PedestrianMaster PlanTheCityofOaklandPart of the Land Use and Transportation Elementof the City of Oakland‘s General PlanNovember12, 2002
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMayor and City CouncilTechnical Advisory CommitteeOakland Pedestrian Safety ProjectMayor Jerry BrownLeslie GouldCommunity and EconomicThomas Van DemarkDirectorDevelopment AgencyJane BrunnerDistrict 1Zachary WaldPedestrian Plan Natalie FayCommunity and EconomicProject ManagerDanny WanDistrict 2Development AgencyAmit PatelDesign & Planning Nancy NadelDistrict 3Margaret StanzioneCommunity and EconomicInternDick SpeesDistrict 4Development AgencyJason W. PattonEditorIgnacio De La FuenteDistrict 5Lynn WarnerCommunity and EconomicMoses L. Mayne, 6ConsultantsDevelopment AgencyLarry ReidDistrict 7Jon EwiglebenCommunity and EconomicAllan JacobsJacobs MacDonald: Henry Chang, -LargeDevelopment AgencyCityWorksRaul GodinezMika MiyasotaKorve ConsultingPublic Works AgencyCitizens Pedestrian Advisory CommitteeAmit KothariCheryl ParkerUrban Explorer Public Works AgencyJoyce Mende WongDistrict 1Noah RafordUrbitran AssociatesJoe WangPublic Works AgencyMichael VoorhiesDistrict 2Kathryn HughesBill ReuterReuter DesignPublic Works AgencyFlossie MorrisDistrict 3Jose MartinezMathew RidgewayFehr and Peers AssociatesPublic Works AgencyPatrick ChellewDistrict 4Wladimir WlassowskyPublic Works AgencyXochilt GarciaDistrict 5Amit Patel completed the original line drawingsChristine CalabreseOffice of Thomas Van DemarkDistrict 6for the Pedestrian Master Plan. He also took thethe City ManagerEdna GurleyDistrict 7 and At-Largephotographs, except for those explicitly credited Jim CunradiAlameda-Contra CostaRonald ChanMayor’s Commission to another source. Historical photographs are Transit Districton Agingcourtesy of the Oakland History Room of theNathan LandauAlameda-Contra CostaOakland Public TeixeiraMayor’s Commission on Transit DistrictPersons with DisabilitiesFunding provided by a grant Ron BishopBicycle and Pedestrian from the California State Office Advisory Committeeof Traffic Safety (OTS).Molly BradshawPublic Health ProfessionalWalter FinchBuilding Owners andManagers AssociationHeather HoodUrban Ecology
California Vehicle Code Section 467. (a) A “pedestrian” is any person who is afoot or who is using a means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle. (b) “Pedestrian” includes any person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, invalid tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian, as specified in subdivision (a). Pedestrian Master Plan |1
TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6CHAPTER 5 DESIGN ELEMENTS64Goals8Sidewalk Guidelines66The Benefits Of A Walkable City9Crossing Treatments73Executive Summary 11Traffic Calming80CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS14CHAPTER 6IMPLEMENTATION PLAN88Oakland’s Street Grid16Policy Implementation90Walking Rates in Oakland18Priority Projects92Pedestrian/Vehicle Collision Data20Pedestrian Route Network by District100School Safety31Staffing and Community Outreach108Connections to Transit34Funding109Education and Enforcement36Community Outreach37APPENDICESCHAPTER 3 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORK40APPENDIX AON-STREET ROUTES113Selection of Routes42APPENDIX BWALKWAYS122Downtown Pedestrian District44APPENDIX CSTREET TRANSFORMATIONS138Safe Routes to School46APPENDIX DFHWA CROSSWALK GUIDELINES144Safe Routes to Transit47APPENDIX E FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN PEDESTRIAN PLANNING145Route Types48PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICESPACE-SYNTAXCHAPTER 4 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS50APPENDIX F SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY150A Policy Response To Existing Conditions52Goal 1:Pedestrian Safety54Goal 2:Pedestrian Access56Goal 3:Streetscaping And Land Use58Goal 4:Education60Issues For Further Discussion61|Pedestrian Master Plan2
FIGURESILLUSTRATIONSFigure11990 Regional Weekday Walking Trips by Purpose Illustration 1 City Route Section48(MTC1994, P 12)18Illustration 2 City Route48Figure 2Walking Trips As a Percentage of Total Trips Illustration 3 District Route Section48by County (MTC 2001B, P 95)19Illustration 4 District Route48Figure 3Car Ownership in 2000 For Oakland/Alameda Illustration 5 Neighborhood Route Section48Versus Other Areas (MTC2001A, p45–54)19Illustration 6 Neighborhood Route48Figure 4Pedestrian Collisions Table, 1996-200022Illustration 7 Neighborhood Hill Route49Figure 5Pedestrian Collisions Chart, 1996-200022Illustration 8Walkway Route Section49Figure 6 Primary Collision Factors Table23Illustration 9 Walkway Route49Figure 7 Primary Collision Factors Chart23Illustration 10 Walkway Route Section49Figure 8 Movement Preceding Collision24Illustration 11 Walkway Route49Figure 9 Pedestrian Action In Collision 24Illustration 12 Sidewalk For Two Pedestrians66Figure 10Pedestrian Action In Vehicle Collisions By Age Group 25Illustration 13 Sidewalk For Two Pedestrians In Wheelchairs66Figure11 Top 10 Intersections by Number of Pedestrian Collisions 25Illustration 14 Existing Oakland Sidewalk Standard66Figure 12 Top 10 Ranked Intersections for Seniors (1996-2000) 26Illustration 15 City Sidewalk Section68Figure 13 Top 10 Ranked Intersections for Children (1996-2000)26Illustration 16 District Sidewalk Section68Figure 14 Top 10 Ranked Vehicle/Collisions StreetsIllustration 17 Neighborhood Sidewalk Section68by Number of Collisions27Illustration 18 Walkway Section68Figure 15 Top 10 Ranked Collision Streets Illustration 19 Route Lighting69by Total Number of Collisions per Road Mile27Illustration 20 Pedestrian Route Signage70Figure 16 Pedestrian Injuries/Fatalities Illustration 21 Tree Well70by Age Group (1996-2000)28Illustration 22 Bus Bulb-Out71Figure 17 Pedestrian Collisions by Time of Day29Illustration 23 Local Intersection 73Figure 18 Pedestrian Injury And Fatality for Selected California Illustration 24 Arterial Intersection73Cities (Averages of SWITRS1995-1999 Annual Reports)30Illustration 25 Crosswalk Striping74Figure 19 Top Ten Ranked Child Pedestrian/Vehicle Illustration 26 Accessible Intersection74Collisions/Schools (1996-2000)31Illustration 27 Bulb-Outs75Figure 20 ACTransit Daily Riders, Trunk Lines (ACTransit 2002)34Illustration 28 Refuge Island76Figure 21 Bart Daily Riders, Oakland Stations (BART 2000)35Illustration 29 Bulb-Outs And Refuge Island76Figure 22 Proposed Sidewalk Guidelines67Illustration 30 Corner Radius76Figure 23Proposed Lighting Guidelines Illustration 31 Slip Turn Before77(Fehr & Peers Associates, 2001)69Illustration 32 Slip Turn After77Figure 24Pedestrian Master Plan Priority Projects, 1-5 Years93Illustration 33 Stop Sign77Figure 25Pedestrian Master Plan Priority Projects, 6-20 Years96Illustration 34 Traffic Signal78Figure 26Potential Project Components and Cost Estimates115continues on next pageFigure 27On-Street Routes116Figure 28Recommendations for Installing Marked Crosswalks144Pedestrian Master Plan |3
Illustrations, 35 Audible Signal79Map 1 Pedestrian/Vehicle Collisions – Oakland (1996-2000)21Illustration 36 Speed Hump80Map 2 Child Pedestrian/Vehicle Collisions Near Schools— Illustration 37Slow Point81Oakland (1996-2000)33Illustration 38 Chicanes81Map 3 Pedestrian Route Network43Illustration 39 Traffic Circle82Map 4 Downtown Pedestrian District45Illustration 40 Roundabout82Map 5 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 1101Illustration 41Narrow Lanes Before83Map 6 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 2102Illustration 42 Narrow Lanes After83Map 7 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 3103Illustration 43 Restriping Before84Map 8 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 4104Illustration 44 Restriping After84Map 9 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 5105Illustration 45 Median Before85Map 10 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 6106Illustration 46 Median After85Map 11 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 7107Illustration 47 City Route Before 138Map 12 Walkways – Upper Rockridge123Illustration 48 City Route Section Before 138Map 13 Walkways – Montclair124Illustration 49 City Route After 139Map 14 Walkways – Trestle Glen And Oakmore125Illustration 50City Route Section After 139Map 15 Walkways – Lake Merritt And Vicinity126Illustration 51 District Route Section Before 140Map 16 Walkways – Glen Echo Creek And Grand Lake127Illustration 52 District Route Before 140Map 17 Walkways – Fruitvale And Vicinity128Illustration 53 District Route Section After 140Map 18 Walkways – Eastmont And Vicinity129Illustration 54 District Route After 140Map 19 Walkways – Allendale and Fairfax130Illustration 55 Neighborhood Route Before 142Map 20 City Of Oakland Pedestrian Volumes – Illustration 56 Neighborhood Route After 142Space Syntax Model147Illustration 57 Neighborhood Route Section Before 142Illustration 58Neighborhood Route Section After 142Illustration 59 Trail Route Before 143Illustration 60 Trail Route After 143Illustration 61 Trail Route Section Before143Illustration 62 Trail Route Section After143|Pedestrian Master Plan4
Pedestrian Master Plan |5
Chapter 1 Introduction and Executive SummaryVision Statement To promote a pedestrian-friendly environment; where public spaces,including streets and off-street paths, will offer a level of convenience, safety and attractiveness to the pedestrian that will encourage and reward the choice to walk.
Getting people out of their cars and walking as much as possible will put Oaklandin the forefront of the pedestrian movement. As a matter of fact, we will be oneof the first cities in America to create a Pedestrian Master Mayor Jerry Brown, August 14, 2001The Pedestrian Master Plan promotesPolicy of Envision Oakland, thepedestrian safety and access to helpLand Use and Transportation Elementensure that Oakland is a safe, conven-of the Oakland General Plan, recom-ient, and attractive place to walk. mends the creation of a PedestrianIt establishes a Pedestrian RouteMaster Plan as part of its objective toNetwork emphasizing safe routes toincrease the use of alternative modesschool and connections to transit. Theof transportation. While walking isroutes include streets, walkways, andthe least expensive transportationtrails that connect schools, libraries,mode, building and maintaining aparks, neighborhoods, and commercialhigh quality pedestrian infrastructuredistricts throughout the City. It identi-requires comprehensive planning andfies priority street segments alonglong term funding. The Pedestrianthese routes for targeted improve-Master Plan will be a key resource forments over the next twenty years. Thethe City in securing grants from theplan also identifies new pedestrianincreasingly large pool of funds design elements to promote pedestriandedicated to pedestrian safety and safety and access throughout the City. livable Master Plan |7
GoalsThe City of Oakland is committed to1 Pedestrian walking as a form of transportationa street environment that strives toand recreation that is safe, accessible,ensure pedestrian , and affordable for all Pedestrian Oaklander is a pedestrian atan environment throughout the City –some point during the day. We allprioritizing routes to school and tran-walk with or without mobility aids*sit – that enables pedestrians to travelwhether to a school, transit stop, to asafely and car, to work, or for Streetscaping and The City also recognizes the value ofLand Use. Provide pedestrianwalking for promoting environmentalamenities and promote land uses sustainability and the commercialthat enhance public spaces andvitality of downtown and neighbor-neighborhood commercial districts. To promote these bene-fits of a walkable city, the Pedestrian4 Education. Educate citizens,Master Plan specifies the followingcommunity groups, business associa-five , and developers on the safety,health, and civic benefits of Implementation. Integratepedestrian considerations based onfederal guidelines into projects, poli-cies, and the City’s planning process.*Mobility aids are devices including wheelchairs,walkers, crutches, canes, scooters, and service animals used by people with disabilities.|Pedestrian Master Plan8
The Benefits of a Walkable CityWith these goals, the Pedestrian“At higher speeds, motorists are lessMaster Plan provides targeted solu-likely to see a pedestrian, and are eventions to pedestrian access and safetyless likely to be able to stop in time toproblems. The solutions also promoteavoid hitting one” (FHWA 2002b, as a walkable city for sus-13). In collisions with motor vehicles, atainability, equity, vitality, and healthpedestrian has an 85% chance of fatali-– especially for children and at 40mph, a 45% chance of fatalityat 30mph, and a 5% chance of fatalitySafetyat 20mph (FHWA 2002b, p. 13). Continuous sidewalks and safe cross-A balanced approach to street designings are the basic building blocks forregulates motor vehicle speeds andpedestrian safety.* These elements areaffords pedestrians safe and conven-essential for the most vulnerable pop-ient crossing opportunities. Ampleulations: children, seniors, and per-The City of Oakland has amongstsidewalks also serve to buffer pedestri-sons with highest walking rates for allans from motor vehicle traffic. DriversHigh speeds and volumes of motorcities in the San Francisco and pedestrians share responsibilityvehicles can create safety concerns forfor pedestrian safety. Education andBay Area (. Census 2000).pedestrians and to prevent dangerousAdditionally, approximately oneNeighborhood streets that providebehaviors by both of these groups areout of five households in Oaklandmotor vehicle shortcuts for throughimportant elements of a comprehen-traffic are of particular concern to res-does not have an automobilesive solution. idents. On larger streets, high speeds(MTC 2001a) and 37% of*California Vehicle Code Section 21949 and volumes of motor vehicle trafficspecifies that “safe and convenient pedestrianCalifornians do not have driver’scan be at odds with crossing safety,travel and access, whether by foot, licenses. (STPP 2000a, p. 19).especially on streets with infrequentwheelchair, walker, or stroller, be provided to the residents of the state.”traffic signals. According to theFederal Highway Administration, Pedestrian Master Plan |9
The Benefits of a Walkable Cityfor . Surgeon General, PresidentSustainabilityVitalityGeorge W. Bush said, “Walking 30 min-Walkable cities reduce environmentalWalkable cities make for vital and activeutes a day will dramatically improveimpacts by promoting walking as a zerostreets by promoting commercial andyour life.” Drawing on the success ofemissions form of transportation. Goodsocial exchange. With approximatelythe public health model in reducingwalking routes to transit complement40% of the land area of United States’smoking, cities are recognizing thatthe role of public transit in providing ancities dedicated to transportation, streetsgood places to walk help promoteenvironmentally sustainable alternativeand sidewalks are the city’s most expan-healthy the private automobile. Although typ-sive public spaces. Sidewalks ideallyically not counted in transportation sur-function as positive places to meet, play,In the United States, 300,000veys, every trip on transit is sandwichedlive, work, and shop. However, highdeaths per year are associatedbetween two pedestrian trips. Especiallyspeeds and heavy volumes of motorwith obesity and the number ofin conjunction with cycling and transitvehicle traffic can create inhospitableriding, walking provides a promisingcity blocks where people are less likelyoverweight adolescents almostnon-polluting transportation know their neighbors and childrentripled in the last twenty not allowed to play (AppleyardWhile almost two-thirds of childrenEquity1981). In residential areas, motor vehi-Walking is the most inexpensive andwalked or biked to school onlycle traffic negatively impacts residentialbroadly accessible form of transporta-property values. In commercial areas,thirty years ago, less than 10% tion and recreation. Walking requires the most congested streets are often thedo today (STPP 2000a, p. 6).no fare, fuel, or license. For those whomost economically to the Surgeon General,cannot afford other modes of trans-Healthportation, the ability to walk safely isencouraging at least 30 minutesWalkable cities promote healthy . For young people, walkingof walking per day and creatingHealth professionals recommend walk-affords a sense of independence that iswalkable environments are recom-ing as a form of physical activity to helpnot possible with other modes. Formended methods for reducingprevent a host of diseases including obe-older people, walking is an effectivesity, heart disease, and some forms ofmeans to stay active, both physicallyoverweight and obesity (. . In announcing the nominationand Health 2001).|Pedestrian Master Plan10
Executive SummaryIn the following chapters, thewalking rates of cities in the SanSafety Project (OPSP) conducted Pedestrian Master Plan identifies theFrancisco Bay Area. Large numbers of70 community presentations existing conditions for pedestrians inpedestrian trips are to AC Transit busreaching 1,750 Oaklanders. Oakland and formulates a pedestrianlines, Oakland public schools, andThrough this outreach, citizens identi-route network, policies, and designBART stations. fied hundreds of areas of concern,elements for the City. Taken together,Major constraints on walking includenoting in particular the danger ofthese chapters promote pedestrianpedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts oncrossing streets with two or moresafety and access by focusing improve-busy streets and freeways as physicallanes in each direction and the safetyments on safe routes to school, con-barriers for children walking to to transit, and in other areasOn average, a pedestrian/vehicle colli-Sources of additional community inputof high pedestrian activity. sion occurs each day in the City Commissions onExisting ConditionsOver three-quarters of those collisionsAging and Disability and the PublicChapter 2 provides a comprehensiveresult in pedestrian injuries. 36 fatalSafety Committee of the City Council. picture of pedestrian safety and accesspedestrian collisions occurred betweenPedestrian Route Networkin Oakland. It addresses the City’s1996 and 2000. Most pedestrian/vehi-Chapter 3 presents a long-term visionexisting street conditions, walkingcle collisions occur in downtown, infor a network of on- and off-streetrates, pedestrian/vehicle collision data,Chinatown, and along arterial streets. routes that extends throughoutschool safety, connections to transit,By age, children have the highest ratesOakland. It includes “Safe Routes toeducation and enforcement, and of pedestrian injury and seniors have theSchool” and “Safe Routes to Transit.”the community outreach process for highest rates of pedestrian fatality. ByThe network identifies common walk-this Plan. race, African-Americans and Hispanicsing routes to schools, transit, neighbor-Oakland’s downtown and manyare more likely than Caucasians to be ahood commercial districts, majorvibrant neighborhoods give it thepedestrian in a collision. employment centers, and other pedestri-foundation for a walkable destinations. These routes respondIn developing the Pedestrian MasterOakland has amongst the highestto community concerns over safe routesPlan, the Oakland Pedestrian Pedestrian Master Plan |11
Executive Summaryto these destinations and across majoritems for meeting the goals of theThis chapter concludes with a sectionstreets. They include city routes, districtPedestrian Master Plan. The Land Useidentifying marked crosswalks, speedroutes, neighborhood routes, walkways,and Transportation Element (LUTE) ofhumps, and pedestrian auto-detectionand trails. the Oakland General Plan calls for theas issues for further discussion. Thesepreparation, adoption, and implementa-issues require ongoing debate in theThis chapter explains the Downtowntion of a comprehensive pedestrian planCity of Oakland. They lack the neces-Pedestrian District, Safe Routes tofor the City (LUTE , p. 58).sary consensus of stakeholders forSchool, and Safe Routes to Transit. Itestablishing policy positions in thedescribes the criteria used in the selec-Oakland’s General Plan has many poli-Pedestrian Master Plan. The differingtion of routes and provides illustrationscy directives promoting a walkable cityviewpoints on these issues are presentedof each of the five route types. Theand the goals of pedestrian safety,here to facilitate further discussion onPedestrian Route Network identifiesaccess, streetscaping and land use, andhow best to promote pedestrian safetythose streets in greatest need ofeducation. Each goal of the Pedestrianand access in the City of and those areas whereMaster Plan is listed with policy improvements will have the greatestdirectives from the LUTE and the pro-Design Elementsimpact. The Pedestrian Route Networkposed policies and action items forChapter 5 identifies guidelines and ele-thereby serves as a long term planningachieving that for improving Oakland streetstool for targeting pedestrian improve-and paths. Rather than proposingSource documentation including thements. A citywide map of the networkdesign standards, the Pedestrian MasterOpen Space, Conservation, andis included in this chapter. Maps ofPlan presents these design elements toRecreation (OSCAR) Element, Bicycleeach Council District showing theinform designers, planners, and policy-Master Plan, and Pedestrian MasterPedestrian Route Network and prioritymakers on available design treatmentsPlans from other cities was consulted inprojects are included in the Implemen-and best practices for policies for the Oaklandtation Plan. A comprehensive survey ofPedestrian Master Design Elements are organized intothe Pedestrian Route Network is includ-three sections. First, the SidewalkRecommended policies relating toed in the section proposes minimumimplementation are listed as part of thePolicy Recommendationsrequirements for sidewalks and utilityImplementation Plan in Chapter 4 identifies policies and actionzones. Second, the Crossing Treatments|Pedestrian Master Plan12
section explains best practices for cross-For implementation, the proposedAppendices A-B: Pedestrianwalks and corners. And third, theprojects would require Route Network SurveyTraffic Calming section presents con-additional review by traffic engineer-These appendices provide a comprehen-cepts for reducing motor vehicle and under the Californiasive survey of the Pedestrian RouteEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA).Network. They identify the routes thatImplementation PlanFurthermore, engineering judgment iscomprise the network and potentialChapter 6 contains the Implementationnecessary to determine the specificimprovements to these identifying policies and prioritylocations and features of each A contains the Pedestrianprojects to promote a safe and walkableAppendices C-F: Route Network Survey for on-streetcity. Twenty years of projects are identi-Additional Resourcesroutes. It identifies potential projectfied to rectify existing gaps and short-components and cost estimates fromcomings in the City's pedestrian infra-The final four appendices providewhich potential improvements to theadditional resources on pedestrianstructure. As part of a comprehensiveroute network are specified. It alsoplanning. Appendix C presents a setplanning process, this list of priorityexplains a route context evaluation as aof street transformations that provideprojects makes Oakland very competi-simple method for comparing potentiala long-term vision for designingtive for the growing amount of trans-improvements along the Pedestrianstreets for pedestrians. Appendix Dportation funding directed at pedestrianRoute Network. Appendix B contains asummarizes a recommended crosswalksafety and livable communities. Thissurvey of the City's walkways andpolicy developed by the Federalchapter identifies staffing needs andincludes a set of maps showing theirHighway Administration. Appendix Efunding sources to help ensure thatlocations throughout the City. Theseintroduces pedestrian level of servicethese projects are managed, funded, andappendices provide the starting pointand Space-Syntax as two emergingimplemented. It also includes maps offor: (1) the development of a capitaltools in pedestrian planning. Lastly,each Council District showing theimprovement program for pedestrianAppendix F lists the publications usedPedestrian Route Network and theprojects; and (2) the development ofin writing this of priority pedestrian improvement proj-ects for specific street segments. Pedestrian Master Plan |13
