NORTH OAKLAND COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: CONNECTING COMMUNITY & PROVIDING A TRANSPORTATION VISION FOR THE FUTURE

1. NORTH OAKLAND
COMMUNITY
ANALYSIS
CONNECTING COMMUNITY
PROVIDING A TRANSPORTATION VISION
FOR THE FUTURE

2. SECTION I
INTRODUCTION

3. INTRODUCTION | KEY
QUESTIONS
• Who are we?
• Who is this research for?
• What will we be talking about today?

4. STUDY AREAS

5. COMMUNITY ASSETS
Learning from the Fruitvale experience
Activating the MacArthur BART
Station
Leveraging the Temescal Commercial Core

6. GUIDING QUESTIONS
How do we improve the
transportation network
• To serve existing and
anticipated residents
and businesses?
• To create a pleasant
efficient and safe
multimodal
neighborhood and
corridor?

7. PLANS
SB 375/AB32:
• Reduce GHG emissions by connecting land
uses with transportation
Priority Development Area
• MacArthur Transit Village
Complete Streets
• Redesign and repaving of Telegraph Avenue

8. MARKET
“Bay Area nears record levels of employment”
November 8, 2014
“Oakland’s promise as solution to Bay Area’s housing
crunch”
June 27, 2014
“Hot Oakland neighborhood Temescal lands another
apartment project”
December 2, 2014

9. HOT ISSUES
• What are impacts of Complete Streets
on parking?
• Will current building pattern create
congestion without supporting
additional retail (groceries)
• Bikers are unhappy with bike lanes

10. METHODOLOGY
Plan Bay Area
Development
Pipeline
TOD Literature
Surveys
Interviews
Site Visits
Traffic Counts
Business Data
Census Data

11. MAP OF STUDY AREA
Priority development area boundaries, survey locations, and transportation studies

12. PRESENTATION
1. Introduction
2. Built Environment
3. Community Travel Patterns
4. Parking
5. Street Network
6. Conclusions
7. Solutions

13. LESSONS FROM
FRUITVALE
1. Local
involvement
improves
outcomes
2. Rigid area plans
may neglect
existing travel
3. Pedestrian and
transit-oriented
designs work
4. Population
growth propels
development

14. GOALS FOR MACARTHUR
STATION AREA
Residents
• Support existing residents while developing without
displacement
Commerce
• Promote local-serving businesses
Mobility
• Enable a multi-modal lifestyle
Connectivity
• Foster inter- and intra-neighborhood connections
Growth
• Accommodate new residents and promote planned growth

15. SECTION II
BUILT
ENVIRONMENT

16. BUILT ENVIRONMENT
| KEY QUESTIONS
We wanted to understand the existing built
environment:
• What is MacArthur BART like? Is it a
community asset?
• What are the projections for growth?
• Where is the residential development? How
dense?
• Where is the commercial development? What
types
• What’s missing from the study sites? Are
essential businesses present?

17. MACARTHUR BART

18. ZONING AND
PROJECTED BUILDOUT
CURRENT
CONDITIONS (2014)
PROJECTED
BUILDOUT (2032)
Population: 13,280 Population: 18,600 - 23,400

19. POPULATION PROJECTIONS

20. FORECLOSURES
2007-2011
West Side
90 foreclosures
27% of parcels
East Side
21 foreclosures
12% of parcels

21. WEST SIDE
DISINVESTMENT
“The west side
of the
neighborhood
is desperately
in need of
revitalization”

22. MACARTHUR STATION
600 units and 42,500 square feet of retail development

23. PERCEPTIONS
More than 50% of merchants interviewed
think that MacArthur Station will help
their businesses.
(+) More people makes the neighborhood more vibrant, event if
they don’t patronize businesses
(-) Concerned about traffic and parking management

24. RETAIL, SERVICES, AND RESTAURANTS

25. WHAT IS MISSING?
We asked area shoppers what they wish were in the neighborhood.

26. GROCERY STORES
Just out of reach.

27. KEY TAKEAWAYS
• MacArthur BART Station is not a
destination
• New development in the pipeline on
the east side with many foreclosures
and vacancies on the west
• Demand for grocery stores from
residents, shoppers, and merchants

28. SECTION III
COMMUNITY
TRAVEL
PATTERNS

29. COMMUNITY TRAVEL
PATTERNS | KEY QUESTIONS
• How do residents and visitors get
around?
• Are there opportunities to shift modes?
• Are most shoppers local? Are they
coming from far away?
• Are shopping nodes connected? Or, do
we see division between Temescal and
the MacArthur BART station area?
• How will these patterns change with more
growth

