DOCSLIB.ORG

THE EAST BAY GREENWAY: EXPLORING the PARADOX of ENVIRONMENTAL GENTRIFICATION the Degree a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE EAST BAY GREENWAY: EXPLORING the PARADOX of ENVIRONMENTAL GENTRIFICATION the Degree a Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Of THE EAST BAY GREENWAY: EXPLORING THE PARADOX OF ENVIRONMENTAL GENTRIFICATION A Thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of ^ the requirements for the Degree - a o \ \ Master of Arts C* o G In •TU Geography by Erika Nicole Poveda San Francisco, California December 2017 Copyright by Erika Nicole Poveda 2017 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read The East Bay Greenway: Exploring the Paradox of Environmental Gentrification by Erika Nicole Poveda, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Arts in Geography at San Francisco State University. THE EAST BAY GREENWAY: EXPLORING THE PARADOX OF ENVIRONMENTAL GENTRIFICATION Erika Nicole Poveda San Francisco, California 2017 The San Francisco Bay Area has a close and contentious relationship with gentrification, displacement, and environmental justice. Little research to date has explored how these three factors interact with one another through the process of environmental gentrification. Through a case study of the proposed East Bay Greenway development project in Alameda County, California this research examines if environmental gentrification is being considered by urban planners, city officials, and community residents during the early planning stages of the greenway. Rather than measuring gentrification after development, this study is uniquely situated to offer an analysis before greening efforts take place in disadvantaged urban communities within the San Francisco Bay Area. Through providing a valuable snapshot of an area prior to the completion of a countywide sustainable development project, the research offers a more complete understanding of the complex relationship between environmental gentrification, environmental justice, and sustainable development than has thus far been done. Data for this study was gathered from planning documents, an online questionnaire and semi­ structured interviews with stakeholders. Insights from this case study can benefit community residents, activists, and urban planners. bstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. Ii / Chair, Thesis Committee Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis advisers, Tendai Chitewere and Jennifer Blecha, for your time, encouragement, and guidance. I would also like to thank my husband, Carlos Poveda, and my mother, Connie Lindstrom, for the constant support throughout the thesis process. Thank you to the Academic Technology team at San Francisco State University for graciously providing meeting space. Finally, this project would not have been possible without the participants. I would like to thank each individual for sharing his/her valuable experience, knowledge, and beliefs with me. Each individual added an immense amount of insight to this study. v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables......................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures...........................................................................................................................ix List of Appendices.................................................................................................................... x 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND & LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................3 2.1 Gentrification..........................................................................................................4 2.2 Environmental Justice........................................................................................... 7 2.3 Environmental Gentrification..............................................................................13 2.3a Drivers of Environmental Gentrification............................................. 14 2.3b Outcomes of Environmental Gentrification.........................................14 2.3c Contesting Environmental Gentrification............................................16 3.0 CASE STUDY.......................................... 19 3.1 East Bay Greenway...............................................................................................19 3.2 Study Area Geography & Demographics.......................................................... 27 4.0 RESEARCH METHODS................................................................................................ 31 4.1 Archival Data......................................................................................................31 4.1 a Census Data......................................................................................... 31 4.1b Planning Documents............................................................................. 32 4.2 Online Questionnaire........................................................................................... 32 4.2a Questionnaire Procedure....................................................................... 