Chapter 2 Existing Conditions
Above all, do not lose your desire to walk: every day I walk myself into a state of well-being and walk away from every illness; I have walked myself into my best thought, and I know of no thought so burdensome that one cannot walk away from øren Kierkegaard, Danish PhilosopherThe Pedestrian Master Plan is based onthe community outreach process used Committee (CPAC) and the Technicala survey of the City’s existing streetin gathering data and identifies the roleAdvisory Committee (TAC) in the conditions, an analysis of the City’sof the Citizen’s Pedestrian Advisoryplanning collision data, and an exten-sive community outreach process. Thesethree data sets provide a comprehensivepicture of Oakland’s pedestrian oppor-tunities and constraints. This chapter begins by identifying theopportunities and constraints to makingOakland a more walkable city. It thenexamines pedestrian walking rates andpedestrian/vehicle collision data to iden-tify pedestrian collision rates, reasons,locations, and times as well as at-riskgroups. It also examines school safety,connections to transit, and educationand enforcement for pedestrians. The chapter concludes by explaining Pedestrian Master Plan |15
Oakland’s Street GridOakland’s downtown and vibranturban transportation in the late nine-neighborhoods provide the foundationteenth century. Such blocks fit thefor a walkable city. Oakland’s streetscale of walking because they providegrid was laid out when walking andfrequent places to cross and frequenttransit were the most common modeschoices of direction. They make it easyof transportation. Neighborhoods liketo reach destinations directly and Temescal, Fruitvale, Seminary,provide numerous route choices thatGlenview, Lakeshore, and Fairfaxmake walking interesting and with housing and businessesOpportunitiesclustered along streetcar lines. The following opportunities highlightThese neighborhoods can be pedestri-Oakland’s walkability:an-friendly because they were designedfor people to walk from their homes to Many neighborhoods contain a mix-trolley stops and the surroundingture of homes, businesses, and publicshops. In neighborhoods with irregularservices within easy walking distancestreet grids, walkways provided pedes-of each access through long blocks to Short blocks in older sections ofschools, businesses, and transit. ManyOakland are pedestrian-friendly becausetant mode of transportation for tripsof these historical routes still exist andthey increase the number of possibleacross the City as well as withinprovide practical and attractive routeswalking routes and destinations. walkers. Old industrial areas of the City are Frank Ogawa Plaza, Jack LondonOakland’s street grid has much varia-being redeveloped as residential Square, and Lake Merritt are livelytion but generally the shortest blocksand live/work neighborhoods withdestinations explicitly designed forare located in the oldest and mostimproved pedestrian areas of the city. Short blocks are a standard feature of streets plattedOakland is well-served by public Oakland has many walkways andbefore the development of motorizedtransit, making walking an impor-trails of historic and natural interest|Pedestrian Master Plan16
including the Bay Trail and More traffic signals are needed,Newer areas of the City includingthe Ridge Trail. particularly on long corridors with parts of the Oakland Hills and Easta lot of pedestrian do not always have side- The City’s residential traffic walks, crosswalks, short blocks, or calming program has effectivelySome areas of the City have incom-numerous destinations within easyreduced motor vehicle speeds plete or inadequate sidewalks thatwalking residential discourage pedestrian activity. Some street design elements like Oakland is a leader in ensuring acces-Freeways are physical barriers thatextra turn lanes, large corner radii,sible streets by providing audibleare rarely convenient or pleasant toand frequent driveways improvepedestrian signals and curb under, over, or vehicle access yet decrease The Oakland Pedestrian SafetyIntersections with freeway on- pedestrian has been effective in coali-or off-ramps could create Some older schools may need moretion-building to promote educationconflicts between pedestrians vehicle capacity at pick-up and drop-and enforcement for pedestrian and drivers transitioning to or off and freeway speeds. Many Oakland streets lack benches, Overflow traffic from congested Constraintsbus shelters, trees, and other streetfreeways puts additional pressure The following constraints limitfurniture that are important ingredi-on surface streets in the City. Oakland’s walkability:ents of a walkable city. Many arterial streets have large vol-umes of motor vehicle traffic which,according to the Federal HighwayAdministration, “can inhibit a person’s feeling of safety and com-fort and create a ‘fence effect’” that makes crossing those streets difficult (FHWA 2002b, p. 8).Pedestrian Master Plan |17
Walking Rates in OaklandCurrent and accurate figures on walk-The United States Census “journey toing rates in the City of Oakland dowork” statistics provide local informa-not exist. However the data that aretion about modal choice for com-available suggest that the rate of walk-muters. The 2000 . Census record-ing in Oakland is amongst the highested that % of Oaklanders walked toin the San Francisco Bay Area. Somework. Because work trips are general-figures are available from . Censusly a small percentage of total walkingdata on journey to work. Informationtrips, this figure is only marginallyat the County and sub-regional levelsuseful. This figure does not counton walking rates and car-ownership iswalking trips to transit as part of theWalking rates from model simulationsalso available from the Metropolitanjourney to work nor does it includeare available at the County Commission. Comparedwalking trips to other County has the second to other areas in the region, the For example, Figure 1 suggests that inhighest walking rate when comparedCity of Oakland likely has morethe San Francisco Bay Region thereto the other 8 counties in the Sanpedestrian trips because many neigh-are seven times as many home-basedFrancisco Bay Region (Figure 2). borhoods are densely populated andpedestrian trips to school as home-well served by pedestrian trips to the City of Oakland has different characteristics than much ofAlameda County, walking rates for *****MODEWORKSHOPSOCIAL/RECREATIONAL City are likely higher than ratesfor the County as a whole. WALK 3%8%%%%%*FIGURE 1 1990 REGIONAL WEEKDAY WALKING TRIPS BY PURPOSE (MTC 1994, P. 12) . = HOME BASED|Pedestrian Master Plan18
Rates of car ownership are useful forTaken as a whole, these figures suggestCity are higher than that of theconsidering the differences between thethat the City of Oakland has one of theCounty. As discussed in greater detailCity of Oakland (combined with thehighest rates of walking for all cities inbelow, the largest shares of walkingCity of Alameda) and the County ofthe nine-county San Francisco Baytrips in the City of Oakland are likelyAlameda. Lower car ownership rates inRegion. At the county level, Alamedato schools and to transit. Oakland suggest higher rates of walk-County has the second highest rate fol-ing and transit ridership. Figure 3 lowing San Francisco County. Withincompares car ownership rates forAlameda County, the City of Oakland’sselected sub-regions of the nine countydense development patterns, good tran-San Francisco Bay service, and low levels of car owner-ship suggest that walking rates for theWALKING TRIPS AS GEOGRAPHICAL ZERO CAR 1-CARMULTIPLE CARAVG. CARS/COUNTY% OF TOTAL %OAKLAND/% % % %(HOUSEHOLDS)(32,139)(67,774)(66,609)(166,522)%%ALAMEDA %%% %BERKELEY/%%% CLARA %SAN %SAN %%%%BAY AREA %%% AREA %FIGURE 2 WALKING TRIPS AS A PERCENTAGE FIGURE 3 CAR OWNERSHIP IN 2000 FOR OAKLAND/ALAMEDA VERSUS OTHER AREAS (MTC 2001A, PP. 49 – 54)OF TOTAL TRIPS BY COUNTY (MTC 2001B, P. 95)Pedestrian Master Plan |19
Pedestrian/Vehicle Collision DataPedestrians are the most vulnerableWhile useful for locating problemroad users and collisions with motorareas, collision maps tend to highlightvehicles often result in serious injurythose areas where large numbers ofor death. While pedestrian/vehicle col-people walk. For example, areas lisions represent 4% of total collisionslike Chinatown and Internationalin Oakland, pedestrian fatalities com-Boulevard have high pedestrian prise 39% of the total number of traf-volumes and high numbers of pedes-fic fatalities in the City of collisions. In contrast, collisionThis figure is three times the nationalmaps do not identify those areasaverage of 13% (Alameda Countywhere people avoid walking becauseCongestion Management Agencythey are perceived as too dangerous2001). These numbers may befor pedestrians. For a comprehensiveexplained in part by Oakland havinganalysis, feedback from the communitymore pedestrians than other process described in the following section balances this short-The following data are primarily fromcoming of collision Statewide Integrated TrafficRecords System (SWITRS), a databaseof collision records collected by localpolice throughout California and theCalifornia Highway Patrol (CHP). |Pedestrian Master Plan20
MANDELAMARTIN LUTHER KING JRTELEGRAPHBROADWAYLAKESHORELINCOLNHEGENBERGERTFORCNABORDNAEL NASNIATNUOMSHATTUCKOLBA PNASTUNNELZALCATRAPEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONS 1 to 2SKYLI5EN1EKSTA3 to 4NS40TH5 to 11SOURCE: SWITRSGRANDMACARTHURKRAPREDWOODHGIHARYSEMINKELINFOLOTTHEILELRRNATIONALGOLF LINKSMAP 1 PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONS—OAKLAND (1996-2000)Pedestrian Master Plan |21
NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONSPedestrian/Vehicle Collision Datainclude the extensive education, 450engineering, and enforcement activities400of the City of Oakland over the last350five years. In 2000 there were a total350of 312 collisions involving pedestrians300– down 12% from 353 collisions in2501996. Pedestrian injury collisions200declined from 292 in 1996 to 240 in1501002000 – a 18% drop. The number of50pedestrian fatality collisions fell from 80in 1996 to 6 in 2000 – a 25% reduc-19961997199819992000tion. Over this five year period, 2% ofINJURYFATALNON-INJURYRates of Pedestrianall pedestrian/motor vehicle collisionsFIGURE 5 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS CHART, (1996-2000)Collisionsresulted in a pedestrian fatality. TotalReasons for On average, a pedestrian/vehicle colli-pedestrian collisions for 2000 may bePedestrian Collisionssion occurs each day in Oakland. artificially low because the OaklandThe number of collisions hasPolice Department did not file reportsAs Figure 6 demonstrates, vehicledecreased slightly in recent non-injury collisions from Octoberdrivers are responsible for approxi-Possible explanations for this decline 2000 to October 51% of pedestrian/vehicle collisions. Pedestrians are responsiblefor approximately 31% of such 19961997199819992000TOTAL% TOTALcollisions and in about 18% of %cases the primary factor is “other” %or “unknown.”%TOTAL3533594023813121807100%Violation of the pedestrian right-of-wayby a motor vehicle driver is the mostFIGURE 4 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS TABLE (1996-2000)common cause of pedestrian/vehicle|Pedestrian Master Plan22
NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONScollisions. Other common drivergenerally during a turning , 90% involve drivers proceedingmovements include unsafe starting orFigure 8 shows that 60% of vehiclesstraight as the movement precedingbacking and unsafe speed. Further-are proceeding straight when involvedcollision. For collisions with the driv-more, % of pedestrian/vehicle colli-in a pedestrian/vehicle collision. Left-er at fault, the majority involve driversions are hit-and-run vehicle movements account forturning movements as the movement15% while right-turn vehicle move-preceding collision. When pedestrians are at fault thements account for 10% of the is generally going violations are tabulated as For collisions with the pedestrian atWhen the motorist is at fault it is a single category in the data so it is notpossible to distinguish the particularPRIMARY COLLISION FACTORNUMBER% OF TOTALpedestrian actions that cause well-known pedestrian violationsPED OR OTHER UNDER failing to obey traffic signalsAUTO RIGHT-OF-WAY jaywalking (crossing outside of aDRIVERlegal crosswalk).PED RIGHT-OF-WAY PARKING/ UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) HAZARDOUS SIDE OF IMPROPER SIGNAL/ THAN DRIVER OR 7 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS CHARTFIGURE 6 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS TABLEPedestrian Master Plan |23
NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONSPedestrian/Vehicle Collision DataHalf of pedestrian/vehicle collisionsoccur when the pedestrian is in acrosswalk (marked or unmarked).Accounting for 33% of the total, thenext most frequent pedestrian actionin collisions is crossing not in a cross-walk. For collisions with pedestriansviolating motor vehicle rights-of-way,pedestrians were not in crosswalks74% of the time. For collisions withdrivers violating pedestrian rights-of-FIGURE 9 PEDESTRIAN ACTION IN COLLISIONway, pedestrians are in crosswalks90% of the time. By age, seniors arewhile in a crosswalk. Conversely, Administration data including boththe most likely to be hit by a vehiclechildren are the most likely to be hitvehicle collisions and pedestrian colli-by a vehicle while not in a crosswalk. sions, “In 1997, speeding was a 1200contributing factor in 30% of all fatalDriver Speed andcrashes.” (FHWA 2002b, p. 13). 1000Pedestrian CollisionsData on driver speed is difficult toHigher speeds increase the severity 800of collisions between vehicles andobtain and this difficulty may explainwhy speeding is infrequently identifiedpedestrians. One study identified an60085% chance of pedestrian fatality atas a primary collision factor. According40040mph, which declines to 45% atto the Oakland Police Traffic30mph and 5% at 20mph (FHWAEnforcement Division, speed is difficult200to determine because accurate estimates2002b, p. 13). The Federal HighwayAdministration explains, “At higherdepend upon forensic analysis or0STRAIGHTLEFTRIGHTBACKINGSTOPPEDOTHERspeeds, motorists are less likely to seeTURNTURNdetailed witness statements. Accordingto National Highway Ta pedestrian, and even less likely to FIGURE 8 MOVEMENT PRECEDING COLLISIONraffic Safety |Pedestrian Master Plan24
PERCENTAGE OF PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONSactually stop in time to avoid a motor vehicle traffic on multi-lane,At a mere 31 mph, a driver will needone-way streets. Many signalizedabout 200 ft. to stop which mayintersections in this area do not haveexceed available sight distance; thatpedestrian signal heads to informnumber is halved at 19 mph” (FHWApedestrians when it is safe to , p. 8).The city is in the process of installingpedestrian signal heads for all existingLocation of Pedestriantraffic signals. CollisionsMost pedestrian/vehicle collisionsThe following figures show the inter-occur in downtown, in Chinatown,sections with the greatest number ofwith the most pedestrian collisions,and along arterial streets. Both down-pedestrian collisions, senior pedestrianseven out of eleven of those intersec-town and Chinatown have high levelscollisions, and child pedestrian colli-tions have traffic signals. For the of pedestrian activity and high levelssions, respectively. For intersectionssenior pedestrian collisions, four of100%RANKINTERSECTION COLLISIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL 2690%1INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD / 64TH AVENUE11NO19880%2FRUITVALE AVENUE / FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 11YES2202370%338TH AVENUE / MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 9YES13560%47TH STREET / FRANKLIN STREET 9NO50%5INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD / 90TH AVENUE 8YES6240%614TH STREET / MADISON STREET 8YES8330%3657FRUITVALE AVENUE / MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 7YES20%1698INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD / 35TH AVENUE 7YES10%940TH STREET / TELEGRAPH AVENUE 7YES0%1077TH AVENUE / BANCROFT AVENUE 7NOCHILDRENADULTSSENIORS10D STREET / 98TH AVENUE 7NOIN CROSSWALKOTHERNOT IN CROSSWALKFIGURE 10 PEDESTRIAN ACTION IN VEHICLE FIGURE 11 TOP 10 RANKED INTERSECTIONS BY NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (1996-2000)COLLISION (BY AGE GROUP)Pedestrian Master Plan |25
Pedestrian/Vehicle Collision DataSENIOR CENTERRANKINTERSECTIONCOLLISIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL(WITHIN 1/4 MILE)128TH STREET/BROADWAY4NOYES238TH AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD3YESYES3FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/FRUITVALE AVENUE3YESYES4108TH AVENUE/BANCROFT AVENUE2NONO5E. 16TH STREET/FRUITVALE AVENUE2NOYES624TH STREET/MARKET STREET2NONOthe eleven intersections have traffic740TH STREET/TELEGRAPH AVENUE2YESNOsignals and six of out of the eleven841ST STREET/TELEGRAPH AVENUE2NONOintersectionsare located within 1/4 mile957TH AVENUE/BANCROFT AVENUE2NOYESof a senior center. For child pedestrian105TH AVENUE/10TH STREET2YESYEScollisions, six out of ten intersectionsFIGURE 12 TOP 10 RANKED INTERSECTIONS FOR SENIORS (1996-2000)have traffic signals and eight of the tenintersections are located within 1/4 mileof a school. SCHOOLRANKINTERSECTIONCOLLISIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL(WITHIN 1/4 MILE)The pedestrian safety problem is espe-133RD STREET/PARK BOULEVARD4NOYEScially severe on Oakland’s arterial257TH AVENUE/BANCROFT AVENUE4NONOstreets. According to the Alameda311TH STREET/JACKSON STREET3YESYESCountywide Bicycle Plan, International418TH STREET/MARKET STREET3YESYESBoulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and564TH AVENUE/FOOTHILL BOULEVARD3NOYESMacArthur Boulevard have the highest668TH AVENUE/FOOTHILL BOULEVARD3NOYESnumber of pedestrian collisions for all782ND AVENUE/BANCROFT AVENUE3YESYESstreets in the county. Approximately8BROOKDALE AVENUE/HIGH STREET3YESYES10% of Oakland’s pedestrian colli-9MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/HIGH STREET3YESNOsions take place along International10INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD/98TH AVENUE2YESYESBoulevard alone. Figure 14 gives thetop ten pedestrian/vehicle collision FIGURE 13 TOP 10 RANKED INTERSECTIONS FOR CHILDREN (1996-2000)|Pedestrian Master Plan26
streets over the total length of theNUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLESTREETCOLLISIONS (1996-2000)street in the City of Oakland. Figure1INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD17415 gives the top ten pedestrian/vehicle2MACARTHUR BOULEVARD125collision streets per road mile of the3FOOTHILL BOULEVARD96street in the City of -Risk Groups5TELEGRAPH AVENUE57By age group, children and seniors are6FRUITVALE AVENUE50the most likely to be involved as a7BANCROFT AVENUE45pedestrian in a pedestrian/vehicle 8GRAND AVENUE (TIE)43collision. Male drivers are over-repre-912TH STREET (TIE)4310WEBSTER STREET38sented by sex in pedestrian/vehicle collisions. Furthermore, younger FIGURE 14 TOP 10 RANKED VEHICLE/COLLISION STREETS BY TOTAL NUMBER OF COLLISIONS drivers are over-represented by age inpedestrian/vehicle collisions. As NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONSpedestrians, African-Americans andSTREETPER ROAD MILE (1996-2000)Hispanics are at an elevated risk 1INTERNATIONAL injury. 2FRUITVALE data are unavailable for pedes-3FRANKLIN collision rates amongst people4FOOTHILL disabilities, they are widely rec-5TELEGRAPH as an at-risk 1996 to 2000, 1446 injury8HIGH specify the pedestrian’s 37% of these, the pedestrians10WEBSTER children (17 years and under)even though they comprised % FIGURE 15 TOP 10 RANKED COLLISION STREETS BY NUMBER OF COLLISIONS PER ROAD MILEPedestrian Master Plan |27
Pedestrian/Vehicle Collision Dataof the City’s population (. CensusSeniors (65 years and over) suffer theAmericans are times more likely2000). That children suffer the highesthighest rates of pedestrian fatalitythan Caucasians to be hospitalized orrates of pedestrian injury is generallyaccounting for 24% of the fatal killed as a pedestrian in a to the risk taking behaviorpedestrian/motor vehicle rates of pedestrian hospitalizationof youth and, for those under 10However, Oakland seniors comprisedand fatality are per 100,000 years of age, a cognitive inability % of the population (. Censusfor African-Americans and perjudge the speed and danger of motor2000). Seniors tend to get hit near100,000 for Caucasians (Center vehicle traffic. their homes and senior centers. Of allfor Third World Organizing). age groups, seniors are the most likelyAfrican-Americans are 50% more Children tend to get hit near be hit in crosswalks. Senior fatali-likely than Caucasians to be killed They are also over-represented in ties are often attributed to the frailtyin a pedestrian/vehicle collision. Thecollisions where the pedestrian wasof older age. rates of pedestrian fatality are not in a crosswalk. In fact,per 100,000 for African-Americans 56% of pedestrian violations are com-People of color are disproportionatelyand per 100,000 for Caucasiansmitted by youth even though they represented in pedestrian/vehicle colli-(Alameda County 2000).represent 25% of the . In Alameda County, African-AGE GROUP0-45-910-1314-1718-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+TOTALINJURY119193114104131176208174831441446FATALITY2100315115937% OF %%%%%%%%%%-% OF %%%%%%%%%%-% OFPOPULATION %%%%%%%%%%-FIGURE 16 PEDESTRIAN INJURIES/FATALITIES BY AGE GROUP (1996-2000)|Pedestrian Master Plan28
Collisions with pedestrians occur yearTime of Pedestrianround at consistent levels with a slightCollisionsrise during the winter months fromOverall, pedestrian/vehicle collisionsOctober to February. correspond to times of high pedestrianand vehicle volumes. The risk ofCollisions Betweenpedestrian injury rises during the dayPedestrians and Bicyclistsand peaks during the evening rushhour. The risk also rises, though lessWhile bicycling on the sidewalk is andramatically, to a peak on Fridayissue for pedestrians, no pedestrian/.Peak collision times for children arebicyclist collisions in Oakland wereIn the City of Oakland, the density ofbefore and after school hours. Peakrecorded in the SWITRS database frompedestrian/vehicle collisions is greatestcollision times for adults are the1996 to 2000. Given the light weightsin minority and low-income neighbor-morning and evening rush hours. Forand typically low speeds of bicyclistshoods including Chinatown, theseniors, collisions occur at relativelycompared to motor vehicles, this issueFruitvale, and along International andmay be more annoyance than hazard toconstant levels throughout the dayFoothill Boulevards. These neighbor-with a small peak during the morningpedestrians when compared to the fre-hoods are some of the densest in thequency and risk of pedestrian/motorrush hour. Fewer collisions occur onCity and have high levels of pedestrianweekends than during the and transit ridership. TheSWITRS database, which is the pri-250mary source for this data analysis,200does not record race or ethnicity in150pedestrian/vehicle :002:004:006:008:0012:0010:0012:002:004:006:008:0010:00TOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTO1:59AM3:59AM5:59AM7:59AM9:59AM1:59AM11:59AM1:59PM3:59PM5:59PM7:59PM9:59PM11:59PMYOUTHADULTSENIORFIGURE 17 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS BY TIME OF DAYPedestrian Master Plan |29
