DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategies to Overcome Transportation Barriers for Rent Burdened Oakland Residents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategies to Overcome Transportation Barriers for Rent Burdened Oakland Residents Strategies to Overcome Transportation Barriers for Rent Burdened Oakland Residents Alexandra Pan Susan Shaheen, Ph.D UC Berkeley, in partnership with TransForm and Lyft Report for the California Strategic Growth Council March 2021 doi:10.7922/G237771N Strategies to Overcome Transportation Barriers for Rent Burdened Oakland Residents Alexandra Pan1 and Susan Shaheen, Ph.D1 1 University of California, Berkeley Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Clarrissa Cabansagan (TransForm), Lilly Shoup (formerly at Lyft, now at Shoup Strategies) and Debs Schrimmer (Lyft) for their invaluable feedback, contributions, and support throughout this research. We would also like to thank TransForm, the Unity Council, the Scraper Bike team, and Mary Lim Lampe at Genesis for their help with recruiting focus group, survey, and interview participants; Gordon Bauer, now at the International Council on Clean Transportation, and Jacquelyn Broader at the Transportation Sustainability Research Center for their help with data collection and analysis; and Adam Cohen, Elliot Martin, and Jessica Lazarus at the Transportation Sustainability Research Center for their support throughout this project. Lastly, this research would not have been possible without the time that focus group and interview participants spent talking to us about their use and perspectives of public transit and shared mobility. We deeply appreciate and value the insights these participants shared with us, and hope that this report is a step towards addressing the transportation barriers that rent burdened Oakland residents continue to face. This project is supported by California Strategic Growth Council's Climate Change Research Program with funds from California Climate Investments, a statewide initiative that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment - particularly in disadvantaged communities. 1 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4 Section 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 13 Background ............................................................................................................................... 14 Geographic Context .............................................................................................................. 14 Transportation Options ......................................................................................................... 15 Population of Interest ............................................................................................................ 16 Transformative Framework ...................................................................................................... 17 Section 2. Literature on Transportation Equity ............................................................................. 18 What is transportation equity? .................................................................................................. 18 Shared Mobility Equity Framework ......................................................................................... 18 Equity in Shared Mobility ......................................................................................................... 19 Shared Micromobility: Bikesharing ...................................................................................... 19 Shared Micromobility: Electric Scooter Sharing .................................................................. 22 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) ........................................................................ 26 Carsharing ............................................................................................................................. 30 Equity Pilots in Shared Mobility............................................................................................... 32 Key Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 33 Strategies for Operationalizing Equity .................................................................................. 37 Gaps in Shared Mobility Equity Literature ............................................................................... 42 Section 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 42 Expert Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 42 Focus Groups ............................................................................................................................ 43 Online Survey and In-depth Longitudinal Panel Resident Interviews ...................................... 43 Study Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 44 Section 4. Expert Interviews ......................................................................................................... 44 Design ....................................................................................................................................... 45 Community Involvement and Equity in Process .................................................................. 45 Equity Requirements in Shared Mobility Programs ............................................................. 46 Evaluation Metrics ................................................................................................................ 47 Findings..................................................................................................................................... 48 Preferences and Use Cases for Shared Mobility ................................................................... 48 Barriers to Low-Income Adoption and Use of Shared Mobility .......................................... 49 Reflections ................................................................................................................................ 50 2 Limitations of Shared Mobility: “It’s bigger than transportation” ....................................... 50 Opportunities for Shared Mobility ........................................................................................ 