision and goals for the plan.

Vision:

Identify safety improvements, strategies, and programs using the Safe System approach to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries.

Goals:

Identify emphasis areas contributing to fatal and severe injury crashes to prioritize investments in countermeasures and strategies:
 Define priority locations for safety improvements for all modes of travel.  Identify cost-effective countermeasures and safety improvements that can be applied systemically.
 Identify transportation safety programs and strategies using the Safe System Approach and work collaboratively with agencies and safety partners toward implementation.
 Monitor and evaluate emphasis areas and overall safety performance of the City’s transportation network.
 Identify locations that directly benefit the following populations or users: children, older adults (65 and over), equity priority communities, disadvantaged populations, and transit users (consistent with the Guiding Vision of the City’s Racial Equity Action Plan and the National Safety Council’s Road to Zero Coalition).

The project team then identified specific objectives under each of the goals, which are explained in more detail in Attachment II.

Vision Zero:

Vision Zero is a movement to eliminate all traffic-related deaths and severe injuries, which is at the core of this LRSP and aligns with larger statewide and national efforts to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. This plan has been designed with the ultimate goal of eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries on the City’s roadways by 2030. A Vision Zero-focused LRSP prioritizes collaboration, accountability, and equity in the planning and design process. One of the key elements of a Vision Zero approach is using data to drive analysis and strategy selection. This LRSP brings together data from crash history, roadway features, public engagement efforts, and demographic data to prioritize solutions and locations. Such robust data will help Hayward to be proactive rather than reactive, working to stop fatal and severe injury crashes before they happen.

Plan Development
Community and stakeholder engagement was key to the successful development of this plan. Stakeholders who can provide a diversity of viewpoints during the goals and emphasis area development and who will be appropriate parties for implementation action items were identified at the start of the project.

The project team engaged the public throughout the plan development process. Based on these discussions and findings from the data analysis, safety for vulnerable road users was identified as a key emphasis area for this safety plan. The project team used three methods to gather public input:
 Interactive webmap1: The team developed an interactive webmap for community members to mark areas with safety concerns. Respondents could flag areas on the high injury network with safety concerns based on their travel mode.  Community survey: The team developed an online survey with English and Spanish versions. Respondents were asked how and how often they use different travel modes and could rank priorities for safety improvements. Fifty-two people responded to the survey.
 Community events: The team set up booths at the Hayward Block Party and at the Hayward Farmers Market and connected with more than seventy community members individually to hear feedback (verbal, written and recorded on materials on-site).

Existing Conditions:

The existing conditions analysis was conducted to identify safety emphasis areas. Based on the emphasis area, the plan identifies appropriate engineering countermeasures and non- engineering strategies to reduce collisions. This analysis covered:
 Summary of Existing Safety-related Plans, Policies and Programs: The project team reviewed and summarized relevant safety-related plans, policies, and programs.  Review and Evaluation of Collision Data: The project team analyzed collision data from 2017-2021 and prepared a technical memorandum summarizing findings, including a list of high collision locations and crash risk factors. This memorandum included charts and exhibits illustrating key findings related to factors such as 1 http://maps.kittelson.com/Hayward-LRSP

personal attributes/human factors (e.g., driver impairment, behavior), vehicular and equipment factors (e.g., braking, occupant restraints), and roadway and environmental factors (e.g., speed limits, roadway geometric design).  Identification of High-Collision Locations: A citywide analysis was conducted to identify corridors and intersections with the highest concentration of collisions. A ranked list of high-collision intersections and roadway segments was prepared based on crash frequency and severity. This helps identify high-priority locations that are also competitive for further grant application cycles.  Field Observations: Based on the identified locations, the project team conducted field observations to develop potential engineering solutions.  Emphasis Areas: Based on the collision analysis, high collision locations, and field observations, the project team identified seven emphasis areas that deserve special focus and priority and help guide the LRSP’s recommended actions and implementation strategies. Emphasis areas represent crash factors whose reduction would have the greatest overall effect on traffic safety. The emphasis areas were as follows:
o Pedestrian safety
o Bicyclist safety
o Signalized and unsignalized intersections
o Unsafe speeding and aggressive driving
o Broadside crashes
o DUI crashes
o Roadway and lane departure crashes
Toolbox and Recommendations:

Countermeasures and Strategy Identification:

To build a system that is safe for all modes of transportation for users of all ages and abilities, the project team provided both proven engineering countermeasures and non- engineering strategies promoted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Plan Guidelines.

Engineering countermeasures include roadway improvements such as pavement markings, curb and median designs, signage, and traffic control, among others. Non-engineering strategies use tools including education, equitable enforcement strategies, and emerging technology to improve roadway safety. Both countermeasure types work together, creating the layers of safety that are critical to a Safe System.

Each countermeasure catered to addressing at least one out of the five identified emphasis areas to address the priority safety issues. The plan goes beyond the list of improvements and strategies and also identifies innovative ideas such as quick-builds, that are short-term and low-cost so that the City can implement them as pilot projects to improve roadway user safety.

Project Prioritization:

To demonstrate which intersections and roadways Hayward may prioritize, the project team developed a prioritization spreadsheet that scores each roadway and intersection on the high injury network according to its crash severity, a location-based social equity indicator score, and how many of Hayward’s seven emphasis areas were applicable to that area. The prioritization spreadsheet allows for different relative weights for each of the three factors relative to one another.

By focusing on emphasis areas, the City can be proactive. Rather than simply reacting to an abundance of reported crashes, the City can use the weighted scores to apply systemic safety improvements at locations with the greatest opportunity for safety benefits.

The LRSP includes a demonstration of the framework, showing a list of top twenty locations based on a scenario emphasizing crash severity and frequency with a weight of 20%, social equity and transit proximity a weight of 40%, and emphasis area presences a weight of 40%. The City may revise future prioritization based on city priorities or grant funding opportunities.

Safety Projects:

The project team identified safety projects at two sites on the high-injury network – Tennyson & Baldwin and Tennyson & Calaroga. The latter location was submitted for funding with the HSIP Cycle 11 call for projects. The project demonstrated a benefit-cost ratio of 14.79 – just below the cutoff of 18.0 for this cycle. The project concepts are included with the LRSP for the City to continue to refine, solicit input from the community, and advance.

Implementation Strategy:

To set up the City for success with clear guidance and a strong implementation strategy, the plan identifies action items and performance measures for implementation and eventual evaluation. The recommended action items and performance measures are aligned with plan goals. Near-term and long-term action items are listed with performance measures. In addition, the plan identifies a list of different funding sources—grants such as the Caltrans Active Transportation Program, HSIP, California Office of Traffic Safety, regional funding, and federal funding sources, which strategically positions the City to win grant funding.

Evaluation:

The plan includes a template and framework for evaluation to make it easy for the City to evaluate progress on its mission to eliminate traffic deaths by 2030.

ECONOMIC IMPACT
There is no economic impact related to this agenda item.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Local Road Safety Plan was funded by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) LRSP $90,000 grant program with a $10,000 City contribution from the

Transportation System Improvement Fund (Fund 460); therefore, there is no direct fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund related to this project.

STRATEGIC ROADMAP
This agenda item supports the Strategic Priority of Invest in Infrastructure. Specifically, this item relates to the implementation of the following project(s):

Project N2: Implement major corridor traffic calming initiatives

PUBLIC CONTACT
Two public outreach events were held to gather feedback from the residents. One at the Hayward Block Party on July 18, 2022. and the other one at the Hayward Farmers Market on August 20, 2022. The team connected with more than seventy community members individually to hear feedback (verbal, written and recorded on materials on-site).

At both these events, the team developed an interactive webmap2 for community members to mark areas with safety concerns. Respondents could flag areas on the high injury network with safety concerns based on their travel mode.

The team also developed an online survey with English and Spanish versions. Respondents were asked how and how often they use different travel modes and could rank priorities for safety improvements. Fifty-two people responded to the survey.

NEXT STEPS
Staff will receive and incorporate CIC recommendations in the final Plan that will be presented for Council approval at a future Council meeting.

Prepared by: Kathy Garcia, Deputy Director of Public Works Recommended by: Alex Ameri, Director of Public Works
Approved by:

Kelly McAdoo, City Manage
2 http://maps.kittelson.com/Hayward-LRSP
Local Road
Safety Plan
April 2023

ATTACHMENT II
i
Introduction ................................ .................... 1 Safer Streets for Everyone ..................................................... 1 Local Roads are the Key.......................................................... 2 Transitioning Traffic Safety Culture ...................................... 2 What’s in the Plan .................................................................... 7 Hayward’s Safety Emphasis Areas ........................................ 9 Vision & Goals ................................ ............... 11 Plan Vision ............................................................................. 11 Plan Goals .............................................................................. 12 Committed to Safety ............................................................ 12 Plan Development ................................ ........ 13 The LRSP Drafting Process .................................................. 13 Working Together ................................................................. 14 Safety Steps Hayward Already Takes................................. 16 Community Outreach .......................................................... 18 Existing Conditions ................................ ....... 25 Hayward Safety Today ......................................................... 25 About the Data ...................................................................... 25 Knowing Where to Help ....................................................... 27 High Injury Network ............................................................. 33 Emphasis Areas ..................................................................... 38 Recommendations ................................ ....... 41 Implementing Enforcement ................................................ 45 Prioritizing Safety & Equity .................................................. 46 Priority Locations .................................................................. 48 Engineering Countermeasures ........................................... 53 Project Ideas .......................................................................... 60 Implementation ................................ ........... 63 Evaluation ................................ ..................... 69 Performance Measures ....................................................... 70 Updating the Plan ................................................................. 73 Appendix A: Countermeasure Toolbox ..... 74
Appendix B: Project Concepts ................... 75
Appendix C: Prioritization Memo ............... 76
Appendix D: Funding ................................ ... 77 Federal Funding .................................................................... 78 State Funding ........................................................................ 81 ii
Figure 1: Safe System Approach Principles and Elements .... 3 Figure 2. Frequently Used Travel Modes .............................. 22 Figure 3. First-Ranked Priority Areas to Improve Safety, Based on Travel Mode Frequency ......................................... 23 Figure 4. First-Ranked Priority Locations to Improve Safety, Based on Travel Mode ............................................................. 24 Figure 5. Pedestrian Crashes by Pedestrian Action, 2017– 2021 ............................................................................................ 28 Figure 6: Priority Intersections and Roadways Map ............ 37 Figure 7. Top 20 Priority Intersections and Roadways with Test Scenario ............................................................................. 51 Figure 8. Disadvantaged Population Scores Used for Social Equity Input ............................................................................... 52 Table 1. Existing City Safety Efforts ........................................ 16 Table 2: Road Users and Crash Severity, 2017–2021 .......... 29 Table 3: Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Primary
Collision Factor .......................................................................... 32 Table 4: Top 30 Intersections .................................................. 35 Table 5. Recommendations by Safe System Category and
Emphasis Area .......................................................................... 42 Table 6. Top 20 Priority Locations with Test Scenario......... 49 Table 7. Intersection Safety Treatments ............................... 54 Table 8. Roadway Safety Treatments .................................... 56 Table 9. Pedestrian Safety Treatments ................................. 57 Table 10. Bicycle Safety Treatments ...................................... 59 Table 11. Three-Year and Five-Year Crash Averages by
Emphasis Area .......................................................................... 71 Table 12: Project and Program Implementation.................. 72 1 Safer Streets for Everyone
Everyone deserves to get home safely. To help Hayward
residents and visitors reach their destinations, this Local Road Safety Plan, or LRSP, identifies and analyzes safety on City-owned roadways and prioritizes improvements for
areas with the greatest safety challenges.

