common goals and strategies for oakland transit

8/15/2019 Common Goals and Strategies for Oakland Transit

1/62

COMMON GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR OAKLAND TRANSIT May

2016

Common Goals and Strategies forOakland Transit

AN ANALYSIS TO FIND TRANSIT CONSENSUSDANA RUBIN


2/62

COMMON GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR OAKLAND TRANSIT

2

THE REPORT:

I. FIGURES & TABLES & PHOTOSII. PURPOSE & GOALS

III. STATE OF OAKLAND TRANSIT

i. RIDERSHIP

ii. FREQUENCY AND CAPACITYIV. THE BENEFITS OF TRANSIT

i. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OAKLAND

ii. SB 375: A STATE MANDATE

V. NEW APPROACHES TO TRANSIT PLANNING

i. TRANSIT COORDINATIONii. METHODS FOR COORDINATION

VI. PLAN ASSESSMENT

i. METHODOLOGY Iii. ASSESSING THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS

VII. DOCUMENT ANALYSISVIII. INTERVIEW ASSESSMENT

i. METHODOLOGY II

ii. INTERVIEW SYNOPSIS

IX. DISCUSSION WITH MATRIX: COMMON GOALS FOR OAKLAND TRANSIT

i. THEMESX. NEXT STEPS

THE APPENDIX:

o PLANNING DOCUMENTS SYNTHESIZED


3/62


3

I. FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES:

Figure 1 : Proportion of Public Transportation Users by Census Tract, 2009-2014 American Community Survey

Figure 2: Ladder of transit planning in Oakland, CA Figure 3: Regional, City, and Neighborhood Plans Reviewed

Figure 4: Plans categorized, ascending from regional authorities, transit agencies, city-wide Oakland Plans, and

neighborhood specific plans

TABLES:

Table1: AC TRANSIT Ridership from the Major Corridors Study, 2016

Table 2: Daily BART ridership reports: Change from April 2006-April 2016

Table 3: Daily Capitol Corridor Ridership: Change from OCT FY 15 OCT FY 16 Table 4: Daily WETA Ridership: Change from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015

Table 5: Goals and Strategies Matrix: Defining the roles of leading and supporting agencies

Table 6: Appendix: Goals and Strategies defined by Oakland planning documents

PHOTOS:

Photo 1: Modes of Transit, AC Transit, WETA, Capitol Corridor and BART

Photo 2: Local wayfinding signs

Photo 3: Improving effectiveness along current routes credit: LA Street Blog

Photo 4: Fruitvale Transit Village, example of a TODPhoto 5:


4/62


4

Acknowledgements:

With gratitude, to the advisors: Professor Elizabeth Deakin, Professor Karen Trapenberg Frick, and Sara Barz.

Special thanks to Matt Nichols, Iris Starr, Jason Patton, Sarah Fine,

Fern Uennatornwaranggoon, Derek Cheah, and Teddy Forscher.


5/62


5

II. PURPOSE:

This report, Common Goals and Strategies for Oakland Transit, defines transit goals and strategies that the City of Oakland

and local transit agencies should pursue based on an assessment of thirty-five planning documents, studies, and polices

published within the last decade. In combination with a document analysis, goals and strategies were vetted through an

in-depth interview process with local transit stakeholders and technocrats. This report aims to find consensus and set

common transit objectives with the intention of developing a more transit-oriented Oakland.

THE GOALS:

1. Achieve a state of good repair; maintain

existing transportation infrastructure.

2. Apply parking revenues to support transit.

3. Coordinate with partnering transportation

providers to foster and incentivize ridership.

4. Encourage economic development.

5. Enhance the dissemination of transitinformation.

6. Ensure that transit is accessible and equitable.

7. Expand and alter transit service and improve

system connectivity.

8. Improve frequencies and timed transfers.

9. Improve health and safety of the transit system.

10. Increase effectiveness for a more financially

stable transit system.

11. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

12. Improve bus stop locations, amenities, and

facilities.13. Improve customer service and operational

efficiencies.

14. Implement priority treatments along key transit

corridors.


6/62


6

III. OAKLAND TRANSIT TRENDS:

Overall Transit Patterns:

Oakland is the transportation hub of the East Bay. The 2009-2014 American Community Survey estimates that nearly 20% of

all Oakland commuters travel by public transportation. And in any given week, more than 100,000 Oakland residents

commute to work by transit, with more than 27% traveling to San Francisco.1 Furthermore, according to the 2012 California

Household Travel Survey, 27% of commuters travel in downtown Oakland specifically by BART and AC Transit.2

Employment Patterns in Transit:

Transit and ground transportation hires more than 4,900 employees within Oakland. Jobs within this industry include rail and

bus operations, as well as other motor transit. Oakland’s regional competitiveness within transportation has surged,

increasing the number of jobs in air, water, and transit transportation by 8,500 jobs since 2000.3 Oakland’s job share within

transit and ground passenger transportation is five-times greater than the nine-county Bay Area. 4

The Transit Agencies serving Oakland:

The four prominent transit providers within Oakland are AC Transit, BART, Capital Corridor, and WETA. Across these four transit

modes, trips to work are the most common. Secondary to work-trips, patrons use BART and AC Transit to reach schools and

educational programs. Capitol Corridor and WETA ridership increases over the weekend when riders use the systems to

reach recreational and social activities.5

1 San Francisco (27%), Berkeley (7%), San Leandro (3%), Hayward (2%), and Alameda (2%)

2 Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland and Access to/from West Alameda, 2015

3 AC Transit 2012 Passenger Study, Survey Findings

4 Location Quotient: 5.0

5

Capitol Corridor Performance Report, 2015


7/62


7

Figure 3 : Proportion of public transportation users by census yract, 2009-2014 American Community Survey

Percent of transit riders across Oakland census tracts


8/62


8

i) RIDERSHIP:

AC TRANSIT:

AC Transit spans 45-miles north to south and is contained to 5-miles east to west. Downtown Oakland is the center of

AC Transit’s network, with many patrons originating, transferring, and completing their travel between Jack London

Square and the MacArthur BART station. All but two of AC Transit’s major corridor lines pass through the central artery

of Oakland. The College/University Avenue corridor (51A/B) has the second highest ridership in the entire system,

transporting more than 20,000 riders per day. Second to the 51A/B is the Transbay NL line from East Oakland to San

Francisco. This line has seen a surge in ridership in the last several years.6 As shared in AC Transit’s 2012 Passenger

Study, 43% of riders use the system for work related travel, followed by school trips which are responsible for 16% of all

AC Transit trips.7

Table

T

Table1: AC TRANSIT Ridership from the Major Corridors Study, 2016

BART:

Eight BART stations are in Oakland: Rockridge, MacArthur, 12th

Street, 19th

Street, West Oakland, Lake Merritt, Fruitvale,and the Coliseum. According to BART’s April 2016 Monthly Ridership report, nearly 70,000 people travel to and from

Oakland each day by BART. And on average, more than 8,000 BART patrons travel within Oakland per day.