Pedestrian/Vehicle Collision DataOakland Compared to CITY/FATALITIESINJURIESPOPULATIONPER 100,000PER 100,000the Rest of of pedestrian/vehicle collisions, Oakland are higher than statewide108,900averages. In 1999, % of injuryLONG ,900and fatality collisions in OaklandLOS a pedestrian, compared to3,781,% statewide. That same year, ,800in 1,292 Oaklanders was a or fatality compared to one in396,2002,700 Californians (Institute ofSAN ,500Transportation Studies 2001).SAN ,100In the State of California from 1995to 1999, Oakland had the secondFIGURE 18 PEDESTRIAN INJURY AND FATALITYFOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA CITIES (AVERAGES highest rate of pedestrian fatalitiesOF SWITRS 1995-1999 ANNUAL REPORTS)after San Francisco. Oakland had the third highest rate of pedestrianinjuries after San Francisco andBerkeley. These higher rates of pedes-trian injury and fatality are explainedin part by cities like Oakland, SanFrancisco, and Berkeley having more pedestrians than other cities in the State.|Pedestrian Master Plan30
School SafetyThe Oakland Unified School Districtof those children walking means17 years or under and occurred withinenrolls 53,000 students in approximatelyapproximately 875 walking trips to and1/4 mile of the school. There may be100 schools, of which 61 are elemen-from school, or 1,750 pedestrian tripssome double counting of collisionstary schools. Many of these schools areper weekday. While exact numbers arebecause of overlap in the 1/4 mile arealocatedon or near arterial streets. At theunavailable, walking rates are expectedaround schools, which is not correcteddistrict’slargest elementary schools,to be much lower for schools in thefor in this document. approximately75% of children walk Oakland Hills. Similarly, the total num-In spring 2002, the Transportationto school. ber of weekday pedestrian trips will beServices Division began examining thecomparatively small for schools with sig-Assuming an average walking rate ofexisting conditions at these schools nificantly fewer students. At elementary50% for students, Oakland publicto identify possible pedestrian safetyschools, many parents also walk withschools would generate 53,000 week-improvements. The following chapterstheir children. day pedestrian trips. For example,on the Pedestrian Route Network andHawthorne Elementary is the largestFigure 20 lists the public schools withPolicy Recommendations provide addi-elementary school in the district the greatest number of nearby childtional information on improving schoolwith 1179 students enrolled in thepedestrian/vehicle collisions. All of thesafety in –2002 school year. Three-quarters collisions listed involved pedestrians of NUMBER OF CHILD PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLECOLLISIONS OVER 5 YEARS WITHIN 1/4 MILERANKSCHOOLADDRESS111650 22ND AVENUE1GARFIELD YEAR ROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL91700 28TH AVENUE2HAWTHORNE YEAR ROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL9 (TIE)8521 A STREET3HIGHLAND YEAR ROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL9 (TIE)4610 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD4FREMONT HIGH SCHOOL9 (TIE)7220 KRAUSE AVENUE5MARKHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL89860 SUNNYSIDE STREET6E MORRIS COX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL8 (TIE)3709 E. 12TH STREET7DEWEY HIGH SCHOOL8 (TIE)890 BROCKHURST STREET8HOOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL8 (TIE)2845 64TH AVENUE9FRICK JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL7915 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD10FRANKLIN YEAR ROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL7 (TIE)2920 E. 18TH STREET10CHARLES WHITTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL7 (TIE)1800 98TH AVENUE10ELMHURST MIDDLE SCHOOLFIGURE 19 TOP TEN RANKED CHILD PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISION SCHOOLS (1996-2000)Pedestrian Master Plan |31
|Pedestrian Master Plan32
MANDELAMARTIN LUTHER KING JRTELEGRAPHBROADWAYLAKESHORELINCOLNHEGENBERGERTFORCNABORDNAEL NASNIATNUOMSHATTUCKOLBAP NAS1TUNNELAZATRCAL5123SCHOOLS03SK0 to 4 collisions00YLIN5E10EKSTA0N5 to 11 collisions2S1240TH1Quarter Mile Buffer008GRAND3301113301M03AC3ARTH1U0R11KR5AP342RE0D3W76OO5D03010411H1G6IH97011Y0SEMINAR18193KELINFOLOTTHEILELRRNA0T8IO92NA1L405534GOLF LINKS9010784212MAP 2 CHILD PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONS NEAR SCHOOLS—OAKLAND (1996-2000)Pedestrian Master Plan |33
Connections to Transitproviders of transit service in the Cityshare do not count how people get toof Oakland. AC Transit’s five largestand from transit. To suggest wherebus lines travel along Oakland’s majorthose trips occur, Figure 21 identifiescorridors and there are numerousthe five largest bus lines in Oaklandsmaller lines that cross all areas of theand their daily patronage. Each of City. BART serves Oakland with eightpassenger rail stations.* The number of 148,000 pedestrian trips is basedIn Oakland, approximately 148,000on weekday boardings and alightings for ACTransit’s Central and East Oakland planningpedestrian trips on weekdays are to orzones (AC Transit Boarding and AlightingTransit is a significant source offrom AC Transit buses.* People usingSurvey, Fall 1997 – Winter 1998). Total pedestri-pedestrian trip generation. TheOakland BART stations may accountan trips were computed using AC Transit’s 1993systemwide on-board survey that found %Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Districtfor another 57,000 pedestrian trips.**of respondents walked to the bus and % of(AC Transit) and the Bay Area RapidThese numbers are significant becauserespondents walked from the bus. The total fig-ure may be slightly inflated because the CentralTransit District (BART) are the majormany surveys on transportation mode Oakland planning zone includes Piedmont andEmeryville. On the other hand, the figure may beBUS LINE (CORRIDOR) 1998 DAILY PATRONAGEslightly deflated because it does not includepedestrian trips to or from transbay TELEGRAPH/SHATTUCK/FOOTHILL/BANCROFT22,000** Data on walking mode share to and from BART51 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY/BROADWAY/ALAMEDA17,000stations in the City of Oakland is not number of 57,000 pedestrian trips is a57/58 MACARTHUR19,000rough estimate based on the following twoassumptions. First, it assumes that average72/72L/73 SAN PABLO13,000weekday entrances and exits to the BART sys-tem in the City of Oakland are approximately82/82L E. 14TH/INTERNATIONAL22,500equal. This assumption suggests that there are114,000 entrances to and exits from the BART5 LINE TOTAL93,500system in Oakland. Second, it assumes thateach BART rider will be a pedestrian on oneSYSTEM TOTAL206,000end of her or his trip. This assumption suggests% OF Sthat half of all entrances and exits – 57,000 –YSTEM TOTAL45%will be pedestrian trips. FIGURE 20 AC TRANSIT DAILY RIDERS, TRUNK LINES (AC TRANSIT 2002)|Pedestrian Master Plan34
these corridors is identified as in Oakland. For the stations in down-a major pedestrian route in thetown Oakland, the pedestrian modePedestrian Route Network describedshare for AM peak exits is likely muchin Chapter 3. Figure 21 provides higher than for AM peak weekday exits and the walking mode share for AM peakentrances at each BART station AVERAGEWALKING MODAL SHARE BART STATIONS WEEKDAY EXITS(AM PEAK ENTRANCES)PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS12th Street12,51027%Downtown location – needs improved access under Interstate 880 to Jack London Street8,32746%Downtown location – needs crossing improvements along Broadway and 20th ,8545%Low density of surrounding land uses does not support pedestrian activity. Sidewalks are absent onnorth side of San Leandro Street. San Leandro is a wide and fast street that is not pleasant to walkalong or ,21710%The Fruitvale Transit Village Plan is addressing access issues to the Fruitvale BART station. Current conditions include unpleasant access through a parking lot via 34th Street. Lake Merritt4,65527%Downtown location – needs improved access under Interstate 880 to Jack London ,52724%Needs improved connections under Highway 24 to the west side and Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Access from Telegraph Avenue via 40th Street is hazardous. Collisions have occurred at illegal mid-block crossing on 40th. Rockridge4,91629%This station is integrated into the surrounding land uses. Access for pedestrians is excellent. One-way streets surrounding the station area may encourage Oakland4,9799%Low density of surrounding land uses does not support a large share of pedestrian activity. 7th Street is a multi-lane street that is difficult to cross due to large volumes of car and truck traffic and infrequent traffic signals. Oakland Total56,985FIGURE 21 BART DAILY RIDERS, OAKLAND STATIONS (BART 2000)Pedestrian Master Plan |35
Education and EnforcementThe Oakland Pedestrian Safety ProjectThe perception of criminal activity in(OPSP) is responsible for pedestrianstreets is a deterrent to pedestriansafety education in the City ofactivity. In addition to the regular beatOakland. Formed in 1995, the OPSPoperations of the OPD, the City ofaddresses pedestrian safety by buildingOakland developed the Safe Walks tocoalitions between City staff from theSchool program through the Office ofPublic Works Agency, Community andthe City Manager to protect childrenEconomic Development Agency, Policefrom assault when walking to and Safe Moves Town (pedestrian safetyand Fire Services, Life Enrichmentfrom school. The Safe Walks to Schooltraining for children)Agency as well as representatives ofprogram is funded from allocations public relations campaigns (includingthe Oakland Children’s Hospital andof Community Development Block other public health agencies and “It’s Our Town, Let’s Slow it Down”)Grant funds through Communitycommunity representatives. BeginningDevelopment District Oakland Police Departmentin 2000, the OPSP was funded by a(OPD) works in conjunction with theThe Safe Walks to School programtwo-year, $600,000 grant from theOPSP to target enforcement of lawsplaces site monitors along the mostState Office of Traffic promote pedestrian safety. OPDheavily traveled streets of selectedOPSP emphasizes the “three E’s” pedestrian safety programs include theschools during the hours when childrenof pedestrian injury prevention:following:are present. Locations for the SafeEducation, Engineering, andWalks to Schoolprogram were selected pedestrian right-of-way enforcementEnforcement. The major educationalby rates of criminal activity affecting(“pedestrian stings”)activities of the OPSP are:youth and truancy rates. Initiated in pedestrian violation enforcement2000-2001 school year, the program is Walk a Child to School Day (jaywalking)currently in operation at five Oakland(annual event)Public Schools. data checklist of pedestrian collision Pedestrian Safety Week information data (providing addi-(annual event)tional data on pedestrian collisionscollected by officers)|Pedestrian Master Plan36
Community Outreach The community outreach process forsafety walking along and crossing“At the core…is the Pedestrian Master Plan consisted ofmajor streetsPedestrians are the catalyst, community presentations plus monthly safety walking to and aroundwhich makes the essential quali-meetings throughout the two-year plan-schoolstiesof communities process of the Citizen’s PedestrianRegardless of the particular neighbor-Advisory Committee (CPAC) and theThey create the place and timehood, the overwhelming proportion ofTechnical Advisory Committee (TAC).for casual encounters and thecommunity feedback identified cross-Community Outreachpractical integration of diverseing streets with two or more lanes inPresentationsplaces and people. Without theeach direction as a major obstacle toThe Oakland Pedestrian Safety Projectsafe and comfortable walking. Thispedestrian, a community’s com-(OPSP) conducted 70 community pre-issue speaks directly to the balancingmon ground – its parks, side-sentationsreaching 1,750 Oaklandersact between accommodating vehicleswalks, squares and plazas,during the planning process. Members oftraveling through a neighborhood andbecome useless obstructions tothe CPAC and staff of OPSP broughtaccommodating pedestrians within acitywide collision maps to Neighbor-neighborhood. Second, communitythe car. Pedestrians are the losthood Crime Prevention Councilsgroups identified the safety of routesmeasure of a community, they(NCPCs) and community groupsto school and safety along the perime-set the scale for both center andthroughout the City. Citizens identifiedter of schools including drop off andedge of our neighborhoods.”areas and issues of concern throughpick up areas. In particular, largethese outreach efforts. The Citynumbers of parents driving children Peter CalthorpeCommissions on Aging and Disabilityto school create hazardous conditionsand the Public Safety Committee of thefor kids. These two issues regardingCity Council were additional sources schools and major streets are directlyof because community concern isoften greatest where routes to schoolThe community meetings identifiedcross wide following two major issuesthroughout the city:Pedestrian Master Plan |37
Community Outreach Local streets are dangerous to crossTraffic moves too fast near when used as “cut-through” routesmany drivers. Children do not understand howstreets are Speeding cars are a problem on both Schools do not have enough crossingone-way and multi-lane and stop signs to regulatetraffic. Speeding cars entering and exitingfreeways threaten pedestrian safety. Double parking in school zonesThe following list explains otherneeds more stringent enforcement. Speeding buses are a identified in community Residents are frustrated by drivers Double-parked vehicles block sightmeetings as common concerns:who “do donuts” on local streetslines between pedestrians and near Issues Cars parked on sidewalks create Streets with large volumes of motorhazards by forcing pedestrians intovehicles are difficult to street. Many busy pedestrian areas don’tSchool Safety Issueshave frequent enough crossings. Residents are concerned about driv- Streets with many lanes are difficulters failing to yield to pedestrians into cross because of their zones. Drivers often do not yield for pedes- Drivers do not always obey stop signstrians at crossing guards in school zones. Traffic signals do not provide Some streets near schools are miss-enough crossing time for families,ing , and persons with disabilities.|Pedestrian Master Plan38
Streetscaping IssuesCitizen’s PedestrianTechnical AdvisoryAdvisory CommitteeCommittee The prevalence of trash and pettycrime discourages Technical Advisory CommitteeThe Citizen’s Pedestrian Advisory(TAC) was comprised of city staff andCommittee (CPAC) provided continu- Older curb ramps are too steep forprovided an analogous role to theous public oversight and feedbackpersons in wheelchairs and createCPAC. Meetings included representa-during the development of thedrainage problems. tives from the Public Works Agency,Pedestrian Master Plan. The CPAC Diagonal curb ramps direct Community and Economicwas composed of district representa-people into the intersection, not Development Agency (CEDA), Citytives appointed by each Citythe ’s Americans with DisabilitiesCouncilmember and one mayoralAct (ADA) Programs, and other Cityappointee from each of the Mayoral Many sidewalks and crosswalks aredepartments and programs. The TACCommissions on Aging and adequately also a forum for working with theAdditional representatives of several Neighborhood commercial Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Districtcommunity stakeholder groups includ-streets should be safe and inviting(AC Transit). The TAC met monthlying the Building Owner’s andfor over one and a half ’s Association (BOMA), theMembers of the TAC are listed in the Bicycle and Pedestrian AdvisoryThe area between Lake Merritt andAcknowledgements at the beginning Committee, and Urban Ecology alsothe Estuary lacks an adequate pedes-of this meetings. The CPAC mettrian for one and a half years tooversee the planning of the CPAC are listed in theAcknowledgements at the beginning ofthis Master Plan |39
Chapter 3 Pedestrian Route Network
A journey of one thousand miles begins witha single Tse, Chinese PhilosopherThe Pedestrian Master Plan designatesimpact. Streets not included in the net-a Pedestrian Route Network thatwork may also need pedestrianextends throughout Oakland. The net-improvements. The Pedestrian Routework identifies common walking routesNetwork should not be used as anto schools, transit, neighborhood com-argument against pedestrian improve-mercial districts, and other pedestrianments on streets that are not designat-destinations. These routes respond toed as part of the Pedestrian Routecommunity concerns regarding safeNetwork. A survey of the Pedestrianroutes to these destinations and acrossRoute Network is included as anmajor streets. It includes city routes,appendix. For implementation, thedistrict routes, neighborhood routes,proposed projects would require walkways, and trails. additional review by traffic engineer-ing and under the CaliforniaThe Pedestrian Route Network identi-Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Furthermore, engineering judgment isfies those streets in greatest need ofimprovement and those areas wherenecessary to determine the specificlocations and features of each will have the greatestPedestrian Master Plan |41
Selection of RoutesThe following criteria were used to Connect schools, transit, senior cen-identify a draft route network that wasters, disability centers, libraries,then refined through community andparks, neighborhoods, and commer-staff input. Routes were selected to:cial districts. Include other areas of high pedestrian activity. Address areas with a history ofpedestrian collisions. Provide routes through and betweenneighborhoods. Overcome barriers including free-ways, railroad tracks, and topogra-phies that separate neighborhoods. Complement existing and proposedbike paths, lanes, and routes. Facilitate connections to bus stopsand routes. Reinforce transit-oriented develop-ment around BART stations. Highlight creeks, shorelines, ridge-lines, and other natural features.|Pedestrian Master Plan42
MANDELAOLBAP NASMLK JRTELEGRAPHKSHATTUCBROADWAYLAKESHORELHINIGCHOLNSKNIL FLOGTFORCNABRDNAEL NARSUHTRAHEGENBERGCAMNIATNULEONNMUTLLIHTOOFParksZARTALCAWaterCity RouteDistrict RouteSKEY5L1KNeighborhood RouteISNTEANSDowntown Ped. DETAILRAPREDWOODYRANIMREELLESKINTERNATIONALMAP 3 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORKPedestrian Master Plan |43
Downtown Pedestrian DistrictThe Pedestrian Master Plan designatesMarket areas and the Lakeside,The designation of the Downtownthe downtown area as a pedestrian dis-Madison Square, and Lafayette SquarePedestrian District indicates the City’strict based on high levels of pedestrianneighborhoods. It also includes Lakecommitment to the downtown as aactivity, the number of pedestrian tripMerritt. Its designation as a pedestriansafe and enjoyable place to walk. Thegenerators, and a pedestrian-friendlydistrict reflects the high density offollowing two chapters identify poli-street grid. This designation signifiescommercial, residential, cultural, andcies and design elements that shouldthat every street in the pedestrian recreational uses all within walkingserve both as resources and bench-district is a pedestrian route, compara-distance and well-served by for ensuring that these andble to the routes identified throughoutThe designation also reinforces thefuture planning processes in the down-the rest of the City. In addition to Land Use and Transportationtown area promote pedestrian safetythis general designation, pedestrianElement’s promotion of a transit-and are identified in the downtownoriented specify the most important streetsWithin the Downtown Pedestrianfor prioritizing pedestrian improve-District, current pedestrian-related plan-ments. The selection of these routesning processes include the following:reflects those streets with the highest Chinatown Environmentalpedestrian use, the best connectivity,Justice Planning Grantand pedestrian improvements proposedby the concurrent planning processes Downtown Streetscape Master Planlisted below. Downtown Parking and This Downtown Pedestrian District isCirculation Master Planbounded by and includes Brush Street, Estuary PlanGrand Avenue, El Embarcadero,Lakeshore Avenue, Channel Park, and Lake Merritt Master Planthe Oakland Inner Harbor. It includesCity Center, Chinatown, Uptown, Jack London Square, and Produce |Pedestrian Master Plan44
MAP 4 DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN DISTRICTPedestrian Master Plan |45
Safe Routes to SchoolThe Pedestrian Route Network con- Adult crossing guardsWhile the Safe Walks to School pro-nects every public school, park, recre-gram is focused on criminal activity, Student safety patrolsational center, and library in the Cityit is another important resource for Parent volunteersof Oakland. The neighborhood routesdeveloping a seamless approach toof the network were selected fromsafe routes to school in the City. Safe Walks to School programlocal streets both to serve these desti-The Pedestrian Master Plan recom-The Pedestrian Master Plan recom-nations and provide through routesmends that a citywide parent volunteermends that these programs be coordi-for pedestrians. These destinationsprogram be established to providenated to ensure that all schools havewere given priority because of thetraining, safety equipment, and coordi-adequate traffic safety number of pedestrian trips thatnation such that parents who are con-Adult crossing guards and studentthey generate and community concerncerned with school safety can help con-safety patrols are already used atover the safety of children walking totribute to solutions. This programmany schools. However, financial con-these destinations. This sectionshould augment – not compete – withstraints limit adult crossing guards toexplains how the Pedestrian Routethe existing programs of adult crossingthose schools with the most severeNetwork can contribute to establish-guards and student safety concerns. Some schools thating a comprehensive and seamlessCitywide coordination is necessary tohave requested adult crossing guards“Safe Routes to School” program ensure that these programs workdo not have them. While student safe-in the City. together patrols play an invaluable role, theyThe Pedestrian Master Plan recom-are not used at some locations becauseTo help develop safe routes to school,mends that the City develop designat-of the traffic risk to the patrols them-the Pedestrian Route Network identi-ed “safe routes to school” by integrat-selves. At some schools, parent volun-fies candidate streets at the citywideing existing school safety programsteers are organizing to fill gaps thatlevel for targeted crossing and sidewalkwith targeted sidewalk and crossingare not covered by the adult crossingimprovements. These routes should beimprovements. The existing schoolguards or the child safety and further specified based onsafety programs include the following:local knowledge of traffic safety condi-|Pedestrian Master Plan46