Local roads are a critical part of the Hayward community.

Despite being less traveled than State highways, local roads see a higher rate of fatal and severe injury crashes.
1 LRSPs
can help eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes on local roads by identifying where and why crashes happen.

1 Anderson et al. Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan, FHWA-SA-09-019, (2010).

PLAN VISION
Identify safety improvements, strategies, and
programs using the Safe System approach to
eliminate fatalities and severe injuries.
2 Local Roads are the Key
An LRSP assesses and identifies locations and strategies to improve local road safety. LRSPs take an interdisciplinary approach to traffic safety and rely on interagency and
community collaboration to implement recommendations.

A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proven safety
countermeasure, LRSPs provide crosscutting efforts to
prioritize investments.2 FHWA provides more than $2 billion each year in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
funds for States to address road safety challenges on all public roads.

In California, to pursue HSIP grant funds (estimated at $210 million for Cycle 11 in 2022), a local agency must have an LRSP or equivalent planning document. This LRSP helps
Hayward qualify for HSIP funds and gets the city one step closer to eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries on its roads.

Because every community has unique safety challenges,
this LRSP recommends a set of proven strategies and
countermeasures tailored to Hayward’s specific needs. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The City will
revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

2 FHWA maintains a list of Proven safety countermeasures with documented effectiveness in reducing roadway fatalities and severe injuries (totaling 28 at present). More information is available online at https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures.

Transitioning Traffic
Safety Culture
Vision Zero—a movement to eliminate all traffic-related deaths and severe injuries—and the Safe System
approach—a systems-based approach that can help put
Vision Zero into practice—are at the core of this LRSP and align with larger statewide and national efforts to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes.

The Safe System Approach
A Safe System approach works toward eliminating roadway deaths based on six key principles (see Figure 1):
• Deaths and severe injuries are unacceptable.
• Humans make mistakes.
• Humans are vulnerable.
• Responsibility is shared.
• Safety is proactive.
• Redundancy is critical.
3 Figure 1: Safe System Approach Principles and
Elements

A Safe System has five elements, or layers (see Figure 1):
• Safe Road Users —All road users, including
bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit-riders, should be
able to travel safely.
• Safe Vehicles —Vehicles should be designed and
regulated to reduce the frequency and severity of
crashes.
• Safe Speeds —The faster a vehicle is travelling, the
greater its risk to human life. Safe speeds are
speeds that reduce impact forces, improve stopping
time, and improve visibility.
• Safe Roads —Road design can accommodate human
mistakes and improve injury tolerances through
strategies such as physically separating those
travelling different speeds or using signage to alert
drivers of hazards.
• Post -Crash Care—If a crash does occur, first
responders must assess, stabilize, and transport
those who were injured. Forensic investigation or
incident management teams are also important
parts of post-crash care.

4 The United States Department of Transportation adopted the Safe System approach as its core strategy in January 2022.3 The following month, Caltrans released Director’s Policy 36, which commits the state to the Safe System
approach to achieve its vision of no fatalities and severe injuries on California’s roadways by 2050 and safer
outcomes for all communities.
4 These efforts build from the
FHWA’s promotion of the Safe System approach as a
strategy to eliminate all traffic deaths.

A Safe System approach helps this LRSP identify ways that Hayward and its partners can create layers and
redundancies in its local road network.
3 National Roadway Safety Strategy, United States Department of Transportation, January 2022 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National- Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf
4 California Department of Transportation Director’s Policy 36, February 15 2022 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf Together, Hayward and identified partners can
 Establish a vision, goals, and partnerships to help
implement the plan.
 Identify systemic engineering countermeasures and
use them proactively rather than reactively.
 Provide educational materials to communicate key
r
oadway safety information to residents and visitors.
 Review policies, guidelines, and standards to prioritize safety.
 Overlap roadway stakeholder efforts to create a
culture of traffic safety.
 Identify potential funding and coordination sources for project implementation.
 Evaluate what is working to achieve established vision and goals on an on-going basis.

It is important to understand that the City only has direct control over some Safe System elements. For example, the City cannot directly affect safe vehicle design and
regulation. For a robust Safe System, state and federal policy—like legislation to allow automated speed
enforcement and continued regulation of vehicle safety
standards—will be essential to build a system that is truly safe.
5 Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a local, national, and international movement to eliminate all traffic-related deaths and severe injuries.

The traditional approach to traffic safety views deaths and severe injuries as the cost of getting around. Now, instead of assuming crashes as inevitable, we understand that
death and severe injuries are preventable. By integrating layers of protection into its transportation system, a
community can protect all roadway users—even when they
make mistakes.

This plan has been designed with the ultimate goal of
eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries on the City’s roadways by 2030. A Vision Zero-focused LRSP prioritizes collaboration, accountability, and equity in the planning and design process. One of the key elements of a Vision Zero approach is using data to drive analysis and strategy selection. This LRSP brings together data from crash
history, roadway features, public engagement efforts, and demographic data to prioritize solutions and locations.

Such robust data will help Hayward to be proactive rather than reactive, working to stop fatal and severe injury
crashes before they happen.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) passed a Vision Zero policy in 2020 that identified actions to support cities like Hayward pursue Vision Zero goals.

By affirming a commitment to Vision Zero, the City is
committing to working to prioritize street safety and
eliminate traffic deaths in Hayward. It is an
acknowledgment that traffic deaths are preventable and
that even one is too many. The commitment means
building a safer transportation system and creating and sustaining a culture where residents, workers, and visitors prioritize traffic safety to ensure mistakes that happen on our streets do not result in death or severe injury. This plan will be implemented through coordination with identified safety partners comprised of both city agencies and
external parties.

The City of Hayward is committed
to working to prioritize street
safety and eliminate traffic
deaths on our roadways.
6 SHSP CHALLENGE AREAS
 Aging Drivers (65 and older)
 Bicyclists
 Commercial Vehicles
 Distracted Driving
 Impaired Driving
 Intersections
 Lane Departures
 Motorcyclists
 Occupant Protection
 Pedestrians
 Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
 Work Zones
 Young Drivers (15–20 years old)
high priority challenge area
Aligning with the Strategic Highway
Safety Plan ( SHSP)
The 2020–2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP) sets out California’s vision, goals, and objectives for reducing fatal and severe injury crashes on public roads (local roads and state highways). To draw this roadmap, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) led
efforts to analyze crash data and collaborate with traffic safety partners across the state. As a result, the SHSP identified 16 challenge areas, or areas with the most
potential to improve roadway safety. Of the challenge
areas, six were identified as high priority areas, or areas with the greatest opportunity to reduce death and severe injury.

Historically, the SHSP has used the five Es (education, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, and
emerging technologies) to organize strategies. In 2021, state transportation officials shifted focus and adopted guiding principles that integrate social equity, take a Safe System approach, and encourage proven countermeasures
and emerging technologies. This plan is aligned with the SHSP guidance.
7 What’s in the Plan
Using historical crash data, this LRSP assesses Hayward’s existing roadway conditions and local context; identifies areas for improvement; and recommends actions and an
implementation plan for the City and its safety partners.

This LRSP is organized into five sections:

Vision & Goals —Affirms the City of Hayward’s larger
vision for transportation safety and sets goals for how to get there.

Plan Development —Describes the collaborative and
data-driven process for creating the plan.

Existing Conditions —Analyzes counts, locations, and
causal factors for crashes in Hayward.

Recommendations —Presents specific strategies and
proven countermeasures for Hayward and its partners
to implement.

Implementation —Prioritizes strategies and actions
and sets performance measures to evaluate the City’s
progress toward its goals.

Evaluation —Presents actions the City of Hayward can
take to measure implementation progress and success
on the road to zero traffic deaths.

ABOUT THE DATA
This plan analyzed publicly reported crash data
from 2017–2021 and used that data to determine
crash totals and trends. Although reported crash
data is imperfect and has reporting gaps,
particularly when assigning injury level, these data
are the best available for this type of analysis.
8 9
Hayward’s Safety Emphasis Areas
After assessing the city’s historical crash data trends, the LRSP project team identified seven emphasis areas. These areas guided the plan’s development and determined
which actions and implementation strategies would be
most effective at reducing deaths and severe injuries on local roads:

Pedestrian Safety
Citywide, 30 percent of the city’s fatal and
severe injury crashes involved pedestrians; 53
people were killed or severely injured while
walking on Hayward roads. When pedestrians
are hit in Hayward, they are most often hit
crossing in a crosswalk at intersections by
drivers continuing straight rather than
turning. Tennyson Road, Mission Boulevard
and A Street have the highest incidence of
pedestrian crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
pedestrian crashes.

Bicyclist Safety
More than 90 percent of crashes that involve
bicyclists result in death or some level of
injury. Ten bicyclists (6 percent of citywide
fatal and severe injury crashes) were killed or
severely injured in crashes on Hayward roads.

Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and
severe injury bicyclist crashes.

Signalized and Unsignalized
Intersections
Citywide, 87 percent of reported crashes and
of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred at
intersections. Hesperian Boulevard, Tennyson
Road and Foothill Boulevard have the most
high-injury intersections.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
crashes occurring at signalized and
unsignalized intersections.

10 Speeding and
Aggressive Driving
Unsafe speeds were associated with 20
percent of Hayward’s fatal and severe injury
crashes. Seventy (70) percent of total reported
unsafe speeding crashes involved two motor
vehicles, and 23 percent involved a single
motor vehicle and a fixed object, like a tree or
utility pole. Speeding is one of the most
frequently cited contributing factors to the
city’s fatal and severe injury hit-object and
head-on crashes.

Objective : Reduce the number and severity of
crashes due to unsafe speeding.

Broadside Crashes
Almost one quarter of Hayward’s reported
crashes were broadside, where the front of
one vehicle hits the side of another. Most
frequently, broadside crashes are associated
with drivers violating traffic signals and signs
or automobile right of way. Mission
Boulevard, Hesperian Boulevard and D Street
see a high number of these types of crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
broadside crashes occurring due to
automobile right of way and traffic signals and
signs related violations.

DUI Crashes
More than 35 percent of Hayward’s reported
crashes and nearly a quarter of its fatal and
severe injury crashes involved driving under
the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs. In
about 65 percent of these crashes, the driver
hit another motor vehicle, and in 32 percent
of these crashes, the driver hit a fixed object.

Mission Boulevard, Hesperian Boulevard and
Tennyson Road see the highest number of
DUI crashes.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
crashes occurring due to driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs using the
recommendations in this plan.

Roadway and
Lane Departure Crashes
About 37 percent of Hayward’s high-injury
network crashes involved a vehicle leaving its
roadway or lane as part of a head-on, hit-
object, or sideswipe crash. About half of these
crashes occurred in the dark or low lighting
conditions. Mission Boulevard, Hesperian
Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard see a high
number of these crash types.

Objective: Reduce the number and severity of
roadway/lane departure crashes.
11 Plan Vision
The City of Hayward has centered this LRSP around a Vision Zero approach, which aims to eliminate all fatal and severe injury crashes.

This LRSP has established the following vision to achieve Vision Zero:

Identify safety improvements, strategies, and
programs using the Safe System approach to
eliminate fatalities and severe injuries.

