DOCSLIB.ORG

South and West Berkeley Central and East Oakland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South and West Berkeley Central and East Oakland Final S OUTH AND WEST BCERKELEYENTRAL AND EAST OAKLAND COMMUNITY-BASED T RANSPORTATION PLAN Alameda County Congestion Management Agency December, 2007 DESIGN, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT Final C ENTRAL AND EAST OAKLAND COMMUNITY BASED T RANSPORTATION PLAN Submitted to Alameda County Congestion Management Agency December, 2007 DESIGN, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT 1625 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 300 TEL: 510 848 3815 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94709 FAX: 510 848 4315 in association with Nelson\Nygaard Consulting TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................. 1-1 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 2-1 3. EXISTING LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS................................................... 3-1 4. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK AND GAPS...................................... 4-1 5. COMMUNITY OUTREACH ........................................................................... 5-1 6. STRATEGIES ............................................................................................... 6-1 7. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................ 7-1 Appendices Appendix A: AC Transit Service Changes Appendix B: Workshop Summary Appendix C: Survey Instrument i ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY CENTRAL AND EAST OAKLAND COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Figure 3-1 Central and East Oakland Project Area .................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2 Central and East Oakland Zoning Map .................................. 3-4 Figure 3-3 Distribution of Central and East Oakland Residents with Household Incomes Below 200 Percent of Federal Poverty Level, 1999................................... 3-9 Figure 3-4 Distribution of Households with No Vehicles, 2000........................................................................................ 3-14 Figure 3-5 Residents Under 18, Central and East Oakland, 2000........................................................................................ 3-15 Figure 3-6 Residents 65 or Older, Central and East Oakland, 2000........................................................................................ 3-16 Figure 4-1 Transit Service, Central and East Oakland ............................. 4-4 Figure 4-2 Weekday Peak Frequencies, Transit Routes that Directly Serve Central and East Oakland ............................... 4-5 Figure 5-1 Project area Zip Codes ............................................................ 5-8 Figure 5-2 Outreach Results ................................................................... 5-11 ii ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY CENTRAL AND EAST OAKLAND COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Table 3-1 Household Income Ranges, Project Area and Alameda County, 1999.......................................................... 3-6 Table 3-2 Household Income Ranges, Project Area and Alameda County, 1999.......................................................... 3-7 Table 3-3 Population with Household Income Below 200 Percent of Federal Poverty Level, 1999................................. 3-7 Table 3-4 Vehicle Availability, Central and East Oakland Residents, 2000 .................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5 Race of Residents, Project Area and Alameda County, 2000 ....................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-6 Race of Residents, Project Area and Alameda County, 2000 ....................................................................... 3-13 Table 3-7 Ethnicity of Residents, Project Area and Alameda County, 2000 (Table)........................................................... 3-13 Table 3-8 Ethnicity of Residents, Project Area and Alameda County, 2000 ....................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-9 Age Distribution of Residents, Project Area and Alameda County, 2000........................................................ 3-17 Table 3-10 Age Distribution of Residents, Project Area and Alameda County, 2000........................................................ 3-18 Table 3-11 Primary Household Language, 2000 ................................... 3-19 Table 3-12 Linguistic Isolation, 2000..................................................... 