Safe Routes to Transittions at each of the approximately at least 148,000 weekday pedestrianLocal Transit Streets100 schools in the district. trips and BART generates at least Hegenberger/73rd Avenue57,000 weekday pedestrian trips. SafeFor each individual school, these College AvenueRoutes to Transit helps operationalizeroutes will help identify where physical Bancroft Avenuethe Land Use and Transportationimprovements and safety programs Park BoulevardElement’s designation of transit streetswill have the largest impact. At the 23rd Avenueand its policy directive for promotingcitywide level, the pedestrian/vehicle 35th Avenuealternative modes of data for pedestrians 17 years 40th StreetTargeted street improvements for theseand under and within one-quarter mileThe Pedestrian Route Network alsogroups will improve pedestrian safetyof a school identifies which schools indesignates routes that radiate out fromand access while promoting trans-the district are in most immediate needeach BART station to adjoining neigh-portation alternatives in the safety improvements. borhoods and commercial homes to transit with non-The identification of these routes bySamotorized trips has the added benefitfe Routes to Transitthe Pedestrian Master Plan is aof reducing cold starts.“Safe Routes to Transit” is a strategyresource for station area planningfor targeting street improvementsThe Pedestrian Route Network identi-processes to promote pedestrian safetywhere they are the most needed andfies key routes that serve AC Transitand access. Pedestrian planningwill have the greatest impact. In thebus lines and BART stations. Thesearound BART stations is especiallyCity of Oakland, AC Transit generatesroutes include the “transit streets”important given the emerging transit-designated by the Land Use andoriented development at Fruitvale,Transportation Element:MacArthur, West Oakland, andRegional Transit StreetsColiseum stations. The 12th Street,19th Street, Rockridge, and Lake San Pablo AvenueMerritt stations already have high lev- International Boulevardels of pedestrian activity that warrant Telegraph Avenueimproved pedestrian infrastructure. Foothill Boulevard MacArthur BoulevardPedestrian Master Plan |47
Route TypesA street’s physical form shapes how itThey provide the most direct connec-They are places for people to meetis used and perceived. By identifying ations between walking and transit andand they provide the basis for neigh-pedestrian route network, establishingconnect multiple districts in the life. They are used for walk-policies, and defining design elements,ing to school, walking for exercise,District routes have a more local the Pedestrian Master Plan suggestsand safe walking at as the location of schools,improving existing streets by empha-Walkways are off-street routes that pro-community centers, and smaller sizing their human scale. The proposedvide shortcuts for pedestrians. They arescale shopping. They are often locatedchanges promote pedestrian safety andmost common in older neighborhoodswithin a single district and help toaccess while improving the appearancewith hilly terrain and long street the character of that streets. Approximately 200 walkways exist inCity routes designate streets that areNeighborhood routes are local the City of Oakland with the highestdestinations in themselves – places toconcentrations located in the Upperstreets that connect to schools, parks,live, work, shop, socialize, and centers, and , Montclair, Trestle Glen, SanILLUSTRATION 1 CITY ROUTE SECTIONILLUSTRATION 3 DISTRICT ROUTE SECTIONILLUSTRATION 5 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE SECTIONILLUSTRATION 2 CITY ROUTEILLUSTRATION 4 DISTRICT ROUTEILLUSTRATION 6 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE|Pedestrian Master Plan48
Antonio, Fruitvale, and Eastmont neigh-veyed the existing walkways in the and along Glen Echo resulting walkway maps and surveyParticularly in hilly areas where streetdata are provided in Appendix B. Trailsaccess may be limited or indirect, walk-are off-street routes that often followways provide important alternate routesnatural features like creeks, ridges, for emergency shorelines. They are much longerthan walkways, sometimes unpaved,Most of the approximately 200 walk-and separated from are located on City controlledrights-of-way for underground least 200 additional rights-of-way exist as potential sites for future walkway development. As part of the planning process for thisdocument, volunteers from the CitizensPedestrian Advisory Committee sur-ILLUSTRATION 8 WALKWAY ROUTE SECTIONILLUSTRATION 10 WALKWAY ROUTE SECTIONILLUSTRATION 7 NEIGHBORHOOD HILL ROUTEILLUSTRATION 9 WALKWAY ROUTEILLUSTRATION 11 WALKWAY ROUTEPedestrian Master Plan |49
Chapter 4 Policy Recommendations
The City should prepare, adopt, and implement a Bicycle and PedestrianMaster Plan as a part of the Transportation Element of this General of Oakland General Plan, Policy , p. 58The Land Use and . Department of Transportationthe Open Space, Conservation, Element (LUTE) of the Oakland(USDOT). The Caltrans Deputyand Recreation (OSCAR) Element,General Plan recommends the prepara-Directive 64 explains, “The DepartmentOakland Bicycle Master Plan, andtion, adoption, and implementation of afully considers the needs of non-Pedestrian Master Plans from othercomprehensive pedestrian plan for themotorized travelers (including cities. The Citizens PedestrianCity (LUTE , p. 58, above).pedestrians, bicyclists, and personsAdvisory Committee (CPAC) and theOakland’s General Plan has many clearwith disabilities) in all programming,Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)policy directives related to the promo-planning, maintenance, construction,reviewed existing City policies withtion of a walkable City. Other policyoperations and project developmentrespect to pedestrians and formulateddirectives from the LUTE are listedactivities and products. This includesthe policies listed below. (Policiesbelow with the specific goals of theincorporation of the best availablerelating to implementation are listedPedestrian Master Plan. Through thesestandards in all of the Department'sin the Implementation Plan chapter.)goals, policies, and action items, thepractices” (Caltrans 2001). TheFor implementation, the proposedPedestrian Master Plan places a greaterCaltrans policy is based on a federalprojects would require additionalemphasis on pedestrians in the City’spolicy statement on better integratingreview by traffic engineering andongoing work of shaping streets andwalking and bicycling into the under the California Environmentalmanaging ’s transportation infrastructureQuality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,(FHWA 2001).This emphasis on pedestrian considera-engineering judgment is necessary tions parallels new policies within theThe following policies and actionto determine the specific locations California Department ofitems were prepared in consultationand features of each (Caltrans) and the with source documentation includingPedestrian Master Plan |51
A Policy Response to Existing ConditionsThis section reiterates the goals of public spaces and neighborhood2 Pedestrian Accessthe Pedestrian Master Plan and sum-commercial an environment throughoutmarizes key points identified in thethe City – prioritizing routes to Many Oakland neighborhoods areExisting Conditions chapter. It linksschool and transit – that enableswalkable because they contain athe policies of the Pedestrian Masterpedestrians to travel safely and of homes, businesses, andPlan to the existing conditions bypublic resources within easy walk- Walking rates in Oakland aretying both to the Plan’s goals. Theing distance of each the highest of all cities inremainder of this chapter on Policythe San Francisco Bay presents the Plan’s Newer areas of the City includingpolicies in terms of the Plan’s goals. parts of the Oakland Hills and East An estimated 53,000 weekdayOakland do not always have side-pedestrian trips are to and from 1 Pedestrian Safetywalks, crosswalks, short blocks,elementary schools of the OaklandCreate a street environment thatand numerous destinations withinUnified School to ensure pedestrian walking distance. On average, a pedestrian/vehicle col- Approximately 148,000 weekday Many Oakland streets lack benches,lision occurs each day in trips are to and from bus shelters, trees, and other streetAC Transit bus lines in the City Most pedestrian/vehicle collisionsfurniture that are important ingre-of in downtown, in Chinatown,dients of a walkable along arterial streets. An estimated 57,000 weekdaypedestrian trips are to and Children are at greatest risk offrom BART stations in the City pedestrian injury and seniors are atof risk of pedestrian Streetscaping and Half of pedestrian/vehicle colli-Land Usesions occur when the pedestrian is in a pedestrian amenities andpromote land uses that enhance |Pedestrian Master Plan52
4 EducationEducate citizens, community groups,business associations, and developerson the safety, health, and civic benefits of walkable communities. Vehicle drivers are responsible forapproximately 51% of pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions. Pedestrians are responsible forapproximately 31% ofpedestrian/motor vehicle collisions. In collisions where the pedestrian isat fault, 56% of the pedestrians areages 17 and under even though theycomprise 25% of the following sections identify policies and actions for each Master Plan |53
:Goal 1Pedestrian Safetylower speed is dictated by safety andCreate a street environment thatpedestrian/motor vehicle collisionsallowable by law” (LUTE, p. 60).(California Vehicle Code Section 627).strives to ensure pedestrian . Evaluate whether toPolicies and Action ItemsGeneral Plan Policiesupdate the City’s current lightingPMP Policy . Crossing Safety: Objective T6, streetspolicy to ensure that crosswalks areImprove pedestrian crossings in areassafe, pedestrian accessible, andproperly lit at night. of high pedestrian activity where attractive. “In the past few years,safety is an . Analyze pedestrian/public hearings have been heldmotor vehicle collisions to reduce throughout the city on reducingAction the full rangethe incidences of pedestrian/motortraffic in the neighborhoods byof design elements – including bulb-vehicle it down or redirecting it toouts and refuge islands – to improvearterial streets. Measures that havepedestrian Policy Signals: Usebeen suggested include speedtraffic signals and their associated fea-Action crossing treat-bumps, traffic diverters, traffic tures to improve pedestrian safety atment policy guidelines for all circles, stop signs, and retiming ofdangerous of crossings based on currentsignals. Some of these have beenfederal research (FHWA 2002a,Action . Review the guidelinesimplemented, but funding is insuffi-FHWA 2002b).for signal need prioritization tocient to meet all of the public’sensure that pedestrian considera-requests…Measures to reduce trafficAction a test tions are given due need to be prioritized andof the FHWA-based crosswalk coordinated with overall circulationpolicy (FHWA 2002a) in theAction . Create guidelines, pri-planning” (LUTE, p. 60).Fruitvale and a schedule for the instal-lation of pedestrian signal heads at Policy , Posting MaximumAction . Use pedestrian safety,locations with significant pedestrianSpeeds. “Collector streets shall bebicyclist safety, and residential andcrossing volumes. posted at the lowest possible speedbusiness densities to establish lower(usually a maximum speed of 25speed limits in areas with a high levelAction . Seek additional fundsmiles per hour), except where a of pedestrian activity or a history ofto pay for the retrofitting of traffic|Pedestrian Master Plan54
signals with pedestrian signal headsPMP Policy Safety:and the maintenance costs that suchStrive to maintain a complete side-additions may incur. walk network free of broken or missing sidewalks or curb . Review the signal-tim-ing program to ensure that it incor-Action . Conduct a survey ofporates the needs of pedestrians byareas lacking sidewalks and estimateproviding adequate crossing cost and feasibility of fillingsidewalk gaps in areas with pedes-Action . Seek funds to addresstrian traffic. the backlog of traffic signals withscale lighting at regular intervals inspecial attention to signals in frontAction . Assign responsibility areas of high pedestrian activity toof schools, senior centers, and otherfor sidewalk additions to ensurepromote pedestrian safety and dis-high-pedestrian activity centers. that sidewalk gaps are filled. courage criminal . Continue the City’s Action . Create a program toAction . Conduct a survey of allprograms to install audible pedes-enforce the responsibility of adja-street intersections to identify cornerstrian signals at all new and retrofit-cent property owners for the addi-with missing, damaged, or non-com-ted traffic signals. Continue the on-tion of sidewalks to close gaps andpliant curb ramps and create a plandemand program to install such sig-accompany new completing their at additional locations basedAction . Aid in the finance ofAction . Continue the City’s on requests from persons with visu-sidewalk improvements through thein-fill and on-call curb ramp al impairments. creation of assessment to fulfill the federal Action . Consider using cross-Action . mandate for curb ramps at everyBudget funds for addi-ing enhancement technologies liketional sidewalks to fill in gaps in thepedestrian crossing. countdown pedestrian signals (asidewalk network in areas identifiedAction . Continue and expanddevice not yet approved by State oras high priority for safety City’s program of on-demandFederal agencies) at the highestpedestrian volume . Implement pedestrian-sidewalk Master Plan |55
:Goal 2Pedestrian AccessDevelop an environment through-footpaths, or public transit”(LUTE, p. 59).out the City – prioritizing routesto school and transit – that Policy , Converting Underusedenables pedestrians to travel safelyTravel Lanes. “Take advantage ofand transportation infrastruc-ture and capacity that is underuti-General Plan Policieslized. For example, where possible Policy , Including Bikewaysand desirable, convert underusedand Pedestrian Walks. “The Citytravel lanes to bicycle or pedestrianshould include bikeways and pedes-paths or amenities” (LUTE, p. 59).trian walks in the planning of new,Policies and Action Itemsreconstructed, or realized streets,wherever possible” (LUTE, p. 57).PMP Policy . Route Network: Policy , Making TransportationCreate and maintain a pedestrianAccessible for Everyoneroute network that provides direct.“Alternative modes of transporta-connections between activity should be accessible for all ofAction . Improve existing con-Oakland’s population. Including thenections across/under freeways toelderly, disabled, and disadvan-activity centers using lighting,taged” (LUTE, p. 58).acoustics, and other design features. Policy , Reusing AbandonedAction . Develop a system ofthat follow creeks and help promoteRail Lines. “Where rail linesthe restoration of those for pedestrian facilities(including siding and spurs) are toincluding walkways and . Avoid the use of be abandoned, first considerationAction . Create trails, identifiedpedestrian overpasses and underpass-should be given to acquiring thein the Open Space, Conservation,es for pedestrian crossings on surfaceline for transportation and recre-and Recreation (OSCAR) Elementstreets (FHWA 2002b, p. 49).ational uses, such as bikeways,|Pedestrian Master Plan56
Action . Install signage to dis-PMP Policy . Safe Routes topick-up and drop-off areas to accom-courage drivers from using localSchool: Develop projects and pro-modate child pedestrian as through to improve pedestrian safetyPMP Policy Routes toaround . Conduct a study toTransit: Implement pedestrianidentify streets with underused trav-Action . Using the Pedestrianimprovements along major ACel lanes for potential traffic calmingRoute Network as a base, workTransit lines and at BART stations projects including restriping, lanewith schools having the highestto strengthen connections to , and sidewalk rates to designate, improve,Action . Develop and imple-and publicize safe routes to . Srive to maintain thement street designs (like bus bulb-existing walkways to ensure thatAction . Implement a seamlessouts) that improve pedestrian/they are safe and free of debris school safety program that coordi-bus adult crossing guards, studentAction . Prioritize pedestriansafety patrols, and parent volunteersAction . To the maximumimprovements at transit locationsto ensure that all schools have ade-extent possible, make walkwayswith the highest pedestrian vol-quate traffic safety to people with physicalumes and the most pedestrian/ . Prioritize crossing andvehicle improvements aroundAction . Prioritize the imple-schools with the greatest number ofmentation of street furniturechild pedestrian/vehicle collisions.(including bus shelters) at the mostAction . Work with schoolsheavily used transit inadequate pick-up andAction pedestriandrop-off facilities to develop com-wayfinding by providing local areapensatory programs. maps and directional signage Action . All new schools inat major AC Transit stops and Oakland should consider vehicle BART Master Plan |57
:Goal 3Streetscaping and Land UseAction part of the City’sProvide pedestrian amenities and % Public Art Ordinance andpromote land uses that enhance seek additional funding sources topublic spaces and neighborhoodincorporate public art into thecommercial Route Plan PoliciesAction . Work with community Policy , Improvinggroups to install signs, artwork, andStreetscapes.“The City shouldlandscaping that highlight historicalmake major efforts to improve theand community and Action Itemsvisual quality of Policy Use: PromotePMP Policy :Design of the streetscape, particu-land uses and site designs that makeEncourage the inclusion of street fur-larly in neighborhoods and com-walking convenient and , landscaping, and art in pedes-mercial centers, should be pedestri-trian improvement -oriented and include lighting,Action building and zoningdirectional signs, trees, benches,codes to encourage a mix of uses,Action pedestrianand other support facilities”connect entrances and exits to side-routes in neighborhood commercial(LUTE, p. 60).walks, and eliminate “blank walls”districts and in the downtown to pri-to promote street level streetscaping improvements. Policy ,Guiding Transit-Oriented Development. “Transit-Action . Promote parking andAction funds for theoriented developments should bedevelopment policies that encourageconcrete cutting of tree pits to facil-pedestrian oriented, encouragemultiple destinations within an areaitate the City’s street tree and day time use, provide theto be connected by pedestrian . Prioritize the replace-neighborhood with needed goodsAction . Consider implementingment of dead or missing trees atand services, contain a mix of land“pedestrian only” areas in locationslocations with existing tree , and be designed to be compat-with the largest pedestrian with the character of surround-Action pedestrian-scaleing neighborhoods” (LUTE, p. 56).lighting in streetscaping projects.|Pedestrian Master Plan58
Action . Require contractors toprovide safe, convenient, and acces-sible pedestrian rights-of-way alongconstruction sites that require side-walk the programsto clean up trash and blighted build-ings at the street level and expandthe use of business associations inthis the inclu-sion of public walkways or trails inlarge, private the develop-ment of pocket parks and plazasthat are along the Pedestrian motorvehicle parking facilities that createblank walls, unscreened edges alongsidewalks, and/or gaps betweensidewalks and building Master Plan |59
:Goal 4Educationwalk and promotes both pedestrianon Persons with Disabilities andEducate citizens, communityand driver safety around , business associations, and developers on the safety, Action PedestrianPMP Policy :health, and civic benefits of Safety Week as an annual, city-Prioritize the enforcement of traffic lawswalkable educational event to promotethat protect the lives of and driver . Develop a fine struc-General Plan PoliciesAction the use of Safeture that discourages walking and Objective T4, Alternative ModesMoves Town in public schools as andriving behaviors that threaten theof Transportation. “Increase educational tool for pedestrian safetysafety or access of pedestrians.. use of alternative modes of trans-portation” (LUTE, p. 58).Action the programPublicize the PedestrianRoute Network through the internetof radar trailer deployment in high Policy , Creatingand other Incentives.“Through cooperation with otherAction . Continue the programAction . Publicize the networkagencies, the City should createof targeted enforcement of of walkways in brochures thatincentives to encourage travelers tothe pedestrian’s right-of-way atexplain their history and describeuse alternative transportationunsignalized walking ” (LUTE, ).Action . Continue the “Stop”Action with residentsPolicies and Action Itemsprogram that takes unqualified and community groups to expanddriversoff the network of walkways on existingPMP Policy . PromoteCity and courteous walking and drivingAction . As part of the city budg-and the benefits of walking throughet process, consider if an adequateAction the City’stargeted outreach of officers are assigned to audible pedestrian signal networktraffic enforcement and if additionalAction Walk toand provide wayfinding orientationofficers could be funded through addi-School Day as an annual, city-widefor persons with visual impairmentstional citation that encourages people tothrough the Mayor’s Commission |Pedestrian Master Plan60
Issues for Further DiscussionThis chapter concludes with a sectionnized as especially dangerous forMarked Crosswalksidentifying marked crosswalks, speedpedestrians. These intersectionsMarked crosswalks are a basic designhumps, and pedestrian auto-detectioninclude Webster Street at 10th Streettreatment for pedestrian crossings. Inas issues for further discussion. Theseand Lakeshore Avenue at E. 18thOakland, they are common at signal-issues require ongoing debate becauseStreet. In these instances, pedestrianized and unsignalized intersectionsthey lack consensus for establishingsafety has been promoted by eliminat-and comparatively rare at mid-blockpolicy positions in the Pedestrianing dangerous crossings. locations. The California Vehicle CodeMaster Plan. The differing viewpointsrecognizes crosswalks at all locationsThis policy follows a study by Hermson these issues are presented here towhere streets with sidewalks meet at(1972) that found a greater incidence offacilitate further discussion on howapproximately right angles (CVCpedestrian collisions in marked cross-best to promote pedestrian safety andSection 275). This definition applieswalks than in unmarked crosswalks ataccess in the City of both marked and unmarked cross-400 uncontrolled intersections in Sanwalks except at those locations whereDiego, California. A recent study in thea local authority has placed signs thatCity of Los Angeles found that markedprohibit crossing. In the United States,crosswalks at uncontrolled intersectionsmarked crosswalks have been contro-negatively impacted pedestrian safetyversial because of a complicated (Jones and Tomcheck 2000). To enhancehistory of research on crosswalk safetypedestrian safety, the City of Los Angelesand differing approaches for ensuringis removing many crosswalks citywide. pedestrian this approach, the primary pur-The City of Oakland’s current cross-pose of a marked crosswalk is to directwalk policy is that new crosswalkspedestrians to a designated location towill be installed only at signalized orcross the street. The installation ofstop-controlled beyond this basic purpose isAdditionally, some signalized intersec-seen as giving the pedestrian a falsetions in Oakland have recently hadsense of security and dilutingthe effectcrosswalks removed that were recog-of crosswalks on Master Plan |61