12 Plan Goals
 Identify emphasis areas contributing to fatal and
severe injury crashes to prioritize investments in
countermeasures and strategies.
 Define priority locations for safety improvements for all modes of travel.
 Identify cost-effective countermeasures and safety
improvements that can be applied systemically.
 Identify transportation safety programs and strategies using the Safe System Approach and work
collaboratively with agencies and safety partners
toward implementation.
 Monitor and evaluate emphasis areas and overall
safety performance of the City’s transportation
network.
 Identify locations that directly benefit the following populations or users: children, older adults (65 and
over), equity priority communities, disadvantaged
populations, and transit users (consistent with the
Guiding Vision of the City’s Racial Equity Action Plan and the National Safety Council’s Road to Zero Coalition).

Committed to Safety
To achieve its vision and goals, the City of Hayward is committed to eliminating roadway fatalities and severe
injuries by 2050 and incorporating the Safe System
approach in future roadway safety efforts. The City will use data and strategies in this LRSP to prioritize traffic safety and reduce crash risk on City roadways.
13 This plan was developed in collaboration with City staff and using crash data and best practices resources.

The LRSP Drafting Process
Identify | Analyze | Prioritize | Implement | Evaluate
Choose Proven
Solutions
Implement
Solutions
Identify
Stakeholders
Collect Data
Analyze the Data to
Identify Overrepresented
Crash Types and
High-risk Areas
Source: FHWA, “Local Road Safety Plans,” (January 2021), https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/LRSPDIY/#. 14 Working Together
By nurturing longstanding partnerships with community
organizations and fostering new ones, Hayward can use
interagency cooperation and collaboration to work toward eliminating deaths and severe injuries on the local road network.

These agencies have been, or can be, valued safety
partners in implementing this LRSP:

Transportation Agencies
Transportation agencies and providers such as AC Transit, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and Caltrans can help identify engineering solutions at locations of shared interest, and they can help share and promote education campaigns.

Alameda CTC plans, programs, and allocates federal, state, regional, and local funding for transportation
improvements. Alameda CTC plans guide transportation
development and funding decisions to ensure the county’s transportation system can sustain the region’s growing
population. Their partnership will be vital to implementing the improvements recommended in this plan.

RECOMMENDED

SAFETY PARTNERS
 AC Transit
 Alameda County Transportation Commission
 BART
 Bike East Bay
 Caltrans
 Community Resources for Independent Living
 Emergency Services Providers
 Hayward Area Recreation and Park District
 Downtown Hayward Improvement Association
 Hayward Chamber of Commerce
 Hayward Fire
 Hayward Police Department
 Hayward Unified School District
 Senior Centers
 United Merchants Downtown Hayward

15 Community Groups , Local Organizations , & Care Homes Community groups can give feedback on safety issues and help facilitate better communication about safety
campaigns and future projects between the public and the City. Health advocacy or active transportation groups like Bike East Bay, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD), and Community Resources for Independent Living
(CRIL) can help coordinate education classes through
schools or at City-sponsored events. As safety liaisons, these partners help build trust between government
agencies and the public. Senior centers can help organize educational programs for drivers, pedestrians, and
bicyclists.

Local Business Organizations
The Hayward Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Hayward
Improvement Association and United Merchants
Downtown Hayward can help build trust between the City
and the public. Local business associations can also help the City tailor its engagement processes to engage
community members and stakeholders more effectively.

Police, Fire, & Emergency Services
Partnerships with first responders help the City proactively improve emergency response services and assess
proposed safety countermeasures. Hayward Fire
Department can help vet safety improvement projects for compatibility with emergency response times during the
design review process. The Hayward Police Department
Traffic Bureau forms enforcement location priorities based on its review of crash history. This partnership can be used to coordinate on emphasis areas and high-risk locations for road users.

School Districts
Hayward Unified School District (HUSD) can be partners in educational programs that encourage students, their
families, and staff to engage in safe transportation
behaviors.
16 Safety Steps Hayward Already Takes
This LRSP relies on Hayward’s strong foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of the City’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System and enhance traffic safety for all modes of transportation, see Table 1.

Table 1. Existing City Safety Efforts

PROGRAM NAME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENT S
City of Hayward’s
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
Program
The SR2S program works to make it easier and safer for students to walk and bike to school. The City partners with Hayward Unified School District, Alameda County Transportation Commission, and other community organizations.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
City of Hayward’s
Safe Routes for
Seniors (SR4S)
Program
SR4S Program helps identify areas in Hayward that need accessibility and walkability improvements. This is a collaborative program between the City, local senior housing facilities, senior centers, and community based organizations.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safety Awarenes s
Months
In May, the Hayward Police Department focuses on motorcyclist education and enforcement. In September, they focus on pedestrian safety. Funding for this program is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Safe Road Users
Shared Mobility
Feasibility Study
The city is currently developing a micromobility program that will provide alternative transportation options to all community members by creating safer streets and improving access to housing and regional transit hubs.

Consistent with City policy, the study’s feasibility analysis will have a racial equity lens to ensure equitable outcomes.

Safe Road Users
17 PROGRAM NAME PROGRAM DESCRIPTION SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENT S
Neighborhood
Traffic Calming
Program
This program helps City Staff, elected officials, and Hayward residents as they adjust to traffic calming policies and procedures. The program lists traffic calming strategies and prioritizes City investments.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
2020 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan (BPMP)
The updated BPMP includes recommendations to guide Hayward’s approach to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The update inventories existing conditions; analyzes existing barriers to walking and biking; provides program, policy, and infrastructure recommendations; and presents a prioritization framework to identify a tiered list of projects for implementation. The updated plan also identifies local biking and walking high-injury networks, or HINs, based on historical collision data.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
2040 General Plan The Mobility Element of the City’s 2040 General Plan includes goals and related policies that support transportation safety goals, including most directly:

Goal M-3: Provide complete streets that balance the diverse needs of users of the public right-of-way.

Goal M-5: Provide a universally accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated pedestrian system that promotes walking.

Goal M-6: Create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated bicycle system and support facilities throughout the city that encourage bicycling that is accessible to all.

Goal M-11: Balance the safe and efficient movement of goods with local access and circulation needs.

18 Community Outreach
The City cannot improve roadway safety in Hayward
without help from the public. The Plan includes community members’ experiences and concerns, gathered by LRSP
project team hosted pop-events, an interactive webmap,
and online survey results.

Pop-up Events
To understand how the community thinks about and
prioritizes safety, the LRSP project team set up booths at the Hayward Block Party and the Hayward Farmers Market.

Through these events, the team connected individually with more than 70 community members and learned where
they feel unsafe while driving, walking, biking, and taking transit and where they would like to see Hayward prioritize safety improvements.
 Hayward Block Party — August 18, 2022
 Hayward Farmers Market —August 20, 2022
Community visitors to project booths at the Hayward Farmers Market 19 Interactive Webmap
The project team developed an interactive webmap for
community members to mark areas with safety concerns.

Respondents can flag areas on the high injury network with safety concerns in one of four categories: walking, bicycling, driving, or using public transit.

The City of Hayward welcomes continued
feedback on the webmap.

You can access the webmap by visiting
https://maps.kittelson.com/Hayward-LRSP

20 COMMUNITY SAFETY CONCERNS
Community concerns shared on the webmap and in-person
events are organized thematically below.

Driving
 Drivers speed throughout the city.
 Addressing speeding around schools should be a
priority.
 Residents would like speed bumps or other traffic
calming measures.
 Residents see drivers run stop signs downtown and
feel unsafe driving.
 When drivers are in the wrong lane navigating to and
from freeways, they may make sudden lane changes
and put others in danger.

Walking
 Residents would like safer ways to cross the freeways.  There is a need for more crosswalks at schools and
new developments.
 Sidewalks around senior centers should be wider.

Biking
 Community members would like to have an updated
map of Hayward’s bike facilities to understand how to
get around safely.
 Many do not bike because of a lack of bicycle facilities.

Residents said they would bike if they felt safer biking in the city.

Lighting & Visibility
 Community members do not feel safe navigating the
streets at night due to poor visibility; more or better lighting would help.
 Trees block sightlines on some roads and make it
difficult to turn onto larger roadways.

21 Survey
The project team developed an online survey with both
English and Spanish versions. Respondents were asked
how and how often they use different travel modes
(including driving alone, walking, carpooling, taking
paratransit, riding a bike, and riding scooters). They also could rank city priorities for safety improvements and give feedback on where the first improvements should be
made.

A total of 52 people took the survey (48 in English and 4 in Spanish). When asked how frequently respondents used
different modes of travel, the majority responded that they most frequently drove alone and walked (see Figure 2).

Respondents said they would like the City to prioritize addressing vehicles running red lights, speeding, and
turning at two-way stop-controlled intersections (see Figure 3). Respondents who walk as their primary mode of
transportation frequently prioritized pedestrian and bicycle safety more than those who primarily drive.

Respondents indicated they would like to see Hayward
make safety improvements where crashes have been
reported, where people who choose to bike or walk are at risk, and where streets are the busiest (see Figure 4).

Respondents who stated that they walked frequently also showed a more of a priority for addressing safety where pedestrians and bicyclists were more at risk.

SURVEY RESULTS
52 Responses
Top Concerns:

Vehicles running red lights
Speeding
Turning at two -way
stop -controlled intersections
22 HOW HAYWARD RESIDENTS GET AROUND
Figure 2. Frequently Used Travel Modes

Note: (n=52) “Frequent” means using the travel mode multiple times a week. Respondents could choose multiple modes of travel.

23 HAYWARD RESIDENTS’ SAFETY PRIORITIES
Figure 3. First -Ranked Priority Areas to Improve Safety, Based on Travel Mode Frequency

24 WHERE HAYWARD RESIDENTS THINK THE CITY SHOULD PRIORITIZE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Figure 4. First -Ranked Priority Locations to Improve Safety , Based on Travel Mode

25 Hayward Safety Today
This section presents a snapshot of crashes in Hayward to better understand where, when, and why crashes happen
and who was involved. This information helps maximize the City’s safety improvement efforts.

About the Data
Data for this analysis come from reported crashes available on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) from January 1, 2017, through December 31,
2021. Data from 2021 are provisional.

IN HAYWARD FROM 2017 THROUGH 2021 ,

CRASHES KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED
110 drivers or passengers
53 pedestrians
10 bicyclists

26 Understanding Crash Severity
Crash severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury experienced.

Fatal —A person dies due to injuries sustained in the crash.

Severe Injury —A person has major, visible injuries like broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.”
Moderate Injury —A person has significant and visible
injuries like bruises or minor lacerations. Moderate injury crashes are sometimes referred to as “other visible injury” crashes.

Minor Injury —A person has injuries that are not apparent from the outside. Examples include limps, neck pain, or confusion. Minor injury crashes are sometimes referred to as “complaint of pain” or “suspected injury” crashes.

Property Damage Only (PDO) —No injuries were
sustained.

In this analysis, fatal and severe injury crashes are
generally grouped together because the difference
between death and a severe injury can depend on
factors such as emergency response time or the
victim’s health rather than the crash type.

HOW HAYWARD IN 2020 COMPARED

TO OTHER CALIFORNIA CITIES
Percentile rank among 61 similar sized cities—a higher
percentile means more crashes in that category.

Source: California Office of Traffic Safety; data compares Hayward to 61 other comparably-sized California cities. 27 Knowing Where to Help
Analyzing crash location and crash type helps the City
maximize its limited resources by putting the right safety improvement in the right place.

Where Crashes Happen

SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTIONS
Most crashes in Hayward occur at intersections. In addition to being more frequent, intersection crashes are also more likely to be severe compared to segment crashes: 87
percent of intersection crashes have fatalities or severe injuries, compared to 13 percent of segment crashes.