30. RESIDENTS | INTERNAL
TRIP CAPTURE
Residents were more than 5
times as likely to leave the
neighborhood for groceries,
school, and clothing shopping
Most common trips within the
area:
• Restaurant (56%)
• Coffee shop (53%)
• A friend’s house (42%)
• Pharmacy/drugstore
(38%)
Most common trips outside the
area:
• Groceries (89%)
• Work (69%)
• Bank (58%)

31. Bike, 13%
Other, 2% Other, 4%
Bike, 20%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
RESIDENTS | MODE SHARE
Bike, 15%
BART, 1%
BART, 25% BART, 38%
Drive alone, 52%
Drive alone, 15%
Drive alone, 29%
Drive with someone, 18%
Drive with someone, 24%
Drive with someone, 2%
Walk, 13%
Walk, 5%
Walk, 8%
Bus, 3%
Bus, 9% Bus, 3%
0%
Grocery (n=181) School (n=55) Work (n=143)
MODE SHARE

32. RESIDENTS | BIKES
● 79% of residents have access to a bike
● 25% of residents reported using bikes for either
groceries, work, or school trips
● Residents on east and west sides of freeway both have
access to bikes
● Residents of all incomes use bikes; highest usage was
found in lowest income brackets

33. SHOPPERS | SURVEY
DAY MODE SHARE
87% of
merchants
think that the
majority
(> 50%) of
shoppers drive
BART
16%
Bus
11%
Walk
27%
Drive with
friends or
family /get
dropped off
Drive alone
Bicycle
4%
22%
13%
Multi
6%
Other
1%

34. BART
13%
Bus
10%
Walk
25%
Multi
10%
Drive with friends or
family /get dropped off
Bicycle
10%
11%
Drive alone
21%
SHOPPERS | USUAL MODE SHARE

35. Local
56%
Regional
44%
SHOPPERS | LOCAL VS. REGIONAL

36. Multi, 10%
Drive alone, 10%
Multi, 2%
Carpool /get dropped off, 16%
Drive alone, 16%
Walk, 52% Walk, 25%
Multi, 9%
Carpool /get dropped off, 18%
Drive alone, 28%
Walk, 8%
Bicycle, 16% Bicycle, 9%
Bicycle, 9% Bus, 8%
Bus, 10%
BART, 9%
Bus, 12%
BART, 14%
BART, 19%
Study Area Zip Bordering Regional
SHOPPERS | LOCAL VS. REGIONAL

37. $393
$367
$317
$297
$170 $164
$141
SHOPPERS | WHO ARE THE SPENDERS?
$450
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$-
Bus Multi Walk Bicycle Drive alone BART Drive with friends or
family /get dropped
off
Chart Title

38. Multi, 12 Multi, 10
Carpool /get
dropped off, 11
Drive alone, 11
Walk, 27
Bicycle, 8
Bus, 12
BART, 30
Carpool /get
dropped off, 15
Drive alone, 37
Walk, 32
Bicycle, 16
Bus, 12
BART, 1
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MacArthur BART Area Temescal
SHOPPERS | MODE SHARES AT NODES

39. Drive alone
51%
Carpool/dropped off
5%
BART
11%
Walking
9%
Bus
0%
Biking
13%
Multi-
Alternative
7%
Multi-Drive
4%
EMPLOYEES | COMMUTE
How employees typically get to work

40. Drop off & Taxi
15%
BART STATION ACCESS PATTERNS
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008
Walk
29%
Transit
39%
Bicycle
7%
Drive
10%

41. KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Residents are multimodal
• Merchants think shoppers drive to stores, but shoppers
mostly use alternative modes
• Shoppers are mostly local
• Bus riders spend the most per month
• Temescal and MacArthur BART shopping areas are
disconnected
• Employees drive to work
• Commuters access MacArthur BART via non-auto modes

42. SECTION IV
PARKING

43. PARKING | KEY
ISSUES
• How much parking exists?
• Where is there parking?
• Is there enough? Is there too much?
• How is parking being used?

44. Excellent
20%
Don't know/No response
15%
MERCHANT PERCEPTIONS
Merchant perceptions of quality of shopper parking
Good
6%
Fair/Poor
59%

45. INVENTORY | ON-STREET SPACES
INVENTORY SPACES BY BLOCK

46. PARKING | REGULATION
ZONING REGULATIONS

47. THURSDAY 10-12PM SATURDAY 12-2PM
OCCUPANCY AND TURNOVER
Thursday 10-12pm and Sunday 12-2pm

48. Strongly Disagree
3% N/A
PARKING | EMPLOYEES
“I usually find parking during work.”
Strongly Agree
26%
Agree
54%
Neutral
3%
Disagree
8%
6%

49. Free
Free
Paid
Paid
PARKING | WHERE EMPLOYEES PARK
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
On Street Off Street

50. KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Parking is plentiful, but poorly managed
• Regulations are disjoined and ineffective

51. SECTION V
STREET
NETWORK

52. STREET NETWORK |
KEY ISSUES
• How does the proposed Complete Streets design perform
with future transportation demand in 2017 and 2032
across different modes?
• What barriers exist to the walkability of the area?