33 4.2b Questionnaire Design............................................................................ 35 4.3 Semi-Structured Interviews.................................................................................38 4.3a Interview Procedure.............................................................................. 38 4.3b Interview Design............................. 39 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................40 5.1 Quantitative Data................................................................................................. 40 5.2 Qualitative Data................................................................................................... 41 6.0 FINDINGS.........................................................................................................................43 6.1 Community Context............................................................................................. 43 6.2 Equity.................................................................................................................... 44 6.3 Community Concerns..........................................................................................49 6.4 Community Impacts............................................................................................. 53 6.5 Gentrification........................................................................................................55 6.6 Public Engagement & Responsibility to the Community................................. 60 7.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................. 63 8.0 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 64 References..................................................................................................... 67 Appendix..................................................................................................................................76 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of Questionnaire Participant & Study Area Demographics 34 2. Breakdown of Interview Participants............................................................... 39 3. Sample Qualtrics Analysis Table......................................................................41 4. Community Concerns (Community Questionnaire).......................................51 5. Housing Tenure & Gentrification Concerns...................................................52 6. Community Impacts (Semi-Structured Interviews)........................................53 7. Community Impacts (Community Questionnaire)..........................................55 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1. Devalorization Cycle..............................................................................................6 2. The High Line in New York City, NY............................................................... 11 3. Ohlone Greenway.................................................................................................21 4. Existing Conditions at Hayward BART Station................................................ 22 5. East Bay Greenway at Oakland Airport/Coliseum BART Station..........24 6. East Bay Greenway at Oakland Airport/Coliseum BART Station..........25 7. Map of Alameda County.....................................................................................27 8. Map of the East Bay Greenway...........................................................................28 9. Study Area Population by Race...........................................................................29 10. Distribution of Households in Study Area......................................................... 30 11. Lack of Green Space Near Hayward BART Station...........................................45 12. Litter at Coliseum BART Station.........................................................................47 13. Community Concerns (Interview Participants)...................................................50 ix LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page 1. Community Online Questionnaire....................... ..................................................76 2. Interview Guides....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 Air Quality Conformity Analysis
    DRAFT AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY AND CONSISTENCY REPORT JULY 2021 PBA2050 COMMISH BOARD DRAFT 06.14.21 Metropolitan Transportation Association of City Representatives Commission Bay Area Governments Susan Adams Alfredo Pedroza, Chair Jesse Arreguín, President Councilmember, City of Rohnert Park Napa County and Cities Mayor, City of Berkeley Nikki Fortunato Bas Nick Josefowitz, Vice Chair Belia Ramos, Vice President Councilmember, City of Oakland San Francisco Mayor's Appointee Supervisor, County of Napa London Breed Margaret Abe-Koga David Rabbitt, Mayor, City and County of San Francisco Cities of Santa Clara County Immediate Past President Tom Butt Supervisor, County of Sonoma Eddie H. Ahn Mayor, City of Richmond San Francisco Bay Conservation Pat Eklund and Development