Fatal and severe injury crashes at signalized intersections on the arterial network are associated with drivers failing to follow traffic control. These crashes are also associated with hit-object crashes, especially when unsafe speed was a contributing factor. This suggests that arterial
characteristics—more lanes and more speeds—are
associated with crash frequency and severity on these
roadways.

Fatal and severe injury crashes at unsignalized
intersections on the arterial network are associated with violations of the automobile right of way, indicating that drivers may struggle to judge gaps in traffic when turning onto or off a street.

INTERSECTIONS ARE THE SITE OF
87% of fatal or severe injury crashes
93% of broadside crashes
90% of vehicle -pedestrian crashes
85% of head -on crashes
79% of hit object crashes
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Location

About 1/3 of fatal and severe injury crashes occur at
an intersection and involve a pedestrian or bicyclist.
28 Vulnerable Road Users

PEOPLE WALKING, BIKING, AND RIDING

MOTORCYCLES
People walking, biking, riding a motorcycle, or any other form of rolling are all vulnerable road users. When traveling on foot, by bike, or by motorcycle, the human body has less protection from crash forces, especially if it comes into conflict with a motor vehicle. All three groups are
overrepresented in the city’s fatal and severe injury crashes (see Table 2).

In Hayward, pedestrians are most often struck while
crossing in a crosswalk at intersections by drivers
continuing straight rather than turning (see Figure 5). About half of all pedestrian crashes involved people not crossing in a crosswalk or being struck in the road or shoulder.

When people do not have available crossing opportunities or encounter sidewalk gaps, they are more likely to risk unsafe, midblock crossings or walk along the edges of
roads.

From 2017 through 2021, there were 108 crashes that
involved bicyclists. More than 90 percent of these crashes resulted in fatalities or some type of injury. Most bicycle crashes are broadside crashes, and most bicyclists were traveling straight before being hit.

Figure 5. Pedestrian Crashes by Pedestrian Action ,
2017–2021

Source: SWITRS, TIMS
Note: “Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection” includes controlled and uncontrolled crosswalk locations. There were no reported pedestrian crashes with the following pedestrian actions: approaching/leaving school bus, crossing in crosswalk not at intersection, and not stated
Pedestrians are involved in 8 % of
reported crashes but 30 % of fatal and
severe injury crashes.

Motorcyclists are involved in
4% of reported crashes but represent
18% of fatal and severe injury crashes.
29 Table 2: Road Users and Crash Severity , 2017–2021

ROAD USERS INVOLVED CRASH COUNT SHARE OF TOTAL REPORTED Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Injury
Property
Damage
Only
Share of Fatal and
Severe Injury Crashes
(% of Column)
Share of All Reported
Severity Levels
(% of Column)
Pedestrian 16 37 195 11 30% 8%
Bicycl ist 2 8 89 9 6% 3%
Motorcycl ist 6 27 83 18 18% 4%
Motor Vehicle Only or
Vehicle -Fixed Object 12 71 901 1727 46% 85%
Total Reported Crashes 35 142 1,266 1,764 100% 100%
Source: SWITRS
Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the values in the table because some crashes involve more than one of the following: bicyclist, motorcyclist, and pedestrian. 30 When Crashes Happen

DUSK, DAWN, AND NIGHTTIME
There is a correlation between fatal and severe injury
crashes with both time of day and lighting conditions. Fatal and severe injury crashes more frequently occur at night or during twilight hours and during dusk/dawn conditions.

In Hayward, pedestrians are more frequently injured or
killed in dark or dusk/dawn conditions, and pedestrian
crashes are concentrated during the evening peak travel periods. A higher share of fatal and severe injury bicycle crashes occur in dark or dusk/dawn conditions.

Crash Types and Causal Factors
In Hayward, four crash types most frequently result in fatal or severe injuries; collectively, these four crash types account for 75 percent of all fatal and severe injury crashes in the city:
 Vehicle and pedestrian
 Broadside
 Hit-object
 Head-on

5 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes. These codes indicate a failure to adhere to traffic control, such as running a stop sign or red signal.

Three primary collision factors (PCFs) are frequently cited for Hayward’s fatal and severe injury crashes; together, these three PCFs account for 44 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes (see Table 3):
 Unsafe speed
 Traffic signals and
signs violations5
 Driving or bicycling
under the influence
of alcohol or drugs

WHAT IS A PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR?
Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor
(PCF) for each crash. Officers have several PCFs to
choose from when filing a report, and these PCFs
correspond to California Vehicle Code (CVC)
violations. Officer’s use their best judgment and
information available at the scene to select the single factor they deem most relevant to the crash.
58% of fatal and
severe injury crashes
occur between
6:00 PM and 12:00 AM.

31 SPEEDING
Driver speed is a contributing factor in many fatal and severe injury crashes, as unsafe speeds were associated with 20 percent of fatal and severe injury crashes,
particularly hit-object and head-on crashes.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
Vehicle and pedestrian crashes are most frequently
associated with vehicles violating pedestrian right-of-way and pedestrian violations (28 and 35 percent, respectively).

Broadside crashes are largely associated with traffic signal and sign violations or automobile right-of-way violations (33 percent and 25 percent, respectively).6

ALCOHOL & DRUGS
Alcohol and drug involvement is a common contributing
factor in fatal and severe injury crashes. Alcohol and drugs contribute to 36 percent of all of Hayward’s crashes and 23 percent of its fatal and severe injury crashes. More than 20 percent of head-on crashes are associated with alcohol and drug use.7

6 Traffic signs and signals is a PCF that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes. These codes indicate a failure to adhere to traffic control, such as running a stop sign or red signal indication). Automobile right of way is a PCF that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes. These codes indicate a failure to yield right- of-way to conflicting traffic.
7 According to the California Highway Patrol Collision Investigation Manual (Revised 2003), “When the involved party, considered by the officer to be most at fault, is driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the PCF shall be [driving under the influence], regardless of any other violation.” Unsa fe speeds are associated with 20%
of fatal and severe injury crashes.

About 28% of vehicle and pedestrian
crashes are associated with a vehicle
violating the pedestrian right -of-way.

Alcohol and drugs contribute to
23% of Hayward’s fatal and
severe injury crashes.
32 Table 3: Fatal and Severe Injury Crash es by Primary Collision Factor

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR

CRASH TYPE
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
(n = 46)
Broadside
(% of Column)
(n = 36)
Hit Object
(% of Column)
(n = 26)
Head On
(% of Column)
(n = 25)
Automobile Right of Way 0% 25% 0% 5%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 7% 6% 28% 23% Improper Turning 2% 6% 8% 9%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 0% 3% 8% 9%
Pedestrian Right of Way 28% 0% 0% 9%
Pedestrian Violation 35% 0% 0% 5%
Traffic Signals and Signs 7% 33% 0% 14%
Unsafe Speed 2% 11% 40% 18%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 7% 3% 0% 0%
Other PCF or Unknown 1 13% 14% 16% 9%
Total Reported Crashes 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: SWITRS, TIMS
1 Other PCFs include: Other improper driving, improper passing, unsafe lane change, wrong side of road, and other hazardous violation. These constitute less than five percent of all crash types and were consolidated for table legibility.

Note: Green shaded cells indicate the most frequent PCFs for a given crash type. Additionally, totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 33 High Injury Network
To better understand where crashes were happening, the
project team mapped Hayward’s intersections and
roadways according to crash frequency and severity from 2017 to 2021 (see Figure 3). Crashes were weighted
according to severity. Intersections and roadways were
then organized by their collective crash severity score to align with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
priorities. The map reveals the city’s high injury network (HIN), or the system of intersections and segments that see the highest share of fatal and severe injury crashes
citywide.

Roadway segments are organized into Tier 1 and Tier 2
high-injury locations, based on crash severity score. Tier 1 segments have the highest crash severity in Hayward
between 2017 and 2021; Tier 2 segments rank the second
highest in terms of crash severity.

HAYWARD HIN

30 priority intersections

47+ roadway miles

Accounts for 75% of all reported
fatal and injury crashes

TIER
1 Most severe
6 centerline miles
25% of fatal and severe injury crashes
2% of total network
Second most severe
41 centerline miles
50% of fatal and severe injury crashes
16% of total network
TIER
2 34

SCORING CRASH SEVERITY
(Number of Fatal Crashes
× Fatal Weight)
+ (Number of Severe Injury Crashes ×
Severe Injury Weight)
+ (Number of Moderate
Injury Crashes
× Moderate Injury Weight)
+ (Number of Minor Injury Crashes ×
Minor Injury Weight)
+ Property Damage Only Crashes
= Crash Severity Score
HIN roadways and intersections
are concentrated in the
downtown area.

Despite being just 10 % of the
city’s centerline miles,
arterials with posted speeds
of at least 35 miles per hour
make up 48 % of the HIN.

35 Table 4: Top 30 Intersections

RANK LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE
TOTAL

NUMBER OF

CRASHES

FATAL/SEVERE
INJURY

CRASHES
1 Tennyson Rd & Baldwin St Unsignalized 119.2 7 3
2 Foothill Blvd/ Mission Blvd & Jackson St Signalized 110.5 27 4 3 Tennyson Rd & Calaroga Ave Signalized 90.0 18 3
4 A St & Victory Dr Signalized 79.9 8 3
5 Huntwood Ave & Montana Way Unsignalized 77.5 3 2
6 Hesperian Blvd & Sleepy Hollow Ave Signalized 77.3 10 3 7 Hesperian Blvd & Turner Ct Signalized 75.0 8 3
8 A St & Hesperian Blvd Signalized 70.0 27 2
9 Tennyson Rd & Huntwood Ave Signalized 64.0 23 2
10 Industrial Pkwy & Ruus Rd Signalized 63.9 16 2
11 A St & Western Blvd Signalized 62.9 17 2
12 Mission Blvd & Orchard Ave/ Carlos Bee Blvd Signalized 62.9 22 2 13 CA-185 & B St Signalized 59.7 16 2
14 Industrial Pkwy & Arrowhead Way/ Dixon St Signalized 57.5 15 2 15 A St & Montgomery St Signalized 57.3 9 2
16 Tennyson Rd & 12 St/Dixon St Signalized 56.0 12 2
17 A St & Hesperian Blvd Signalized 55.0 9 2
36 RANK LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE
TOTAL

NUMBER OF

CRASHES

FATAL/SEVERE
INJURY

CRASHES
18 Hesperian Blvd & Longwood Ave/ Skywest Dr Signalized 53.2 8 2 19 Hesperian Blvd & Tripaldi Way/
Eden Shores Blvd Signalized 50.8 6 2
20 Tennyson Rd & Ruus Rd Signalized 50.6 15 2
21 Foothill Blvd & Grove Way Signalized 50.2 32 1
22 Hesperian Blvd & West St Signalized 49.4 4 2
23 Jackson St & Tarman Ave Unsignalized 49.3 12 1
24 Hesperian Blvd & Tahoe Ave Unsignalized 48.9 10 1
25 Jackson St & Alice St Unsignalized 48.8 10 1
26 Gading Rd & Huntwood Way Unsignalized 48.1 11 1
27 Santa Clara St & Jackson St Signalized 47.5 29 1
28 Foothill Blvd & Kimball Ave Unsignalized 46.6 8 1
29 Industrial Pkwy & Addison Way Unsignalized 46.0 6 1
30 Hesperian Blvd & Oliver Dr Unsignalized 44.6 8 1
37 Figure 6: Priority Intersections and Roadway s Map
75% of Hayward’s
fatal and severe
injury crashes occur
on just 14% of its
roadway network.