Oakland’s BART ridership is one-third of all system-wide trips. As noted in the charts below, within the last decade,

BART ridership has increased by approximately 40% for those traveling across the BART system. Weekday and

weekend ridership traveling strictly within Oakland has increased by 20% and 50%, respectively.8

6http://www.actransit.org/2014/01/30/high-spiraling-rideship-for-ac-transit/

7 AC Transit 2012 Passenger Study, Survey Findings

8

h ttp://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership

FREQUENCY OF

ARRIVAL 72R N 72R S 18 1 1R 51A/B 57 NL NL SF 40 N 40 S 20 21 97 99 F

NUMBER OF RIDERS PER DAY

DAILY RIDERSHIP 14,789 7,898 6,575 20,347 11,352 10,372 5,135 4,394 4,227


9/62


9

The steepest decline of BART use has been at the Coliseum station, where vehicle travel has increased within the

neighborhood by 17% since 1998. Similarly to AC Transit destination data, 88% of all BART trips are between home and

work..9

Table 2a and 2b: Daily BART Ridership reports: change from April 2006-April 2016

CAPITOL CORRIDOR:

Capitol Corridor is a 168-mile inner city Amtrak line. As stated in the agency’s Business Plan Update, there are 30

weekday and 22 weekend trips between Sacramento and Oakland. Between Oakland and San Jose, there are 14

trips, seven days a week.10 18% of all Capitol Corridor riders live in Alameda County.11And across the route, 54% of all

riders use the system to commute to work. 22% of riders travel for social and recreational pursuits. Capitol Corridor has

its strength in regional service. However, due to reduced ridership system wide, Capitol Corridor aims to develop

campaigns and programs to increase usership over the next several years.12

9 2008 BART Station Profile Study

10 Capitol Corridor Intercity Rail Service Business Plan Update FY 2014-2015-FY 2015-16, April 2014

11 Capitol Corridor Performance Report, 2015

12

Capitol Corridor Intercity Rail Service Business Plan Update FY 2014-2015-FY 2015-16, April 2014

DAILY

RIDERSHIP

( number of

riders/weekday)

ARRIVING

TO

OAKLAND

LEAVING

FROM

OAKLAND

TRAVELING

WITHIN

OAKLAND

APRIL 2006 48,366 46,897 7,211

APRIL 2016* 68,837 67,326 8,565

% CHANGE 42% 43% 19%

DAILY

RIDERSHIP

(number of

riders/Saturday)

ARRIVING

TO

OAKLAND

LEAVING

FROM

OAKLAND

TRAVELING

WITHIN

OAKLAND

APRIL 2006 21,795 21,446 3,458

APRIL 2016 31,139 30,621 5,211

% CHANGE 42% 42% 50%


10/62


10

Table 3: Daily Capitol Corridor Ridership: OCT FY 16 vs OCT FY 15 Table 4: Daily WETA Ridership: 2012-2015

FERRY:

The Alameda/Oakland ferry provides weekday and weekend service to Alameda, Oakland, and San Francisco

terminals. Seasonal service is provided from Jack London Square to AT&T Park. According to WETAs Short RangeTransit Plan 2015-16 to 2024-25, within the last two years, annual ridership to and from the Alameda/Oakland terminal

has increased by 50%.13 As of June 2015, the Alameda/Oakland ferry line is responsible for 3,267 weekday trips.14

13 Short Range Transit Plan FY 2015-2016 to FY2024-25

14 http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/08/24/with-crowds-flocking-to-ferries-agency-considers-adding-new-runs

APPROX.

DAILY

RIDERSHIP

OAKLAND

TO

SACRAMENTO

(JLS)

OAKLAND

TO

SACRAMENTO

(COL.)

OAKLAND

TO

SAN JOSE

FY NOV 2015 ~220 ~67 ~84

FY NOV 2016 ~233 ~61 ~84

% CHANGE 5.8% -8.6% 0%

DAILY RIDERSHIP: Alameda/Oakland Ferry TOTAL PASSENGERS

FY 2012-2013 ~1700

FY 2013-2014 ~2,300

FY 2014-2015 ~2,590

% CHANGE 50%


11/62


11

ii) FREQUENCY AND CAPACITY:

BART:

The frequency of BART trains differentiates based on the time-of-day and destination, ranging from 3-4 minute

headways to 20 minute headways on weekends and during non-peak travel.15 System-wide, the most constrained

segment of the rail line is the Transbay Tube, which at present, accommodates 23 trains per hour (22,600 riders) at

peak hours and in peak directions. BART is currently at 86% capacity. This is based on the size of the fleet and the

state of the equipment in use. In current conditions, it is possible for the current system to increase travel load by one

additional train per hour, adding 1,070 passengers.13

AC TRANSIT:

The frequency of AC Transit’s eleven major corridors ranges from 10 to 45 minutes. Like BART, variation is based on the

time-of-day and destination. In terms of street capacity, there is plenty of it. The Downtown Circulation Study assessedtraffic counts from 2011-2015 to determine downtown Oakland’s current street capacity. At present, more than 80%

of the streets are under vehicle capacity. As shared in the report, “…right-of-way can be reassigned to other road

users without compromising access and circulation for emergency vehicles, transit, and personal vehicles.”16

CAPITOL CORRIDOR:

Departures from Capitol Corridor’s Oakland stations occur approximately every hour for peak commute travel. For

those traveling between 10 am and 4 pm and after 8 pm, frequencies become more occasional, with headways

nearing 2 hours at the Jack London Square station and between 1-3 hours at Oakland Coliseum. Locational capacityconstraints include minimal or expensive car parking at stations and poor access to connecting transit.

15 BART schedules: http://www.bart.gov/schedules/bystation

16 Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland and Access to/from West Alameda, 2015


12/62


12

WETA:

On weekdays, the ferries from Oakland to the SF terminals run every 40 minutes during peak hours and every 60 minutes

between 10 a.m.-4 p.m. On weekends, the headways are reduced to every 90 minutes. The Alameda/Oakland ferry

experiences the highest passenger load at peak, more than any other terminal within the system. WETA does not

foresee any changes in the market that would warrant increasing current capacity levels. As indicated, “…the serviceappears to have sufficient capacity to accommodate moderate ridership growth over the next 10 years…”17

17 WETA Short-Range Transit Plan FY 2015-16 to FY 2024-25

Photo1: Modes of Transit, AC Transit, WETA, Capitol Corridor and BART.

Credit: Teddy Forscher and bioprepwatch.com


13/62


13

IV. THE BENEFITS OF TRANSIT:

“…At its most basic level, public transit is about providing access to all people…”

(Jarrett Walker, 2012).

“The well-being of growing and expanding urban metropolitan regions is intimately connected to the provision of adequate

and appropriate transportation services.” This perspective from Professor Alan Murray is just as relevant today as it was

twenty years ago. Evidence for close knit relationships between public transportation services and economic and societal

health is apparent.18 According to a 2011 report published by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), a

dollar invested in public transportation generates four dollars in economic returns.19 From an environmental and human

health perspective, transit provides significant benefits when compared to the automobile.

LaChapelle and Frank (2008) remind us that by definition, transit users are also walkers and therefore, have higher exposure

to physical activity, reducing the on-set of obesity and other diseases.20 And equally as important, the environmental

benefits that public transportation provides are agreeable across scholarship. In his well-acclaimed book, Transit Metropolis ,

Robert Cervero speaks to the long-term environmental benefits public transit can provide “…when paired with smart

technologies, [public transit] can contain traffic congestion, reduce pollution, conserve energy, and promote social

equity…”21 Furthermore, the APTA shares that eliminating one car from the road, reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 30%.22

For these reasons and beyond them, it is advantageous for local governments to promote and fund public transit to

encourage equitable and sustainable travel between residential zones, commercial districts, and amenities. Yet, despite

the evident benefits, public transit is often considered secondary to auto-travel. The reason for this varies across cities and

18 Murray, Alan T., Rex Davis, Robert J. Stimson, and Luis Ferreira. "Public transportation access." Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 3, no. 5 (1998): 319-328.

19http://www.publictransportation.org/benefits/grows/Documents/Economy-Fact-Sheet-2011.pdf

20 Lachapelle, Ugo, and Lawrence D. Frank. "Tra nsit and health: mode of transport, employer-sponsored public transit pass progr ams, and physical activity." Journal of Public Health Policy (2009): S73-S94.