3-20 Table 3-13 Mode of Travel to Work, Central and East Oakland Workers, 2000....................................................... 3-22 Table 4-1 AC Transit Discount Pass Sales Locations in Central and East Oakland ..................................................... 4-3 Table 4-2 Summary of AC Transit Routes Serving Central and East Oakland................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-3 BART Discount Ticket Sales Locations in Central and East Oakland ................................................... 4-10 iii ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY CENTRAL AND EAST OAKLAND COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 4-4 Summary of BART Service to Central and East Oakland ............................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-5 Lifeline Transit Routes Serving Central and East Oakland ............................................................................... 4-15 Table 4-6 Lifeline Routes Frequency of Service .................................. 4-18 Table 4-7 Non-Lifeline Routes Frequency of Service.......................... 4-21 Table 4-8 Lifeline Routes Hours of Operation Objectives ................. 4-23 Table 4-9 Non-Lifeline Routes Hours of Operation Objectives ............................................................................ 4-26 Table 4-10 Bicycle Plan Priority projects .............................................. 4-35 Table 5-1 Geographic Distribution of Survey Respondents.................. 5-9 Table 5-2 Mode of Travel .................................................................... 5-10 Table 5-3 AC Transit Issues of Concern ............................................. 5-13 Table 5-4 BART Issues of Concern ..................................................... 5-15 Table 5-5 Pedestrian Issues of Concern ............................................... 5-15 Table 5-6 Bicyclist Issues of Concern .................................................. 5-17 Table 5-7 Paratransit Issues of Concern .............................................. 5-17 Table 5-8 Vanpool and Shuttle Issues of Concern............................... 5-18 Table 5-9 Transportation Solutions..................................................... 5-21 Table 5-10 Destinations Difficult to Reach ........................................... 5-23 Table 5-11 Modes of Travel by Zip Code ............................................. 5-25 Table 5-12 Destinations by Zip Code.................................................... 5-26 Table 5-13 AC Transit - Major Issues by Zip Code .............................. 5-27 Table 5-14 BART – Major Issues by Zip Code ..................................... 5-28 Table 5-15 Walking – Major Issues by Zip Code .................................. 5-30 Table 5-16 Top Solutions by Zip Code................................................. 5-31 Table 6-1 Evaluation Criteria for Transportation Strategies................. 6-2 Table 6-2 Overall Ranking for Strategies............................................... 6-4 Table 6-3 Evaluation of Streetscape and Bus Stop Improvements along Transit Corridors and at BART Stations..................................................................... 6-14 Table 6-4 Evaluation of AC Transit Route 14 Nighttime Service south of the Eastmont Transit Center .................... 6-16 iv ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY CENTRAL AND EAST OAKLAND COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Table 6-5 Evaluation of Reinstating AC Transit Route 98 Night and Weekend Service ................................................ 6-18 Table 6-6 Evaluation of Transit Information Strategies...................... 6-22 Table 6-7 Evaluation of Pay-As-You-Go Discount Passes for BART and AC Transit .................................................. 6-22 Table 6-8 Evaluation of a Joint AC Transit-BART Discount Pass for Low Income Residents ........................... 6-28 Table 6-9 Evaluation of AC Transit Weekend Transfer Window Extension.............................................................. 6-29 Table 6-10 Evaluation of Additional OPED Round Trips in Vans and Taxis..................................................................... 6-31 Table 6-11 Evaluation of OPED Service for Group Trips.................... 6-32 Table 6-12 Evaluation of Signing and Striping and/or Lane Conversion Projects to Improve Bicycle Connections to BART Stations........................................... 6-36 Table 6-13 Evaluation of Coliseum BART to Bay Trail Connector Path ................................................................... 6-37 Table 6-14 Evaluation of Bicycle Programs (e.g. Road I Courses, Cycles of Change)................................................. 6-39 Table 6-15 Evaluation of Subsidized Car Sharing ................................. 6-41 Table 7-1 Potential Funding Sources by Project Type........................ 7-16 v ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY CENTRAL AND EAST OAKLAND COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Introduction The Central and East Oakland Community-Based Transportation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vii. Report Preparation