38 Emphasis Areas
Using information from the safety analysis and Hayward’s HIN (Figure 6, Table 4), the project team developed seven emphasis areas. These emphasis areas help the City know what areas need the most attention. They guide LRSP
recommendations and project prioritization, so the City can maximize its limited resources to be most effective in
improving traffic safety. These emphasis areas also help Hayward play its part in creating a Safe System for
California by aligning with six of California’s SHSP high priority areas: bicyclists, impaired driving, intersections, lane departures, pedestrians, and speed
management/aggressive driving.

According to the city’s crash patterns and high-injury
network, the following emphasis areas have the greatest potential to improve roadway safety throughout Hayward:
 Pedestrian Safety
 Bicyclist Safety
 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
 Unsafe Speeding and Aggressive Driving
 Broadside Crashes
 DUI Crashes
 Roadway and Lane Departure Crashes

39 Pedestrian Safety
Citywide, 30 percent of the city’s fatal and
severe injury crashes involved pedestrians; 53
people were killed or severely injured while
walking on Hayward roads. When pedestrians
are hit in Hayward, they are most often hit
crossing in a crosswalk at intersections by
drivers continuing straight rather than
turning. Tennyson Road, Mission Boulevard
and A Street have the highest incidence of
pedestrian crashes.

Objective : Reduce the number and severity of
pedestrian crashes.

Bicyclist Safety
More than 90 percent of crashes that involve
bicyclists result in death or some level of
injury. Ten bicyclists (6 percent of citywide
crashes) were killed or severely injured in
crashes on Hayward roads.

Objective : Reduce the number of fatal and
severe injury bicyclist crashes.

Signalized and
Unsignalized Intersections
Citywide, 87 percent of reported crashes and
of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred at
intersections. Hesperian Boulevard, Tennyson
Road and Foothill Boulevard have the most
high-injury intersections.

Objective : Reduce the number and severity of
crashes occurring at signalized and
unsignalized intersections.

Speeding and
Aggressive Driving
Unsafe speeds were associated with 20
percent of Hayward’s fatal and severe injury
crashes. Seventy (70) percent of total reported
unsafe speeding crashes involved two motor
vehicles, and 23 percent involved a single
motor vehicle and a fixed object, like a tree or
utility pole. Speeding is one of the most
frequently cited contributing factors to the
city’s fatal and severe injury hit-object and
head-on crashes.

Objective : Reduce the number and severity of
crashes due to unsafe speeding.

40 Broadside Crashes
Almost one quarter of Hayward’s reported
crashes were broadside, where the front of
one vehicle hits the side of another. Most
frequently, broadside crashes are associated
with drivers violating traffic signals and signs
or automobile right of way. Mission
Boulevard, Hesperian Boulevard and D Street
see a high number of these types of crashes.

Objective : Reduce the number and severity of
broadside crashes occurring due to
automobile right of way and traffic signals and
signs related violations.

DUI Crashes
More than 35 percent of Hayward’s reported
crashes and nearly a quarter of its fatal and
severe injury crashes involved driving under
the influence (DUI) of alcohol or drugs. In
about 65 percent of these crashes, the driver
hit another motor vehicle, and in 32 percent
of these crashes, the driver hit a fixed object.

Mission Boulevard, Hesperian Boulevard and
Tennyson Road see the highest number of
DUI crashes.

Objective : Reduce the number and severity of
crashes occurring due to driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs.

Roadway and
Lane Departure Crashes
About 37 percent of Hayward’s high-injury
network crashes involved a vehicle leaving its
roadway or lane as part of a head-on, hit-
object, or sideswipe crash. About half of these
crashes occurred in the dark or low lighting
conditions. Mission Boulevard, Hesperian
Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard see a high
number of these crash types.

Objective : Reduce the number and severity of
roadway/lane departure crashes

41 The following recommendations will help the City spend its limited funds to build a Safe System for Hayward.

Recommendations are based on the identified high injury network (Figure 6, Table 4) and cut across emphasis areas and include engineering countermeasures and policies and program strategies to help educate community members
and improve emergency response times.

Recommendations were also chosen to be consistent with
the City of Hayward 2020 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Countermeasures are engineering
infrastructure improvements that can be
implemented to reduce the risk of crashes.

Strategies are non-engineering
recommendations that can help address
the other portions of a Safe System and
build a culture of safety in Hayward.

42 Table 5. Recommendations by Safe System Category and Emphasis Area SAFE
SYSTEM

CATEGORY

RECOMMENDATION

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

INTERSECTION SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEEDING

AND AGGRESSIVE

DRIVING

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY / LANE

DEPARTURE CRASHES
Safe Roads
and Safe
Speeds
Implement engineering countermeasures, especially
pedestrian conspicuity enhancements.8 See recommended
countermeasures in Tables 7–10 and in Appendix A for
individual countermeasures and applicability to emphasis areas.

X X X X X X X
Review and modify City design policies, guidelines, and standards to improve safety implementation. X X X X X X X Safe Road
Users
Conduct public education and outreach to raise awareness of emphasis areas. X X X X X X X
Develop education materials related to roadway design
changes and distribute them through local partners who can serve as community safety liaisons.

X X X X X X X
Provide or support training to improve bicycle handling skills for bicyclists of all ages. X
Promote and support Share the Road awareness programs;
Safe Routes to School; and Cycling Skills Clinics, Bike Fairs, and Bike Rodeos.

X X

8 Enhancing conspicuity for pedestrians increases the opportunity for drivers to see and avoid pedestrians, particularly when it is dark.

43 SAFE
SYSTEM

CATEGORY

RECOMMENDATION

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

INTERSECTION SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEEDING

AND AGGRESSIVE

DRIVING

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY / LANE

DEPARTURE CRASHES
Target enforcement toward aggressive driving while
monitoring and evaluating enforcement activities for social equity impacts.

X X X X X X
Coordinate to provide highly visible patrols with promotion and publicity such as saturation patrols, and sobriety
checkpoints.

X X
Post -Crash
Care
Coordinate with emergency medical services (EMS) to
continue to consider response times in project design and implementation, and through engineering and operational solutions.

X X X X X X X
Implement emergency vehicle signal preemption, which
allows emergency vehicles to break a normal signal cycle and proceed through an intersection.

X X X X X X X
Emerging
Technologies
Implement pedestrian detection.9 X
Implement bicycle activated signal detection with loop
detectors, bicycle signal heads, and optimized signal timing for bicyclists.

X

9 Pedestrian detection is an intersection treatment that senses when a pedestrian is waiting at a crosswalk and automatically triggers the pedestrian "WALK" phase. This treatment can reduce crossings at inappropriate times and helps ensure pedestrians have enough time to safely cross the roadway.

44 SAFE
SYSTEM

CATEGORY

RECOMMENDATION

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

INTERSECTION SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEEDING

AND AGGRESSIVE

DRIVING

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY / LANE

DEPARTURE CRASHES
Consider signal systems that provide dynamic timing to
respond to real-time traffic patterns and help prevent
crashes.

X X
Consider using intelligent speed adaptation for city-owned vehicles.10 X X
Consider adoption of ignition interlock devices to prevent city-owned vehicles from starting if alcohol is detected in the driver's breath and the use the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program.11
X

10 Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) involves in-vehicle devices that know the speed limit through accurate speed limit mapping and vehicle location data. These devices provide a warning or trigger active controls to help prevent speeding above limits. 11 An alcohol ignition interlock prevents a vehicle from starting unless the driver provides a breath sample with a breath alcohol content (BrAC) lower than a pre-set level, usually .02. Interlocks typically are used as a condition of probation for DWI offenders to prevent them from driving while impaired by alcohol after their driver’s licenses have been reinstated. The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS, see www.dadss.org/) program is a collaborative research partnership between the automotive industry and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess and develop alcohol-detection technologies that prevent vehicles from being driven when driver blood alcohol contents (BACs) exceed the illegal limit of .08 g/dL.

45 Implementing Enforcement
Even when engineering countermeasures and other safe
system-aligned approaches like those in Table 5 are
implemented, road users can fail to follow traffic laws resulting in crashes of varying severity. Traditionally, communities have relied on police enforcement to promote the rules of the road and reduce traffic crashes. However, most enforcement strategies have limited long-term
impacts on changing road user behavior. The most effective enforcement strategies tend to be those that are done
transparently, consistently, and in coordination with
education or outreach campaigns, such as enforcement in school zones during school hours.

National studies of police traffic stops have shown racial bias in who gets stopped and subsequently searched, with Black and Hispanic drivers more likely to be searched than people of other races and ethnicities.
12 Because of these
biases, enforcement strategies should be carefully weighed for the risk that they could erode community relations and undercut broader efforts for community health and safety.

12 Stanford Open Policing Project. Retrieved from: https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings and Pierson, E., Simoiu, C., Overgoor, J. et al. A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States.

Hum Behav 4, 736–745 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0858-1 13 Sandra C. Lapham, Laura Ring Kapitula, Janet C’de Baca, Garnett P. McMillan. Impaired-driving recidivism among repeat offenders following an intensive court-based intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2006. Pages 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.08.00

The following equity-focused initiatives may complement enforcement strategies:
 Encouraging strategies that educate and promote
learning about road user behavior
 Incorporating social equity and demographic
considerations into enforcement locations to avoid
targeting communities
 Pursuing tiered fines for moving violations based on the ability to pay
 Allocating enforcement revenue with dedicated funding for outreach and community engagement
 Increase access and expand referrals to driver diversion classes and a DUI intensive supervision program as an
alternative to traditional sanctions13

46 Prioritizing Safety & Equity
Prioritization Factors
To demonstrate which intersections and roadways
Hayward may prioritize, the project team developed a
prioritization spreadsheet that scores each roadway and intersection on the high injury network (Figure 6, Table 4) according to its crash severity, a location-based social equity indicator score, and how many of Hayward’s seven emphasis areas were applicable to that area. The
prioritization spreadsheet allows for different relative weights for each of the three factors relative to one
another.

The City could consider elevating the social equity, transit, and emphasis areas above the severity score for a few
reasons:

1. Severity scores had already been applied once as
part of the HIN identification process.

2. Elevating social equity allows Hayward to invest in
neighborhoods and locations that have historically
lacked investment and that face overlapping social,
economic, and safety challenges.

By focusing on emphasis areas, the City can be proactive.

Rather than simply reacting to an abundance of reported crashes, the City can use the weighted scores to apply
systemic safety improvements at locations with the
greatest opportunity for safety benefits.

EMPHASIS AREAS

PRIORITIZATION WEIGHTS
Pedestrian
Safety
Bicyclist
Safety
Signalized and
Unsignalized
Intersections
Speeding and
Aggressive
Driving
Broadside
Crashes
DUI
Crashes
Roadway and
Lane Departure
Crashes

47 Equity Scoring
Social equity, which includes factors such as income level, age, race, etc., scores indicate geographic areas with a high percentage of residents with transportation challenges or burdens, including less access to services, goods,
employment, medical facilities, and education. Some
demographic characteristics can make a community more
likely to lack access to transportation services and
therefore to basic needs.

To prioritize social equity, this LRSP developed and
calculated a transportation disadvantaged population (TDP) index score for each census block group in the city. Using the most recent five-year American Community Survey data (2016–2020), the TDP score reviewed each of Hayward’s
census block groups for the following people and groups (emphasis areas):
 Communities of color
 Populations with income less than double the federal
poverty rate
 Populations with limited English proficiency
 Zero-vehicle households
 Seniors over 75
 Youth under 10
 Populations with disabilities
 Single-parent families
 Overburdened renters14

14 Overburdened renters pay more than 30 percent of household income in housing costs.

These scores help the City of Hayward quantify
overlapping characteristics at the neighborhood level
today and plan for equitable implementation of safety
improvements in the future. The City now has a tool that allows location prioritization to include any individual factor listed above or an aggregate score (TDP) combining all nine factors. With this tool, the City can identify and prioritize locations based on social equity variables and match those locations and the communities they serve to different funding opportunities. For more about this tool’s application, see Appendix C.