21 Cervero, Robert. The transit metropolis: a global inquiry . Island press, 1998.

22 APTA: Public Transportation Reduces Greenhouse Gases and Conserves Energy


14/62


14

regions. However, the consequences of under-funded and under-developed transit have left systems operating below their

potential.

i. AN OPPORTUNTIY FOR OAKLAND:

Oakland is the transportation hub of the East Bay with BART, AC Transit, Amtrak, and ferry service collecting in the greaterdowntown area. And in recent years, transit ridership is increasing with more bus and transit riders commuting to and from

the city is for work and enjoyment. This, coupled with policy directives from the regional level to encourage dense, transit-

oriented development are strong incentives for the City of Oakland to revise current transit practices, in favor of a more

comprehensive and collaborative program. 23

ii. SB 375: A STATE MANDATE

In 2008, Senate Bill 375 was adopted to reduce state-wide greenhouse gas emissions through more efficient, more compact

development. As detailed by Barbour and Deakin (2012), the bill emphasizes coordinated efforts between land-use andtransportation; the structure of the bill requires that MPOs work with cities within their jurisdictions to set targets to expand

alternative travel options. This request is a challenge as traditional planning practices have often decoupled land-use and

transportation planning. With aggressive enforcement at the state and regional level, it is beneficial for the City of Oakland

and local transit partners, to achieve SB 375 targets by thinking collaboratively and systematically.24

23 Plan Bay Area: A strategy for a Sustainable Region, 2013

24 Barbour, Elisa, and Elizabeth A. Deakin. "Smart gro wth planning for climate protection: Evaluating California's Senate Bill 375." Journal of the American Planning Association 78, no. 1 (2012): 70-86.


15/62


V. NEW APPROACHES TO TRANSIT PLANNING:

In her newly published book, Street Fight, Janette Sadik-Khan says, “buses are as sexy as Amish dresses…” We all know the

story, buses and rail have been the step-child to auto-centric development thanks to a strong automobile lobby, which

replaced street-cars with publically funded highways in the mid-twentieth century. This pattern has perpetuated, providinginsufficient financing for transit investments. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, recently shared that $24.5 billion is

needed per year to improve the country’s transit-systems. 25

However, the optimistic planner would see a glass half-full. U.S. cities from Denver to Chicago are turning to transit systems

to mobilize commuters cost-effectively. There is transit growth occurring in some of the most unlikely of places. According to

the most recent American Community Survey, the Los Angeles metro-area experienced a 10% increase in transit ridership,

due in part to the launch of the Los Angeles Transit Neighborhood Initiative and the new subway expansion to Santa

Monica.

Government entities are re-invigorating transit mobility through local and regional funding mechanisms. This includes bond

measures, local tax increases, and development fees. In 2014, Alameda County passed Measure BB, a half-cent sales tax to

sponsor transportation investments in the East Bay. This emergence of funding, $8 billon over thirty years, gives Oakland

motivation to update practices and reconsider how staff, resources, and cross-agency collaboration can keep Oakland

competitive for new transit funding.

25http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19495&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R


16/62


16

i. TRANSIT COORDINATION:

Transit planning, like other planning disciplines, extends beyond geographical and political constraints; transit

planning includes multiple organizations, agencies, and perspectives. Hence, it is a great accomplishment

when we are able to pair solutions to a need, and do so in a manner that is agreeable to all concerned

parties.

Christensen (1985) approached this classic planner’s dilemma with a matrix to suggest how civil servants can

find solutions to complex needs. The matrix, divided into four quadrants, shows that for a portion of our planning

needs, we are unsure how to link concerns with solutions. It’s the question of how do we solve a problem and

with what tools? It is within this quadrant that it is critical to work with planning partners to form goals and

strategies that are agreeable.26

“When the problem is known but the solution is unknown, innovation is needed.”

(Christensen, 1985)

26

Christensen, Karen S. "Coping with uncertainty in planning." Journal of the American Planning Association 51, no. 1 (1985): 63-73.


17/62


Planners, engineers, transit activists, partner agencies, developers, and government officials have their own objectives and

perspectives for solving Oakland’s transit needs. Arguably, for success to be achieved, it is beneficial if the expertise of all

concerned stakeholders be included in the planning and implementation process. As offered by Span et al., “…excluding

professional organizations from governance results in poor-quality public service…” 27

Furthermore, Barbara Gray, a professor of organizational behavior, suggests that planning should be discursive and

collaborative if a problem is too daunting for one agency to solve.28 The collaboration process begins by acknowledging

the problem. Following an acknowledgment of a problem, municipal governments need to engage in comprehensive

planning. Emeritus Professor Judith Innes, shares that comprehensive planning is a package of policies that work together. In

this case, collaborative policies to build a comprehensive transit program. 29

In a 1994 research study, Innes reviewed eight cities participating in coordinated planning. “Players were brought to a table

and kept there, searching for agreement with their adversaries by external incentives.”30

In all cases, Innes reports that thegroups found consensus, designing proposals for long-term implications. Innes’s case studies, acknowledged that consensus

planning promotes what is good for a particular place. And contrary to traditional practices, censuses building, a series of

“linked conversations,” inherently achieves cooperation and avoids politicization.

27 Span, Kees CL, Katrien G. Luijkx, Jos MGA Schols, and Rene Schalk. "The relationship between governance roles and performance in loca l public interorganizational networks: A conceptual analysis." The American

Review of Public Administration (2011): 0275074011402193.28

Gray, Barbara. "Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration."Human relations 38, no. 10 (1985): 911-936.29

Innes, Judith E. "Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal." Journal of the American planning association62, no. 4 (1996): 460-472.30

Innes, J. "Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planner." Berkeley, Calif.: University of California at Berkeley (1994).


18/62


ii. METHODS FOR COORDINATION:

There are a variety of methods for achieving a high level of interagency coordination. To begin, trust at the managerial

level is crucial. Managers that are willing and eager to cross-pollinate ideas, offer flexibility, and share resources will foster

accountability between agencies. Engaged managers set a precedent for their own staff members. We can consider it to

be an osmosis effect; city-staff will mirror engaged and empowered managers, and strive for the same goals. Research by

Zeffane and Kosgaard offers that strong leader-member relationships encourage employees to take on challenging, rather

than risk-averse tasks. This, in combination within external coordination practices, which includes meeting in-person with

stakeholders, assessing problems together, and jointly monitoring goals and strategies, cultivates high-level interagency

collaboration3132.

To determine what goals and strategies the City of Oakland should implement, methods of collaboration were applied:

I. An in-depth assessment of planning documents published by the city, transit agencies, and regional commissions.

II. Interviews with local transit stakeholders including transit agencies, regional commissions, and transit advocates

31

Zeffane, Rachid. "Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management style: A comparison of public and private sector employees." Human Relations 47, no. 8 (1994): 977-1010.32

Korsgaard, M. Audrey, David M. Schweiger, and Harry J. Sapienza. "Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice." Academy of Management journal 38,

no. 1 (1995): 60-84.



19/62


VI. PLAN ASSESSMENT:

The schematic at right illustrates how plans are

similar to Matryoshka dolls, stacking into each

other. Trickled down from the federalgovernment and state, regional transportation

commissions are responsible for distributing

funding through a variety of grant programs.

Plans developed by the Metropolitan

Transportation Commission (herein, MTC) and

other regional partners are responsible for

producing long-range plans. Presently, MTC

is focused on the next rendition of Play BayArea, a regional strategy to accommodate the

Bay Area’s impending growth while reducing

greenhouse gas emissions. As the designated

purveyor of funds for the nine-county Bay Area,

it is critical that city and local plans key into the

goals that MTC seeks to accomplish.

The Alameda County Transportation

Commission (herein, ACTC) is comprised of the county’s 13 cities. ACTC is responsible for distributing funds to the city and

transit agencies. Funds are apportioned by MTC and through other local funding mechanisms such as Measure BB, the

Transportation Improvement Program, and federal programs including the Lifeline Transportation Program, and the One Bay

Area Grant Program. Pipeline projects developed for Oakland’s city-wide and specific/neighborhood plans are nested into

Figure 4: Ladder of transit planning in Oakland, CA

Regional Transportation Comission

City of Oakland

Neighborhoods

Transit Agencies

AC Transit

BART

Capitol Corridor

WETA

Alameda County TransportationCommission

Metropolitan TransportationCommission



20/62


20

ACTC’s county-wide transportation plan. 48% of available measure BB funding is allocated towards BART, bus, senior, and

youth transit. As stated in the 2014 Expenditure Plan, ACTC is more likely to fund projects and programs that increase public

transit use for youth and improve operating efficiencies.

Oakland’s city-wide plans strive to take into account the policies associated with the regional commissions. Working closelywith the transit agencies, the City of Oakland can curate priorities based on state and federal funding opportunities.

Specific plans are being developed for each of Oakland’s niche neighborhoods to hone in on place-based need. These

projects are then able to be added as specific line items within ACTC’s county-wide transportation plan, and are

considered priority projects when competing for grants.