53. WHAT IS COMPLETE
STREETS?
• Two through lanes of car traffic with one left-turn lane
• Buffered bike lane
• Some transit islands and bus-only space for stops

54. VISSIM MODEL
SCENARIOS
No action
• 2017 base
• 2032 growth
Transit-oriented development
• Current infrastructure
• Complete Streets
Mode Shares 2032 - model a
Cars
78%
Bikes
6%
Peds
10%
Bus
6%
Cars
66%
Peds
17%
Bikes
10%
Bus
7%
Mode Shares 2032 - model b

55. CURRENT & NO
ACTION CONDITIONS
2014
Telegraph Ave &
{ 51st St
Telegraph Ave &
52nd St Shattuck Ave
2017
1,029 trips are generated during the PM peak from PDA project buildout
Bad intersections, especially on Telegraph Ave
2032
Poorly performing network → Need to shift modes
• 30% of vehicles cannot enter the network
• 80% increase in average bike delay

56. MODE SHIFT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
2032 scenario with existing infrastructure

57. CITYWIDE MODE
SHIFTS
Multinomial Logit Model
Built to incorporate
bicycle relevant variables.
Used to test effect on
mode share of the home
to work or school tours.
Data
California Household
Travel Survey
Variables
• Bike lanes
• Topography
• Speed limits
• Time
• Cost
• Distance
• Household size

58. 7.20%
7.00%
6.80%
6.60%
6.40%
6.20%
6.00%
No Action Lanes and Sharrows (Design Option 1) (Pessimistic) Cycle Tracks and Lanes (Design
Option 2)
BIKE MODE SHARE PERCENTAGES

59. COMPLETE STREETS |
POSITIVE IMPACTS
• Complete Streets
Design supports
bike and ped mode
shift.
• Bike delay is
reduced by 25%
from 250 to 195
seconds
• Average speed of
cars reduces from
12.6 mph to 11.3, a
10% decrease

60. COMPLETE STREETS |
NEGATIVE IMPACTS
• Complete Streets
can only handle 92%
of anticipated TOD
vehicular traffic in
2032
• 2 min increase in
average bus delay
from current delay

61. UNADDRESSED
ISSUES
50% of through-bikers
take
Shattuck. Are they
being considered?

62. UNDERPASSES | 45TH STREET

63. UNDERPASSES | 42ND STREET

64. UNDERPASSES | 40TH STREET

65. UNDERPASSES | 40TH STREET

66. UNDERPASSES | MACARTHUR BLVD

67. Neighborhood Safety
Neighborhood Safety
Underpasses
Underpasses
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
East West
UNDERPASSES | RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS

68. Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
East West
UNDERPASSES | RESIDENT USAGE

69. PEDESTRIAN
WAYFINDING
TOO HIGH FOR
PEDESTRIANS
TO LOW/SMALL FOR
CARS

70. STREET NETWORK |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
• Complete Streets plan supports biking and walking, but it
is not enough to avoid congestion from population growth
• Complete Streets plan results in increased delay for cars
and buses
• Bike travel patterns through Telegraph Ave & 46th and
Telegraph Ave & 40th are not considered in the Complete
Streets plan
• Underpasses are neglected and require design focus

71. SECTION VI
CONCLUSIONS

72. CONCLUSIONS |
RESIDENTS
Goal: Support existing residents while developing without
displacement
● Current policies do not reduce displacement pressure from
future development.
● There is evidence of sustained disinvestment on the west side
of the freeway.

73. CONCLUSIONS |
COMMERCE
Goal: Promote locally serving businesses
● Most businesses are disproportionately located in the north
and east.
● Essential services, like grocery stores, are missing from the
area.
● There is an opportunity for future business development near
MacArthur BART.

74. CONCLUSIONS |
MOBILITY
Goal: Enable a multimodal lifestyle
● Current residents are multimodal, but visitors to the
neighborhood are more car dependent.
● The June 2014 Complete Streets Design narrowly supports
bicycle and pedestrian activity on Telegraph Avenue, and the
plan does not support transit.
● Parking is not being managed strategically.

75. CONCLUSIONS |
CONNECTIVITY
Goal: Foster inter- and intra-neighborhood connections
● The design of the street network is fragmented for bicycles
and pedestrians.
● The June 2014 Complete Streets Design does not address
most of the significant barriers to a connected street network.
● There are patterns of disconnection in the area: East vs. West
and Temescal vs. MacArthur BART.