Commission County Representatives Mayor, City of Novato David Canepa Candace Andersen Maya Esparza San Mateo County Supervisor, County of Contra Costa Councilmember, City of San José Cindy Chavez David Canepa Carroll Fife Santa Clara County Supervisor, County of San Mateo Councilmember, City of Oakland Damon Connolly Keith Carson Neysa Fligor Marin County and Cities Supervisor, County of Alameda Mayor, City of Los Altos Carol Dutra-Vernaci Cindy Chavez Leon Garcia Cities of Alameda County Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of American Canyon Dina El-Tawansy Otto Lee Liz Gibbons California State Transportation Agency Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Mayor, City of Campbell (CalSTA) Gordon Mar Giselle Hale Victoria Fleming Supervisor, City and County Vice Mayor, City of Redwood City Sonoma County and Cities of San Francisco Barbara Halliday Dorene M. Giacopini Rafael Mandelman Mayor, City of Hayward U.S. Department of Transportation Supervisor, City and County Rich Hillis Federal D.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget & Finance Agenda
    BOARD OF DIRECTORS MOBILE SOURCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TIM SMITH - CHAIR JAKE McGOLDRICK – VICE CHAIR TOM BATES SCOTT HAGGERTY YORIKO KISHIMOTO CAROL KLATT MARK ROSS JOHN SILVA GAYLE B. UILKEMA WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 19, 2008 4TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM Immediately following Board Meeting DISTRICT OFFICES AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Pursuant to Government Code § 54954.3) Members of the public are afforded the opportunity to speak on any agenda item. All agendas for regular meetings are posted at District headquarters, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA, at least 72 hours in advance of a regular meeting. At the beginning of the regular meeting agenda, an opportunity is also provided for the public to speak on any subject within the Committee’s subject matter jurisdiction. Speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes each. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2008 4. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR SELECTION FOR THE VEHICLE BUY-BACK PROGRAM J. Colbourn/5192 jcolbourn@baaqmd.gov The Committee will consider recommending Board of Directors’ approval of one or more contractors to provide dismantling services for the Vehicle Buy Back Program. 5. CONSIDERATION OF $41,498,594 IN CALIFORNIA GOODS MOVEMENT BOND FUNDING PROJECTS J. Broadbent/5052 jbroadbent@baaqmd.gov The Committee will consider recommending Board of Directors’ approval of staff recommendations for $41,498,594 in funding for eligible projects under the California Goods Movement Bond Program and authorize the Executive Officer/APCO to enter into all necessary contracts to expend the requested funds. 6. AUDIT OF THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR (TFCA) REGIONAL FUND J.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission
    Downtown Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategy Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting 8 Meeting Notes November 14, 2006 6:37 p.m. – CALL TO ORDER Attendance CAC Members Present: Alcantar, Brannan, Chi, Collier, Cuellas, Finberg, Free, Helmbrecht, Hopkinson, Houston, Kaplan, Markham, Mobley-Maundu, Raposo, Stensgard, Talley, Tannam, Trujillo, Ward CAC Members Absent: Flynn, Kleebauer, Sidari, Sykes, Storer Staff: Hanson Hom, Community Development Director, Kathleen Livermore, Senior Planner and TOD Project Manager Other: Michael Smiley, BMS Design Group, Tim Hurley, BMS Design Group, Jim Daisa, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Item 1: Welcome Anna Brannan, CAC Chair, opened the meeting and asked that both CAC members and members of the public sign in. Mayor Elect Tony Santos welcomed the Committee members and noted he recognized quite a few folks. He extended his personal appreciation for the work of the CAC. Mayor Elect Santos stated that the downtown is the heart of the community and this plan is vitally important for San Leandro and the future. This plan can help provide the essential critical mass and be a catalyst for development in the downtown. Mayor Elect Santos stressed the importance of evaluating noise impacts of any proposed development in the study area as he had heard from many residents in noise impacted areas during his campaign. He also stressed the importance of providing parks and open space in the downtown. Mayor Elect Santos noted that people will have to learn how to get out of their cars to make a successful pedestrian friendly oriented downtown. He again expressed his appreciation for the commitment of time.
    [Show full text]
  • EMMA Official Statement