Transit agencies strike a unique balance of defining their own objectives while adhering to city needs and policies. Projects

identified in the plans produced by the agencies need to mirror city objectives identified in specific plans.

Agreeing on what Oakland’s transit terms should be is no small feat. Hence, assessing what each stakeholder seeks to

achieve in their respective plans, will identify areas of common importance. Agreeing on goals and strategies is critical to

ensuring that Oakland is in fact a transit-first city.



21/62


21

i. METHODS FOR PHASE I:

Reasoning:

An analysis of planning documents, including studies and outreach reports, developed and published by the City of

Oakland, partnering transit agencies, and regional transportation authorities, were synthesized to gain an understanding of

the current goals and objectives circulating within the Oakland transit network. By extracting goals and strategies found in

the documents, prominent and repeating interests were able to be identified.

Technique:

Planning documents were assessed based on descriptive goals and recommendations outlined in the plans. Goals were

cataloged into a variety of ways to identify associations and patterns. Once categorized by key themes and terms, goals

were merged to reduce redundancies. Plans and policies articulated by regional agencies, including the Metropolitan

Planning Commission (MTC) and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), were marked as goals that thecity is required to comply with. These goals, although often more general, includes state polices: AB 32 and SB 375 which

aim to reduce greenhouse gases and attend to underserved communities. This process of analysis was cultivated with

inspiration from Salt Lake City’s State of the System Fact Book, a component of Seattle’s transit master plan.33

Disclaimer:

The plans that were assessed for this report do not encompass all reports published by the City of Oakland and partnering

agencies over the last ten years. These plans aim to identify and assess a cross-section from all parties-- recognizing that a

plan may have been overlooked without intention during the assessment process.

33 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan: State of the System Fact Book



22/62


22

CITY OF OAKLAND YEAR TRANSIT AGENCIES YEAR REGIONAL COMMISSIONS YEAR

CITY WIDE AC TRANSIT ACTC

Broadway Transit Circulation Study AC Transit Expansion Plan

Draft

2015 ACTC County-Wide Transit

Plan

2015

Complete Streets Policy 2013 AC Transit Public Outreach 2015 Multimodal Arterial Corridor

Plan

2015

Sustainable Oakland 2014 Designing with Transit 2004Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown

Oakland

2015 Short-Range Transit Plan 2014 MTC

Oakland General Plan, Land-Use and

Transportation Element

1998 Plan Bay Area 2013

Energy and Climate Action Plan 2012 BART Connectivity Plan 2006

Transit-First Policy Quarter Four Report 2015 Transportation 2035 2009

Build a Better BART

SPECIFIC PLANS OTHER

Broadway Valdez 2013 CAPITOL CORRIDOR CALTRANS: Complete Streets 2014

Central Estuary Plan 2013 Capitol Corridor Vision Plan

Update

2014 SPUR Seamless Transit 2015

Central and East Oakland Community Based

Transportation Plan

2007 SPUR Downtown For Everyone 2015

Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station Access

Plan

2002 WETA 2016 EBOTs Neighboring Cities 2014

Fruitvale Alive! Community Transportation Plan,

Final Report

2005 Strategic Plan (2016-2026)

Lake Merritt BART Station Area Plan 2013

LAMMPS

Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue CommunityTransportation Plan

2010

Revive Chinatown Community TransportationPlan

2004

West Oakland Specific Plan 2013

West Oakland Community-Based Transportation

Plan

2006

Figure 3: Regional, City, and Neighborhood Plans Reviewed



23/62

ii.

DOCUMENT REVIEW: ASSESSING CURRENT PLANNING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS:

The following is an assessment of goals and strategies that frequently appear across the 35 plans, studies, and policies that

were reviewed for this report. Their prominence across the reports suggests that the city and its agencies are agreeable to

their importance. The following graphic highlights the distribution of plans across three categories: fostering an efficienttransit system, encouraging a more sustainable transportation system, and developing a more user-friendly, multi-modal

experience. As detailed by the graphic, plans are distributed relatively evenly across the aforementioned categories, with

slightly more emphasis on improving the systems functionality and user-experience rather than developing a more

sustainable transportation system.



24/62

24

Efficient Transit System: System Functionality

Economic VitalityCoordination and Partnership

High Quality Transit

Sustainable Transportation System

Sustainable GrowthEnvironmental Improvement

Health and Safety

Multi-Modal Transportation: User Experience

Multi-ModalQuality of life

Opportunity for all

ACTC Countywide Transit Plan: Vision and Goals ACTC Countywide Transit Plan: Vision and Goals ACTC Countywide Transit Plan: Vision and Goals

Alameda Multi-Modal Arterial Plan Central and East Oakland Community BasedTransportation Plan

Alameda Multi-Modal Arterial Plan

Building a Better BART Complete Streets: Implementation Action 2.0 Central and East Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan

Central and East Oakland Community BasedTransportation Plan

Complete Streets Resolution and Policy Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station : Access Plan

Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station : Access Plan Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland Complete Streets Resolution and Policy

Complete Streets Resolution and Policy Plan Bay Area Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland

Complete Streets: Implementation Action 2.0 MTC: Transportation 2035 Plan Bay Area

Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland West Oakland Community – Based Transportation Plan MTC: Transit Connectivity Plan

MTC: Transit Connectivity PlanAC Transit : Public Outreach Campaign

MTC: Transit Coordination Implementation Plan

MTC: Transit Coordination Implementation Plan AC Transit: Short Range Transit Plan MTC: Transportation 2035

MTC: Transportation 2035 Capitol Corridor Vision Plan West Oakland Community – Based Transportation Plan

West Oakland Community-Based Transportation Plan AC Transit: Designing with TransitAC Transit: Designing with Transit

Plan Bay AreaOakland: Energy and Climate Action Plan

AC Transit : Public Outreach Campaign

AC Transit: Designing with TransitOakland General Plan AC Transit: Short Range Transit Plan

AC Transit: Expansion Plan Sustainable Oakland 2014-2015 Build a Better BART

AC Transit : Public Outreach Campaign Transit First Policy Capitol Corridor Vision Plan

AC Transit: Short Range Transit Plan Broadway Transit Circulator Study AC Transit: Designing with Transit

Capitol Corridor Vision PlanBroadway Valdez Plan Broadway Transit Circulator Study

Broadway Transit Circulator StudyHarrison/Street Oakland Avenue Community TransportationPlan

Oakland: Energy and Climate Action Plan

Oakland General Plan Lake Merritt Station Area Plan Oakland General Plan

Broadway Valdez PlanRevive Chinatown Community Transportation Plan Sustainable Oakland 2014-2015

Central Estuary Plan West Oakland Specific Plan Transit First Policy

EBOTs Neighboring CitiesBroadway Transit Circulation Study

Fruitvale Alive! Community Transportation Plan Broadway Valdez Plan

Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue Community TransportationPlan

Central Estuary Plan

Lake Merritt BART Station EBOTs Neighboring Cities

LAMMPS Lake Merritt BART Station Area Plan

Revive Chinatown Community Transportation Plan Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue Community Transportation Plan

West Oakland Specific Plan Revive Chinatown Community Transportation Plan

West Oakland Specific Plan

Figure 4: Plans categorized, ascending from regional authorities, transit agencies, city-wide Oakland Plans, and neighborhood specific plans



25/62

25

VII. DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

Achieve a state of good repair:Regional/State: 3

Transit agencies: 2

City-Wide: 2

Neighborhood/Specific Plans: 1

Total: 8

From the regional to the local level, plans speak about

improving the state of the system, noting that there are

current policies and procedural inconsistencies

concerning maintenance. Concerns include poor road

condition and the need to balance the paving program

across all neighborhoods. The Countywide Transit Plan states that agencies and cities need to balance

expanding fleets against a “fix-it-first” policy. The

Broadway Transit Circulator Study, the Oakland General

Plan, and the Transportation 2035 report, suggest

developing a more comprehensive process for prioritizing

maintenance needs. AC Transit’s Designing with Transit

plan and their Short-Range Transit Plan, recommends

prioritizing upkeep based on public support and crucialassets.