50 Future of Shared Mobility ..................................................................................................... 51 Section 5. East Oakland Focus Group Findings ........................................................................... 51 Participant Demographics ......................................................................................................... 51 Current Transportation Use ....................................................................................................... 52 Transportation Barriers ............................................................................................................. 54 Shared Mobility ........................................................................................................................ 55 Shared Mobility Incentives ....................................................................................................... 57 Incentives to Try Shared Mobility ........................................................................................ 57 Measures to Address Financial Barriers ............................................................................... 57 Pricing Strategies .................................................................................................................. 58 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 58 Access to shared mobility ..................................................................................................... 59 Awareness of shared mobility ............................................................................................... 60 Usage of shared mobility ...................................................................................................... 60 Section 6. Online Survey and Resident Interview Findings ......................................................... 60 Access and Awareness .............................................................................................................. 61 Bikesharing ........................................................................................................................... 62 Scooter sharing...................................................................................................................... 63 Shared electric mopeds ......................................................................................................... 63 Carsharing ............................................................................................................................. 63 TNCs ..................................................................................................................................... 64 Usage......................................................................................................................................... 64 General use of transportation ...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America
    Portland State University PDXScholar Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports Civil and Environmental Engineering Summer 2018 Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America David Soto Padín Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cengin_gradprojects Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Soto Padín, David, "Exploring the Relationship of Bikeshare and Transit in the United States of America" (2018). Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports. 52. https://doi.org/10.15760/CCEMP.51 This Project is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Civil and Environmental Engineering Master's Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP OF BIKESHARE AND TRANSIT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY DAVID RAFAEL SOTO PADÍN A research project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING Project Advisor: Kelly J. Clifton Portland State University ©2018 Final Draft ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the academic guidance provided by my advisor Dr. Kelly J. Clifton. This project would not have been possible without the support and feedback of my fellow graduate students in the transportation lab of Portland State University. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the author. The author would like to thank bikeshare operators for making their data available, including Motivate and Bicycle Transportation Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessibility and the Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’S Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L
    Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space CYNTHIA L. BENNETT Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] EMILY E. ACKERMAN Univerisity of Pittsburgh, [email protected] BONNIE FAN Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] JEFFREY P. BIGHAM Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] PATRICK CARRINGTON Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] SARAH E. FOX Carnegie Mellon University, [email protected] Over the past several years, micromobility devices—small-scale, networked vehicles used to travel short distances—have begun to pervade cities, bringing promises of sustainable transportation and decreased congestion. Though proponents herald their role in offering lightweight solutions to disconnected transit, smart scooters and autonomous delivery robots increasingly occupy pedestrian pathways, reanimating tensions around the right to public space. Drawing on interviews with disabled activists, government officials, and commercial representatives, we chart how devices and policies co-evolve to fulfill municipal sustainability goals, while creating obstacles for people with disabilities whose activism has long resisted inaccessible infrastructure. We reflect on efforts to redistribute space, institute tech governance, and offer accountability to those who involuntarily encounter interventions on the ground. In studying micromobility within spatial and political context, we call for the HCI community to consider how innovation transforms as it moves out from centers of development toward peripheries of design consideration. CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing~Accessibility~Empirical studies in accessibility Additional Keywords and Phrases: Micromobility, Accessibility, Activism, Governance, Public space ACM Reference Format: Cynthia L. Bennett, Emily E. Ackerman, Bonnie Fan, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Patrick Carrington, and Sarah E. Fox. 2021. Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobility’s Impact on Public Space.