    NEW ISSUE – BOOK ENTRY ONLY RATINGS: Moody’s (2020 Bonds): Aaa Long Term Standard & Poor’s (2020C-1 Bonds): AAA Short Term Standard & Poor’s (2020C-2 Bonds): A-1+ See “Ratings” herein. In the opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Bond Counsel to the District, based upon an analysis of existing laws, regulations, rulings and court decisions, and assuming, among other matters, the accuracy of certain representations and compliance with certain covenants, interest on the 2020C-1 Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In the further opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the 2020C-1 Bonds is not a specific preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax. Bond Counsel is also of the opinion that interest on the 2020 Bonds is exempt from State of California personal income taxes. Bond Counsel further observes that interest on the 2020C-2 Bonds is not excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103 of the Code. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any other tax consequences related to the ownership or disposition of, or the amount, accrual or receipt of interest on, the 2020 Bonds. See “TAX MATTERS.” $700,000,000 SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS $625,005,000 $74,995,000 (ELECTION OF 2016), (ELECTION OF 2016), 2020 SERIES C-1 2020 SERIES C-2 (FEDERALLY TAXABLE) (GREEN BONDS) (GREEN BONDS) Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As shown on inside cover The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District General Obligation Bonds (Election of 2016), 2020 Series C-1 (Green Bonds) (the “2020C-1 Bonds”) and 2020 Series C-2 (Federally Taxable) (Green Bonds) (the “2020C-2 Bonds” and, together with the 2020C-1 Bonds, the “2020 Bonds”) are being issued to finance specific acquisition, construction and improvement projects for District facilities approved by the voters and to pay the costs of issuance of the 2020 Bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • Trails Workshop
    Trails Workshop © Photo by Jerry Ting October 29, 2019 THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 2 AGENDA Board Workshop: Sustainable Trails for All in New Parklands October 29, 2019 12:00 p.m. Introduction and Opening Comments Ayn Wieskamp, President, Board of Directors Robert E. Doyle, General Manager 12:10 p.m. Overview Kristina Kelchner, AGM, Acquisition, Stewardship & Development 12:20 p.m. Sustainable Trail Design and Planning Sean Dougan, Trails Development Program Manager Brian Holt, Chief of Planning and GIS 1:10 p.m. Public Comment 1:25 p.m. Break 1:45 p.m. Facilitated Board Discussion Lou Hexter (Moore, Iacofano, & Goltsman, Inc.) 3:00 p.m. Additional Public Comment/Response 3:45 p.m. Closing Comments 4:00 p.m. Adjournment 3 THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. MEMORANDUM TO THE BOARD ................................................................ 7 2. GLOSSARY OF TRAIL TERMINOLOGY .................................................... 15 3. CA STATE PARK TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS SUMMARY ................. 22 4. MAP ................................................................................................................... 28 5 THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 6 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEMORANDUM October 29, 2019 To: Board of Directors From: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Dr. Ana M. Alvarez, Deputy General Manager Kristina Kelchner, Assistant General Manager, ASD Division Subject: Board Workshop on Sustainable Trails for All in Recently Acquired Parklands The Acquisition, Stewardship, and Development (ASD) Division appreciates the Board of Directors’ request for this workshop on trails. As one of the primary ways that people engage with the parks, trails are critical to the Park District’s mission of connecting people to nature. The workshop discussion will focus on the Park District’s Master Plan policy of providing “trails for all” through development of new sustainable, natural surface, multi-use trails in recently acquired parklands.
    [Show full text]
  • View Reducing Parking at Transit Stations
    Rail~Volution Salt Lake City, Utah 8-10 September, 2005 Reducing Parking at Transit Stations Jeffrey Tumlin EVALUATING PARKING AT TRANSIT STATIONS • Effects on transit ridership – Transit Oriented Development (TOD): New households & transit trips – Parking: Park-&-Ride participants – Implications for encouraging future growth in ridership • Effects on traffic congestion – Walking, cycling & transit trips to station – Proportion and amount of vehicle trips to station – Implications in allocating of street right-of-way • Effects on revenue generation – Lease or sale of land: Land value with higher density & mixed use compared to parking – Development of land: Joint development, economic vitality – Productive use of land: Economic productivity, sales tax Reduced Transit Parking at Rail Stations Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING TRANSIT PARKING • SkyTrain system in Vancouver, BC (TransLink) – Land use concentration around SkyTrain – Transportation supply – Transportation demand including low to no parking • Metrorail stations in Arlington County, VA (WMATA) – Urban village development – Multimodal transportation – Shared parking only (No park-&-ride) • South Hayward station in Northern California (BART) – Plans