Coordinate to incentivize ridership:Regional/State: 5

Transit Agencies: 3

City-Wide: 2

Neighborhoods/Specific Plans: 6

Total: 16

Improving inter-agency coordination is an apparent need

based on the breadth of plans that recommend strategies

to work more collaboratively; recommendations pertain to

both planning and operations. MTC’s Transit Connectivity

Plan recommends coordinating schedules and fares to

improve seamless riding between transit vendors. And, atthe city-level, plans endorse coordinating efforts that take

advantage of private partnerships. This would include

programs such as car and bike-share for last-mile

programming. Furthermore, Oakland’s General Plan and

Transportation 2035, offers that the city and its partners

establish an interagency review procedure to vet plans

and programs before they are published to avoid

inconsistencies.



26/62

26

Encourage economic developmentRegional/State: 4

Transit Agencies: 1

City-Wide: 2


Total: 10

The Oakland General Plan underscores economic

development as a priority goal. And more recently,

city-wide plans including the Broadway Transit Circulation

Study and Sustainable Oakland, have acknowledged this

goal with equal importance. These plans, as well as the

Broadway Valdez and West Oakland Specific Plans, and

the Lake Merritt Station Plan, encourage theadvancement of projects that will link transportation and

economic development. Discussions pertaining to this goal

include maintaining the B-Shuttle line in downtown

Oakland, and incentivizing transit-oriented development

at BART stations throughout the city. Regional stakeholders

further support the goal, stating that there should be more

emphasis on transit investments which achieve the

greatest returns on dollars spent.

Enhance the dissemination of travel information:Regional/State: 1

Transit Agencies: 1

City-Wide: 2


Total: 7

The city and partnering agencies have concerns

regarding the distribution of transit information. Concerns

suggest that real-time information at stops and

way-finding signs to direct the public to transit are

minimal. This concern is supported in BART and MTC plans,

along with specific plans including the Broadway-Valdez

Specific Plan, the Central and East Oakland CommunityBased Transportation Plans, the Lake Merritt Station Area

Plan, the Revive Chinatown Community Transportation

Plan, and LAMMPS. Across the agencies, there is

consensus to design a way-finding program, and to

improve real-time departure information at stations and

stops. The city and partnering agencies foresee that these

strategies will improve transit transparency between the

public and civil servants.

Photo 2: Local wayfinding signs credit: Teddy Forscher



27/62

27

Improve bus stop locations, amenities and facilitiesRegional/State: 2

Transit Agencies: 4

City-Wide: 0


Total: 15

There is substantial agreement that bus stop locations and

amenities need to be upgraded. At present,

neighborhood specific plans request that shelters be

improved, sidewalk conditions along routes be upgraded,

and routes simplified to allow for optimum spacing

between stops. Recommendations to improve these

current conditions include adding curb extensions,accommodating in-line stops, and locating stops on the

far-side of intersections to eliminate bus and vehicle

conflicts. Neighborhood plans stress the improvement of

stop facilities; this includes updating benches and shelters.

All parties recommend that a formalized protocol be

adopted to expedite bus-stop improvements. Similar goals

are defined across the transit sector; however, how we

define and adhere to standards and procedures is up fordebate.

Improve customer service and operational efficienciesRegional/State: 4

Transit Agencies: 2

City-Wide: 0


Total: 6

Plans have remarked that without proper protocols, transit

along main corridors has the tendency to slow down due

to multiple modes competing for space. To curb this

problem, plans published by AC Transit recommend

establishing common endpoints for bus routes,

determining operator break facilities, and streamlining

road supervision to improve fleet reliability. Regional goalsset by Plan Bay Area, seek to encourage transit

performance initiatives — for example, a program that

promotes the use of low-cost technology upgrades to

improve the system’s dependability. Specific responses to

this need include the implementation of bus queue

jumping and on-board payment systems.



28/62

28

Increase effectiveness for a financially stable system:Regional/State: 3

Transit Agencies: 1

City-Wide: 1


Total: 9

ACTC’s Countywide Transit Plan wants all transit

investments to achieve the greatest return on

investment — what pipeline projects will have the greatest

benefit to the most amount of people? At the local level,

the Central Estuary Area Plan, the Harrison Street Oakland

Avenue Community Transportation Plan, the Lake Merritt

Station Plan, LAMMPS, and the West Oakland Specific Planhave echoed the regional agency’s sentiment, setting

goals to use resources efficiently. To be more financially

stable, AC Transit plans recommend investing in the

arterial network rather than expanding the systems

coverage.

Improve frequencies and times transfers:Regional/State: 1

Transit Agencies: 3

City-Wide: 1


Total: 10

The interest to improve frequencies is a well-accepted

recommendation across the four interest groups, and is

further accentuated across Oakland’s specific plans, with

interest to expand night and weekend service and

demand response transit. Across AC Transit’s reports, there

are strategies to improve headways by designing simpler

routes, eliminating canceled and late assignments,installing all-door boarding and of-board payment

systems. Those surveyed for AC Transit’s Public Outreach

Campaign seek 10-minute headways on trunk lines.

Photo 3: Improving effectiveness along current routes credit:

LA Street Blog



29/62

29

Ensure that transit is accessible and equitableRegional/State: 4

Transit Agencies: 1

City-Wide: 3


Total: 14

Ensuring that transit is accessible and equitable is a key

goal for transit stakeholders. Transportation 2035 states that

public transportation should be improved particularly for

the low-income, elderly, and disabled. This is reverberated

in the visions and goals of Alameda’s Multi-Modal Arterial

Plan, which states that the transit network should provide

access for people of all ages, abilities, incomes, andgeographies — those residing in MTC’s Communities of

Concern. At the city-level, the Oakland General Plan and

Policy t4.5 of the Broadway Transit Circulation Study, offers

that transportation be made accessible for everyone.

Oakland’s specific plans provide suggestions to ground

this goal with action steps. The specific plans recommend

reduced student fares for children, seniors, and the

disabled, extending AC Transit transfer windows, andproviding senior shuttle programs from BART stations.

Modify transit service to improve connectivityRegional/State: 3

Transit Agencies: 3

City-Wide: 3


Total: 15

Efforts to expand and modify transit service are led by

neighborhood specific plans. The Broadway-Valdez, the

Central Estuary, the Central and East Oakland Community

Based Transportation Plan, the Chinatown Community

Transportation Plan, the West Oakland Community Based

Transportation Plan, and the West Oakland Specific Plan,

all envision altered service to improve system connectivity.For example, the West Oakland Specific Plan recommends

that the city coordinate with AC Transit to implement a

transit loop from Mandela Parkway to Emeryville. And in

the Central Estuary Plan, it is suggested that new east-west

bus routes be added for improved connectivity between

Chinatown and Jack London Square. AC Transit, by way

of its three plans reviewed for this report, along with the

city’ s Energy and Climate Action Plan, MTC’s TransitConnectivity Plan, Sustainable Oakland, and Alameda’s

Multi-Modal Arterial Plan, suggest achieving the

aforementioned goal by supporting the adoption of bus

rapid transit universally throughout the city.



30/62

30

Priority treatments for transit on key corridorsRegional/State: 2

Transit Agencies: 2

City-Wide: 1


Total: 8

MTC and AC Transit agree that the best way to improve

regional transit is to prioritize treatment along key corridors.

Both agencies, as well as recommendations detailed in

the Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue Community

Transportation and the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan,

suggest that this goal can be achieved by improving

traffic management practices. This includes signal timingand queue jump lanes. AC Transit further suggests that the

city prioritize transit by reducing and/or eliminating

on-street parking to relieve corridor congestion.

Prioritize TODs and priority development areasRegional/State: 5

Transit Agencies: 3

City-Wide: 4


Total: 19

The majority of plans reviewed state goals that encourage

transit-oriented and priority-area development. MacArthur

and both the 12th and19th street BART stations have been

stated as sites to expand multi-use development. Across

the agencies, there is support to modify current land-use

policies to encourage said development. Furthermore,

transit agencies offer that reducing the physicalseparation of transit hubs will propagate transit-oriented

and higher – density construction.