    [Show full text]
  • DATE: January 4, 2019
    DATE: January 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager ENC: NACTO Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation (Version 1: July 2018) PREPARED BY: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: SHARED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEVICES The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to inquiries about the proposed operation of shared active transportation devices, such as scooters and bicycles. This memo provides pertinent background information, an overview of relevant City ordinances, policy and safety considerations and potential next steps for City Council consideration. Background In September 2018, the City was informed that Bird, an electric scooter sharing company, had unannounced plans to launch in San Luis Obispo without the proper permits or licenses. City staff reached out to Bird representatives and invited them to take part in a dialogue before beginning a “rogue launch” similar to the company’s practice in other cities. Bird responded favorably, traveled to San Luis Obispo and met with City staff to discuss their business model and has so far agreed to follow City policy and procedures relating to their business. Since then, four other scooter share companies have also inquired about operating in the City. They include Lime, Spin, Gotcha, and Uscooter. Staff has been in discussion with these companies and has informed them that a memo would be distributed to the Council outlining issues and potential paths and that no City actions would take place until such time as Council provided direction on whether to proceed with any ordinance changes and provide input on outreach, vendor selection, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study
    Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED FOR: The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Bike Sharing Advisory Working Group Alisha Oloughlin, Marin County Bicycle Coalition Benjamin Berto, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Eric Lucan, TAM Board Commissioner Harvey Katz, TAM Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Representative Stephanie Moulton-Peters, TAM Board Commissioner R. Scot Hunter, Former TAM Board Commissioner Staff Linda M. Jackson AICP, TAM Planning Manager Scott McDonald, TAM Associate Transportation Planner Consultants Michael G. Jones, MCP, Alta Planning + Design Principal-in-Charge Casey Hildreth, Alta Planning + Design Project Manager Funding for this study provided by Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee), a program supported by Marin voters and managed by the Transportation Authority of Marin. i Marin County Bicycle Share Feasibility Study Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ ii 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Report Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 What is Bike Sharing? ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Del Mar Staff Report
    City of Del Mar Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Clem Brown, Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager Via Scott Huth, City Manager DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJECT: License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to Operate the North County Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the City Council approve a license agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC (Attachment A) to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: The City of Del Mar is committed to reducing local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of climate change, while also offering viable transportation alternatives to driving. Del Mar has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes a number of strategies to meet GHG emissions reduction targets, including facilitating safe, convenient, and affordable alternative transportation options. Specifically, Goal 14 in the CAP includes a strategy to “explore implementation of a bike share program…to provide another transportation alternative for traveling in town.” Transportation, especially travel via single occupancy vehicles, is a major source of GHG emissions in Del Mar and the other north San Diego County (North County) coastal cities. Offering and promoting programs like bike share, that replace vehicle trips with bike trips, is one way Del Mar can help to reduce emissions while offering more efficient and more affordable transportation modes for residents, employees, and visitors. Bike share is a service by which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis, allowing them to borrow a bicycle at one location and return it either to the same or an alternate location within a defined geographic boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oregonian Apartment Construction Is Drying Up. Is