    VII. REPORT PREPARATION A. REPORT PREPARATION LSA Associates, Inc. Report Production and Management; Project Description; Land Use, Population and Housing; Agriculture; Air Quality; Noise; Global Climate Change; Public Services; Utilities and Energy; Visual and Scenic Resources; Alternatives; and Other CEQA Considerations. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Judith H. Malamut, AICP, Principal-in-Charge and Project Manager Hannah Young, AICP, Planner Amy Fischer, Senior Planner (Air Quality and Noise) Phil Ault, Analyst (Air Quality and Noise) Jason Paukovits, Air Quality Specialist (Global Climate Change) Fred Bauermeister, Planner Lauren Haring, Assistant Planner Jennifer Morris, Word Processing and Production Patty Linder, Graphics and Production LSA Associates, Inc. Historic and Cultural Resources; and Biological Resources. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 Christian Gerike, Principal (Cultural Resources) Steve Foreman, Principal (Biological Resources) E. Timothy Jones, Cultural Resources Manager Tim Lacy, Biological Resources Manager Andrew Pulcheon, Associate (Cultural Resources) Greg Gallaugher, Associate (GIS Specialist) LSA Associates Inc. Air Quality and Noise 20 Executive Park, #200 Irvine, CA 92614 Tony Chung, Principal (Air Quality and Noise) Ronald Brugger, Air Quality Specialist Baseline Environmental Consulting. Hydrology and Water Quality; Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Mineral Resources; and Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D Emeryville, CA 94608 Yané Nordhav, Principal Bruce Abelli-Amen, Hydrologist (Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality) Cheri Page, Senior Geologist (Hazards) Ralph Russell, Environmental Specialist (Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality) P:\CYK0701 Yolo GP EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\7-RprtPrep.doc (4/27/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 819 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. YOLO COUNTY 2030 COUNTYWIDE GENERAL PLAN EIR APRIL 2009 VII.REPORT PREPARATION Estep Environmental Consulting.
    [Show full text]
  • AQ Conformity Amended PBA 2040 Supplemental Report Mar.2018
    TRANSPORTATION-AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments MARCH 2018 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Jake Mackenzie, Chair Dorene M. Giacopini Julie Pierce Sonoma County and Cities U.S. Department of Transportation Association of Bay Area Governments Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair Federal D. Glover Alameda County Contra Costa County Bijan Sartipi California State Alicia C. Aguirre Anne W. Halsted Transportation Agency Cities of San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Libby Schaaf Tom Azumbrado Oakland Mayor’s Appointee U.S. Department of Housing Nick Josefowitz and Urban Development San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee Warren Slocum San Mateo County Jeannie Bruins Jane Kim Cities of Santa Clara County City and County of San Francisco James P. Spering Solano County and Cities Damon Connolly Sam Liccardo Marin County and Cities San Jose Mayor’s Appointee Amy R. Worth Cities of Contra Costa County Dave Cortese Alfredo Pedroza Santa Clara County Napa County and Cities Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cities of Alameda County Association of Bay Area Governments Supervisor David Rabbit Supervisor David Cortese Councilmember Pradeep Gupta ABAG President Santa Clara City of South San Francisco / County of Sonoma San Mateo Supervisor Erin Hannigan Mayor Greg Scharff Solano Mayor Liz Gibbons ABAG Vice President City of Campbell / Santa Clara City of Palo Alto Representatives From Mayor Len Augustine Cities in Each County City of Vacaville
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Report