Photo 1: Fruitvale Transit Village, example of a TOD

Credit: Teddy Forscher



31/62

31

Direct parking revenues to support transit investmentsRegional/State: 2

Transit Agencies: 2

City-Wide: 2

Neighborhoods: 6

Total: 10

Oakland neighborhoods and transit agencies want to see

changes to the current parking policies to modify on and

off street parking along specific routes. Six neighborhood

plans advise the city to adopt a parking demand

management strategy; this includes “park -once-and-

walk”, monitoring on-street parking more aggressively

during peak demand hours. Similarly, specific plans, as wellas AC Transit, recommend establishing community benefit

districts and/or parking benefit districts to manage on-

street and off-street parking, and to reward non-auto

travel. Creative revenue streams, including bonds and

in-lieu fees could subsidize costly transit capital

investments.

Improve health connectionRegional/State: 4

Transit Agencies: 1

City-Wide: 4

Neighborhoods: 4

Total: 13

The aim to improve city air-quality and ensure that the

transit system is safe for all users is disseminated from the

regional entities. MTC’s Transportation 2035 report, seeks to

employ a safe routes to transit program; this interest has

been further iterated at the county and local level.

Suggestions to improve safety includes monitoring collision

rates, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and continuingefforts to slow down traffic. A safe system must coordinate

with an equitable and accessible system, ensuring that all

people, despite their ability or age, feel safe using the

transit network.

Photo 4: Increasing deployment of cleaner AC Transit buses credit: AC Transit



32/62

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

Regional/State: 4

Transit Agencies: 2

City-Wide: 3

Neighborhoods/Specific: 3

Total: 12

Plan Bay Area is the most significant regional plan to

address climate change with goals to reduce non-auto

mode share by 10%. The Countywide Transit Plan and

Capitol Corridor ’s Vision and Goals, allude to amending

land-use development towards higher density, and

prepping for sea-level rise. We see strong directives

towards this topic from the city’s Energy and Climate Action plan; the plan suggests reducing per-ride transit

delay due to aging infrastructure by 100% and reducing

vehicle operating and maintenance costs due to

pavement conditions by 100%, two lofty goals. Further

strategies noted by the regional entities include

developing special zoning to support transit, designing

pedestrian-oriented streets, and supporting policies and

mechanisms to reduce vehicle miles traveled per captia.

The City of Oakland, and supporting specific plans, note

these regional recommendations.



33/62

VII WHAT THE AGENCIES ARE SAYING

Reasoning:

The above document analysis assessed transit goals and strategies based on what currently exist in

publications. Based on the review, we find that across the varying levels of government and across agencies,

there is a sense of agreement about what goals should be accomplished. This assessment has set the

foundation for determining Oakland’s common goals for transit. This document review illustrated that the desire

to improve Oakland transit is apparent. Without having to re-invent the wheel, transit goals and strategies have

been brain-stormed and now extracted from pre-existing plans. However, before we mark the above goals as

essential, we turn to interviews as a second assessment.

Technique:In-depth interviews were conducted with AC Transit, BART, MTC, SPUR, Transport Oakland, and staff within

Public Works and the Office of the Mayor. During hour long sessions, the above document review was

discussed in detail, allowing for an open-ended conversation to discuss the agencies’ priority concerns. Do the

planning documents reflect the concerns of the transit agencies? Are they a noble assessment of the current

state of the system? Do the goals and strategies mentioned, reflect what each agency wishes to cultivate as

part of their own mission and objectives?

Disclaimer:The following interviews are an editorialized assessment; these perspectives are views held by a few current

employees and do not necessarily reflect the agencies’ views.



34/62

34

AC TRANSIT:

When considering the placement and replacement of bus stops, the city’s most significant coordinating

partner is AC Transit. Stated in the agency’s expansion plan, and their report, Designing with Transit (2004),

AC Transit aims to make bus stops safe, efficient, and convenient for their customers. Similar sentiments werereiterated by a senior transportation planner at the agency, suggesting that there needs to be a procedure

for bus stop location changes, a policy that the City of Oakland has yet to develop. At present, the agency

is forced to make changes stop by stop. This, as shared by the interviewee, can be laborious because there

is no regulation or common practice.

AC Transit has not been shy in their own reports to foster this goal across Oakland and the greater service

area. Noted in the agency’s Short Range Plan, the agency wants to improve on-time performance to 72%

by improving mean miles. This goal is lofty, however, in response the interviewee did not seem intimidated by

the aim, suggesting that strategies to improve on-time performance can be as simple as developing

frequency of service maps and allowing for back-door and travel-lane boarding.

Noted within the city’s specific plans and in the city’s Sustainable Oakland 2014-2015 report, the City of

Oakland aspires to add local feeder lines. Yet, from the perspective of AC Transit, funding should not be

directed towards new line development. “There should be fewer new routes and more focus on frequency

and maintenance. Stated by the interviewee, “…our riders care if the bus is reliable, not if it shows up at8:14.” From AC Transit’s perspective, “the map is pretty good, it’s not so much about new routes, it’s about

the frequencies.”

When asked if the agency was accepting of Oakland’s Transit First Policy, reservations were articulated. As

the leading agency that controls and monitors bus traffic, the interviewee spoke on behalf of his fellow



35/62

35

colleagues. “…improvements that slow the roads, arguably take buses a longer time to complete their trips.”

To improve the Transit First Policy, AC Transit asks that buses be a higher, or at least, equal priority to the city.

Improvements to the policy include removing on-street parking from 11th-20th street along Broadway in

downtown Oakland, and improving the rapid lines.

The Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland, the EBOTs Neighboring Cities report, and the

Lake Merritt BART Station Plan, are all examples of plans that introduce the concept of the transit

hub/intermodal facilities.. However, for AC Transit, the agency feels indifferent about a multi-modal station if

improvements to the above-mentioned Transit First Policy fail to be achieved. As shared by the interviewee,

“transit hubs should only be developed in nodes where people want to connect — examples of this would be

the Eastmont Transit Center. “If the street already works, a transit hub is not necessary--- especially if bus

stops have to be made shorter.”

Tangential to improving the Transit First Policy, AC Transit is equally apprehensive about Complete Streets. “It

is not complete if transit isn’t helped.” AC Transit was anxious to re-brand the term to Complete Corridor,

suggesting that not all modes need to travel on the same roadway-- as long as we improve travel for all

modes in the same direction. AC Transit calls out the main corridors: San Pablo, Telegraph, MacArthur, and

Broadway, as the corridors that are the backbone of the Oakland transit system.

Improving real-time transit information has been suggested in regional and specific neighborhood plans toincrease ridership. Stated in the MTC Connectivity Plan, “real-time information should be consistent among

hubs.” Despite documentation, goals for improving real-time information at bus shelters are not a high

priority for AC Transit. “Smart phone use is so prevalent and we struggle with securing accurate real -time



36/62

36

information.” Furthermore, the interviewee stated that before real-time information is a high-priority goal, we

need to improve sidewalks and again, remove parking. AC Transit is the first to recognize that coordination

across the system is far from perfect. “…coordination is spotty — gaps in communication have led to poor

coordination.” As a recommendation, the AC Transit employee suggested looking to cities that have

embraced coordination better than we have. “Seattle’s King County Metro, has taken a lead in multi-modalarterial planning, a process that would be advantageous for the transit community of Oakland to learn

from”

MTC:

From the perspective of MTC, transit priorities begin with land-use reform. A transportation planner at the

commission voiced that “transit won’t work if land-use won’t respond.” This recommendation is expressed in

the commission’s Plan Bay Area report as a response to Senate Bill 375. From the viewpoint of MTC, cities’

transit goals need to reflect the policies detailed in this plan. During the interview, it was offered that MTC is

more likely to fund capital and programmatic strategies that alleviate emissions.