    The Oregonian Apartment Construction is Drying Up. Is Affordable Housing Measure to Blame? By Elliot Njus February 19, 2018 Portland’s apartment-building binge appears to be headed off a cliff. Applications for new housing developments have nearly ground to a halt over the past year, and there are plenty of reasons for that. Construction costs have ballooned, as have land prices. The glut of new construction, meanwhile, has taken the wind out of rising rents, at least at the high end. But Portland officials are increasingly worried the city’s inclusionary zoning policy, which compels developers to set aside rent-restricted units in large apartment and condo projects, might be playing a role, too. And if home construction dries up, it could ultimately push housing costs even higher. Only 12 privately financed developments large enough to trigger the mandate, totaling 654 units, have sought building permits since the policy took effect last year. A more typical year in the recent housing boom has seen thousands of new apartments proposed. Those projects would create 89 units geared toward households earning significantly less than the median income. It’s difficult to say, given the many conflicting variables, whether or to what extent inclusionary zoning is to blame for the drop-off. Meanwhile, there’s a backlog of projects that had been submitted before the rules took effect, representing up to two years of future development. Nonetheless, a city economic planner tasked with monitoring the program says it might be time to consider changes that could give developers a better deal — or risk putting an artificial cap on the housing supply, driving rents higher in the long run.
    [Show full text]
  • CONNECTING the RARITAN HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rutgers University Bloustein School of Policy and Planning | Fall 2016 Graduate Studio
    RUTGERS UNIVERSITY BIKE SHARE CONNECTING THE RARITAN HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rutgers University Bloustein School of Policy and Planning | Fall 2016 Graduate Studio ABOUT THE STUDIO This studio project is an analysis of the health impacts of the We met with Bloustein professors, with planning professionals, potential new Bike Share program planned for the Rutgers-New and with the organizers and staff of bike shares across the coun- Brunswick community. It builds upon our client’s – the Rutgers try in order to ask questions and gain invaluable advice on how University Department of Institutional Planning and Opera- to proceed with our analysis. We used this collected knowledge tion (IPO) – Internal Bicycle Share Proposal. The IPO report to build impact projections and develop a list of actionable rec- highlighted existing bicycle infrastructure, robust public trans- ommendations targeted at maximizing positive health outcomes portation infrastructure, and the high concentration of bicycle while mitigating health concerns. commuters in the study area as support for their proposal. This studio expanded on that analysis by examining the physical, This studio course is intended to advance the goals of Healthier mental, social, and economic health of the users and residents New Brunswick, a network of partners in the City of New Bruns- of Rutgers campus and the surrounding areas. Our targeted wick that are working together to ensure that all residents have audience for this analysis was people who currently do not bike; equal access to the services and conditions that allow for good we paid close attention to equity issues and vulnerable popula- health and well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Section 1
    Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Section 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Version 2 September 2019 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility 1. Regulating Shared Micromobility 5 a. What is Shared Micromobility? 5 b. City Authority for Regulation 6 c. Options for Regulation 7 2. General Terms and Conditions 9 a. General Provisions 10 b. Insurance, Bonds, and Fees 11 c. Enforcing Permit Terms 12 3. Scope & Operations Insight 15 a. Fleet Size 16 b. Fleet Removal/Relocation 18 c. Rebalancing & Fleet Distribution 19 d. Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance 20 e. Customer Service 23 f. Staffing and Workforce Development 24 g. Pricing 25 4. Public Engagement 27 a. Staffing & Events 28 b. Outreach Materials & Campaigns 28 c. Pricing & Discount Programs 29 5. Mobility Data & User Privacy 31 6. Infrastructure 35 a. Shared Micromobility Parking 36 b. Providing Safe Place to Ride 40 c. Restricted/Limited Access Areas 41 7. Current State of Practice 43 a. Vehicle Requirements 44 b. Fleet Requirements 45 c. Data Requirements 48 d. Fees 49 e. Employment Requirements 51 f. Adaptive Device Requirements 52 g. Discounted Pricing Programs 53 h. Multi-Language Requirements 54 i. Parking Requirements 55 2 Cover credit: San Jose Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility About Developed for cities, by cities, this guidance outlines best practices for cities and public entities regulating and managing shared micromobility services on their streets. While many of the issues covered are applicable to all forms of shared micromobility, this document is explicitly meant to help cities establish guidelines for formal management of public-use mobility options that are not managed through traditional procurement processes (the management mechanism for most docked bike share programs in North America).
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX B. FLM STRATEGIES TOOLKIT Introduction to the FLM Strategies Toolkit
    APPENDIX B. FLM STRATEGIES TOOLKIT Introduction to the FLM Strategies Toolkit This toolkit provides detailed information on 37 REUSE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE discrete FLM strategies. The toolkit is organized by FLM strategy theme. • Curbside Management • On-Demand Microtransit Each toolkit sheet includes: • Innovative Park-n-Ride Management • Shuttle Service • Support Implementation of Micromobility Service • Description of the strategy • Car Share Parking • Applicability of the strategy to each FLM • Preferential Parking for Car or Vanpool Vehicles • Special Event Transit Service typology • Prioritization of RTD Owned Land and Parking • Autonomous Transit • Applicability of the strategy to any of the six • Point-to-point Car Share FLM overlays • Provide Power • Key implementing agencies • Round-trip Car Share • Potential funding sources • A case study or resource pertaining to the strategy, including a link for more information NEW INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT • Bicycle and Micromobility Parking and Storage • Creation of EcoPass District • Multimodal Maps and Wayfinding • Bicycle Education and Encouragement Programs • Bike End-of-Trip Facilities and Amenities • Promotion of RTD Discount Passes • Website or App • Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) • Variable Message Signs FIRST AND LAST MILE GENERAL GUIDANCE • Dynamic Carpooling to Transit • Transit Access Marketing Plan • Pedestrian-Scale Lighting • Commuter Expert or Commuter Buddy • Improve Bicycle and Micromobility Infrastructure • Parking Cash-Out