48 Priority Locations
This LRSP developed a list of 20 priority locations using a test scenario. The scenario was run with severity score as 20 percent of the final score, social equity and transit proximity 40 percent, and emphasis areas 40 percent.

Improvements at these locations have the most potential to address challenges associated with crash severity,
transportation equity, and Hayward’s emphasis areas. This list of locations represents just one weighting priority.

Locations can be prioritized in different ways, depending on the intended outcome. For example, project identification for an HSIP grant would likely prioritize based on crash severity score more heavily. Alternatively, the City may wish to prioritize locations with just one of the social equity inputs, like locations with larger elderly populations. As a result of this plan, the City may use this prioritization tool to help prioritize locations based on different factors. Table 6 and Figure 7 show the resulting top locations with the test weights. Figure 8 shows the TDP index social equity scores that input into the prioritization.

49 Table 6. Top 20 Priority Locations with Test Scenario RANK ID# LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE

ANNUALIZED
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE 1
TDP
INDEX
SCORE

EMPHASIS
AREA
SUM

AGGREGATED
SCORE
1 R3 A St from 2nd St to Hesperian
Blvd
Arterial
Roadway 177.8 1.5 3 83.6
2 R6 Mission Blvd from D St to
Palisade St
Arterial
Roadway 121.9 1.3 5 81.1
3 R43 Silva Ave from Meek Ave to
Leighton St
Arterial
Roadway 42.8 1.5 4 78.8
4 I15 A St & Montgomery St Signalized
Intersection 57.3 1.5 5 75.0
5 I2 Foothill Blvd/Mission Blvd &
Jackson St
Signalized
Intersection 110.5 1.3 7 74.7
6 R18
Mission Blvd from Grove Way
to A St and from Palisade St to
Industrial Pkwy
Arterial
Roadway 88.3 1.8 2 73.3
7 R13 Winton Ave from Cabot Blvd to
Soto Rd
Arterial
Roadway 101.9 1.5 3 72.6
8 I16 Tennyson Rd & 12 St/Dixon St Signalized
Intersection 56.0 1.4 4 71.8
9 I8 A St & Foothill Blvd Signalized
Intersection 70.0 1.4 6 70.9
10 R11 Foothill Blvd from Hazel Ave to
A St
Arterial
Roadway 102.8 1.4 3 69.7
10 R24 E St from Main St to East Ave Arterial
Roadway 67.3 1.4 3 69.7
10 R1 Foothill Blvd from A St to D St Arterial
Roadway 253.5 1.4 3 69.7

50 RANK ID# LOCATION LOCATION
TYPE

ANNUALIZED
CRASH

SEVERITY
SCORE 1
TDP
INDEX
SCORE

EMPHASIS
AREA
SUM

AGGREGATED
SCORE
13 I30 Hesperian Blvd & Oliver Dr Signalized
Intersection 44.6 1.5 5 68.9
14 I11 A St & Western Blvd Signalized
Intersection 62.9 1.4 4 66.9
15 R10
Hesperian Blvd from Golf
Course Rd to Southland Dr;
and from Cathy Way to Arf Ave
Arterial
Roadway 110.8 1.5 2 66.6
16 I9 Tennyson Rd & Huntwood Ave Signalized
Intersection 64.0 1.5 5 66.4
17 I4 A St & Victory Dr Signalized
Intersection 79.9 1.4 5 66.1
18 R4 Tennyson Rd from Pompano
Ave to Ruus Rd
Arterial
Roadway 133.7 1.5 2 65.4
19 R5 B St from 2nd St to Filbert St Arterial
Roadway 124.0 1.5 2 64.8
20 I14 Industrial Pkwy & Arrowhead
Way/Dixon St
Signalized
Intersection 57.5 1.8 3 64.1
1 Severity score is calculated based on Caltrans costs of crash outcomes and is normalized to be expressed in terms of equivalent property damage only crashes (PDOs). The relative severity values are as follows: fatal and severe injury crashes are 119.9 equivalent PDOs at signalized intersections, 190.8 at unsignalized intersections, and 165.2 along roadways; moderate injuries are 10.7; and minor injuries are 6.1. For example, a signalized intersection with an annualized crash severity score of 48, could represent the equivalent of 48 PDO crashes per year, 2 fatal and/or severe injury crashes over 5 years (119.9 × 2/5 = 48), or some combination of severity levels resulting in the same score.

51 Figure 7. Top 20 Priority Intersections and Roadways with Test Scenario

52 Figure 8. Disadvantaged Population Scores Used for Social Equity I nput

53 Engineering Countermeasures
This LRSP recommends engineering countermeasures
designed to maximize Hayward’s investments according to the city’s safety emphasis areas. More detail on these
countermeasures can be found in Appendix A.

For a full list of the Federal Highway Administration’s proven safety countermeasures, visit
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/.

Throughout this section, look
for this shield, which
denotes that a
recommendation is a proven
safety countermeasure.

PROVEN SAFETY

COUNTERMEASURES
A key component of this LRSP, proven safety
countermeasures are a set of tools and
strategies that are effective in reducing fatal and
severe injuries on roadways. These tools
address speed management, roadway
departure crashes, intersections, and pedestrian
and bicyclist safety. Some proven
countermeasures—like local road safety plans—
cut across categories.

54 Table 7. Intersection Safety Treatments

COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID DESCRIPTION COST*

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY

ARTERIALS

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY/LANE

DEPARTURE CRASHES
K01 Modify lane geometry: reduce multiple
turn lanes to one turn lane $ 5 X X X X X
K02 Restrict right turns on red $ 3 X X X
K03 Refresh pavement markings $ 4 X X X X
K08 Implement protected intersection
elements $–$$$ 4 X X X X
K16 Restrict parking near intersections, also
called daylighting $ 5 X X X X X
NS01,
S01 Add intersection lighting $ 5 X X X X X
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement
markings $ 4 X X X X
NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection $–$$$ 3 X X X

55 COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID DESCRIPTION COST*

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY

ARTERIALS

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY/LANE

DEPARTURE CRASHES
NS15,
S14
Create directional median openings to
allow (and restrict) left turns and U-turns $–$$ 2 X X S02
Improve signal hardware, with
improvements such as larger lenses and
back-plates with retroreflective borders
$ 3 X X X
S03
Adjust signal timing parameters (red-
and-yellow change intervals, bicycle
clearance times, etc.) to increase
clearance times
$ 4 X X X X
S07 Provide protected left-turn phase $ 4 X X X X
S08 Convert signal to mast arm from
pedestal-mounted $–$$$ 3 X X X
S11 Improve pavement friction using high
friction surface treatments $$ 2 X X
*$ — $50,000 or less; $$ — $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ — $100,000 or more

56 Table 8. Roadway Safety Treatments

COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID DESCRIPTION COST*

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY

ARTERIALS

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY/

LANE DEPARTURE

CRASHES
K09 Implement one-way to two-way
conversion $$-$$$ 5 X X X X X
R14
Reduce travel lanes and add a two-way
left-turn and bike lanes, also called a
road diet
$ 6 X X X X X X
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or
object markers $ 1 X
R30 Install centerline rumble strips and/or
stripes $-$$$ 1 X
R31 Install edgeline rumble strips and/or
stripes $-$$$ 1 X
$ - $50,000 or less; $$ - $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ - $100,000 or more

57 Table 9. Pedestrian Safety Treatments

COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID DESCRIPTION COST*

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY

ARTERIALS

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY/LANE

DEPARTURE CRASHES
K05 Install curb extension $–$$$ 3 X X X
K11 Install continuous raised medians or
hardened centerlines
$–$$ 5 X X X X X
K12 Reduce curb radius $–$$$ 3 X X X
K13 Stripe high-visibility crosswalk
markings
$ 2 X X
K17 Install raised crosswalk $$ 3 X X X
NS19PB Install raised medians and/or refuge
islands
$–$$ 3 X X X
NS20PB,
S18PB
Install new pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations
$ 2 X X
NS23PB Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon
$$$ 2 X X

58 COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID DESCRIPTION COST*

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEED ON CITY

ARTERIALS

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY/LANE

DEPARTURE CRASHES
S19PB Modify signal timing to provide a
pedestrian scramble signal phase
$ 1 X
S21PB
Modify signal phasing to implement
a leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
phase
$
X
$ — $50,000 or less; $$ — $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ — $100,000 or more

59 Table 10. Bicycle Safety Treatments

COUNTERMEASURES EMPHASIS AREAS ADDRESSED
ID DESCRIPTION COST*

NUMBER OF

EMPHASIS
AREAS

ADDRESSED

INTERSECTION SAFETY

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY

BICYCLIST SAFETY

UNSAFE SPEED ON

CITY ARTERIALS

BROADSIDE CRASHES

DUI CRASHES

ROADWAY/

LANE DEPARTURE

CRASHES
K10 Stripe bicycle lane extension through
intersection $ 3 X X X
K14 Modify signal phasing to implement
a leading bicycle interval phase $ 2 X X
K18
Stripe two-stage bicycle turn queue
box and adjust signal timing
accordingly
$ 1 X
R33PB Install separated bike lanes $–$$ 2 X X
S20PB Stripe advance stop bar and bicycle
box before crosswalk $ 4 X X X X
$ - $50,000 or less; $$ - $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ - $100,000 or more

60 Project Ideas
This section offers two examples of ways that the City of Hayward can use targeted safety improvements to help
reduce fatal and severe injury crashes on its roadways.

Tennyson Road has a high number of high-injury
intersections, both signalized and unsignalized (Figure 6, Table 4). To reduce risk of future fatal and severe injury crashes, the City can install treatments designed specifically for each intersection. These exhibits demonstrate applying the recommended countermeasures presented in Tables 7–
10 to create a safety project concept. For more on these concepts, see Appendix B.

61 EMPHASIS AREAS
Tennyson & Baldw in
Unsignalized Intersection
CRASHES , 2017 –2021
 7 Total
 3 Fatal and Severe Injury: All Pedestrians
 4 Pedestrian Crashes
 1 Bicyclist Crash
 1 Hit Object Crash
 4 Night Crashes, 2 were Fatal and Severe Injury

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon [HAWK])
NS19PB Install raised medians/refuge islands (NS.I.)
NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and markings only)
NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
NS15 Create directional median openings to allow
(and restrict) left turns and U-turns (NS.I.)
K10 Stripe bicycle lane through intersection
K12 Reduce curb radius
K13 Stripe high-visibility crosswalk markings
K17 Install raised crosswalk

62 Tennyson & Calaroga
Signalized Intersection | A Top 20 Priority Location
CRASHES , 2017 –2021
 18 Total
 3 Fatal and Severe Injury: 1 Motorcyclist, 1 Signal
Violation, 1 Broadside
 4 Signal Violation Crashes
 7 Broadside Crashes
 4 Night Crashes
 2 Aggressive Driving Crashes

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a leading
pedestrian interval (LPI)
K01 Modify lane geometry: consider eliminating one
right-turn lane
S08 Convert signal to mast arm from pedestal-
mounted
S11 Improve pavement friction using high friction
surface treatments
S01 Add intersection lighting
S02 Improve signal hardware with lenses, back-plates
with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number
K02 Restrict right turns on red
K03 Refresh pavement markings
K10 Stripe bicycle lane extension through
intersection
K12 Reduce curb radius
K13 Stripe high-visibility crosswalk markings
K14 Modify signal phasing to implement a leading
bicycle interval phase
K17 Install raised crosswalk
S03 Adjust signal timing parameters (red-and-yellow
change intervals, bicycle clearance times, etc.) to
increase clearance times

EMPHASIS AREAS

63 This LRSP is a living document and should be updated every three to five years. The plan must be monitored for
progress to ensure emphasis area issues are being
addressed and whether new strategies are needed.