Issues for Further DiscussionTo promote the goals of pedestriancrosswalks. Furthermore, the con-safety and access, the Pedestriantrasting colors of marked crosswalksMaster Plan recognizes that safe andprovide an important resource forconvenient crossings are a necessarypersons with visual impairments whencomponent of a walkable city. Thenavigating city Vehicle Code explains,The Pedestrian Master Plan proposes“[I]t is the intent of the Legislaturethe reconsideration of Oakland’sthat all levels of government in theexisting crosswalk policy in light ofstate, particularly the Department ofresearch published in 2002 by themarked crosswalks to ensure safe andTransportation, work to provide con-Federal Highway Administrationaccessible and safe passage for pedestri-(FHWA 2002a, 2002b) that empha-ans on and across all streets and high-Speed Humpssizes the importance of both pedestri-ways…” (CVC 21949). an safety and access at crossings. ThisOakland’s current speed hump pro-The importance of pedestrian accessresearch recognizes that the markedgram installed approximately 1,600suggests that the City of Oakland’scrosswalk is only one of many con-speed humps on residential streetscrosswalk policy may benefit fromtemporary design treatments forfrom March 1, 1995 through Marchreconsideration. Marked crosswalksensuring safe pedestrian , 2000. Installation requires a peti-demonstrate that under state lawWhere safety considerations permit,tion with signatures representing 67%pedestrians are legitimate users of thecrosswalks should be installed to pro-of the addresses on the block in ques-roadway at designated pedestrian access. When safetion. A recent evaluation of speedUnfortunately, many pedestrians andcrosswalks cannot be installed onhumps in Oakland shows that chil-drivers are unaware that unmarkedtheir own, additional design treat-dren who have a speed hump on theircrosswalks are legally recognized inments should be evaluated and imple-block are 50% less likely to bethe State of California. This issue ismented to ensure that those crossingsinjured by a motor vehicle collisionof particular importance because Stateare in fact safe. Chapter 5 titled(Tester 2001). Speed humps may havelaw specifies that pedestrians have the“Design Elements” identifies treat-brought down average speeds to theright-of-way in all legally recognizedments that may be combined withpoint where some collisions are being|Pedestrian Master Plan62
avoided altogether and the severity oftrians must press buttons to requestIf such systems emerge, they wouldinjuries is being moderated by slowersignal phases. At traffic signals thathave three significant vehicle not on timers, the presence ofFirst, people with visual impairmentsmotor vehicles is commonly recog-would not need to find pedestrian callHowever, speed humps have twonized by a loop detector embedded buttons. Pedestrian auto-detectionnotable drawbacks. First, they createin the street that triggers the signalwould also eliminate the need ofdelays in emergency vehicle responsephase for those waiting vehicles. retrofitting push buttons with audibletimes. Second, they may cause discom-New types of detectors based on call , such detectorsfort and possible injury for peopleelectromagnetic sensors are creatingcould dynamically set the length ofwith disabilities when driving overadditional possibilities for servingthe pedestrian phase by recognizingthem. The City of Oakland is currentlyintersection users. However, two sig-when people have not cleared theevaluating chicanes and slow pointsnificant issues indicate that pedestrianintersection in the allotted time. By(also known as chokers) as alternativesauto-detection remains an unresolvedusing real-time sensing, the systemto speed humps for slowing motorissue for the City of Oakland. First,could provide additional crossing timevehicle traffic on neighborhood technology remains unprovenfor those who need it. Third, pedestri-(See Chapter 5 on Design Elements forbecause it is characterized by an unac-an auto-detection would providefurther discussion of these treatments.)ceptable rate of false triggers. Second,equal treatment for pedestrians atAt this time, the speed hump programthe concept of pedestrian auto-detec-intersections where motor vehicles areremains in effect and no alternativetion is arguable because the act ofcurrently auto-detected. These sys-has been identified with comparablepushing a button may be a remindertems could also be used at crosswalksefficacy and the pedestrian to be careful whenwhere push buttons would otherwisecrossing the located in inconvenient Auto-DetectionPedestrian auto-detection is a conceptWhile the technology remainsunproven, the Pedestrian Master Planfor the automatic detection of pedes-trians at intersections. At traffic sig-recognizes that it could develop to thenals that do not include pedestrianpoint where the auto-detection ofphases with every signal cycle, pedes-pedestrians is technically reliable. Pedestrian Master Plan |63
Chapter5 Design Elements
I have met but one or two people who understand the art of David Thoreau, American PhilosopherThis section identifies design elementsThe Design Elements are organizedfor improving Oakland streets, side-into the following three sections. First,walks, and paths. Rather than propos-the Sidewalk Guidelines section givesing design standards, the Pedestrianminimum requirements for sidewalksMaster Plan presents design elementsand utility zones. Second, the Crossingto inform designers, planners, and pol-Treatments section explains best prac-icymakers on available design treat-tices for crosswalks and corners. Andments and best practices for pedestri-third, the Traffic Calming sectionans. When implementing these ele-presents concepts for reducing motorments, engineering judgment willvehicle the specific locations andfeatures of each Master Plan |65
Sidewalk GuidelinesProposed sidewalk guidelines apply aids. It should also be proportionate toto new development and depend uponstreet size and pedestrian volumes. available street width, motor vehicleAll streets require a utility zone volumes, surrounding land uses, andto accommodate above ground pedestrian activity levels. Standardizing72"public infrastructure including street sidewalk guidelines ensures a minimumfurniture, lampposts, street trees, ILLUSTRATION 13 level of quality for all sidewalks. SIDEWALK FOR TWO PEDESTRIANS and signs. Locating this infrastructureIN WHEELCHAIRSThe City of Oakland currentlyin the utility zone prevents it fromrequires a minimum 48" wide side-encroaching on the through passageminimum widths for passage, notwalk with a 36" through passage forzone. The utility zone also creates ansidewalk width recommendations. new development. For projects thatimportant buffer between pedestriansretrofit existing sidewalks, widthThe Institute for Transportationmust conform to the existing condi-Engineers recommends planning side-tions on the block. These dimensionswalks that are a minimum 60" wideconform to sidewalk requirementswith a planting strip of 24" on localfound in the Americans withstreets and in residential and commer-Disabilities Act Accessibilitycial (ADAAG) which are 48"Sidewalk and Utility Zone WidthsILLUSTRATION 14 EXISTING OAKLAND SIDEWALK STANDARDSidewalks consist of the through pas-and motor vehicles by providing asage zone and the utility zone. Thehorizontal separation and a verticalthrough passage zone is the paved partof the sidewalk pedestrians use. Thisbuffer. Vertical elements like utility60"poles, signs, parking meters, andzone should be wide enough to accom-modate different walking speeds andstreet trees improve pedestrian safetyILLUSTRATION 12 SIDEWALK FOR TWO PEDESTRIANSand comfort by buffering the sidewalk shared use by people with mobility |Pedestrian Master Plan66
from travel lanes. This bufferingSTREET TYPE THROUGH PASSAGE ZONEUTILITY ZONETOTAL WIDTHeffect is similar to that provided byARTERIAL (CITY)96"48"144"curbside motor vehicle parking. COLLECTOR (DISTRICT)72"48"120"LOCAL (NEIGHBORHOOD)60"48"108"On local hill streets where sidewalksWALKWAY48"-48"are not possible, a wide shoulder orTRAIL72"-72"sidewalk striping with parking restric-FIGURE 22 PROPOSED SIDEWALK GUIDELINEStions is an acceptable is recommended for arterial,good traction. The careful selection Walkways and trails do not have utili-collector, and local sidewalks. Theof such materials for contrasting ty zones but still require a minimumconcrete should be textured for safetycolors or textures can provide valuablethrough passage zone. For accessibili-and scored to match existing cues for people with ty for persons with disabilities, side-In pedestrian activity areas, paintedvisual impairments. walks should be continuous, stable,curbs should be textured to ensurefirm, and slip-resistant with minimumWalkwaystraction. To support pedestrians,running slopes and cross are usually made of con-cyclists, and joggers, trails may becrete, wood, or stone. The construc-The proposed guidelines would applyconstructed of asphalt, crushed gran-tion of new walkways and the recon-to sidewalks accompanying newite, or bark mulch. However, concretestruction of existing walkways shoulddevelopment with sufficient right-is the preferred paving wood to minimize long-termof-way. For sidewalk retrofits, theSpecial paving may occur at neighbor-maintenance costs. Where wood isexisting City policy of sidewalk widthhood commercial areas, schools, andused, the construction should be ofconforming to existing conditionsparks to give them a distinctive Redwood or Douglas Fir. Continuouswould still . Acceptable materials includehandrails of wood on wood stairs andSidewalk Materialsbrick or concrete pavers, stained ormetal on concrete stairs are requiredscored concrete, decorative tile, on both sides. Stairs should have 7"Paving materials should be consistent,rubberized sidewalk coatings, stone,closed risers, 11" treads with non-slipdurable, accessible to people usingmobility aids, and smooth enough forslate, and granite if they provide asurfacing, contrasting striping, andconsistently smooth travel surface and sufficient clearance from surrounding passage but not slippery. Concrete Pedestrian Master Plan |67
Sidewalk Guidelines48"96"48"60"ILLUSTRATION 15 ILLUSTRATION 17 CITY SIDEWALK SECTIONNEIGHBORHOOD SIDEWALK SECTION48"48"72"ILLUSTRATION 16 ILLUSTRATION 18 DISTRICT SIDEWALK SECTIONWALKWAY SECTION|Pedestrian Master Plan68
vegetation. Stair flights should be street and be placed at crosswalks,models identified by the City. Existing12’ in length or less and separated bybus stops, and corners. These lamp-standards require hoods on lampposts5’ landings with concrete footings. posts provide vertical buffers betweento reduce light sidewalk and street and helpLightingdefine pedestrian areas. Pedestrian-scale lighting improvesPedestrian-scale lighting and motoraccessibility by illuminating side-vehicle-scale lighting each should bewalks, crosswalks, curbs, curb ramps,provided as a complement to the otherand signs as well as barriers andto ensure that both sidewalks andpotential hazards. From the pedestri-travel lanes are effectively ’s point of view, frequent lamppostsof lower height and illumination arePedestrian-scale lighting may bepreferred over fewer lampposts thatinstalled between existing lamppostsare very tall and bright. The Plan rec-to obtain the frequencies given in theommends the use of pedestrian-scaletable below. They must be located atlighting in areas of high pedestrianleast ten feet from the full growthactivity and where implementation iscanopy of adjacent trees. Poles andpractical. Lampposts should be fixtures should be chosen from existingstaggered on opposite sides of theSTREET LAMPPOSTDISTANCE BETWEEN SIDEWALKCROSSWALKTYPEHEIGHTLAMPPOSTSILLUMINATIONILLUMINATIONARTERIAL14’50’ FC (10 LUX) FC (22 LUX)COLLECTOR12’50’ FC (6 LUX) FC (11 LUX)LOCAL12’50’ FC (2 LUX) FC (5 LUX)ILLUSTRATION 19 ROUTE LIGHTINGWALKWAY12’30’ (OR AT LANDINGS) FC (2 LUX) FC (5 LUX)TRAIL12’30’ FC (2 LUX) FC (5 LUX)FIGURE 23 PROPOSED LIGHTING GUIDELINES (FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, 2001)Pedestrian Master Plan |69
Sidewalk GuidelinesThese hoods should also be designedPlantingsto direct lighting onto the are a dramatic street improve-The installation of new lightingment that creates an attractive visualshould take into account potentialand psychological separation foroverflows that may adversely affectpedestrians between the sidewalk andadjacent residents. The proposedthe roadway. Trees may also encour-lighting guidelines provide guidanceage drivers to move through an areain establishing adequate pedestrian-more slowly. They can be located inscale lighting for a range of rights-of-the utility zone to provide sidewalkILLUSTRATION 20 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE SIGNAGEway. The implementation of pedestri-shading or placed between on-streetinvisible from adjacent streets likean-scale lighting should occur as partparking spaces in tree bulb-outs whereOakland and Grand Avenues andof pedestrian-oriented street projectssidewalks are narrow. (See the expla-would benefit from pedestrian-scaleas they are completed in the of Bulb-outs, below.) For highsignage. The City of Berkeley’s bicycleThe Pedestrian Master Plan does notpedestrian traffic areas, crushed graniteboulevard program includes a success-propose stand-alone lighting tree wells is preferredover tree grat-ful signage component that may serveings. Tree cages are also an exemplar. Pedestrian signageRefer to the City of Oakland Streetwill comply with the criteria for char-The Pedestrian Route Network willTree Plan for appropriate tree types,acter proportion, height, and contrastinclude signage for pedestrians to aidspecified by the Manual on Uniformin wayfinding. The signs will consist Traffic Control Devices and theof a distinctive logo and directionalAmericans with Disabilities Actguidance to neighborhood Guidelines. The imple-They will be attached to lampposts andmentation of these signs should occurlocated at decision points along theas part of pedestrian-oriented streetroute as they are completed in For example, destinations like thethe City. The Plan does not proposeOakland Rose Garden are often stand-alone signage projects. ILLUSTRATION 21 TREE WELL|Pedestrian Master Plan70
spacing, tree well sizes, maintenancedetectable landmarks like curbs andstandards, and potential conflicts withbuilding edges may not provide suffi-utilities and street lights. The Streetcient cues. Where a sidewalk bordersTree Plan is available from thea park, parking lot, or building set-Department of Parks and , a raised edge should be providedas a shoreline for cane curb markings may also beStreet Furnitureused to indicate the location of streetStreet furniture includes benches, mail-edges and pedestrian crossings. Theboxes, trash and recycling receptacles,sidewalk’s through passage zonebike racks, newspaper boxes, drinkingshould not be obstructed or narrowedILLUSTRATION 22 BUS BULB-OUTfountains, information boards, kiosks,by street furniture, especially at turnsparking meters, artwork, publicBuilding Edgesand ramps. Additionally, itemsphones, signs, bus shelters, and otherPlacement of street furniture alonginstalled for pedestrian use on oritems used by pedestrians. These fea-along sidewalks should be accessiblebuilding edges is acceptable if thetures humanize the scale of a streetfor persons with disabilities. through passage zone is encourage pedestrian with lower floor windows,DrivewaysStreet furniture should be placed in canopies for rain protection, tables,Driveway entrances can be both dan-the utility zone to maintain throughumbrellas, signs, planters, benches,gerous and inconvenient for pedestri-passage zones for pedestrians and toand other street furniture contributeans. Driveway curbcuts that extendprovide a buffer between the sidewalkto street life and enhance the pedes-into the through passage zone mayand the street. For bus shelters ontrian people on foot or in wheelchairs crowded sidewalks, bus bulb-outs areWayfindingrecommended for providing additionalStraightforward and predictable rout-space. (See the explanation of Bulb-outs, below.) Bus shelters should alsoing along sidewalks supports wayfind-ing by persons with visual impair-have clearly displayed bus schedulesand city maps for . Open areas that do not havePedestrian Master Plan |71
Sidewalk Guidelines to fall. Driveways expose pedestrianson the sidewalk to motor vehicle crosstraffic and cars parked in drivewaysoften block sidewalks. Driveways alsoreduce the available space for streettrees, lighting, street furniture, andparallel redevelopment or new developmentallows, minimum driveway widths andfrequencies should be promoted as permitted by the planning possible, entrances should be consolidated such that multipleusers share a common curbcut formotor vehicle access. The ramp portionof a drive entrance should be locatedwithin the utility zone where should also be spaced at aminimum of 20’ to reduce the amountof curbside parking eliminated.|Pedestrian Master Plan72
Crossing TreatmentsCrossing treatments help pedestrianshensive crossing system. With all treat-tion. In addition to marked crosswalks,get from one side of the road to thements, engineering judgment is neces-unmarked crosswalks are legally recog-other and provide continuity to side-sary to determine the specific locationsnized at most intersections of streetswalks. Crossing treatments are classi-and features of each project. that have sidewalks and meet at rightfied as either passive or active treat-angles. California State law requiresPassive Crossingments. Passive treatments are physicaldrivers to yield to pedestrians in bothTreatmentsimprovements like crosswalks or curbmarked and unmarked that do not change in crosswalks should be straightActive treatments like traffic signalsfor easy navigation and perpendicularSafe and frequent pedestrian crossingsand audible pedestrian signals haveto the sidewalks to minimize crosswalkare a basic building block of the multiple states that are triggered bylength. However, ensuring the safety ofpedestrian infrastructure. A crosswalkautomated detection or activated bycrossings is the most important priori-is an area of roadway designated forpedestrians. Both types of treatmentsty and engineering judgment should bepedestrian crossings and is a continua-may be combined to create a compre-used on a case-by-case basis. In loca-tion of the sidewalk across an intersec-tions where a marked crosswalk alonedoes not provide a safe crossing, addi-tional treatments like bulb-outs, refugeislands, and signage may be consideredto ensure pedestrian safety and City of Oakland TransportationServices Division is currently examin-ing its crossing policy based on themost recent Federal HighwayAdministration guidelines (FHWA2002a, 2002b). These guidelines areprovided in the appendix titledILLUSTRATION 23 LOCAL INTERSECTIONILLUSTRATION 24 ARTERIAL INTERSECTION“FHWA Crosswalk Guidelines.”Pedestrian Master Plan |73
Crossing Treatments crosswalk edge stripes can be slightlystreet intersections contained withinCrosswalk Striping raised for people using resurfacing, sidewalk improve-Crosswalks can be marked with paint,ment, utility, new construction, andreflective tape, signs, and/or Pavingalteration projects. New curb rampsTwo types of crosswalk striping areCrosswalks may be further markedmust comply with the requirements used in Oakland: standard striping with distinctive paving materials, col-of the State of California Code ofand high-visibility ladder , or textures. Concrete is preferredRegulations Title 24 and theCrosswalks marked in yellow indicateover brick for its durability. ConcreteAmericans with Disabilities Actthat a crossing is in a school be stained or embossed with pat-Accessibility Guidelines. While striping of all four legs of anterns to give crossings in a particularintersection is recommended, engineer-Curb ramps should be oriented toarea a distinctive feel. Textures shoulding judgment should be used in all pedestrians to the opposite cor-be selected to provide a smooth travelner and to provide a direct connectionHigh contrast crosswalk striping alsosurface and good traction. Pedestrianbetween the sidewalk through passagehelps people with visual impairmentscrossings at railroad tracks should usezone and the crosswalk. Diagonal to cross streets. Striping should corre-concrete rather than asphalt to ensurecorner curb ramps are sometimes anspond to the width and location ofas smooth and constant of travel sur-sidewalks. For improved wayfinding,face as possible. Asphalt is a poormaterial for railroad crossings becauseit tends to curl and crumble at itsedges along the RampsAccording to ADA regulations, allstreets with sidewalks and curbs orother barriers must have curb rampsat intersections (. Access Board1999, p. 58). The City of OaklandILLUSTRATION 25 CROSSWALK STRIPINGrequires curb ramp installation at all ILLUSTRATION 26 ACCESSIBLE INTERSECTION|Pedestrian Master Plan74
acceptable alternative for . All bulb-outs should extendBulb-outsHowever, signalized intersections oninto the street no further than the edgeBulb-outs reduce the crossing distancearterial streets should have one curbof the travel or bike lane. Bulb-outsfor pedestrians, increase visibility forramp per marked crosswalk at eachand accompanying street furniture willmotorists and pedestrians, prevent ille-corner. Refer to City of Oaklandrequire additional parking at corners, and provideStandard Details for Public Works foradditional room for people waiting tocurb ramp design the street. The added space mayalso be used for street furniture likeTexture and Contrastbenches, bike racks, and street contrasting colors help peopleBulb-outs are also important forwith visual impairments identify cross-accessibility because they providewalks and the boundaries betweenspace for curb ramps, crossing but-sidewalks and roadways. Corners andtons, and a safe waiting area. Buscrosswalks should be boldly markedbulb-outs provide space for bus with contrasting colors and 27 BULB-OUTSshelters and increase the pick up andMarkings can be designed to be bothdrop off efficiency of transit. Refuge Islandsfunctional and possible, a bulb-out locatedRefuge islands are located at cross-at a bus stop should be designed as awalks in the middle of streets to bus bulb-out. If a bus bulb-out is notprovide a safe waiting area for pedes-possible, the bulb-out should betrians. They may include curbs anddesigned with special care so as not tobollards to ensure the safety of wait-ing pedestrians. A refuge island mayinterfere with bus movements. Treebulb-outs can be used where sidewalksbe part of a median or a stand-alonewould otherwise be too narrow forfeature (see Medians below). Byplantings. Bulb-outs can be used atallowing pedestrians to cross only halfmid-block crossings and are beneficialof the street and then wait, the refugewhen combined with pedestrianisland increases the number of gaps inPedestrian Master Plan |75