to develop area around station and improve pedestrian, bicycle and bus access – Determining amount of replacement parking Reduced Transit Parking at Rail Stations Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting TRANSLINK SKYTRAIN SYSTEM Reduced Transit Parking at Rail Stations Jeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Greater Vancouver Reduced Transit Parking at Rail Stations Canada – US BorderJeffrey Tumlin, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Vancouver’s Regional Planning Context • GVTA Act – Support Livable Region Strategic Plan • Transport strategy aims to increase choice through 3 “levers” – Land use i.e. town centers, employment, , residential density – Transportation supply-side e.g rapid transit network – Transportation demand- side e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Infrastructure Plan County of Alameda Unincorporated Area
    Green Infrastructure Plan County of Alameda Unincorporated Area August 7, 2019 Acknowledgments The County of Alameda gratefully acknowledges the following individuals and organizations that contributed to this Green Infrastructure (GI) Plan: Laura Pricket of Horizon Water and Environment for developing the framework for this GI Plan Kristin Kerr of EOA, Inc. for coordinating the development of this GI Plan for the County of Alameda Liesbeth Magna and Peter Schultze-Allen of EOA for assisting with development of this GI Plan All of the staff from the County of Alameda’s Public Works, General Services, and Community Development Agencies that have assisted with the development of this GI Plan. The County would like to thank and acknowledge the City of Palo Alto and City of San Jose for sharing text from their Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plans. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Statement of Purpose ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 MRP Requirements .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Unincorporated County..................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 What is Green Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 1-5
    [Show full text]
  • El Cerrito Historical Trail
    EL CERRITO HISTORICAL TRAIL Cub Scout Pack 104 El Cerrito, California www.elcerritoscouting.org Hike Information Total Trail Length: 8.0 Miles Western Segment - Del Norte Station to EC Plaza Station: 3.8 Miles Eastern Segment - EC Plaza Station to Del Norte Station: 4.2 Miles Hike Instructions The following pages include step-by-step hiking directions, denoted by underlined text. Major points of interest are highlighted in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS. Informational text is presented in the indented sections. There are Numbered Questions for you to answer along the way. You may write in answers next to the questions or use the optional answer sheet at the back of the booklet. Cub Scouts are encouraged to hike as much of the trail as they can, but they are not required to complete the whole 8 miles. Do your best! Older Scouts are expected to complete the entire trail in order to earn the patch. The hike is designed as a loop, starting and ending at the Del Norte BART Station, but you may jump in anywhere along the route. The trail may be hiked over multiple days; there is no time limit. If you have difficulty finding a point of interest or the answer to a question, it’s ok to skip it and move on to the next one. What you’re looking for may no longer be there. A Brief History of El Cerrito The area around present-day El Cerrito was once home to the Ohlone Indians. The first Spanish explorers, led by Pedro Fages, arrived in 1772 and set up camp alongside the “cerrito” known today as Albany Hill.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Demand Management Plan
    SoHay Mixed Use Development Project Transportation Demand Management Plan Hayward, California February 28, 2018 SoHay Mixed Used Development Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................1 Parking ...................................................................................................................................................2 Report Organization .............................................................................................................................3 Existing Transportation Facilities and Services ..................................................................................6 Transit Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 BART ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Bus Routes .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bart at Twenty: Land Use and Development Impacts