    TABLE OF CONTENTS OAKLAND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Page SUMMARY S-1 I. INTRODUCTION I-1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION II-1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS III-A-1 AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Land Use III.A-1 B. Transportation and Circulation III.B-1 C. Population, Housing, and Employment III.C-1 D. Public Services III.D-1 E. Air Quality III.E-1 F. Visual and Aesthetic Conditions III.F-1 G. Cultural and Historic Resources III.G-1 H. Vegetation and Wildlife III.H-1 I. Hydrology and Water Quality III.I-1 J. Energy III.J-1 K. Geology and Seismicity III.K-1 L. Noise III.L-1 M. Hazardous Materials III.M-1 N. Wind III.N-1 O. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies III.O-1 IV. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IV-1 V. IMPACT OVERVIEW V-1 VI. REPORT PREPARERS VI-1 APPENDICES 1. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study 1-1 2. Hazardous Materials Supporting Documentation 2-1 Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element EIR ii Environmental Science Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures S-2 II-1 Households, Population, and Employment, 1995 and 2015 II-7 II-2 Household and Job Growth in the City’s Twelve Planning Areas, 1995-2015 II-8 II-3 General Plan Goals II-10 II-4 Correlation Between Proposed and Existing Land Use Categories II-16 II-5 Projects Within the Downtown Showcase District II-20 II-6 Projects Within the Coliseum Showcase District II-21 II-7 Major Land Use Diagram Change Areas II-24 II-8 Acreage in Proposed Land
    [Show full text]
  • As a Longtime Fan of NHK World's Japan Railway Journal, I've Seen
    ISSUE 3 MAY 3, 2020 watching. Spuzz’s 2003 review also points out that there is even “a cute animated character which adds NOTHING to the film.” Who could pass on that? During World War II, the Key System temporarily expanded and ran trains directly to the Richmond Shipyard from 40th and San Pablo. The railroad was built using scrap material and decommissioned New York subway cars. The Key Route’s reign ended in 1958, and its privately-held services were replaced by public transit agencies AC Transit (which bought out the Key System) and later BART. P.S. if you want to have a good time with conspiracy theories, check out the demise of the Key Route as a factor in the GM Streetcar Conspiracy, which weirdly I had never realized is the basis for the plot of the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit?! Vestiges of the Key Route still linger on in the East Bay. I was most excited to learn that the mysterious tunnel behind the Target on the West Oakland-Emeryville border was actually a subway for Key System trains (and now leads to a sewer that is part of East Bay MUD). As a longtime fan of NHK World’s Japan train hopper serial killer who struck on NOTE: the Key System also included Railway Journal, I’ve seen the our railroad line here in 1996. Finally, ferries, which leads to my perpetual aftermath of many Shinkansen I did a deep dive into historic East Bay question: WHY IS THERE NO FERRY SERVICE derailments. I never thought I’d see railways.
    [Show full text]
  • Item #15-2-2 Transportation Committee Action
    Item #15-2-2 Transportation Committee Action January 29, 2015 Unmet Transit Needs Findings for Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and the Cities Therein Issue: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that SACOG, as the four-county Regional Transportation Planning Agency, make annual unmet transit needs findings for the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) and for jurisdictions eligible to use TDA funds. Jurisdictions outside of the SRTD are permitted to use TDA funds on street and road projects if they have filled all transit requests that meet SACOG’s adopted definitions of “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet.” Recommendation: That the Transportation Committee recommend that the Board: (1) approve the minutes of the five previously held public hearings on unmet transit needs in Sacramento County, including the SRTD and cities therein, and in Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties and the cities therein (see Attachments F-H), and of the public hearing held on January 29, 2015, before the SACOG Board of Directors (Attachment I); and (2) adopt the attached resolutions regarding unmet transit needs in each county, cities therein, and the SRTD. Discussion: State TDA statute established a Local Transportation Fund (LTF) for each county. LTF revenues are derived from 1/4 cent of the state retail sales tax and are returned to each county according to the amount of tax collected. LTF funds are apportioned to jurisdictions within each county on a population basis. In Sacramento County, the LTF apportioned to jurisdictions located within the SRTD may only be used for transit service.