76. CONCLUSIONS |
GROWTH
Goal: Accommodate and promote planned growth and new
residents
● Existing policies and public investments are insufficient to
spur development at the level called for by Plan Bay Area.
● A continuation of historical growth trends is not significant
enough to catalyze transformative change in mode shift.

77. SECTION VII
DESIGN AND
POLICY
SOLUTIONS

78. RESIDENTS

79. Use planned and currently
vacant commercial spaces
for business types
demanded by residents,
local shoppers, merchants,
e.g. a neighborhood-scale
grocery store
RESIDENTS

80. RESIDENTS
Study anti-displacement
housing policies,
such as foreclosure
assistance program
and financial literacy
programs

81. COMMERCE

82. COMMERCE
Invest in new
pedestrian wayfinding
to point to existing
business types
between MacArthur
BART and Temescal
(e.g. sidewalk signs,
neighborhood map at
MacArthur Station)

83. COMMERCE
Explore expanding the existing
Temescal Business Improvement District
(BID) or creating a new BID on the west
side of the freeway

84. MOBILITY

85. MOBILITY | TDM
Actively promote mode shift by developing
transportation demand management incentives and
parking management techniques
(e.g. GoBerkeley campaign)

86. MOBILITY | TRANSIT
Explore transit
improvements, such as
dedicated bus lane, a
combined bus and bike
lane, queue jump lanes,
transit signal priority,
bulb outs

87. MOBILITY | BIKES
Actively promote a
mode shift by
investing in bike
facilities

88. MOBILITY | PARKING
● Change parking minimums to maximums
along the major corridors
● Consider relocating metered parking on
Telegraph to shared off-street lots, in the
underpasses, and on side streets
● Introduce shared parking for visitors
(shoppers and/or employees), such as
partnership with churches with large lots to
provide long-term off-street parking

89. CONNECTIVITY

90. CONNECTIVITY
Redesign
underpasses,
including new
street lighting
and
pedestrian-friendly
signal
timing

91. UNDERPASSES | MACARTHUR BLVD

92. UNDERPASSES | 42ND STREET

93. UNDERPASSES | 45TH STREET

94. GROWTH
Incentivize
market
development at
densities
similar to that
of MacArthur
Station around
MacArthur
BART and
corridor

95. GROWTH
Invest in making
MacArthur BART a
place, e.g.
pedestrianize 40th
Street, develop a
park, develop new
space for retail

96. 40TH STREET REDESIGN

97. 40TH STREET REDESIGN

98. Wide, well-lit walkway
under overpass
Path to 41st Shared Street
More activity Less noise Green Open
Space
40TH STREET | WALKING
Easier
crossing

99. Bike box
Dismount area and raised
crossing of transit lane Shared Street
Curb protected Bike parking
cycle track
40TH STREET | BICYCLING
Cycle-activated
crossing

100. Transit / taxi / delivery
access only Eastbound stop
Westbound stop Connection
Sheltered waiting area
for bus, taxi & shuttles
40TH STREET | TRANSIT
to 1 / 1R
Transit information
screens

101. Small-format grocery Loading Areas
New Retail
under Overpass Food Stands
MacArthur TOD
40TH STREET | RETAIL
Existing Retail

102. Open space
Murals along north wall and
lighting under overpass Cafe / biergarten
Street art Green plaza & art “Gateway” sculpture
40TH STREET | PLACEMAKING

103. 40TH STREET |
PLACEMAKING

104. SMALL STEPS | 40TH STREET
San Francisco, Flickr user: niallkennedy

105. CONNECTING A COMMUNITY AND PROVIDING A
TRANSPORTATION VISION FOR THE FUTURE
NORTH
OAKLAND
COMMUNITY
ANALYSIS

106. CP 218 | TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIO
THANK
YOU!

107. ¡EXTRA
SLIDES!

108. BART STATION ACCESS
Origins of those walking to BART
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008
88% of station
users originate
their trip within 2
miles of the station
29% of station
users walk to
station
58% of those
originate within a
½ mile of station
12% of auto trips
to station originate
within a ½ mile of
station

109. AN ASIDE ABOUT RETAIL
“Bajos Puentes” project, Mexico City
Angled Parking

110. AC TRANSIT REROUTES
40th St & MLK Way MacArthur Blvd & Frontage
Angled Parking
Today
After re-route
WB buses turn left
EB buses proceed straight
57 & C turn left
31 turns right

111. AC TRANSIT REROUTES
Origins of BART patrons accessing station via transit
Angled Parking

112. AC TRANSIT REROUTES
Origins of BART patrons dropped off at station
Angled Parking