Beyond GHG reductions, an equitable distribution of service really matters to regional transportation

planners. “We care about ‘rideability’ access.” From the viewpoint of MTC, Oakland’s transit system will

stagnant if the travel experience only improves for current users. According to MTC, increasing ridership can

be as simple as prioritizing way-finding and signaling improvements. From our interviewee’s perspective, it’sthe City of Oakland’s responsibility to take the lead on way-finding. “As the jurisdiction at large, Oakland

should be doing more to improve Oakland branding for signaling and walk signage.”



37/62

37

Taking the above remarks into consideration, the interviewee suggested that the city take a step back. “The

city has to decide what it’s going to be, a funnel for San Francisco transit, or something else?” From the

regional viewpoint, when developing capital projects, the aim isn’t to construct the next flashy project-- it is

the responsibility of the transit agency to “service programs and capital projects that discourage

displacement.” This is critical with the rise of sea-level rise eminent and the need to increase access to low-income and senior residents.

BART:

During an interview with two accessibility coordinators at Bay Area Rapid Transit, herein BART, the

interviewees emphasized the agency’s priority to reduce the city’s automobile travel. From BARTs

perspective, to accomplish this, system access needs to be addressed and it begins with reducing on and

off-street parking. “The city is beginning to remove parking minimums, but we need to set parking

maximums.” In turn, this would free up the drop-off locations at stations, and remove bottlenecks during

commute hours. BART interviewees shared that this has been an area of dissonance for quite some time. For

example, at the Lake Merritt, Rockridge, and Coliseum stations, carpools are dropping off their passengers in

the AC Transit right-of-way due to the stops close proximity to the stations entrances. But, this has been

cause of unruly ticketing — upwards of $300.000 by the county sheriff, a contract established by AC Transit.

A Band-Aid solution to improve this conflict would be improving way-finding and signage at stations.However, the interviewees also stressed a stronger policy, the need for a curb management policy to

amend parking requirements, lengthen bus stops, and manage pick-up and drop-off locations. “…buses are

stopping in the center of corridors to let off their passengers, a signifier that we need coordinated efforts to

improve station access.”



38/62

38

When asked about implementing transit hubs, BART was compelled but with a caveat which leaned on their

earlier concerns pertaining to curb management. “...with multiple BART entrances at each station, for a hub

to work, there would need to be a coordinated effort to pin-point one bus pick-up and drop-off location.

BART maintains the opinion that Oakland’s Transit First Policy does not support transit enough. In defense of

AC Transit, the BART interviewees referenced the Telegraph Avenue Complete Streets Implementation Plan.

As shared in a memo by AC Transit General Manager, David Armijo, the aim of the policy is to prioritize

transit over the automobile, re-stating the policy, “…increased speed, better accessibility to, and improved

frequency of transit service encourages greater use of public transit and increases fare box revenues.”

However, both transit agencies state that the Telegraph improvements were created at the expense of

transit. BART interviewees feel that the streetscape modifications will reduce transit speeds and increase their

costs. “Oakland goals do not translate into our concerns.” When asked what role the city can play to

improve coordination efforts, the interviewees quickly suggested that the department hire a transit

coordinator. “We have never had a transit advocate at the City of Oakland; there has not been an

on-going relationship. We have come up against many missed opportunities.” In their final words, the

interviewees emphasized the East Bay’s position within the bay. “People are moving east and using the

system; this is our opportunity to make it better.”

COMMUNITY ADVOCACY GROUPS:SPUR & TRANSPORT OAKLAND

Local advocacy groups interviewed offered that the Oakland transit system needs to prioritize poor

connections. With limited financial resources, SPUR advocates for moving resources to where the most

number of riders reside, as well as encourage private partnerships with Uber and Lyft to support last-mile

coverage.



39/62

39

To make Oakland transit great, SPUR suggests bringing transit to a basic standard. To do this, and with limited

resources, a director of transportation planning at SPUR advocates for developing a priority list of Oakland’s

highest need areas. “If the same goal is appearing in twenty plans, then said goal should be tackled until it is

complete. In turn, this will articulate to the greater community that Oakland cares about transit. “Take thebusiest route and make it great.”

A member of Transport Oakland said that, “ …as far as transit goes, Oakland is on the right track-- the city

just needs to move the right projects forward.” The interviewee projected that this is likely due to not having

enough staffing. “…patchwork planning will no longer suffice...” Implementing transit infrastructure requires

conversations with the community, compromise, and pilot programs. Furthermore, in an agreement with the

interviewees from BART and AC Transit, Transport Oakland advocates for a revised Transit First Policy that

fights for basic service — “we have to ask ourselves what the best ways are to provide service is to our

customers.”

Listed on their website, Transport Oakland notes the importance of cross-agency coordination. Repair

relationships with AC Transit and BART and support the creation of an administrative process to

de-politicize decisions about bus stop additions, removals, and relocations. Transport Oakland advocates for

an Oakland DOT; the interviewee was candid about wanting a department that is well-resourced and

allows for staff to have explicit roles. “Dedicated staff will drive better policies and projects.”


G l h i d b th i t i


40/62

40

Goals emphasized by the interviewees:

Achieve a state of good repair; maintain existing

transportation infrastructure

Apply parking revenues to support transit

Coordinate with partnering transportation

providers to foster and incentivize ridership

Encourage transit-oriented and priority-area

development

Ensure that transit is accessible and equitable

Expand and modify transit service and improve

system connectivity

Implement priority treatments for transit on key

corridors

Improve frequencies and transfers

Increase effectiveness of a more financially stable

transit system

Move bus stop locations, amenities, and facilities

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions


VIII DISCUSSION: A SHARED TRANSIT STRATEGY


41/62

41

VIII. DISCUSSION: A SHARED TRANSIT STRATEGY

Actionable Recommendations

The City of Oakland, transit agencies, and regional commissions are in general agreement with the goals that

have been defined across more than thirty plans published at the local, city, and regional level. After an in-depthdocument synthesis, vetted with stakeholder interviews, the following goals are assumed necessary for providing

an effective transit system to the residents and visitors of Oakland.

The document analysis and the interviews articulated goals and strategies to improve the Oakland transit system.

How do we operationalize the aforementioned goals and strategies? The next phase of this report, seeks to pair

agencies to strategies to begin a conversation about next-steps and the necessary coordination efforts required

to achieve Oakland’s common goals for Transit. The following matrix pairs the strategies that are notated in the

reports and interviews with leading and supporting agencies.

Disclaimer: These strategies and partnerships are malleable; as they do not fully encompass the numerous

strategies and approaches to updating the current transit system.


IX THE MATRIX:


42/62

42

IX. THE MATRIX:

Responsible Agencies:

Leading = Support = S

City of

Oakland MTC ACTC

AC

Transit BART

Capitol

Corridor WETA Private

1Achieve a state of good repair;

maintain existing transportation

infrastructure

Increase local road pavement

condition index (PCI) to 75 or

better

Balance fleet expansion (busesand rail cars) against system

expansion (expanding road & rail

network) " Fix it First" Policy

2Coordinate with partnering

transportation providers to foster

and incentivize ridership

Coordinate schedules and fares

across the transit agencies to

create seamless riding

Coordinate with agencies to foster

shuttle and last mile services



43/62

2 Share resources between transitagenciesEstablish interagency review

procedures to maintain

consistency between plans, and toensure that future development is

consistent

Hold regular action-oriented

meetings with between the city

and transit partners to coordinate

immediate and long-term

planning

3 Encourage economicdevelopmentEnsure that improvement to

Broadway will not preclude the

possibility of future streetcar

service along the corridor/ trolley

service

4

Encourage TODs and priority

development areas (PDAs)

Support land-use patterns that

provide a mix of uses and greater

density around activity centers

Reduce the physical separation of

transit hubs



44/62

5 Enhance the dissemination oftransit information

Implement a way-finding program

Provide real-time transit departure

information online and at stations

and stops

Implement a printed brochures

(multilingual) to provide residents

to inform employees and visitors

about transportation alternatives

6 Ensure that transit is accessibleand equitable

Focus efforts in Communities of

Concern

Offer Ride Home Programs and

paratransit shuttle programs

Support and locate ADA services

in areas with good transit service


Support discounted tickets for


45/62

Support discounted tickets for

youth, seniors, and low-income

riders

7 Expand and modify transit service;improve connectivity

Expand morning and evening

service

Simplify corridors with shorter

routes to improve reliability and

legibility

Support the adoption of bus rapid

transit lines

Work with private shuttle operators

to expand the geographic area.