Crossing Treatments traffic that are safe for crossing. WhileStreets with significant volumes of truckincreasing the visibility of pedestriantraffic may also have larger corner , refuge islands decrease theSlip Turnspercentage of pedestrian collisions byAlso known as free right turns, slipreducing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts,ILLUSTRATION 30 CORNER RADIUSturns allow motor vehicles to corner atmotor vehicle speeds, and exposurehigher speeds and merge with throughtime for pedestrians (FHWA 2002b, be in line with the crosswalkvehicle traffic. However, drivers looking72). The waiting area in refuge islandsand as wide as the crosswalk such thatover their left shoulders to merge withpersons with disabilities are able tovehicle traffic are less likely to seepass through without entering the intersectionCorner Radiusfrom the right. The removal of slipA corner’s turning radius determinesturns decreases pedestrian crossing how fast a driver can comfortably makedistances, reduces the speed of turninga turn. A tighter turn or shorter radiusvehicles, and improves pedestrian visi-forces drivers to slow down allowingbility. To address these three issues, them to see pedestrians better and stopslip turns may be converted to conven-ILLUSTRATION 28 REFUGE ISLANDmore quickly. Slow corners with shorttional corners or made into pedestrianturning radii increase safety for pedes-areas with benches, transit stops, light-trians at intersections by creating moreing, or selective planting. Where slipsidewalk space and less road space. turns cannot be eliminated, the problemA decreased curb radius also allows forof vehicle speed may be addressed withthe placement of curb ramps that aretraffic signals. However, this solutionaligned parallel to crosswalks. A 10'does not address the increased crossingturning radius is recommended fordistance and decreased visibility createdILLUSTRATION 29 BULB-OUTS AND REFUGE ISLANDstreets with curbside parking. Forby slip turns. The problem of visibilitystreets without curbside parking, a 20'may be addressed with an improved slipturning radius is recommended. turn design (FHWA 2002b, p. 59).|Pedestrian Master Plan76
posts, and bollards should be highlyvisible and signed. They should alsobe positioned to ensure access by people with wheelchairs. Safety bar-rels, posts, and bollards are not cur-rently used by the City of inclusion in this plan does notindicate approval or endorsement byILLUSTRATION 31 SLIP TURN BEFOREthe Public Works 33 STOP SIGNFlashers and Stop SignsOverhead SignsDrivers are more likely to yield toFlashers are signs showing the univer-pedestrians when they are alreadysal pedestrian symbol hung from astopped at an intersection. However,mast arm that extends over the signs may only be installed whereThe symbol may be marked in stan-the combined crossing volume of dard yellow, fluorescent yellow, orILLUSTRATION 32 SLIP TURN AFTERvehicles and pedestrians is comparableLED displays. They alert drivers toto the main street traffic activity and mitigate safetySafety Barrels, concerns. Flashers are even more visi-Posts, and BollardsActive Crossingble when combined with overheadAdding vertical elements at the road-Treatmentssigns indicating a pedestrian center line is an inexpensive Traffic Signalssolution for slowing motor vehicleSpeed Limit SignsTraffic signals provide protected cross-traffic and improving safety at pedes-Speed limit signs should be posted ing opportunities for pedestrians andtrian crossings. They can also be usedregularly according to Federal guide-may be used with other solutions temporarily to test and fine-tune lines and as either passive or crossing treatments such asTraffic signals can be especially refuge islands or bulb-outs. Barrels,Pedestrian Master Plan |77
Crossing Treatmentsway at intersections. Pedestrian signalsare appropriate at all intersectionswith traffic signals where crossing ispermitted. Using symbols and colors,they should provide a clear distinctionbetween “walk” and “don’t walk”ILLUSTRATION 34 TRAFFIC SIGNALthat is readily identifiable for peoplewith limited at maintaining vehicle flowwhile limiting vehicle speeds to pro-The timing of traffic signals may bevide a safe and comfortable pedestrianadjusted in the following ways to ben-environment. However, such speedefit pedestrians. These approaches are Scramble Pedestrian Signals allowregulation requires numerous trafficexperimental and should be tailored topedestrians to cross in all directionssignals on a single street and the particular circumstances by engineer-during the walk phase. The City ofcareful coordination of traffic ing judgment. Oakland has tested such a system signal timings. See also Pedestrian Set the Walk Phase based on aat 8th and Webster Streets althoughSignals speed of ft/sec at inter-this system has not yet been approvedby State or Federal agencies. Pedestrian Signalssections commonly used by seniorsor persons with disabilities. The Countdown Signals let pedestriansPedestrian signals work in conjunctionCity establishes standard crossingknow the exact amount of timewith traffic signals to assign right-of-times based on a walking speed remaining in the walk phase. Theseof 4 ft/sec. systems are being installed through-out San Francisco although they Leading Pedestrian Interval Timinghave not yet been approved by Stateimproves the visibility of pedestri-or Federal agencies. ans by allowing them to enter anintersection before vehicles with Audible Signals indicate to personsconflicting movements. who are blind or have low vision|Pedestrian Master Plan78
and clearly marked to indicate thecrossing directions they trigger. Tactilesymbols may also be installed along-side call buttons to provide crossinginformation on lane configurations forpersons with visual impairments. (Foradditional explanation, see the discus-sion of pedestrian auto-detection in“Issues for Further Discussion” at theend of Chapter 4).ILLUSTRATION 35 AUDIBLE SIGNALthe direction in which it is safe toFlagscross. They should be installed atPedestrian flags increase the visibilityintersections with new traffic signals,of pedestrians who carry them atactuated signal timings, complex crosswalks. The bright orange flagstraffic patterns, or irregular trafficare an inexpensive approach tovolumes. Traffic signals should beimproving safety at high volumeretrofitted wherever there is a requestintersections. The City of Berkeley from persons with visual currently experimenting withpedestrian flags. They are not cur-Pedestrian Call Buttonsrently used by the City of call buttons and kickplatesTheir inclusion in this plan does allow pedestrians to request a signalnot indicate approval or endorsementphase for safe crossing. Audible callby the Public Works should be installed in conjunc-tion with audible pedestrian should be conveniently located Pedestrian Master Plan |79
Traffic Calming The curb-to-curb width must be 40 feet or less. It must have no more than two laneswith one in each direction. The street grade must not exceed 8%. The speed limit must be 25 mph and the 85% speed must be over 32 calming modifies the physicalILLUSTRATION 36 SPEED HUMParrangement of a street to deflect the The block must not be on ACpath of motor vehicles and therebyTransit traffic. It provides a cost-effec-Vertical Deflection The street cannot be a cul-de-sac tive alternative to traffic signals forSpeed Humpsor dead-end motor vehicle speeds andSpeed humps are broad and gentlyimproving pedestrian safety. Two It must be in a grid street mounds of asphalt addedtypes of deflection are discussed inacross the width of a street to slow It must not be in the Oakland this section:traffic. They are like speed bumpsHills area. Vertical deflection slows traffic byexcept they tend to be wider such thatmaking motor vehicles drive overthe slope of the bump is more Stripstraffic calming has installed speed humps Rumble strips are textured materialson many neighborhood streets as part Horizontal deflection slows motorin pavement such as raised plasticof its citywide traffic calming effort. vehicles by changing the streetbumps that make a rumbling soundwidth or course of travel. To qualify for a speed hump in thewhen cars pass over. They may beCity of Oakland, a street must meetused to create awareness of upcomingthe following criteria:pedestrian traffic or of speed limit It must be classified as a local like at freeway off-ramps. |Pedestrian Master Plan80
Raised CrosswalksHorizontal Deflection Raised crosswalks provide a continu-Slow Pointsous street crossing for pedestrians atA slow point is an extension of thesidewalk level. They additionally worksidewalk curb in the middle of a speed humps to slow motor Slow points are also known as chokersvehicle traffic at crosswalks. Whilebecause they narrow the street to sloweliminating the need for curb ramps,down motorists. Slow points and bulb-raised crosswalks should be marked outs are similar in that both extend or textured so that persons with visualthe curb line to narrow the street andspace created by a slow point may impairments are able to identify thethereby slow traffic. However, bulb-be used for benches, bike racks, orstreet edge. The City of Oakland cur-outs are located at crosswalks whereasstreet trees. Slow points and theirrently does not use raised points are not. The extra public accompanying street furniture mayrequire additional maintenance com-pared to unimproved street are alternating curb exten-sions that slow motor vehicles byrequiring them to move in an s-motionalong a street. Alternating on-streetparking from one side of the street tothe other is a cost-effective alternativeto achieve the same effect (Ewing1999, p. 38). ILLUSTRATION 37 SLOW POINTILLUSTRATION 38 CHICANESPedestrian Master Plan |81
Traffic CalmingTraffic CirclesTraffic circles may be raised islands,large planters arranged in a circle, or other elements that cause vehiclesto move slowly through an intersec-tion in a counter-clockwise circles can include landscapingor trees. RoundaboutsRoundabouts are an alternative to signalized intersections. They use aILLUSTRATION 39 TRAFFIC CIRCLEraised circular island to allow largevolumes of traffic to pass counter-clockwise through an intersection at a safe speed without the use of stopsigns or signals. Compared to trafficsignals, roundabouts have lower ratesof collisions at intersections becausethey reduce motor vehicle speeds andthe number of potential conflict points(Insurance Institute for HighwaySafety 2000). ILLUSTRATION 40 ROUNDABOUT|Pedestrian Master Plan82
Narrow LanesTen foot lanes increase street flexibili-ty in areas with limited rights-of-wayand may reduce motor vehicle to the twelve foot standard,ten foot lanes provide additionalright-of way for bike lanes or side-walks. Where 5-foot standard bikelanes are not possible, 14-foot outerILLUSTRATION 41 NARROW LANES BEFORElanes should be provided to accommo-date both drivers and cyclists. Whileslowing motor vehicle traffic andimproving safety and access for non-motorized users, narrow lanes mayincrease the number of sideswipe andhead-on motor vehicle 42 NARROW LANES AFTERPedestrian Master Plan |83
Traffic CalmingRestriping for Lane ReductionRestriping streets for fewer lanesslows motor vehicle traffic andincreases crossing safety. For streetswith four or more lanes, it may bepossible to reduce the number of travel lanes without increasing conges-tion by adding a center turn lane. ILLUSTRATION 43 RESTRIPING BEFOREFor example, a four lane street may be restriped to one lane in each direction, a center turn lane, bikelanes, and a wider sidewalk. Proposalsfor lane reductions require carefulstudy and City Council approvalbecause such reconfigurations maycreate motor vehicle 44 RESTRIPING AFTER|Pedestrian Master Plan84
The benefits of medians should Medians and be weighed against the following Access Controldisadvantages:Medians increase safety by separatingoncoming motor vehicle traffic and Medians reduce street flexibility minimizing turning conflicts. Theyby increasing the cost of reconfigu-may be constructed with curbs orrations. Future development, usagepainted stripes and combined withpatterns, and changing transportationpedestrian refuge islands. Mediansdemands may require reconfigura-ILLUSTRATION 45 MEDIAN BEFOREalso increase the safety of markedtions to accommodate bicycle lanes,crosswalks at uncontrolled intersec-bus rapid transit lanes, light railtions (FHWA 2002a). Medians withright-of-way, or new turning landscaping will beautify wide breaking up large expanses of Medians use limited street width pavement and making the street feelthat may be allocated instead tosmaller. Wide medians can be used forpedestrian, bicyclist, or motor trails or transit stops. Through anvehicle known as “access control,”ILLUSTRATION 46 MEDIAN AFTER a street’s efficiency may be increasedMedians with plantings may reduceby limiting the number of locationssight lines. Additionally, street treeswhere left turns are plants located along the side-walk will have a more immediatebenefit to Master Plan |85
Traffic Calmingmentation of partial street closuresinto City Center, a BART station, andOn-Street Parkingthat involves residents on affecteda vibrant shopping area. 34th AvenueOn-street parking slows traffic andstreets. Decisions are based on engi-will become a pedestrian connectionacts as a buffer between pedestriansneering judgment, community input,to the Fruitvale BART motor vehicles. It increases theand council approval. According to anumber of people on the street andThe key to good pedestrian-onlyrecent study conducted in Oakland,thereby increases public safetystreets is to make sure they who live on streets connectedDiagonal parking may be used to nar-important places and are pleasant directly to arterial streets are twice asrow streets but it causes serious con-and active in themselves. Civic areas, likely to be hit by an automobile inflicts with -density residential buildings, their neighborhood as children whoand public transit are all catalysts forlive on streets that do not directlyStreet Closurepedestrian street activity. Streets alsoconnect to arterials (Tester 2001).may be temporarily closed to motorPartial street closures on local streetsStreet closure may be an effective safe-vehicle traffic like 9th Street for thedivert through motor vehicle trafficty solution by keeping unnecessaryFriday Farmers’ Market in Oldaway from neighborhoods while main-motor vehicle traffic out of residentialOakland. Local residential streets taining access for pedestrians, cyclists,neighborhoods. Numerous street can be designed to become play and emergency vehicles. Partial clo-closures exist in the Clinton Parkstreets with priority given to bicyclists sure is accomplished by installing aneighborhood of Oakland. and barrier at one end of thePedestrian Only Streetsstreet with accompanying signage. Thebarriers may include planters. CurbsBlocking off both ends of a street cre-can be constructed to create closedates a pedestrian mall and public openstreets or diagonal diversion at inter-space. There are many examples ofsections. In addition to the street inpedestrian streets in Oakland. Sanquestion, surrounding streets may bePablo Avenue in downtown was trans-significantly affected by a street clo-formed into Frank Ogawa Plaza, thesure. The City of Oakland has ancivic center and heart of petition process for the imple-13th Street in downtown was made|Pedestrian Master Plan86
Pedestrian Master Plan |87
Chapter 6 Implementation Plan
Walking is the oldest and most basic form of human transportation. It requiresno fare, no fuel, no license, and no registration. With the exception of devices to enhance the mobility of the disabled, walking demands no special , walking is the most affordable and accessible of Master Plan, City of Portland, Oregon The Pedestrian Master Plan identifiesgoals, this chapter identifies the imple-policies and priority projects to pro-mentation policies, priority projects,mote a citywide effort to create a safestaffing needs, and funding sources and walkable city. Twenty years ofto ensure that these projects are priority projects are identified to recti-managed, funded, and existing gaps and shortcomings inFor implementation, the proposed the City’s pedestrian infrastructure. projects would require additionalAs part of a comprehensive planningreview by traffic engineering andprocess, these projects are highly com-under the California Environmentalpetitive for the growing amount ofQuality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,transportation funding directed atengineering judgment is necessary topedestrian safety and livable commu-determine the specific locations andnities. After reiterating the Plan’sfeatures of each Master Plan |89
Policy ImplementationTo promote Oakland as a walkableThe priority projects identified belowImplementation Policiescity, the Pedestrian Master Plan speci-emphasize the goals of pedestrian safe-PMP Policy the neces-fies the following five goals:ty, access, and streetscaping. Pedestriansary staff support to implement thesafety and access are also addressedPedestrian Master Safety. Create a streetthrough the education policies speci-environment that strives to ensurePMP Policy public out-fied in the Policy Recommendationspedestrian to residents, merchants, andchapter. The implementation goalproperty owners affected by majorAccess. Develop an environmentencompasses the other four goals bypedestrian improvements scheduledthroughout the City – prioritizingestablishing a more prominent role forfor to school and transit – thatpedestrian considerations in the workenables pedestrians to travel safelyof City staff. To achieve these goals,PMP Policy pedestrianand Pedestrian Master Plan identifiesimprovement projects with scheduledthe following implementation policiesprojects for street re-paving, streetscap-Streetscaping and Land Use. Provideand suggested ordinances to be consid-ing, and utility amenities and promote ered for adoption. land uses that enhance public spacesPMP Policy existingand neighborhood commercial Plan Policiesdesign standards where necessaryPolicy T4using federal guidelines for arterial,.1,Incorporating DesignEducation. Educate citizens, Features for Alternative Tcollector, and local streets to ensureravel: “Thecommunity groups, business City will require new development,pedestrian safety and , and developers on rebuilding, or retrofit to incorporatethe safety, health, and civic PMP Policy with existingdesign features in their projects thatbenefits of walkable future plans to ensure that theyencourage use of alternative modes ofpromote the safety, convenience, andImplementation. Integrate pedestriantransportation such as transit, bicy-enjoyability of walking, while meetingconsiderations based on federal guide-cling, and walking” (LUTE, p. 58).approved design into projects, policies, and theCity’s planning process.|Pedestrian Master Plan90
These plans include but are not BART Station AreasOther Pedestrian-limited to the following:Related Plans Coliseum BART Station Area Plan Americans with Disabilities ActDowntown Fruitvale Transit Village Plan(ADA) Transition Plan Pedestrian District MacArthur Transit Village Plan Chinatown “Environmental Justice” Bay Trail Master PlanPlanning Grant West Oakland Transit Village Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Downtown Parking and CirculationRecreation Element – Trail PlansCorridor and StreetscapingMaster PlanImprovementsSuggested Ordinances Downtown Streetscape Master Plan AC Transit Major Investment Study Consider adopting an ordinance to codify the design guidelines for Estuary Plan Eastlake Streetscape and sidewalks recommended by thePedestrian Enhancement Project Lake Merritt Master PlanPedestrian Master Plan. International Boulevard Consider adoptingan ordinance toStreetscape Plancodify a crossing treatment policy Laurel District “Transportation forbased on current research by theLivable Communities” PlanningFederal Highway AdministrationGrant(2002a, 2002b). MacArthur Streetscape Plan San Pablo Corridor Plan Splash Pad Park Streetscape PlanPedestrian Master Plan |91
Priority Projectseligible for funding from the Measureprojects benefit pedestrian crossingB 1/2 cent sales tax for transportationsafety by reducing the number ofin fiscal year 2002-03 to fiscal yearmotor vehicle travel lanes. For pedes-2007-08. The priority project list alsotrians beginning to cross the street,includes potential projects identifiedbicycle lanes also provide an impor-by the survey of the Pedestrian Routetant buffer zone and improve visibilityNetwork. The majority of projectswith motor vehicle drivers. specified by the Measure B list werealso identified by the route networksurvey. The projects identified by theThe following list identifies twentyroute network survey but not includedyears of priority projects to improvein the City’s Measure B projects aresafety, access, and streetscaping forlisted as “Candidate Sites” for pedes-pedestrians in the City of Oakland. Ittrian and crosswalk improvementsis prioritized into two phases: projectsunder both be completed within one to fiveyears and projects to be completedPedestrian safety and access are within six to twenty years. This list iscentral components of this list. WhenFor implementation, the proposedcomposed of projects approved byadopting the Measure B list, Cityprojects would require additionalCity Council for Measure B fundingCouncil identified the importance ofreview by traffic engineering andand additional projects identified bystreetscaping projects that improveunder the California Environmentalthe survey of the Pedestrian Routepedestrian safety. They emphasizedQuality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,Network. In spring 2002, Citythat streetscaping projects with a pri-engineering judgment is necessary toCouncil approved a project list as themary focus on aesthetics are of sec-determine the specific locations andCity’s recommended pedestrian andondary importance. Additionally, thefeatures of each safety projects for the Alamedastreet re-striping projects identified asCounty Transportation Improvementbicycle projects are important pedes-Authority (ACTIA). These projects aretrian improvements. Street re-striping|Pedestrian Master Plan92
FIGURE 24 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 1-5 YEARSESTIMATEDGAPINTERMODALCOUNCILSPONSORCOMMENTS PROJECT NAMECOST ($000)BIKEPEDCLOSURECONNECTIONADADISTAGENCYSHORTFALLS ON FUNDED PROJECTS1PROJECT SHORTFALLSStreetscape Projects Eastlake Phase I (International: 5th-10th/E 12th: 5-8th)250XXX2CEDAcontingencySan Pablo Median (53rd - 67th)100X1PWApedestrian refugeSplash Pad Park Streetscape (Grand/Lake100XXX2CEDAstreet median/sidewalk/curb rampsPark/ Lakeshore/MacArthur)Washington Streetscape Improvements200XXXX3CEDAfeasibility, design & construction(7th-9th & 9th: Broadway to Clay) Street Re-Striping(approved as perBicycle Master Plan and Measure BPriority list submitted to City Council onJune 11, 2002)Telegraph Avenue (16th to Aileen)200XX1,3PWAfeasibility, design & construction2LOCAL MATCH FOR NEW GRANTSHazard Elimination and Safety (HES) Grants200XXALLPWA$40K annual requestSafe Routes To School (SRS) Grants 250XXALLPWA$50K annual requestTree Damaged Sidewalk/520 XXXALLPWAMatch for $4M federal grantsCurb & Gutter Repair3NEW PED/BIKE PROJECTSOutside grants will also be sought for these projectsPedestrian Access/SafetySignal ImprovementsSignal Countdowns and Pedestrian Signals (Citywide)450XXALLPWA$90K annual requestTraffic Signals (Citywide - one signal per year)1,250XXALLPWA$250K annual requestTraffic Signal Modifications (Citywide)125XXALLPWA$25K annual requestOn-Call Audible Signal Program450XXALLPWA$90K annual requestPedestrian and Crosswalk ImprovementsCandidate Streets (based on highest collisions): Foothill Boulevard(MacArthur Boulevard to 3rd Avenue)Fruitvale Avenue(MacArthur Boulevard to 12th Street)Grand/W. Grand Avenue(Elwood Avenue to Adeline Street)12th Street(10th Avenue to Brush Street)Franklin Street(22nd Street to Embarcadero)Pedestrian Master Plan |93