Monitoring will help provide accountability and keep
various safety partners engaged throughout the
implementation phase of the plan.

By implementing roadway improvements alongside
changes in programming, policy, and funding, the City and its traffic safety partners can work together to improve road safety in Hayward. This section identifies a
comprehensive set of action items that address emphasis areas to grow Hayward’s traffic safety culture.

Implementation actions are organized by plan goal and
grouped by time: near-term actions, which the City can
initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time. Appendix D includes funding sources to assist the City in identifying opportunities to fund recommendations. Several of the
funding sources include programmatic time to allow for the additional staff time necessary to implement this LRSP’s recommendations.

Each action item has been marked with its key partners, emphasis areas, Safe System elements, and performance
measures.

64 ACTION ITEM 1

PLAN GOALS
 Identify emphasis areas contributing to fatal and
severe injury collisions to prioritize investments
in countermeasures and strategies.
 Periodically monitor and evaluate emphasis
areas and overall safety performance of the
City’s transportation network.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
 Prioritize and implement strategies
and improvements aligned to the
identified emphasis areas.

SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
 Safe Road Users
 Safe Roads
 Safe Speeds

TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Near-Term &
Ongoing
 Commit to zero fatalities and severe injuries by 2030.  Review and modify City design policies, guidelines,
and standards to improve safety implementation.
 Annually review crash data to evaluate progress on
emphasis areas and for fatal and severe injury crash
frequency at all locations.
 Total and per capita city fatal and
severe injury crashes, including by
emphasis area
 Before and after data on number
of violations observed per
emphasis area
Long-Term &
Ongoing
 Update the LRSP every 3-5 years using the most
recent crash data and performance measures.
 Integrate LRSP emphasis area actions and priorities
into future General Plan, bike and ped plan, other
City planning efforts, and as input to Safe Routes to
Schools plans
 Citywide fatality and severe injury
rate compared to statewide goals
 Crash history along identified HIN,
including by emphasis area

PARTNERS
 City Public Works
& Utilities
 City Development
Services, Planning
Division
 Dublin Unified
School District
 Hayward PD

65 ACTION ITEM 2

PLAN GOALS
 Define priority locations for safety improvements
for all modes of travel.
 Identify locations that directly benefit the
following populations or users: children, older
adults (65 and older), equity priority communities,
disadvantaged populations, and transit users.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
 Prioritize locations on the HIN for
safety improvements (Figure 6,
Table 4)

SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
 Safe Road Users
 Safe Roads
 Safe Speeds

TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Near-Term &
Ongoing  Pursue HSIP Cycle 11 and SS4A grant funding.
 Review all current and planned projects along the
identified HIN for potential safety improvements.
 Track implementation of on-going safety improvements
 Grant money awarded for
safety improvements
 Annual number of locations
with implemented safety
improvements
Long-Term & Ongoing
 Take a strategic approach to pursuing grant funding
opportunities by using the prioritization tool to identify and target top locations aligned with funding
opportunities and other City priorities.
 Review developments along or adjacent to the
identified HIN for safety improvement opportunities.
 Proactively track grant opportunities and pursue safety project grants with each available funding cycle.
 Conduct periodic roadway safety assessments of
locations along the HIN for unsafe speed and
automobile right-of-way violations.
 Number of winning grant
applications submitted
 Funding secured for
improvements for all HIN
locations
 Number of collisions due to
unsafe speed and automobile
right-of-way violations
 Speed survey results
 Crash history along HIN,
including by emphasis area

PARTNERS
 City’s Public
Works & Utilities
Department
 Alameda County
Transportation
Commission
(Alameda CTC)
 Hayward Police
Department
 Emergency
Service Providers
 Caltrans

66 ACTION ITEM 3

PLAN GOAL
 Identify cost-effective countermeasures and safety
improvements that can be applied systemically.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
 Implement systemic and cost-
effective countermeasures aligned
to the identified emphasis areas.

SAFE SYSTEM

ELEMENTS
 Safe Road Users
 Safe Roads
 Safe Speeds
 Post-Crash Care TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Near-Term &
Ongoing
 Prioritize and implement systemic
countermeasures and strategies focused on
addressing the plan’s emphasis areas (refer to
Table 7 through Table 10).
 Implement systemic pedestrian and bicyclist safety
improvements at HIN locations using funding.
 Number of intersections and
roadway segments with
implemented safety improvements
 Annual number of pedestrian and
bicycle crashes occurring on the HIN
 Changes in emergency response
time over time
Long-Term & Ongoing
 Consider implementing identified low-cost,
systemic countermeasures identified in this plan as
part of projects (such as during development
review, repaving, and beginning of new projects)
 Integrate systemic safety improvements into
maintenance, capital improvement program, and
other project development processes
 Apply for grant funding to support systemic safety
implementation.
 Implement advance emergency vehicle signal
preemption, which allows emergency vehicles to
break a normal signal cycle and proceed through
an intersection.
 Coordinate with AC Transit and BART on potential
safety improvements in relation to bus service and
BART station access.
 Before and after data on the annual
number of fatalities and severe
injuries on HIN
 Number of locations with
implemented safety improvements
annually
 Before and after data on emergency
response time

PARTNERS
 City’s Public
Works & Utilities
Department
 Emergency
Services Providers
 AC Transit
 BART

67 ACTION ITEM 4

PLAN GOAL
 Identify transportation safety programs and
strategies using the Safe System Approach and
work collaboratively with agencies and safety
partners toward implementation.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
 Work with identified safety partners
to implement the Safe System
recommendations in this plan.

SAFE SYS TEM

ELEMENTS
 Safe Road Users
 Safe Speeds
 Safe Vehicles

TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Near-Term & Ongoing
 Identify partners for public education and outreach
opportunities to raise awareness of identified
emphasis areas: pedestrian safety, bicyclist safety,
motorcyclist safety, and aggressive and impaired
driving.
 Share the LRSP and its goals and objectives with
safety partners.
 Establish a Safety Task Force that includes the
identified partners in this plan.
 Successful communication
established with partners to initiate
task force
 Regular communication with
identified partners, meetings with
agendas and action items
 Regular monthly meetings of the
Safety Task Force
 Safety Task Force activity and
participation (e.g., in City Council
meetings)

PARTNERS
 City’s Public
Works & Utilities
Department
 Hayward Police
Department
 BART
 Bike East Bay
 Caltrans
 Community
Resources for
Independent
Living (CRIL)
 Emergency
Services Providers
 Hayward Area
Recreation and
Park District
(HARD)

68 TERM ACTION PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Long-Term & Ongoing
 Partner with task force members to promote and
expand educational campaigns for roadway safety,
including specific campaigns for walking and
biking.
 Develop safety messaging and campaigns to
reduce impaired driving.
 Conduct or coordinate to provide educational
trainings at schools on driving under the influence
and aggressive driving.
 Establish roadway safety messaging to share
through City media accounts throughout the year.
 Develop multilingual comprehensive roadway
safety education programs to develop a safety
culture in the City.
 Revisit and revise educational campaign
opportunities based on crash trends and patterns.

 Number of trainings conducted
 Number of students participating in
trainings
 Number of public information and
outreach events conducted
 Number of attendees in each
organized training

PARTNERS
(CONTINUED)
 Hayward
Chamber of
Commerce
 Hayward Fire
 Hayward Police
Department
 Hayward Unified
School District
 Senior Centers
 United Merchants
Downtown
Hayward

ACTION ITEM 4 (CONTINUED)

69 This section presents measures the City can use to evaluate implementation progress and the success of the plan
toward a goal of zero traffic deaths.

The City can use the following measures to evaluate goal progress and safety performance improvements:
 Total number of fatal and severe injury crashes on
City roads
 Number of fatal and severe injury crashes on City
roads by the following emphasis areas:
• Pedestrian Safety
• Bicyclist Safety
• Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Safety
• Speeding and Aggressive Driving
• Broadside Crashes
• DUI Crashes
• Roadway and Lane Departure Crashes
• Children under 10
• Adults over 75
 Surrogate safety measures , including:
• Speed data at locations (particularly on the high
injury network) over time
• Speed limits, including any speed limit reductions
undertaken
 Number of recommended non -engineering activities
completed
• Engagement activities held, including location of
events and number of community members
engaged
• Number of projects improving safety, including the
location of projects and each project’s budget.

Summarize the projects and any grant funding
received to fund the projects. (These may be
standalone safety projects or other project types
with a safety element incorporated, e.g., a restriping
project that adds a separated bike lane.)

70 The performance measures related to the number of
crashes on City roads would be based on the latest three- and five-year annual average to normalize for random
fluctuations in crashes on a year-over-year basis.

The City is also committed to updating the LRSP every five- years as new crash data becomes available and safety
countermeasures are implemented on the roadway
network.

Performance Measures
The City will report two sets of measures to track
performance. The first set of measures are crash frequency statistics that will help the City measure the outcomes of the investments in roadway safety. The second set of
measures track progress in implementing projects and
programs.

For the first set of performance measures, the City will report three- and five-year averages of the number of
crashes and the number of fatal and severe crashes for
total crashes and emphasis area crashes (Table 11). The City will report both total reported crashes and fatal and severe crashes; however, the City’s goals are specifically to reduce fatal and severe crashes which are life-altering events. For the statistics, the City will report the relative change in the statistics compared to the five-year average reported in the LRSP (2023). See Table 11 as an example table to fill out as part of evaluation.

71 Table 11. Three -Year and Five -Year Crash Averages by Emphasis Area 2023 LRSP 5-YEAR LRSP UPDATE
Three -Year Average
(2019–2021)
Five -Year Average
(2017–2021)
Three -Year Average
(2024–2026)
Five -Year Average
(2022–2026)
Emphasis Areas Total
Crashes
Fatal/Severe
Crashes
Total
Crashes
Fatal/Severe
Crashes
Total
Crashes
Fatal/Severe
Crashes
Total
Crashes
Fatal/Severe
Crashes
Pedestrian Safety 92 25 177 40
Bicyclist Safety 39 7 68 8
Signalized &
Unsignalized
Intersections
329 33 654 52
Speeding and
Aggressive Driving 235 17 450 30
Broadside Crashes 268 24 472 34
DUI Crashes 120 8 199 15
Roadway and Lane
Departure Crashes 420 30 702 48
Crashes Involving
Adults over 65
Crashes Involving
Children under 10
Total Reported
Crashes * 1,600 104 2,823 173
* total reported crashes are all crashes that occurred within the City of Hayward and are not a sum of the total crashes across emphasis areas.

72 The second set of performance measures are designed to track project and program implementation (Table 12).

These may be refined based on coordination with safety
partners identified in the plan to understand how best to measure the efforts and set appropriate goals.

Table 12: Project and Program Implementation

EFFORTS TYPE NUMBER

COMPLETED
Roadway Safety
Improvement
Projects Completed
Engineering
Non-Engineering
Programs
Completed
E.g., Education or
Data
Improvement

Report
Effectiveness of
Completed Projects
Reporting /
Transparency

For roadway safety improvement projects, the City will
describe the set of improvements, locations where the
projects were implemented, expected benefits (i.e.,
potential crash reduction or nature of reduced crash risk) based on the countermeasures incorporated.