    [Show full text]
  • BIKE SHARE in LOS ANGELES COUNTY an Analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze
    BIKE SHARE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY An analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze visit us at scag.ca.gov ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Prepared for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) On behalf of Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) BY ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN Jean Crowther, AICP Michael Jones Mike Sellinger WITH MOORE & ASSOCIATES Jim Moore Erin Kenneally Kathy Chambers SPECIAL THANKS TO City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation City of Santa Monica City of West Hollywood Bicycle Transit Systems CycleHop And the many community members who gave their time and energy to participate in our outreach efforts and whose insights added to the value and relevance of this study and its recommendations. TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS ..............................1 02 A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS ..........................................3 03 WHAT THE DATA TELLS US ........................................5 04 WHAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS TELL US .................19 05 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE .................27 APPENDICES A - Technology Integration Memo B - Statistical Analysis Methodology and Find- ings C - Agency & Operator Interview Questions D - User Survey E - Survey Results LA BIKE SHARE STUDY 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in The study centered on five core phases of analysis: partnership with Los Angeles Metro (Metro), commissioned a • User Survey: An online and intercept survey targeted existing study to better understand the role of bike share within the Los bike share users, available for 2 months in spring of 2019, Angeles regional transportation system. The results are intended which garnered 351 valid responses (201 from Metro users to guide decision-making related to future system investments and 150 from Santa Monica users) and provided a 95 percent and new shared mobility programs in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Asemattomien Kaupunkipyörien Ohjeistus Kunnille Sisällys
    Liikenneviraston tutkimuksia ja selvityksiä 27/2018 Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien ohjeistus kunnille Sisällys Tiivistelmä sivu 3 Esipuhe sivu 4 Ohjeistuksen tausta ja tavoitteet sivu 5 Terminologia sivu 6 1. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien lyhyt historia sivut 7-11 Liikenneviraston tutkimuksia ja 2. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien tunnuspiirteet sivut 12-18 selvityksiä 3. Osana liikennejärjestelmää ja matkaketjuja sivut 19-23 4. Palvelun laatu ja käyttäjäkokemus sivut 24-30 27/2018 5. Pyöräilyn ja kaupunkipyörien imago sivut 31-34 6. Ansaintalogiikka ja rahoitusmallit sivut 35-43 7. Asemattomien kaupunkipyörien nykytila maailmalla ja Suomessa sivut 44-55 Verkkojulkaisu pdf 8. Sähköavusteiset kaupunkipyörät sivut 56-64 (www.liikennevirasto.fi) ISSN-L 1798-6656 9. Lainsäädäntö ja sen tulkinta sivut 65-71 ISSN 1798-6664 10. Suositukset ja pelisäännöt sivut 72-84 ISBN 978-952-317-547-1 Esimerkkejä kaupunkikohtaisista pelisäännöistä ja ohjeista sivu 85 Lähteet sivu 86 Liite: Keskeisimmät lainkohdat sivut 87-95 Tiivistelmä Asemattomat kaupunkipyörät perustuvat digitalisaation Suoraan lainsäädännöstä kumpuavat kuntien keinot ohjata tuomiin mahdollisuuksiin, kuten älykkäisiin lukkojärjestelmiin asemattomien kaupunkipyöräjärjestelmien toimittajia ja ja niitä tukeviin älypuhelinsovelluksiin. Nämä mahdollistavat operaattoreita ennakoivasti ovat rajalliset. pyörän jakamisen usean käyttäjän kesken ilman tarvetta erillisiin asemiin. Pyörät voivat olla pysäköitynä vapaisiin Voidakseen ohjata prosessia kunnan kannattaa aktiivisesti pyörätelineisiin tai niille
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Mobility Pilot Program
    RESPONSE TO RFA: SHARED MOBILITY PILOT PROGRAM Prepared by Lyft Bikes and Scooters, LLC for the City of Santa Monica Primary Contact Information Name: David Fairbank Address: 1705 Stewart St., Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone #: < > Email: [email protected] CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT Please note that the information designated as confidential herein contains proprietary and confi- dential trade secrets, and/or commercial and financial data, the disclosure of which would cause substantial competitive harm to Lyft. Accordingly, Lyft requests that the City of Santa Monica main- tain the confidentiality of this information. Lyft further requests that, should any third party request access to this information for any reason, the City of Santa Monica promptly notify Lyft and allow Lyft thirty (30) days to object to the disclosure of the information and, if appropriate, redact any in- formation that Lyft deems non-responsive to the request before any disclosure is made. We have clearly marked each page of our proposal that contains trade secrets or personally identi- fying information that we believe are exempt from disclosure. The header of each page with confidential information is marked as illustrated to the TRADE SECRET - PROPRIETARY right: The specific written content on each page subject to these restrictions are bracketed < This specific content marked with the following symbols < >, as in this confidential and proprietary.> illustrative example to the right: Visual content and tables (e.g. images, screenshots) on each page subject to these restrictions will be highlighted with a pink border, as in this illustrative example below: The bracketed sections and highlighted visual content and tables are exempt from disclosure.
    [Show full text]