FIGURE 24 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 1-5 YEARS (CONTINUED)ESTIMATEDGAPINTERMODALCOUNCILSPONSORCOMMENTS PROJECT NAMECOST ($000)BIKEPEDCLOSURECONNECTIONADADISTAGENCYSHORTFALLS ON FUNDED PROJECTS35th Avenue(MacArthur Boulevard to San Leandro)98th Avenue(Bancroft Avenue to Edes Avenue)High Street(MacArthur Boulevard to I-880)MacArthur Boulevard(Dimond District),(Piedmont Avenue to San Pablo Avenue), (Canon Avenue to Park Boulevard)Mountain Boulevard(Ascot Drive to Lake Temescal)College AvenueCandidate Intersections(based on highest collisions):International Boulevard and 64th AvenueFruitvale Avenue and Foothill Boulevard38th Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard7th Street and Franklin StreetInternational Boulevard and 90th Avenue14th Street and Madison StreetFruitvale Avenue and MacArthur BoulevardInternational Boulevard and 35th Avenue40th Street and Telegraph Avenue77th Street and Bancroft AvenueD Street and 98th StreetHighest collision sites near schoolsHighest collision sites near senior centers1,000XXALLPWA$200K annual request Other Ped Projects27th/Bay Place Ped and Bike Improvements (Grand Ave - Telegraph)200XXXXX3PWAfeasibility, design & constructionColiseum 66th Overpass (Bike and Ped Impr)400XXXXX7PWAfeasibility, design & constructionHill Area Stairway Rehabilitation (one stairway)375XX4PWAfeasibility, design & constructionMacArthur BART Underpass, Transit Villageand Access ImprovementsTBDXXXXX1CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionStreetscape ProjectsColiseum BART Transit Hub Streetscape 2,000XXX7CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionXEastlake Phase II (International:10th-14th; E 12th -8th to 14th Avenue)1,800XXXX2CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionGrand Avenue Streetscape TBDX3CEDAfeasibility, design & construction (I-580 to Harrison) 3NEW PED/BIKE PROJECTSStreetscape ProjectsInternational Blvd Streetscape 2,400XXXX5CEDA feasibility, design & constructionand Fruitvale up to 33rdLaurel District/MacArthur Streetscape Phase II2,200XXXX4CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionSan Pablo Gateway at Emeryville BorderTBDXXXX1CEDA feasibility, design & constructionSeminary/MacArthur Streetscape2,000XXXX6CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionDowntown Streetscape Master Plan ProjectsOak St. Street/Sidewalks 2nd to 14th2,000XXXX2CEDAfeasibility, design & construction|Pedestrian Master Plan94
FIGURE 24 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 1-5 YEARS (CONTINUED)ESTIMATEDGAPINTERMODALCOUNCILSPONSORCOMMENTSPROJECT NAMECOST ($000)BIKEPEDCLOSURECONNECTIONADADISTAGENCYSHORTFALLS ON FUNDED PROJECTSTelegraph Ave Street/Sidewalks 16th-20th2,500XXXX3CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionTelegraph Ave (20th - 40th )bike and pedTBDXXXXX1CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionWebster St. Street/Sidewalks 6th to 11th1,000XXXX2CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionChinatown Streetscape ProjectTBDXXXX2PWAfeasibility, design & constructionTemescal Area ImprovementsTBDXXXX1CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionWest Oakland 8th St (Market to Pine; Center-600 XXX3CEDAfeasibility, design & construction7th & 8th; Mandela - 7th & 8th)Webster St. Street/Sidewalks 6th to 11th 1,000XXXX2PWAfeasibility, design & constructionWest Oakland Bay Trail Sidewalk Improvements100XXXX3CEDAfeasibility, design & construction(2nd/Brush/3rd St. between Broadway-Union)West Oakland Transit Village AccessTBDXXXXX3CEDAfeasibility, design & construction(7th Street: Union to Wood)Street Re-Striping(approved as per BicycleMaster Plan and Measure B Priority listsubmitted to City Council on June 11, 2002)XBancroft Avenue (98th to San Leandro border)100XX7PWAfeasibility, design & constructionBroadway Corridor X(MacArthur to Old Tunnel Road)200XX1PWAfeasibility, design & constructionXMacArthur Blvd (Park to Lake Merritt)200XX2PWAfeasibility, design & constructionXTelegraph Ave Restriping 50X1PWAfeasibility, design & construction(Aileen to Berkeley border)4Citywide Curb Ramp Program250XXALLPWA$50K annual request On-call curb ramp program450XXALLPWA$90K annual request local match for app. $400,000/annual Federal Grants5Street Resurfacing ProgramXALLPWABackfills portion of street resurfacing program costsNew Curb CuXts for Pedestrian Ramps1,250XXXALLPWA$250K annual request SXtreet Name & Traffic Sign Replacement1,000XXXALLPWA $200K annual request TOTAL Estimated Cost (Year 1-5 program) 27,070Pedestrian Master Plan |95
FIGURE 25 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 6-20 YEARSESTIMATEDGAPINTERMODALCOUNCILSPONSORCOMMENTS PROJECT NAMECOST ($000)BIKEPEDCLOSURECONNECTIONADADISTAGENCYSHORTFALLS ON FUNDED PROJECTS1PROJECT SHORTFALLSShortfalls on funded projectsStreetscape ProjectsBroadway Streetscape, Phase II (9th to 17th)TBDXXXX2CEDAsidewalk treatments2LOCAL MATCH FOR NEW GRANTSUse to leverage new grantsHazard Elimination and Safety (HES) Grants600XALLPWA$40K annual requestSafe Routes To School (SRS) Grants 750XXALLPWA$50K annual requestTree Damaged Sidewalk/Curb & Gutter Repair520 XXALLPWAMatch for $4M federal grants3NEW PED/BIKE PROJECTSOutside grants will also be sought for these projectsPedestrian Access/Safety Signal ImprovementsTraffic Signal Countdowns and Pedestrian1,350XALLPWA$90K annual requestSignals (Citywide)Traffic Signals (Citywide - one signal per year)3,750XALL$250K annual requestTraffic Signal Modifications (Citywide)375XALLPWA$25K annual request/design & constructionOn-call Audible Signal Program1,350XX ALL PWA$90K annual requestPedestrian and Crosswalk Improvements (Citywide)Candidate Streets (based on highest collisionsXALL ):3,750X$250K annual request/design & constructionHigh Street(International Boulevard to Tidewater Avenue); High Street(MacArthur Boulevard to Fairfax Avenue); Martin Luther King Jr. (51st Street to San Pablo Avenue); Park Boulevard (Beaumont Avenue to E18th Street); Telegraph Avenue(Upper Telegraph NCR);Foothill Boulevard(73d Avenue to Seminary Avenue);Edes Avenue;MLK Jr. (61st Street to 51st Street);Seminary Avenue (International Blvd. to Foothill Blvd.); Piedmont Avenue;MacArthur Boulevard(Canon Ave. to Park Boulevard); Shattuck Avenue (Shattuck/Telegraph NCR);35th Avenue(MacArthur Boulevard to San Leandro Blvd.);51st/52nd Street(Telegraph Ave. to Martin Luther King Jr.);MacArthur Boulevard(Piedmont Ave. to San Pablo Avenue); West Grand Avenue (MLK Jr. to Peralta Street) 14th Ped Projects12th Street Corridor (Oak to International) ped/bike and multi-use path; and Lake Merrittfeasibility, design & constructionconnection, crosswalks and ped signals3XX,000X2CEDA|Pedestrian Master Plan96
FIGURE 25 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 6-20 YEARS (CONTINUED)ESTIMATEDGAPINTERMODALCOUNCILSPONSORCOMMENTS PROJECT NAMECOST ($000)BIKEPEDCLOSURECONNECTIONADADISTAGENCYSHORTFALLS ON FUNDED PROJECTSfeasibility, design & constructionEastlake Phase II (International - 10th-14th; 1,800XXX2PWAE 12th -8th to 14th Avenue)El Embarcadero/Grand Ave. Bike and Ped Impr500XXXXX3CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionFoothill (28th Ave to High)TBDXXXX3PWAfeasibility, design & constructionHill Area Stairway Rehabilitation 375XX4CEDAfeasibility, design & construction(one stairway)International Blvd. Streetscape - (Fruitvale 12,100XXXX5CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionto 39th & portions of Fruitvale and East 12th)International Blvd. Streetscape (42nd Ave2,000XXXX5,6,7CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionto San Leandro border)Streetscape Projects23rd Avenue StreetscapeTBDXX2CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionFruitvale Avenue (Estuary to MacArthur)TBDXXX5CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionLake Merritt Channel Park ConnectionTBDXXX2CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionLake Merritt Multi-Use Path Widening 4,373XX2,3CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionMacArthur BART Underpass and TBDXXXX1CEDAfeasibility, design & construction Access ImprovementsMacArthur, West Oakland, Coliseum, andTBDXXXX1,2,3,7CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionFruitvale BART Station Transit VillageBike/Ped ImprovementsRailroad Crossing TBDXXXXVARIOUSPWAfeasibility, design & constructionSidewalk Approaches (citywide)San Pablo Gateway at Emeryville BorderTBDXXXX1CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionStreet Re-Striping(Approved as per Bicycle Master Plan andMeasure B Priority List submitted to CityCouncil on June 11, 2002)40th-Linda Street (Emeryville Border 200XXXX1PWAfeasibility, design & constructionto Piedmont Border)82nd-Golf Links (San Leandro to Mountain Blvd.)400XXX6,7PWAfeasibility, design & constructionBay Trail Linkage - Brooklyn Basin Gap500XXXXX5CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionBay Trail Linkage - High Street Gap2,000XXX5CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionOakland Army Base Bay Trail ConnectionTBDXXX3CEDAfeasibility, design & constructionBroadway Corridor (25th St. to Embarcadero)200XXX2,3PWAfeasibility, design & constructionFoothill Blvd (42nd to Lake Merritt)300XX2,5PWAfeasibility, design & constructionFruitvale/Coolidge (East 12th St. to 400XXXX4,5PWAfeasibility, design & constructionMacArthur Blvd.)Market St/West St/Genoa Corridor200XXXX1,3PWAfeasibility, design & construction(MacArthur to Berkeley border)Oak St/Madison Corridor 150XXXX2PWAfeasibility, design & construction(Lakeside Dr. to 2nd St.)Pedestrian Master Plan |97
FIGURE 25 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 6-20 YEARS (CONTINUED)ESTIMATEDGAPINTERMODALCOUNCILSPONSORCOMMENTS PROJECT NAMECOST ($000)BIKEPEDCLOSURECONNECTIONADADISTAGENCYSHORTFALLS ON FUNDED PROJECTSPark Blvd/2nd Ave. (Bike Path and lane -2,000XXXXALLPWAfeasibility, design & constructionEstuary to Shepherd Canyon)4. Citywide Curb Ramp Program750XALLPWA$50K annual request (local match app. $400,000 Fed. Grants)On-Call Curb Ramp Program1,350XXALLPWA $90K annual request5. Street Resurfacing ProgramXXXXALLPWABackfills portion of st. resurfacing prog. costsNew Curb Cuts for Pedestrian Ramps3,750XXXXALLPWA$250K annual request Street Name & Traffic Sign Replacement1,000$200K annual request (5 years)TOTAL Estimated Cost (Year 6-20 program) 49,793|Pedestrian Master Plan98
Pedestrian Master Plan |99
Pedestrian Route Network by DistrictThe following maps show thePedestrian Route Network and priority projects within each Council District. For additional details, see the appendices on the PedestrianRoute Network Survey.|Pedestrian Master Plan100
APHYNIATNUOMTTUCKSHAOLBA PNASROUTE TYPESchoolsCitySenior Ctrs/Libraries/Rec CtrsDistrictCouncil DistrictNeighborhoodParksBay TrailWaterPriority ProjectsNCR BART BART 5 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORKCOUNCIL DISTRICT 1Pedestrian Master Plan |101
MANDELAMARTIN LUTHER KING JRBROADWAYTELEGRAPHLINCOLNLLIHTOORUFHTRACAMGRANDELAKESHOR19th St BART Oakland Stn12th St BART Merritt BART StnINTERNATIONALROUTE TYPESchoolsCitySenior Ctrs/Libraries/Rec CtrsDistrictCouncil District NeighborhoodParksBay TrailWaterPriority ProjectsNCR AreasFruitvale BART 6 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORKCOUNCIL DISTRICT 2|Pedestrian Master Plan102
MANDELABROADWAYTELEGRAPHLAKESHORETOOFSHATTUCKOLBA PNASATRAZCALROUTE TYPESchoolsRCitySenior Ctrs/Libraries/Rec CtrsDistrictCouncil DistrictNeighborhoodParksBay TrailWater51STPriority ProjectsNCR BART St BART Oakland Stn12th St BART Merritt BART StnMAP 7 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORKCOUNCIL DISTRICT 3Pedestrian Master Plan |103
GRANDTUNNELLINCOLNENILYKSRUHTRACAMNIATNUOMROUTE TYPESchoolsCitySenior Ctrs/Libraries/Rec CtrsDistrictCouncil DistrictNeighborhoodParksBay TrailWaterPriority ProjectsNCR 8 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORKCOUNCIL DISTRICT 4|Pedestrian Master Plan104
LINCOLNHIGHRUHTRACAMORDNAEL NASLLIHTOOFKRAPLake Merritt BART StnREDWOODFruitvale BART TYPESchoolsCitySenior Ctrs/Libraries/Rec CtrsDistrictCouncil DistrictNeighborhoodParksYRBay TrailWaterANIMEPriority ProjectsNCR 9 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORKCOUNCIL DISTRICT 5Pedestrian Master Plan |105
LINCOLNHTRACAMRCNABNIORDNAEL NASKRAPROUTE TYPESchoolsCitySenior Ctrs/Libraries/Rec CtrsDistrictCouncil District NeighborhoodParksBay TrailWaterPriority ProjectsNCR BART LINKSCSMAP 10 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORKCOUNCIL DISTRICT 6|Pedestrian Master Plan106
ENILYKSRUHTRACAMLANOITANRETNIORDNAEL NASOUFNruitvale BART LINKSColiseum BART TYPESchoolsCitySenior Ctrs/Libraries/Rec CtrsDistrictCouncil District NeighborhoodParksBay TrailWaterPriority ProjectsNCR 11 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORKCOUNCIL DISTRICT 7Pedestrian Master Plan |107
Staffing and Community Outreach The Pedestrian Master Plan willThose responsibilities will include staffMajor projects require communityrequire the dedicated efforts of citysupport and coordination for the con-outreach processes to identify stake-staff to fund, manage, and implementtinuation of the Citizens Pedestrianholders, educate them on projects, andthe policies and proposed Committee (CPAC). In addi-provide opportunities for commentThis plan recommends the creation oftion to facilitating public participationand dialog. The education componenta full-time, managerial-level staff posi-by stakeholders, this committee willis especially important given the widetion. This person would provideprovide a regular forum for adaptingrange of pedestrian design treatmentsexpertise on pedestrian-related proj-the Plan through time and for review-that may be unfamiliar to many peo-ects and policies to ensure the effectiveing other plans and projects in the Cityple. These processes should promoteimplementation of the Pedestrianthat are affected by the Pedestrianconsensus building between stakehold-Master Plan. Additional engineering,Master Plan. The continuing role ofers and occur before City Counciladministrative, and traffic mainte-the CPAC should be clarified withapproval and grant funding arenance staff time will be required torespect to the Bicycle and Pedestrianobtained. The community outreachsupport the realization of the Committee (BPAC) and theprocess for particular projects shouldstaff person should promote communi-also build on the extensive communitycation and coordination between theoutreach process described in thetwo advisory on “Existing Conditions.”|Pedestrian Master Plan108
FundingIn the City of Oakland, pedestrianThe projects proposed by theinfrastructure is financed through CityPedestrian Master Plan are formulatedprograms and grant funding fromto be very competitive in attractingcounty, regional, state, and federalthese grants. The Plan also capitalizesagencies. Grants are likely the majoron the flexibility of current grant source of current funding for pedestri-programs to fund pedestrian improve-an improvements in the City ofments as a part of larger transportationOakland and a growing pot of stateprojects. The following list identifiesand federal transportation funding is existing City programs and promisingearmarked specifically for livable sources for additional grant and pedestrian safetyCity Programsprojects. For example, the City of The On-Call Curb Ramp ProgramOakland received two “Safe Routes funded by the Americans withto School” grants for $450,000 andDisabilities Act Programs Division$499,000 in 2001 and 2002, respec-receives $90,000/year for on-tively, to improve pedestrian safetydemand access around schools throughoutthe City. Furthermore, most state and The In-Fill Curb Ramp Programfederal funding for roadway improve-administered by the Public Worksments is now flexible enough to beAgency spends approximatelyused for pedestrian improvements. $400,000/year of TEA, TDA, andMeasure B funds for curb ramp in-fill projects. Pedestrian Master Plan |109
Funding The Audible Signal Program funded Community Development BlockMetropolitan Transportationby the Americans with DisabilitiesGrants (CDBG) provideCommission (MTC) Act Programs Division receives$300,000/year to each community TDA Article 3 provides $250,000 to$90,000/year for on-demand for capital improvements in$350,000 per year for pedestrian andlow-income neighborhoods. bicycle facilities. Presently, $125,000 The Speed Hump Program adminis- Other sources of City funding forper year of this amount is earmarkedtered and funded by the Transpor-pedestrian improvements mayfor the City’s curb ramp program totation Services Division evaluates andinclude local assessment districts,improve access for persons with dis-implements on-demand exactions, local bonds,abilities. Each Council District is allocatedand code enforcement. The Surface Transportation$225,000/year as a “pay-go”Note: Depending on the cause of dam-Program (STP) provides $21 mil-allowance that is sometimes usedage, sidewalk repairs are either thelion/year countywide in federalfor pedestrian safety of the City or of the adja-funds requiring an % match for The Street Tree Program is financedcent property owner. The Public Worksinfrastructure an assessment on property taxesAgency is responsible for fulfilling the The Congestion Mitigation and Airthat raises approximately $ city’s obligations and their SidewalkQuality (CMAQ) program providesmillion/ Plan is expected to make recom-$12-25 million/year countywide inmendations on funding sources. The municipal Capital Improvementfederal funds requiring an %Program (CIP) funds pedestrianGrantsmatch for clean air projects includ-improvements including traffic sig-ing signal Countynals, sidewalk repair, and streetscap-Transportation Transportation Enhancementing. $1 million was dedicated to spe-Improvement AuthorityActivities / Transportation forcific pedestrian safety projects in the(ACTIA)Livable Communities (TEA/TLC)2001-2002 fiscal year. The Measure B non-motorized pro-provides $27 million/year for thegram provides $740,000/year to San Francisco Bay region requiringthe City of Oakland for pedestrianan % match for transportation and bicycle improvements.|Pedestrian Master Plan110
enhancements including pedestrianfor school-area pedestrian and bicy-restoration associated with buildingand bicycle creeks. Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Safe Passage provides $17 Jobs/Housing Balance providesprovides between $500-$2,000/unitmillion/year statewide for traffic$100 million/year for transporta-for streetscape improvements basedcalming and pedestrian and bicycletion, schools, and affordable housing densitiesfacilities around schools. The State Gas Tax is subvenedfrom 25 units/acre to 60 units/acre. The Bicycle Transportation Accountthrough the Capital ImprovementThe program has a $9 millionprovides $5 million/year statewideProgram (CIP) for streets and cap for bicycle projects in approved “Rails to Trails”-style projects are Statewide Transportationbicycle plans (with $375,000 limitalso sometimes eligible for stateImprovement Projects (STIP) pro-per project). While this funding $20-25 million/year in statenot be used for pedestrian projects,funds for capital projects includedbicycle projects are sometimes com-Federal Governmentin the countywide with and reinforcing of The Federal Emergencypedestrian improvements. Management Agency may be aBay Area Air Qualityfunding source for walkways in theManagement Dis Hazard Elimination providestricthills as emergency earthquake or$360,000/project biannually with a TFCA provides $5 million/yearfire % match to eliminate safetyregion-wide in state funds requiringproblems on public roads. Transportation Enhancements are25% local match for projects that10% of each state’s Surfaceimprove air quality including pedes- Proposition 12 (Park Bonds) pro-Transportation Program (STP) trian/bicycle improvements and sig-vides funds for trail segments, espe-funds to be used for intermodalnal those linking the Bay andprojects that promote trans-Ridge Governmentportation options. Safe Routes to School provides $20 Proposition 13 (Water Bonds) pro-million/year in competitive grants vides funds for creek and watershed Pedestrian Master Plan |111
Appendices
:Appendix AOn-Street RoutesThis appendix contains the Pedestrianout the City. This section explains thees how the benefits of potential Route Network Survey for on-streetnumbers listed under the column titledprojects are . All streets included in the route“Context” in the figure listing “On-On its own, this context evaluation isnetwork are listed along with the end-Street Routes.” The potential projectsnot adequate for prioritizing futurepoints of the route on that street, theidentified in the Pedestrian Routepedestrian projects. Differences of type of route, and the location of theNetwork survey provide a comprehen-one or two points between potentialroute by council district. The Pedestriansive examination of pedestrian condi-projects may not be significant. AllRoute Network Survey identified short-tions in the City. Priority projects areevaluation criteria are given equalcomings in the pedestrian infrastructureidentified in the Implementation . Because this evaluation doesalong the route network. Potentialnot take into account the length ofCriteria were developed as yes/noproject components were then appliedstreet segments, longer segments questions to address the issues of safety,to particular street segments to build atend to be evaluated more activity areas, transporta-long list of potential pedestrianProfessional judgment and citizen inputtion connections, feasibility, and improvements throughout the continue to shape project priori-equity. “Safety” addresses how wellThese components and their associatedtization. For implementation, the the potential project would improveabbreviations are explained in the proposed projects would require safety and access for pedestrians on figure titled “Potential Projectadditional review by traffic engineeringthe street itself. “Pedestrian ActivityComponents and Cost Estimates.”and under the California EnvironmentalAreas” identifies the relative impor-Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,Project Context Evaluationtance of particular streets based on theengineering judgment is necessary toGiven the large number of streets in theactivity centers and pedestrian volumesdetermine the specific locations andPedestrian Route Network, a simplethat those streets serve. “Transportationfeatures of each was developed for evaluatingConnections” considers how well thethe respective contexts of potentialproject’s pedestrian improvements alsoprojects. The evaluation allows for ansupport train, bus, and bike comparison of the relative“Feasibility” specifies the practicalityimportance and impact of potentialand effectiveness of implementing theprojects on streets dispersed through-projects. And lastly, “Equity” address-Pedestrian Master Plan |113
:Appendix AOn-Street RoutesThe following questions were asked Does the street serve a facility forEquityof each potential project identified byseniors or people with disabilities? Does the project contribute to the Pedestrian Route Network mitigation of transportation Does the street serve a park?Each “yes” answer was counted as oneproblems caused by past projects? Does the street carry a high volumepoint. The results are listed under the Does the project address residentof pedestrians?“Context” column in the figure titledconcerns identified in outreach “On-Street Routes.”Transportation Connectionspresentations? Is the street located within 1/2 mileSafetyof a BART station? Does the project improve a street Does the street have bus service with a history of pedestrian or does it connect to a street with collisions?bus service? Does the project improve Does the project improve dangerous crossings?routes specified by the Bicycle Does the project complete Master Plan?missing sidewalks?Feasibility Does the project improve access Does the project have local support?for persons with disabilities? Is the project compatible with Pedestrian Activity Areascurrent land uses? Does the street serve a pedestrian- Do the project’s benefits substantiallyoriented commercial district?outweigh its costs? Does the street serve a school zone? Is funding readily available for thistype of project?|Pedestrian Master Plan114