8 Implement priority treatments fortransit on key corridors

Ensure that residents on bus

corridors can easily walk transit


Support traffic management

practices, e.g. signal timing and


46/62

practices, e.g. signal timing and

queue jump lanes on priority

transit lanes

Reduce the amount of on-street

parking on transit routes to relievestreet congestion

9Improve bus stop locations,

amenities, and facilities (curb

management)

Move bus stop locations to

provide optimum spacing

between spots while increasing

length of bus stops

Create curb extensions,

accommodate in-lane stops, and

locate bus stops on the far side of

intersections

Improve stop facilities e.g.

benches and shelters

10 Improve customer service andoperational efficienciesEstablish common endpoints for

bus routes in order to access

common operator break facilities,

streamline road supervision


Support the Transit Performance


47/62

10

Initiative (TPI) that aim to use low-

cost technology upgrades to

dramatically improve the speed

and reliability of roadways and

transit service.

11 Improve frequencies and timedtransfers

Improve on-time performance of

transit service

Eliminate canceled assignments

and reduce late assignments

Design simple routes to improve

headway reliability

Install all-door boarding and off-

board payment systems

Ensure 15 minute frequency on

Major Corridors, 10 minutes on

Trunk Lines

12 Improve air quality and safety ofthe transit system



48/62

12 Promote a Safe Routes to TransitProgram

Monitor Collison Rates

Continue efforts to slow down

traffic

13 Increase effectiveness for a morefinancially stable transits systemHave supply match demand;

ensure that transit investments

achieve the greatest returns on

dollars spent

investment in the arterial network

will make efficient and effective

use of resources including

effective use of operating costs

14Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

and strengthen community

resilience

Fleet electrification and reduce

diesel emissions


15

Develop

special zoning to support transit


49/62

15 and pedestrian orientationon these streetsMonitor GHGs -- Increase non-

auto mode share by 10

percentage points

(to 26 percent of trips)

• Decrease automobile vehicle

miles traveled per capita by 10

percent

16 Use parking revenues to supporttransit

Parking Demand Management

Strategy "park-once-and-walk"

Establish a community Benefit

District or Parking Benefit District to

manage on-street and off-street

parking for revenue

Require development in lieu fees

go towards transit improvements


i. THEMES:


50/62

50

Beyond the sixteen aforementioned goals, themes are apparent that should be considered when the City of

Oakland and partnering agencies develop policies and action plans. The following considerations are central to

the success of implementing all goals and strategies. Those considerations are: Improving coordination efforts

Defining administrative policies.

i) COORDINATION:

During interviews with both AC Transit and BART, the interviewees addressed the need for improve coordination.

Gaps in communication and the lack of transit advocacy within public works, has led the agencies feeling

unsupported in a city which claims to be a transit-first city. Referring back to the planning documents, the desire to

improve coordination is apparent — with more than fifteen reports remarking on the need to improve

collaboration. This further nods to the academic research noted earlier in this report, which remarks on the need

to address planning more creatively through partnerships. At the regional level we read from MTC to coordinate

last-mile connecting services and to improve scheduled coordination. City-wide plans address this need, as well.

In the Complete Streets: Integrating the transportation system report, “Utilize leadership and strategic partnerships

to develop an integrated transportation system.” Neighborhood/Specific plans emphasis the need to coordinate

across public partners, but also with private shuttle services to fulfill last mile connections.


From the perspective of the transit operators and senior transportation planners at the city, there is a gap in

administrative policies which delays quick and effective change As shared without set policies and instructions


51/62

51

administrative policies, which delays quick and effective change. As shared, without set policies and instructions,

an improvement, arguably as simple as replacing or moving a bus-stop, is prolonged. When speaking to BART

employees on the matter, they noted that despite attempts, there continues to be little direction about who at

the city is effectively responsible for certain transit matters. Establishing defined roles and setting policies within TheCity of Oakland should curb these concerns.

(1)

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:

The plans reviewed for this report illustrate that the elements for the following administrative polices exist; the city

and partnering agencies have noted their importance and are pursuing them at a certain scale. This is an

opportunity to solidify these-- improving on their granularity for the betterment of the transit-system.

A Transit-First Policy: we have the elements of a transit-first

Unanimously, interviewees reflected that Oakland’s Transit First Policy, a policy enacted in 1996 to promote public

transit, has not been mirrored with changes on the ground. As communicated by members of Transport Oakland,

a policy is only as strong as the tools provided. Furthermore, in a 2006 resolution to introduce a car-free day in

Oakland, the following was stated, “…bring Bay Area residents to the premier transit-friendly hub of the East

Bay…” Yet, transit employees question the city’s dedication to becoming a more transit -oriented city, despite two-

decades of “policy.”

Parking Policy:

Based on the opinions of the agencies, Oakland cannot be a transit-oriented city without amending current

parking policies, a policy that should be paired with Transit-First. Interviewees from AC Transit and BART,

recommend setting parking maximums to remove bottlenecks at congested stations, and incentivizing public

transit ridership and carpool drop-offs. Furthermore, the agencies would like to see parking removals along


corridors, like Broadway, which can afford to have less parking. As suggested, a policy to remove parking from

11th-20th street along Broadway would improve the speed of bus rapid lines, a significant need for passengers who


52/62

52

11 20 street along Broadway would improve the speed of bus rapid lines, a significant need for passengers who

request improved on-time arrivals.

A Curb Management Policy:The need for a curb management policy is clear and plays into similar frustrations that the transit agencies share

about off-loading their passengers. At present, there is a general consensus from transit partners that a curb

management policy is required to set street standards. This includes policies for removing or extending curbs,

modifying on-street parking, and changing bus-stop locations. Furthermore, for transit hubs to be installed at key

locations throughout Oakland, it is critical that a curb management policy be accepted to pin-point central drop-

off locations and street designations.

A Way-Finding Policy:At present, way-finding and signage deployment is ad-hoc. Yet, MTC notes that signage is an inexpensive way to

increase ridership; “it’s the City of Oakland’s responsibility to take the lead on way-finding.” Oakland can do more

to improve Oakland branding for signaling and walk-signage. MTC’s perspective of way-finding is further detailed

by the agencies. In the interviews, AC Transit and BART interviewees, advocated for a city initiated way-finding

program to avoid conflicts at stations where multiple modes of traffic need to be directed.


X. NEXT STEPS:


53/62

53

Should Oakland move forward with a transit action plan, the first step that the City of Oakland needs to pursue is

to develop a protocol for prioritizing pipeline projects, based on the aforementioned common goals and

strategies. Defining top-priorities, a recommendation from SPUR and Transport Oakland, will direct resources andstaffing to the most critical projects. This process can begin by re-instating monthly action meetings with

stakeholders to determine which projects are the most viable.

Furthermore, action steps need to be taken to amend and develop administrative policies; this includes revising

the Transit First Policy, modifying the parking program, and creating a curb management program that emulates

AC Transit’s road standards. This process deserves up-front dedicated resources and staffing to determine

Oakland’s priority corridors and priority hubs.

Based on concerns derived from the interviews, it would be advantageous for the City of Oakland to hire a transit

coordinator to advocate for system-wide improvements. At present, a dedicated transit coordinator does not

exist; if this arrangement persists, it will gridlock the goals and strategies that all transit partners wish to achieve. This

empowered employee would have a strong understanding of this complex transit system-- able to maneuver and

advocate across the agencies, able to bring service up to a basic level of need, and creatively approach

inter-agency collaboration.

Above all, the city and its partners have an opportunity, the knowledge, and tools to strengthen Oakland transit to

improve access for current and future riders.


XI. APPENDIX:


54/62

54

Way-Finding Policies:

In 2010, the City of Alexandria, Virginia, assembled a way-finding stakeholder advisory group to unify the city’s

design identity, streamline signage protocols, and improve walking and transit direction information. A workinggroup formed allowing for a creative and collaborative process to lead the effort. Com