    [Show full text]
  • List Service Groups 1 and 2 Addendum 3
    Request for Proposal for Zero Waste Services Service Groups 1 and 2 City Facilities ‐ List Addendum 3 Facility Name Facility Address ALLENDALE RECREATION CENTER 3711 SUTER ST ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 1101 29TH AVE ARROYO COMMUNITY GARDEN 79TH AVE CUL‐DE‐SAC AND ARROYO TENNIS COURTS 8006 PLYMOUTH ST ARROYO VIEJO RECREATION CENTER 7701 KRAUSE AVE BROOKDALE RECREATION CENTER 2535 HIGH ST BURKHALTER TENNIS COURT 3923 COLUMBIAN DR BUSHROD RECREATION CENTER 560 59TH ST CALDECOT FIELD 6900 BROADWAY CARMEN FLORES RECREATION CTR 1637 FRUITVALE AVE CARTER GILMORE FIELD 1390 66TH AVE CHABOT FIELD 6850 CHABOT RD CHABOT TENNIS COURT 6884 CHABOT RD CITY HALL 1 FRANK H OGAWA PLAZA CITY STABLES 13560 SKYLINE BLVD CLINTON PARK 655 INTERNATIONAL BLVD COLUMBIA GARDENS PARK (ENTERPRISE) 9854 KOFORD RD COMMUNITY GARDEN 876 47TH ST COMMUNITY GARDEN PROGRAM 1700 MARKET ST CONCORDIA RECREATION CENTER 2901 64TH AVE CURT FLOOD FIELD PARK 3200 BOSTON AVE DALZIEL BUILDING 250 FRANK H OGAWA PLAZA DAVIE TENNIS STADIUM 198 OAK RD, PIEDMONT DEFREMERY POOL 1269 18TH ST DEFREMERY REC CENTER 1651 ADELINE ST DEFREMERY TENNIS COURT 1239 18TH ST DIMOND PARK & REC CENTER 3860 HANLY RD DIMOND TENNIS COURT 3743 FRUITVALE AVE DOWNTOWN OAKLAND SENIOR CENTER 200 GRAND AVE DUNMUIR HOUSE 2960 PERALTA OAKS CT EAST OAKLAND SPORTS CENTER (STORED/SHARED WITH IRA JINKINS REC. C9161 EDES AVE EASTMONT POLICE SUBSTATION 2651 73RD AVE ESTUARY PARK (BOAT LAUNCH) (Park) 107 EMBARCADERO EAST F M SMITH RECREATION CTR 1969 PARK BLVD FAIRYLAND 245 GRAND AVE FAIRYLAND 699 BELLEVUE AVE FIRE ADMINISTRATION
    [Show full text]
  • City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage
    City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Confirmation Sign Turn Sign Decision Sign City of Oakland, Department of Transportation Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3983 | [email protected] | www.oaklandbikes.info September 2017 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Standard Signs for Bicycle Wayfinding .............................................................................................. 3 Sign Assembly Types ............................................................................................................................ 3 Sign Placement Principles .................................................................................................................... 4 Sign Frequency ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Sign Layout Principles .......................................................................................................................... 5 Logos/Symbols Used on Decision & Confirmation Signs ............................................................ 7 Differences From the MUTCD Sign Layout Specifications .......................................................... 7 Sign Messaging Principles ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 5-26-17 Joint Powers Authority Agenda
    Supervisor Vito Chiesa, Chair, Stanislaus County Alternate Richard O’Brien, City of Riverbank Councilmember Don Tatzin, Vice-Chair, City of Lafayette Alternate Federal Glover, Contra Costa County Councilmember Patrick Hume, Vice-Chair, City of Elk Grove Alternate Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Supervisor Rodrigo Espinoza, Merced County Alternate Mike Villalta, City of Los Banos Supervisor Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Alternate Tom Blalock, BART Councilmember Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Alternate Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Supervisor Doug Verboon, Kings County Alternate Justin Mendes, City of Hanford Supervisor Brett Frazier, Madera County Alternate Andrew Medellin, City of Madera Supervisor Sal Quintero, Fresno County Alternate Michael Derr, City of Selma Supervisor Amy Shuklian, Tulare County Alternate Bob Link, City of Visalia AGENDA May 26, 2017 – 1:00 PM Fresno County Board of Supervisors Chambers 2281 Tulare Street, Fresno CA San Joaquin Joint Powers Sacramento County Authority Administration Building 36437 East Ridge Road 949 East Channel Street 700 H Street, Suite 2450 Sea Ranch, CA 95497 Stockton, CA 95202 Sacramento, CA 95814 This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at 209-944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting. All proceedings before the Authority are conducted in English.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniquely Oakland San Francisco Business Times
    SPECIAL ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 Uniquely OaklandOpportunities shine in California’s most inclusive and innovative city 2 ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT UNIQUELY OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES Welcome to Mandela Station MANDELA STATION @WEST OAKLAND BART A Culture-Rich Transit Oriented Development 7TH ST T2 T1 Located at the 5.5-acre West Oakland Bart Station Site T3 T4 5TH ST A Centrally Located 750 Residential Units Opportunity Zone Project (approx. 