In addition to this table, the City will report:
 the number and type of non-engineering efforts,
 name of the program(s),
 a description of the program(s) and implementation
 number of people reached with the key messages or
educational materials.
 Efforts taken to promote social equity in programs

73 Accountability
The City will report on its performance measures in an
annual report and present the performance measures to
the City Council and/or Council Infrastructure Committee every three years. For each measure, the City will report if the City is
ahead of schedule, on schedule, or behind
schedule.

The City will provide a brief written explanation and
approach for closing the performance gap for any
performance measure where the City is behind schedule.

The information from the annual reports can be used to
update the LRSP every five years.

Action Items
Each year the City will:
 Calculate and report performance measures
 Release report annually to the public
 Present the report triennially to the City Council and/or Council Infrastructure Committee
 Conduct a meeting with identified safety partners in
which the City reports on performance results and
identifies upcoming efforts

Updating the Plan
This plan was developed from crash data from 2017
through 2021. Performance towards goals can be updated
as a new year of crash data is considered complete (crash reporting takes time to appear in crash databases and so often lags present day by six months to a year). Updating the LRSP to include revised emphasis areas and treatments can occur on a three- to five-year basis. The updates
provide an opportunity to reflect changes to the roadway network and safety performance, as well as additional
safety partner and stakeholder outreach. The City, in
conjunction with identified safety partners, can assess the plan and determine what updated trends and technologies may determine if an update to the plan is needed. As new strategies are identified, the group of safety partners may update goals and should assign champions for specific
strategies and action items.

74 75

76 77

78 Both Federal and State agencies offer funding for regional and local transportation projects, policies, and programs. Because the City of Hayward has limited internal funding, this LRSP will increase the City’s ability to secure funding to implement much- needed safety strategies.

Federal Funding
Congestion Management & Air Quality (CMAQ)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program provides flexible funding for State and local governments’ transportation projects and programs to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments.

CMAQ money supports transportation projects that reduce mobile source emissions in areas designated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be in nonattainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards.

See MTC’s One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program for how CMAQ funding is distributed within the nine-county Bay Area. OBAG disburses federal funds in accordance with MTC’s regional transportation priorities and associated land-use and housing goals. https://www.transportation.gov/sustainability/climate/federal-programs-directory-congestion-mitigation-and-air-quality-cmaq Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program
FHWA
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act converts the long-standing Surface Transportation Program (STP) into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). The STBG provides flexible funding address State and local transportation needs. Funding may be used to preserve and improve conditions and performance on the following: Federal- aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on qualifying public roads; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital

79 projects, including intercity bus terminals. OBAG disburses federal funds in accordance with MTC’s regional transportation priorities and associated land-use and housing goals.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
National Park Service
The LWCF matches grants for states and local governments to acquire and develop public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The LWCF has provided more than $16.7 billion to state and local governments to acquire new federal recreation lands. Projects can include open space acquisition, small city and neighborhood park development, and trail or greenway construction.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program National Park Service
The RTCA program supports community-led natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation projects nationwide. The National Park Service helps community groups, nonprofits, Tribes, and State and local governments design trails and parks, conserve and improve river access, protect special places, and create recreation opportunities. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/index.htm

OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS
Because the continued existence of these grant programs is at the discretion of Congress, research the current state of funding before considering these sources.

80 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
The RAISE Discretionary Grant program provides a unique opportunity for USDOT to invest in road, rail, transit, and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Previously known as Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants, the eligibility requirements of RAISE allow project sponsors at the state and local levels to obtain funding for multimodal, multi- jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional department of transportation programs. https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant
USDOT
The INFRA Grants program funds transportation projects that focus on rebuilding existing infrastructure. To be eligible, projects must be on the National Highway System; a railway/highway grade separation project; a freight project that is rail or intermodal; or improve freight movement within an intermodal facility. Most governmental bodies (e.g., unit of local government, port authority, groups of jurisdictions) are eligible applicants. Minimum awards for large projects are $25 million and $5 million for small projects.
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/infra-grants-program Infrastructure Jobs and Investment Act (IIJA)
USDOT
The bipartisan IIJA provides the basis for FHWA programs and activities through September 30, 2026. The IIJA makes a once-in- a-generation investment of $350 billion in highway programs and includes the largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the Interstate Highway System. New programs under the law focus on rehabilitating bridges in critical need of repair, reducing carbon emissions, increasing system resilience, removing barriers to connecting communities, and improving mobility and access to economic opportunity. Many of the new programs include eligibility for local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Tribes, and other public authorities.

81 One program, the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program, has appropriated $5 billion over the next five years, with up to $1 billion available in fiscal year 2022. Funding is available for the following activities:
 Comprehensive safety action plans
 Planning, design, and development activities in support of an Action Plan (like this LRSP)  Projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan (like this LRSP) For a list of funding-eligible activities, visit https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/. For more on SS4A, visit https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A.

State Funding
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
SB1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, is a long-term transportation reform and funding package. The bill includes new revenues that address a variety of transportation projects, such as road safety improvements, street repair, transit, and roadway and bridge construction. SB 1 provides more than $5 billion annually to transportation projects throughout California.
http://rebuildingca.ca.gov/
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Caltrans
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the core federal-aid programs in the federal surface transportation act, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST). HSIP aims to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads—including non-State-owned public roads and roads on Tribal land—by funding eligible projects such as crosswalk markings, rapid flashing beacons, curb extensions, speed feedback signs, guard rails, pedestrian refuge islands, slurry seal, and other pavement markings.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program

82 Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety
OTS strives to eliminate traffic deaths and injuries by granting funds to local and state public agencies for programs that enforce traffic laws, educate the public in traffic safety, and provide varied and effective means of reducing fatalities, injuries, and economic losses from crashes.
https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/
Active Transporta tion Program (ATP) Grants
California Transportation Commission (CTC)
The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single discretionary grant program that focuses on making California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP aims to encourage active transportation by increasing the proportion of trips made by bicycle or on foot; increasing non-motorized user safety; reducing greenhouse gases; enhancing public health; and ensuring that disadvantaged communities share fully in program benefits. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program State -Local Partnership Program ( LPP)
CTC
Created by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 through SB1, the Local Partnership Program (LPP) annually appropriates $200 million from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees. Funds are awarded for road maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects. LPP also funds local and regional agency projects that improve aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, and health and safety.

Consistent with the intent behind SB1, the CTC intends this program to balance the need to direct increased revenue to the State’s highest transportation needs and the need to fairly distributing the economic impact of increased funding. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/local-partnership-program

83 Sustain able Transportation Grant Program
Caltrans
The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program was created to support the Caltrans mission: provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. Eligible planning projects must have a transportation nexus and ideally demonstrate that they directly benefit the multimodal transportation system. Sustainable Communities Grants will also improve public health, social equity, environmental justice, the environment, and provide other important community benefits.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/regional-planning/sustainable-transportation-planning-grants State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
Caltrans
SHOPP is the “fix-it-first” program from the State Highway System (SHS). SHOPP funds repair and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements on the SHS. Although SHOPP is intended for projects on statutorily designated State-owned roads, highways (including the interstate system), and bridges, it can be used for associated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Revenues for the SHOPP are generated by federal and State gas taxes and are fiscally constrained by the State Transportation Improvement Program Fund Estimate that is produced by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highway-operation-protection-program-shopp-minor-program- shopp
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
CTC
The STIP is a biennial, five-year plan adopted by the CTC for future allocations of certain State transportation funds for State highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements. State law requires the CTC to update the STIP biennially, on even-numbered years, with each new STIP adding two new years to prior programming commitments.

CTC staff recommendations are based on the combined programming capacity for the Public Transportation Account (PTA) 84 a
nd State Highway Account (SHA) as identified in the fund estimate adopted by the CTC. To be included in the STIP that is adopted by the CTC, projects must first be nominated by the MTC in its Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), or by Caltrans in its Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state- transportation-improvement-program
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
California Department of Parks and Recreation
RTP annually provides federal funds for recreational trails and trail-related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the FHWA and at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP). Eligible non-motorized projects include acquisition of easements and fee simple title to property for recreational trails and recreational trail corridors; and development or rehabilitation of trails, trailside, and trailhead facilities. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program California Strategic Growth Council
The AHSC program aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through projects that implement land-use, housing, transportation, and agricultural land preservation practices to support infill and compact development and that support related and coordinated public policy objectives. The AHSC program includes transportation focuses related to reducing air pollution, improving conditions in disadvantaged communities, supporting or improving public health, improving connectivity and access to jobs, increasing options for mobility, and increasing transit ridership. Funding for the AHSC Program is provided from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to receive cap-and-trade auction proceeds. https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/
85 Transformative Clim ate Communities (TCC) Program
California Strategic Growth Council
Established by Assembly Bill 2722, the TCC program funds development and implementation of neighborhood-level transformative climate community plans that include multiple coordinated greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects that provide local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities. The TCC Program helps realize the State’s vision of vibrant communities and landscapes and demonstrates how meaningful community engagement coupled with strategic investments in transportation, housing, food, energy, natural resources, and waste can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, advance social and health equity, and enhance economic opportunity and community resilience. The TCC Program funds both implementation and planning grants. While the program can fund a variety of projects, transportation-related projects can include developing active transportation and public transit projects; supporting transit ridership programs and transit passes for low-income riders; expanding first/last mile connections; building safe and accessible biking and walking routes; and encouraging education and planning activities to promote increased use of active transportation modes.
https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Grant Program California Natural Resources Agency
The EEM program authorizes the California State Legislature to allocate up to $7 million each fiscal year from the Highway Users Tax Account. EEM projects must contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities. The EEM Program does not generally fund commute-related trails or similar bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. However, EEM does fund recreational and nature trails as part of storm water management or green infrastructure projects. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/environmental-enhancement-mitigation 86 Urban Greening Grant Program
California Natural Resources Agency
Part of the California State Senate Bill 859, the Urban Greening Program is funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other benefits. To maximize economic, environmental, and public benefits, priority is given to projects in disadvantaged communities. The Urban Greening Program funds projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing energy consumption, and reducing vehicle miles traveled while transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective at creating healthy and vibrant communities. These projects will establish and enhance parks and open space by using natural solutions to improve air and water quality, reducing energy consumption, and creating more walkable and bikeable trails.
https://files.resources.ca.gov/grants/urban-greening/
Environmental Justice (EJ) Small Grants Program
California Environmental Protection Agency
EJ Small Grants provide funding to help eligible non-profit community organizations and federally-recognized Tribal governments address environmental justice issues in areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and hazards. EJ Small Grants are awarded on a competitive basis with a maximum amount $50,000 per grant. EJ Small Grants can be used for a variety of environmental purposes and to augment community engagement, health, trainings, and programmatic opportunities in underserved communities.
https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/funding/

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: ACT 23-029
DATE: April 26, 2023
TO: Council Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Director of Public Works

SUBJECT
Proposed 2023 Agenda Planning Calendar: Review and Comment

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council Infrastructure Committee (CIC) reviews and comments on this report.

SUMMARY
The proposed 2023 agenda planning calendar contains planned agenda topics for the Committee meetings for the CIC’s consideration. This agenda item is included in every Council Infrastructure Committee agenda and reflects any modifications to the planning calendar, including additions, rescheduled items, and/or cancelled items.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 4/24/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™