    ffional Development BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with research assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich July 1995 University of California at Berkeley - 1 BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with Research Assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich This paper was produced with support provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the University of California Transportation Center. University of California at Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development Table of Contents ONE: BART at 20: An Analysis of Land Use Impacts 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 TWO: Research Approach and Data Sources 3 THREE: Employment and Population Changes in BART and Non-BART Areas 6 3.1. Population Changes 6 3.2. Employment Changes 3.3. Population Densities 15 3.4. Employment Densities 15 3.5. Summary 20 FOUR: Land Use Changes Over Time and by Corridor 21 4.1. General Land-Use Trends 23 4.2. Pre-BART versus Post-BART 25 4.3. Early versus Later BART 30 4.4. Trends in Non-Residential Densities 33 4.4. Summary 37 FIVE: Land-Use Changes by Station Classes 38 5.1. Grouping Variables 38 5.2. Classification 38 5.3. Station Classes 41 5.4. Trends in Residential and Non-Residential Growth Among Station Classes 44 5.5. Percent Growth in Early- versus Later-BART Years Among Station Classes 46 5.6. Trends in Non-Residential Densities Among Station Classes 46 SLX: Matched-Pair Comparisons of Land-Use Changes near BART Stations Versus Freeway Interchanges 51 6.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohlone Greenway Master Plan — El Cerrito, California 4
    O HL O NE GREENWAY MASTER PLAN EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA ADOPTED JUNE 15, 2009 GATES +ASSOCIATES A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS E L CERRIT O CITY CO UN C IL E L CERRIT O PARKS AND RE C REATI O N Comm ISSI O N C ITY O F EL CERRIT O PUBLI C WO RKS DE P ART M ENT STAFF Thank you to all the Residents of El Cerrito, Ohlone Greenway users, and Boards and Commissions of El Cerrito for your valuable input during the planning process Prepared by David Gates and Associates, San Ramon CA TABLE OF CONTENTS O HLONE GREENW A Y MA STER PL A N A. I NTR O DU C TI O N 5 E. P UBLI C Imp R ov E M ENTS 45 Project Overview 6 Area 1 - City Limit to Central Avenue 46 Purpose and Process 7 Area 2 - Central Avenue to Stockton Avenue 48 Historical Reference 8 Area 3 - Stockton Avenue to Portola Avenue 50 Background 9 Area 4 - Portola Avenue to Manila Avenue 53 Area 5 - Manila Avenue to Blake Street 56 B. S ITE ANALYSIS 11 Area 6 - Blake Street to Knott Avenue 60 Existing Conditions 13 Area 7 - Knott Avenue to Conlon Avenue 62 Opportunities and Constraints 15 F. I mp LE M ENTATI O N 65 C. M ASTER PLAN DESI G N VISION 17 Implementation Approach 66 Vision and Goals 18 Phasing 67 Character and Image 19 Opinion of Probable Costs 68 D. D ESI G N GUIDELINES 21 G. A pp ENDIX 71 Guidelines Overview 22 Supporting Materials - Tanaka Plan 72 Trail Alignment 23 Supporting Materials - Meetings 74 Security 26 Supporting Materials - Creek Memo 80 Safety and Access 27 Supporting Materials - General Plan 82 Maintenance 28 Supporting Materials - Bibliography 83 Signage and Infrastructure 29 Planting
    [Show full text]
  • 18-311 ,:/1 Meeting Date: December 12, 2018 Alameda-Contracosta Transit District
    ReportNo: 18-311 ,:/1 Meeting Date: December 12, 2018 Alameda-ContraCosta Transit District STAFF RE PO RT TO: ACTransit Board of Directors FROM: Michael A. Hursh, General Manager SUBJECT: Operator Restroomsat BARTStations ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Consider authorizing the GeneraIManager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Bay Area RapidTransit District (BART)for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of Operator restrooms. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT This project will be added to the current fiscal year Capital Budget and Capital Improvement Planwith $638,826 in District Capital funds. Capital Planning and Grants will continue to seek externalfunding to support this project. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE AC Transit provides fixed route serviceto and from many Bay Area RapidTransit District IBART) stations located in the East Bay.AC Transit Operators and Road Supervisors rely on the ability to utilize BART station restroom facilities during a scheduled break. On several occasions, employees were not able to use the public restrooms because of long lines or the restroom being closed for repairs. At the April 4, 2018 BART/AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee jtLC) both agencies agreed to collaborate on developing a process to provide restroom access for AC Transit personnelat BARTstations. Station Restroom Assessment Staff conducted an assessmentof fourteen BART stations where AC Transit buses have scheduled layovers and are utilized by District employees for restroom breaks during the peak period between 3:00pm and 9:00pm. Listed on the table below are the BARTstations with the highest amount of buses scheduled for layover during the evening: 1 of 23 Report No. 18-311 Page2 of4 BARTStation LayoversPerPeak Period Fruitvale fremont Bay Fair West Oakland Coliseum EI Cerrito Plaza SanLeandro The following BARTstations were determined to be least utilized with lessthan 25 scheduled busesthat layover: DeINorte, South Hayward, Castro Valley, Richmond and North Berkeley.
    [Show full text]