240 units below market-rate) 500,000 sq.ft. of Class A oce space Only 7 minutes from Downtown San Francisco (via BART) 75,000 sq.ft. of quality retail Over 400 parking stalls Only 4 minutes to Downtown PROJ. # 168-153 WO BART Oakland (via BART) DATE: April 30, 2019 SHEET: A Regional Community...Connected JRDV ARCHITECTS INC. COPYRIGHT C 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. We’re on the Edge - and taking transit oriented living to the next level. www.westoaklandstation.com #WOSTATION [email protected] 中国港湾工程有限 公司 Strategic Urban Development Alliance, LLC China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. suda SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 UNIQUELY OAKLAND ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT 3 ‹ A LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF OAKLAND › Uniquely Oakland Everyone belongs in the world’s best city for smart businesses, large or small elcome to Oakland, Calif., the best place ment dollars are pouring in, driving construction on the planet to pursue prosperity. on 240,000 square feet of new retail space and W If that seems like exaggeration, 945,000 square feet of new office space with consider this: Oakland is ideally located at the openings slated for 2019, 2020 and 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage 7’ Minimum 10’ Typical
    City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage 10’ typical 7’ minimum Confirmation Sign Turn Sign Decision Sign City of Oakland, Community & Economic Development Agency Transportation Services Division, Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Program 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 4344, Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 238-3983 | [email protected] | www.oaklandbikes.info July 2009 Design Guidelines for Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Background Action 1A.4 of the City of Oakland’s Bicycle Master Plan (2007) states, “Route Signage: Develop an informative and visible signage system for the bikeway network, building on existing bikeway signage, that includes directional and distance information to major destinations.” In Section 3.3, the Plan provides a discussion of the bicycle wayfinding signs that Oakland has used in the past. The following approach applies to all new bicycle wayfinding signage in the City of Oakland. Overall Approach Destination, direction, and distance information will be included on designated bikeways. Figure 1 provides a full list of supported destinations with guidance on how distances are measured. Figure 2 is a map of these destinations showing their distribution throughout the city. The destinations are organized into a hierarchy of three categories. Primary destinations are downtown and adjoining jurisdictions and are signed at distances of up to five miles. Secondary destinations are transit stations and districts and are signed at distances of up to two miles. Tertiary destinations include parks, landmarks, colleges, hospitals, and high schools. They are generally signed at distances up to one mile. Overall, the system supports approximately 100 destinations. Standard Signs for Bicycle Wayfinding The overall approach follows the look and feel of standard highway guide signs while the detailed design is tailored for bicyclists.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Oakland
    Mapping Small Arts & Culture Organizations of Color in Oakland A benchmark project that will encourage funders to adopt intentional investment strategies to support the longterm stability of this sector. Contents 1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 4 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 Why This Project? .............................................................................................................. 5 Racial Equity in Arts Philanthropy ....................................................................................... 6 Art and Cultural Practice as Tools for Social Change ............................................................ 8 3. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 10 Data Limitations ............................................................................................................... 10 Sector Overview ............................................................................................................... 11 4. Key Findings ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivating the Commons an Assessment of the Potential For
    Portland State University PDXScholar Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications Urban Studies and Planning and Presentations 12-2010 Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Nathan McClintock Portland State University, [email protected] Jenny Cooper University of California - Berkeley Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac Part of the Social Policy Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation McClintock, N., and Cooper, J. (2010). Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land. Available at www.urbanfood.org. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Studies and Planning Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land by Nathan McClintock & Jenny Cooper Department of Geography University of California, Berkeley REVISED EDITION – December 2010 ! i Cultivating the Commons An Assessment of the Potential for Urban Agriculture on Oakland’s Public Land Nathan McClintock & Jenny Cooper Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley October 2009, revised December 2010 In collaboration with: City Slicker Farms HOPE Collaborative Institute for Food & Development Policy (Food First) This project was funded in part by the HOPE Collaborative. City Slicker Farms was the fiscal sponsor. Food First published print copies of the report.
    [Show full text]