FIGURE 26 POTENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS AND COST ESTIMATES*COMPONENTUNIT COSTCROSSING IMPROVEMENTSCI 14-foot wide minimum median with refuges for length of street$135 (per linear foot)CI 24-foot wide minimum refuge islands at regular intervals at intersections$2,525 (includes improvement to existing median)(20 feet in length)CI 36-foot bulb-outs onto Major Street with 2 curb cuts each at regular intervals$24,200 at intersections (including inlet, manhole, & 50-foot drain pipe)(per corner)CI 4Signalized intersection with pedestrian signal heads at all approaches$135,000 and audible pedestrian signals (per intersection)WIDEN SIDEWALKSWS 1Replace existing sidewalk condition with minimum 10-foot sidewalk (6-foot through $135 passage zone plus 4-foot utility zone) and add bulb-outs at major intersections(per linear foot)(collector streets)WS 2Replace existing sidewalk with minimum 12-foot sidewalk section (8-foot through $155passage zone plus 4-foot utility zone) and add bulb-outs at major intersections(per linear foot)(arterial streets)WS 3Tree bulb-outs, 4 X 6 curbed tree wells in the parking zone at regular intervals$2,500(approx. 30 feet)(per tree well)TRAILT1Concrete 6-foot path$50 (per linear foot)T2Wood staircase, 6-foot width, with wood handrails$250(per linear foot)T3Cement staircase, 6-foot width, with metal handrails$1,000(per linear foot)STREETSCAPINGL1Pedestrian-scale historic-style lighting at 50-foot intervals on 14-foot post$7,500(per light standard)S1Rectangular pedestrian route sign indicating local destinations $100and posted at major decision points.(per location)* The unit costs for potential project improvements listed in this table do not include the following additional expenses: Contingency: %, Design: %, Construction Management:%, Contract Compliance: %Pedestrian Master Plan |115
:Appendix AOn-Street RoutesFIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTESPOTENTIAL PROJECTNAMELOCATIONROUTE TYPEDISTRICT COMPONENTSCONTEXT105th AvenueDistrict7106th AvenueNeighborhood710th AvenueNeighborhood213th AvenueNeighborhood214th AvenueE12th St to MacArthur BlvdDistrict2,5CI-2, CI-31014th StreetBrush St. to Mandela PkwyCity3CI-2, CI-31116th AvenueNeighborhood216th StreetNeighborhood217th StreetNeighborhood318th StreetNeighborhood319th AvenueNeighborhood2, 520th StreetNeighborhood323rd AvenueE12th to MacArthurDistrict5CI-3 1027th StreetSan Pablo Ave to HarrisonDistrict3CI-2, CI-39 28th AvenueNeighborhood529th AvenueDistrict529th StreetNeighborhood332nd Street/Brockhurst StreetNeighborhood334th StreetNeighborhood335th Avenue/Redwood Blvd to Redwood RdDistrict4, 5CI-3 1337th AvenueNeighborhood538th AvenueFoothill to MacArthurDistrict4, 538th AvenueInternational to Foothhill, Spot: Mid-blockDistrict5CI-3 (SPOT)738th StreetNeighborhood339th AvenueNeighborhood43rd StreetUnion St to Mandela PkwyDistrict3EXISTING PLAN: BAY TRAIL, T9-140th AvenueNeighborhood540th StreetWhole StreetDistrict1,3CI-2, CI-310 42nd StreetNeighborhood145th StreetNeighborhood151st Street/Pleasant Valley AvenueShattuck Ave. to Rose -2, CI-39 52nd AvenueNeighborhood554th AvenueNeighborhood554th StreetNeighborhood155th AvenueDistrict655th StreetNeighborhood159th Street/ Forest AvenueNeighborhood15th AvenueNeighborhood261st StreetNeighborhood162nd AvenueNeighborhood663rd StreetNeighborhood164th AvenueNeighborhood666th AvenueSan Leandro to OakportDistrict6WS9-2 66th Avenue/ Havenscourt to OakportDistrict6WS-1 69th AvenueNeighborhood6, 773rd Avenue/ HegenbergerHighway 880 to InternationalCity7CI-2, WS-21273rd Avenue/ HegenbergerInternational to MacArthurCity6CI-2, CI-31077th AvenueNeighborhood679th AvenueNeighborhood67th Street880 to Oakland Middle HarborCity3WS6-2 7th StreetWood St. to Brush St. City3CI-2, CI-313|Pedestrian Master Plan116
FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES(CONTINUED)POTENTIAL PROJECTNAMELOCATIONROUTE TYPEDISTRICTCOMPONENTSCONTEXT81st AvenueNeighborhood6,782nd AvenueMacArthur to InternationalDistrict6,7CI-31085th AvenueNeighborhood788th AvenueNeighborhood78th StreetUnion St to Pine StDistrict3EXISTING PLAN: ACORN-PRESCOTT PLAN992nd AvenueNeighborhood798th AvenueGolf Links Road to Airport DriveCity798th AvenueMacArthur to San LeandroCity7EXISTING PLAN: AIRPORT CONNECTOR10, CI-39th AvenueNeighborhood2Acalanes DriveNeighborhood7Adeline StreetWhole StreetDistrict1, 3WS15-1 Aileen StDistrict3Alameda AvenueNeighborhood5Alcatraz AvenueDistrict1CI-311Alida StreetNeighborhood4Apgar StreetNeighborhood1Ascot DriveNeighborhood4Athol AvenueNeighborhood3Avenal AvenueNeighborhood6Bancroft AvenueCamden to 106thCity6,7CI-2, CI-310 Bancroft AvenueInternational to CamdenCity5,6CI-312Bay AvenueNeighborhood3Bergedo DriveNeighborhood7Birch StreetNeighborhood6Boulevard WayNeighborhood2Brann StreetNeighborhood6Breed StreetNeighborhood7Broadway AvenueCollege to MacArthurCity1CI-121, CI-3Broadway AvenueHighway 13 to CollegeCity1CI-2, CI-311Broadway to Highway 13 (Lake Temescal)District1WS7-1 Brookdale AvenueNeighborhood4, 5, 6Brooklyn AvenueNeighborhood2Brown AvenueNeighborhood4Cairo StreetNeighborhood4Camden StreetNeighborhood6Campbell StreetNeighborhood3Campus DriveNeighborhood6Canon AvenueNeighborhood4Carlson StreetNeighborhood4Carmel StreetNeighborhood4Carrington Street/ Galindo StreetNeighborhood5Carson StreetNeighborhood4, 6Castle DriveNeighborhood4Chabot Rd./ Roble StreetNeighborhood2Claremont AvenueWhole StreetDistrict1CI-310 Clarewood DriveNeighborhood4Clay StreetNeighborhood3Cleveland StreetNeighborhood2Pedestrian Master Plan |117
:Appendix AOn-Street RoutesFIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES(CONTINUED)POTENTIAL PROJECT NAMELOCATIONROUTE TYPEDISTRICTCONTEXTCOMPONENTSClifton StreetNeighborhood1Colby StNeighborhood1College AvenueWhole StreetDistrict1CI-3, WS-312 Columbian DriveNeighborhood6Congress AvenueNeighborhood4Coolidge AvenueMacArthur to FoothillDistrict4,5CI-310Courtland Avenue/42nd AvenueInternational to HighDistrict5WS-91 D StreetNeighborhood7Davidson WayNeighborhood2Doolittle DriveDistrict7Dover StreetNeighborhood1Downtown Streetscape and2,3EXISTING PLAN: DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE Transportation Master PlansAND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLANSDurant StreetDistrict7E 12th Street19th Ave to 13th AveDistrict2E StreetNeighborhood7E. 10th StreetNeighborhood5E. 12th Street1st Ave. to 13th PLAN: EASTLAKE COMMUNITY PLAN10E. 15th Street1st Ave. to 14th AveDistrict2E. 16th StreetNeighborhood5E. 18th StreetNeighborhood5E. 19th StNeighborhood2,5E. 21st StreetNeighborhood2,5E. 23rd StreetNeighborhood5E. 24th StreetNeighborhood2E. 27th StreetDistrict5E. 27th StreetNeighborhood2E. 28th StreetNeighborhood2E. 31st StreetNeighborhood5E. 38th StreetNeighborhood2E. 9th StreetNeighborhood5E12st Street1st-13th Ave., 19th Ave. to FruitvaleDistrict2E18th StreetPark Blvd to Lakeshore District2,3CI-2, CI-3 11Echo StreetNeighborhood1Edes Avenuewhole streetDistrict7Edgewater DriveHegenberger to Damon SloughNeighborhood7T-71Elysian FieldsNeighborhood7Embarcadero EastDistrict2,5Embarcadero WestNeighborhood2,3Empire DriveNeighborhood7Euclid AvenueNeighborhood3Excelsior AvenueNeighborhood2,4Fallon StreetNeighborhood2Ferro StreetNeighborhood3Filbert StreetNeighborhood3Fleming AvenueNeighborhood6Fontaine StreetNeighborhood7Foothill Ave to MacArthurCity2,4,5,6WS-214Foothill to 14th AveCity2,3Ford StreetNeighborhood5|Pedestrian Master Plan118
FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES(CONTINUED)POTENTIAL PROJECT NAMELOCATIONROUTE TYPEDISTRICTCOMPONENTSCONTEXTForest AvenueNeighborhood1Fruitvale AvenueFoothill to AlamedaCity5CI-2, CI-3 14Fruitvale AvenueMacarthur to FoothillCity4,5CI-2, CI-3 13Genoa StreetNeighborhood1Glen Park AvenueNeighborhood4Golf Links/ Grass ValleyDistrict7Grand Avenue580 to Jean -2, CI-313Grand Avenue580 to Mandela ParkwayCity3EXISTING PLAN: GRAND AVE. IMPROVEMENTS13Greenly DriveNeighborhood6Grizzly Peak Rd./ LaSalle AvenueNeighborhood2Hampel StreetNeighborhood4Harbor Bay DriveNeighborhood4Harrison StreetBayo Vista to Oakland AveDistrict1,3CI-38Hearst AvenueNeighborhood4Hegenberger LoopNeighborhood7High StreetMacArthur to San LeandroDistrict4,5, 6CI-2, CI-3 13High StreetSan Leandro to Alameda AveDistrict5,6C8I-3, WS-1 Hiller streetCity2,5,6,7EXISTING PLAN: INTERNATIONAL BLVD. MAIN ST15.; CI-2, CI-3John StreetNeighborhood1Jones AvenueNeighborhood7Kansas StreetNeighborhood4Keller AvenueDistrict6,7Kennedy StreetNeighborhood5Kingsland AvenueNeighborhood6Knight StreetNeighborhood7KrauseNeighborhood6La Cresta AvenueNeighborhood4Lake Merritt Master Plan2,3EXISTING PLAN: LAKE MERRITT MASTER PLANLake Park AvenueGrand Ave. to Lakeshore PLAN: SPLSH PAD STRTSCP. IMPRV. PLAN11Lakeshore Avenue/ Lakeside DriveDistrict2,3Laurel StreetNeighborhood4Lawlor StreetNeighborhood7Lawton AvenueNeighborhood1Lemert Rd./ Tiffin Estates DriveNeighborhood4Lincoln Avenue/ Joaquin Miller Head Royce SchoolDistrict4WS9-1 (SPOT) Linda AvenueNeighborhood1Longridge Ave to 35th AveCity4CI-310, WS-3 MacArthur to Park AveCity2,4CI-312MacArthur St to 35th Ave (Laurel District)City4EXISTING PLAN: LAUREL DISTRICT STREETSCAPE PLAN12MacArthur to Park BlvdCity2CI-39MacArthur Leandro Border to 73rd AveCity6,7EXISTING PLAN: MACARTHUR REDEVELOP. PLAN12MacArthur Pablo Ave. to Piedmont ,3CI-2, CI-311MacArthur to 580City6WS7-2 (1-SIDED)Maddux DriveNeighborhood7Madeline StreetNeighborhood4Pedestrian Master Plan |119
:Appendix AOn-Street RoutesFIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES(CONTINUED)POTENTIAL PROJECTNAMELOCATIONROUTE TYPEDISTRICTCOMPONENTSCONTEXTMalcom AvenueNeighborhood7Mandana Parkwaywhole streetCity3EXISTING PLAN: MANDELA PKWY 13Maple StreetNeighborhood4Maritime StreetDistrict3Market Street6th St. to Alcatraz ,3WS-1 14Middle Harbor St. to DowntownCity1,3WS-212MLKAlcatraz to 47th -2, CI-39Montana StreetNeighborhood4Montecito Avenue/ Adams StreetNeighborhood3Monteray AvenueNeighborhood4, 6Moraga AvenuePiedmont Border to Mountain ,4WS-1 (1-SIDED) 11Mountain StreetDistrict1,4,6,7WS-110NewtonNeighborhood2Oakland AveHarrison to Bayo VistoDistrict1,2,3CI-310Outlook AvenueNeighborhood6Park to E 18th St. City2,3CI-3 13Park to Highway 13City2, 4CI-2, CI-313Parker AvenueNeighborhood6Penniman AvenueNeighborhood4Peralta StreetDistrict311Perkins StreetNeighborhood3Picardy DriveNeighborhood6Piedmont AvenueWhole StreetDistrict1,3CI-3, WS-312Plymouth Street/ Arthur StreetDistrict6, 7Redwood Street, Spot: Redwood @ MountainDistrict4,6CI-3 (SPOT)9Richmond , 3Ritchie StreetNeighborhood6Rudsdale StreetNeighborhood7Salisbury StreetNeighborhood5San LeandroFruitvale BART to Coliseum BARTCity5,6,7T-112San Pablo AvenueWhole streetCity1, 3EXISTING PLAN: SAN PABLO PLAN 13Santa Clara AvenueGrand Ave. to MacArthur -1, WS-111School StreetDistrict4Seminary AvenueSan Leandro to SunnymereDistrict6CI-3 12Sequoyah AvenueNeighborhood1Shattuck AvenueWhole StreetDistrict1CI-3, WS-312Shepherd Canyon AvenueWhole Street, Spot: Stanford @ PowellDistrict1CI-2 (SPOT), CI-3 (SPOT) T-1 8Steele StreetNeighborhood4Sunnyhills StreetDistrict7Suter StreetNeighborhood4Telegraph AvenueWhole StreetCity1,3TELEGRAPH NORTHGATE PLAN; CI-2, CI-3, WS-3 13The Uplands/ Alvarado DriveMoraga to AlhambraDistrict4WS-1, T110|Pedestrian Master Plan120
FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES(CONTINUED)POTENTIAL PROJECTNAMELOCATIONROUTE TYPEDISTRICTCOMPONENTSCONTEXTTompkins AvenueNeighborhood4,6Topanga DriveNeighborhood7Trestle GlenDistrict2Tunnel StNeighborhood3Van Dyke AvenueNeighborhood1Vicksburg AvenueNeighborhood4,6Webster StreetNeighborhood2,3Wellington StreetNeighborhood4West StreetMLK to 14th ,3WS-1, T-113Wilshire BoulevardNeighborhood4Wood StreetNeighborhood1,3Woodruff AvenueNeighborhood4Pedestrian Master Plan |121
:Appendix BWalkwaysThis appendix contains the PedestrianRoute Network Survey for maps show walkway locationsthroughout the City and an accompa-nying table provides detailed surveyinformation for each walkway.|Pedestrian Master Plan122
TELEGRAPH169168167CBLRAORADEWMAOYNT172166144143145147THORNHILL121NIATNUOM921641571931397229888COLLEGE79ParksWater53G1WalkwaysRIZ62Z2Creeks and StreamsLY7 12 WALKWAYSUPPER ROCKRIDGEPedestrian Master Plan |123
18352432822AG121AROMNIATNUOM921GRIZZLY PEAKParksWaterWalkwaysCreeks and 13 WALKWAYSMONTCLAIR|Pedestrian Master Plan124
20660204201626415923RD5FRUITVALELIN4C4OLN455EKANSNIATNUOM36991229816252025759587016203001Parks WaterWalkwaysCreeks and EL20T5712SERTLAKE PARKKARPMACARTHURMAREDWOCODARTHHTU5HR33T441MAP 14 WALKWAYSTRESTLE GLEN AND OAKMOREPedestrian Master Plan |125
ADELINEMARTIN LUTHMEARRK KETING JRWESTTELEGRAP2H16243240241246LAKESHOREGRAND192105206602047016201203001411RUHTRACALMLIHTOHOTLF5A1NOITHATN2R1ETNI911811YABOLBA PNASDNA27LTHParksKA747O311Water67271Walkways 1Trails15Creeks and StreamsGRANDBay TrailLAKE G1422LT2HEN242532944L2163A3K8E2 P3A7RK27T2H5PARK23618TH12THHT41225151120025430249242852347FOEMOBARTCAHDE1RIO2LTLHMAP 15 WALKWAYSLAKE MERRITT AND VICINITY|Pedestrian Master Plan126
PERALTADAELINEMARKETWESMTARTIN LUTHER KING JRTELEGRAPH243240241246BROADWAY171170GRANDLAKESHO92RE6070203089787775767322911122YAB89UCKSHATTOLBA PNASYAWDAORB81 51STParksWaterWalkwaysCreeks and PAMAP 16 WALKWAYSGLEN ECHO CREEK AND GRAND LAKEPedestrian Master Plan |127
10512191TH219125391RF12DRUITVALEFRU26IT3VALE65COOLIDGE42NDHIGH2582592602612623236RUHTRAC3A3MRUHTRACAM9034LLIHTOOF101201REDWOOD 34HT41Parks67Water661100HWalkways34T5S3CCreeks and L5EAYNRDARONIMEBANCROFTSMAP 17 WALKWAYSFRUITVALE AND VICINITY|Pedestrian Master Plan128
3637152151KELLERSKYLINENIATNUOMRUHTRACAMTFORCNABRUHTRA03224 53ParksWaterWalkwaysCreeks and Streams 18 WALKWAYSEASTMONT AND VICINITYPedestrian Master Plan |129
25425623RD29THF1R1U2ITVALEFRUI3T5VATLHECOO1L4ITDHGE42NDHIGH258226509226612HEGENBERGER33MUESIOLRODCNAEL NAS0493OREDACRABME12TH4312T23H41HT8338257BANCROFOOTHILLF21TH9TIN5T5ERNAHTIGOINHALYRANIMESParksWaterHT66WalkwaysCreeks and StreamsBay TrailHT66 19 WALKWAYSALLENDALE AND FAIRFAX|Pedestrian Master Plan130
Pedestrian Master Plan |131
WALKNWUAMYBERLENGTHWIDTHPUBLIC/PPARSISVAATBEL E(B/SI/MTPAP)IARSSS (AYB/NLE/N (UPH/MIA)BNEDR )RAIL (MY/ANT)EWROIAOLDS, G(CROANNVCUERMLEB, TBEERR,I AOCKSFP ,S SHLITIGAGONLHNTST,E D )(YIR/NTN,/ UN MUBMEBREN ROE)FA RRE SSCIDHEONNOECLAE R(SY/ /TBNRU)AISLLNDOSIPINTEG (S(YN/ONN)PEL,A MNOTDSE (RLAIGTHECT,O ,S NMTDOEIEDTPIEO)RNA T(GEO, OHDEA, OVKY,) BAD):Appendix BWalkwaysFROMTOWALKWAY NAME26947 Colton2 Lodge Clive2751 Darnby2003BP11NCA004NYMLOK72700 Las Aromas2701 Mountain Gate @ Castle2456BP8NA004YNSLOK82646 Camino Lenada2700 Las Aromas3206BP16YAS004YNSLOK1215 Diaz Cabot2004BP98YC004YYMLG131670 Mountain5707 Cabot2504BP180YC003YYMMOK161844 MagellanGaspar (dead end)3004BP187YC004YYSLG175600 Colton1833 Magellan2504BP143YC004YYSLG181893 MagellanCortereal (dead end)3004BI0ND002YYMHB212220 Braemardriveway of Beehive Center (2735 Monterey)3003BP52YDWC003NYSMOK223601 73rd7209 SunkistMayfield Path40010BP13YADW1Y6YYSMB237500 Hillmont7501 Sunkist40010BP0ND004YYSMOK247695 Crest7640 Sunkist25010BI0ND004NNSMB257864 Hillmont7879 Michigan3008BI0ND004NNMHB267852 Outlook7852 HillmontCumberland Way2508BI0ND104NNMMB277835 Outlook2920 Parker4005BI0ND004NYMLB286624 Simson6625 Mokelumne30010BI0NDA004YYMMB302848 Seminary2851 60th2256BP0NC104YYNLG323226 Herriott4511 Camden1504BP0NA003NNSLOK333151 Courtland3150 High Masterson4412 MacArthurMadrone Path2005BP0NC204NYNLG354400 Pampas3811 Madrone1005BP11NC003NNMLG364500 Steele4451 Worden1755BP0NC004YNMLG374445 Tompkins4456 Hyacinth1755BP0NC004YYNMG382198 42nd2185 HighSan Carlos Walk2505BP8YC204YYMMOK392190 41st2195 42nd2505BP26YC005YYNMOK402215 41st2201 Rosedale2005BP0NC004YNMMG412102 Harrington2141 RansomCarrington Way2505BP73YC2Y5YYSMB433136 Madeline3111 California2506BP0NC004NNMMG443579 Wilson2511 Damuth2005BP7NAC004NYNMOK451921 Oakview1745 Leimert2005BP93NAW004NYSLB461774 Leimert4350 BridgeviewBridgeview Path2505BP87NC004NYSMOK474326 Arden BridgeviewBridgeview Path2005BP36YC104NYSLG494645 Park Edgewood San Sebastian4639 Edgewood Glendoradead end walkwayGlendora Path3254BP3NC1010NNMMG521601 Trestle Glen1000 Elbert4003BP42YC013NNMMOK531586 Trestle Glen4 Bowles2504BP97NCAW004NNSHB545 Bowles2 Van Sicklen Carlston839 Longridge853 Paramount2005BP10NC004YYMMG57805 Calmar800 Santa C004NNS M G584117 Balfour786 Calmar2506BP63N C004NNS HB 594117 Balfour713 Wala Vista2506BP104NC004NNS HG|Pedestrian Master Plan132
WALKNWUAMYBERLENGTHWIDTHPUBLIC/PPARSISVAATBEL E(B/SI/MTPAP)IARSSS (AYB/NLE/N (UPH/MIA)BNEDR )RAIL (MY/ANT)EWROIAOLDS, G(CROANNVCUERMLEB, TBEERR,I AOCKSF ,PS SHLITIGAGONLHNTST,E D )(YIR/NTN,/ UN MUBMEBREN ROE)FA RRE SSCIDHEONNOECLAE R(SY/ /TBNRU)AISLLNDOSIPINTEG (S(YN/ONN)PEL,A MNOTDSE (RLAIGTHECT,O ,S NMTDOEIEDTPIEO)RNA T(GEO, OHDEA, OVKY,) BAD)FROMTOWALKWAY NAME603879 Balfour647 Wala Vista2506BP75NC024NY MMG 61500 Rosemount872 Northvale3005BP22NC004YNMMG621329 Barrows1332 Holman3005BP78YCWA004NYSHG634168 Greenwood4187 Park Blvd5005BP83YC0430NYMLG641443 E 36th1442 MacArthur2005BP16YCA015YYMMG652441 Castello2543 Pleasant1005BP0NC002NYNHG663020 Sheffield3021 McKillop1503BP0NAD003YNMHB672600 School2906 McKillop5005BP0YA003YYSMOK692745 25th2397 Grande Vista Lakeshore1052 Annerley Walk2005BP8NC205NY MMG 71853 Walker847 VermontDavidson Way2508BP146NC1Y20NYMMOK72853 Walker3560 GrandDavidson Way2007BP60YC1Y4NYMLG73564 Valle Vista3629 GrandBonham Way2505BPYNC106YYMMG74538 Mira Vista564 Valle VistaBonham Way4005BP20NC106YYMMG753800 Harrison601 Oakland3005BP9YC1050NNNMG76602 El DoradoHarrison 's Alley2505BP0NC1075NNMMG774200 Entrada4215 Glen1305BP0NC003NNNLOK784507 Pleasant Valley 4466 Piedmont2308BP13YCW 000NYMLOK794486 Pleasant Valley4507 Pleasant Valley1858BP0NC000NYNLOK804463 Moraga4486 Pleasant Valley Ct. at College318 Hemphill10010BP0NC0Y1YYNMG826098 Rockridge . 6001 Ocean View Ridgeview Path2506BP47YC100NNMMOK836041 Margarido6135 Rockridge Blvd. MargaridoFreeway @ Broadway1506BP111YC000YYNMOK856128 MargaridoProspect Steps3506BP47NC204NNMMOK865972 Margarido5975 ManchesterProspect Steps1656BP76NC204NYMMOK876141 Ocean View6000 ManchesterWest Lane3208BP31YC202NYSLOK885361 Margarido6101 Rockridge Blvd. Acacia5918 MargaridoQuail Lane2006BP42YC104NYMHG91101 Alpine Terrace6247 AcaciaLocarno Path16010BP62NC200NNMMOK926247 Acacia245 Cross Path2208BP88NC104NNMMOK936188 Oceanview6394 BrooksideBrookside Lane1806BP63YC203YNMMG94200 Cross6196 MathieuVerona Path1506BP52YC100NNMMG956196 Mathieu6190 AcaciaVerona Path1156BP21YC203NYMMG965850 Romany59 Yorkshire Path2105BP43YCA2Y2NYMMG975766 Claremont5651 Oak GrovePedestrian Way3007BP0NC2Y4NYNMG98516 52nd 53rd Park Blvd33 Home Place20010BIYYCA0017YYMMG1012622 14th Ave2573 WallaceE. 26th St. Way1506BP61YC208NYMMG1022505 Wallace2510 14th . 25th St. Way1506BP5NC2010NYMLG1032315 17th Ave2342 14th AveComstock Way2006BP52YC216NYMMOK1042300 14th 17th 22nd Ave1740 21st Ave2006BP0NDA0Y4YYMHB1112350 E. 22nd2216 Inyo1006BPYNC003YYMMOKPedestrian Master Plan |133
WALKNWUAMYBERLENGTHWIDTHPUBLIC/PPARSISVAATBEL E(B/SI/MTPAP)IARSSS (AYB/NLE/N (UPH/MIA)BNEDR )RAIL (MY/ANT)EWROIAOLDS, G(CROANNVCUERMLEB, TBEERR,I OCAKSF ,PS SHLITIGAGONLHNTST,E D )(YIR/NTN,/ UN MUBMEBREN ROE)FA RRE SSCIDHEONNOECLAE R(SY/ /TBNRU)AISLLNDOSIPINTEG (S(YN/ONN)PEL,A MNOTDSE (RLAIGTHECT,O ,S NMTDOEIEDTPIEO)RNA T(GEO, OHDEA, OVKY,) BAD):Appendix BWalkwaysFROMTOWALKWAY NAME1122777 21st2784 Foothill1756BP0NC0Y5YYNLOK114627 Beacon Merritt Vernon Terrace2505BP56YC024YYSMG116128 Hamilton251 28th +NYSLG117261, 269 Fairmont Richmond Oakland Ave3020 HarrisonFrisbie Way1755BP14YC124NYMLG119243 Orange264 Oakland Way15010BP17YC124NYNMG12014 WymanMacArthur at Richards Doncaster6086 Valley ViewMerriewood Stairs2505BP168YWG003NYSLG124drvy of 1716 Gouldin6067 Aspinwall3004BP0ND003YYMMB1256086 Valley View5921 MerriewoodMerriewood Stairs1505BP122YW014NYMNG1277007 Broadway Taurus2003BI35YDW004NYMMB128Virgo (dead end)Taurus (dead end)5002?I0ND002NNMMB1296150 Pinewood6106 Fairlane Evergreen Ln50 Alvarado PlEvergreen Path4005BP128YCA203NNSLG13773 AlvaradoClaremont Hotel parking lot2506BP45NCAS001NYSMOK1385859 Buena Vista5501 Golden GateGondo Path755BP31YC102YNSLG1396000 Buena Vista5232 Golden GateChaumont Path2756BP48NC204NYMMOK1405991 Contra Costa6000 Buena VistaChaumont Path2206BP76NC204NYMMOK1415176 Golden Gate6105 Buena VistaBelalp Path2506BP58YC202NYMHOK1426105 Buena Vista6100 Contra CostaBelalp Path1606BP71YC204NYMMOK1436190 Buena Vista6192 Contra CostaArbon Path2506BP111YC202NYMMOK1446190 Buena Vista6190 Broadway TerraceArbon Path2906BP67YC204NYMMOK1456370 Broadway Contra CostaErba Path2955BP80YC200YYMLG1466261 Broadway FlorenceRatondo Path2506BI0NDC104YYSMB1475891 Morpeth4905 Proctor1755BP83NC003NNMMG1517873 Greenly7886 Sterling25010BI0ND004YYSMB1527887 Sterling7920 Crest30010BI0ND004YYSMB1538901 Seneca8900 Burr3755BI90YCAWD004YYSHB1548500 Thermal8522 MacArthur4506BP164YC028YYSLOK1553239 Blandon9110 Fontaine1605BP0NC004YYNMG159Palmer Ave (dead end)1647 E 33rd St505BP17NC0Y6NYMLG163Frank Ogawa PlazaBroadwayKahn Alley17535BP0NC0Y0NYNLG166169 Alvarado277 AlvaradoWillow Walk3005BP77YCSA204NNSLOK167Hudson St at freeway482 Hardy St1506BP0NA001NYNMG168485 Hardy Clifton Clifton StCavour St at Redondo4006BP0NA0010NNNMOK1702020 Panama Monte Vista1506BP0NC004NYMMG171109 Monte Vista72 Montel2704BP0YA002NYMMOK1726142 Ocean View6245 Brookside AveClaremont Path2506BP65YC204YYMMG1735600 Golden Gate Buena Vista Path1406BP64YC204YYSLG175200' Broadway Mandalay2002BI0ND001YYSMB1836025 BrunsMontclair ParkBruns Overcrossing3006BP65YC051YYMLG184Alhambra Ln at Thornhill Elementary 1715 Alhambra Ln2503BI0ND003YYSHB|Pedestrian Master Plan134
WALKNWUAMYBERLENGTHWIDTHPUBLIC/PPARSISVAATBEL E(B/SI/MTPAP)IARSSS (AYB/NLE/N (UPH/MIA)BNEDR )RAIL (MY/ANT)EWROIAOLDS, G(CROANNVCUERMLEB, TBEERR,I AOCKSFP ,S SHLITIGAGONLHNTST,E D )(YIR/NTN,/ UN MUBMEBREN ROE)FA RRE SSCIDHEONNOECLAE R(SY/ /TBNRU)AISLLNDOSIPINTEG (S(YN/ONN)PEL,A MNOTDSE (RLAIGTHECT,O ,S NMTDOEIEDTPIEO)RNA T(GEO, OHDEA, OVKY,) BAD)FROMTOWALKWAY NAME185Armour Dr (N)S) Armour at Mandana704 Longridge2505BP96NAC004NYMMOK1975945 ZinnDrake/Asilomar2003BI33NDW004NYMMB1984900 Harbord72 Sonia2003BP18NCDB004YNMMOK1991096 Clarendon1099 Mandana2005BP7YC004YYMMOK2001116 Longridge32 Mandana Circle2505BP41NC004YYMMOK201903 Wawona939 Portal1505BP77YC003NNMMG202801 Santa Ray800 Mandana2005BP6NC004NYMMOK203700 Mandana689 Santa Ray2005BP16NAWD004NYMMOK2041085 Brookwood850 Alma2505BP148YAW004NYSLOK205906 Hillcroft924 Larkspur Rd1755BP58NCWA004NNSMOK206796 Rosemount801 Longridge2006BP27NC004NYMMOK2077867 Sunkist7872 Michigan3006BIYYDW004NNMMB2081837 Indian25 Overlake Merriewood5901 Marden Ln1004BP110YWA014YYMNG2105901 Marden Ln5925 Thornhill1004BP72YWA004YYMNOK211Florence & Merriewood5733 Grisborne @ MontereyJoaquin Miller Ct. 6 @ MountainDimond Canyon Trail1708BP0NC200NYNLG215Morpeth & Harbor30 Mandalay (backside of St. Theresa Church)25010BP0NA008YYMLG21610th & Alice11th and Alice2006BP0NA000YYNLOK2171011 Hubert982 Grosvenor2004BP9NA006NNMMG218849 Walavistawalkway 558005BP0NCAD0Y20NNNMOK2193331 E 8th StE. 9th St. & 34th & Richmond3084 Richmond1006BPYYC0020NNMLOK2213084 Richmond3287 Kempton2506BP159YC0Y20NNMMOK2221733 Broadway1720 Telegraph12510BP0NC0Y0NYNLG22378 Rio Vista645 Fairmount1752x5'BPYYC007NNSMOK2244305 Harbor View4069 Huntington1755BP0ND004NNMLG2251568 Madison1547 Lakeside3004PP0NC0680NYMLG22681 Alvarado681 AlvaradoEucalyptus Path4005BP139YCA2310NNSMG227mid. of Euc. Pathmiddle of Willow WalkSunset Trail9004BP0NA1020NNNLOK2286101 Thornhill5500 DoncasterMerriewood Stairs2005BP98YWG003NYSLG229780 Carlston910 Paramount2005BI101NC003YYSHOK230walkway 192619 Paloma170010BP0ND0030NNNLG231717 Longridge707 Rosemount505BP7NCG001NYMMG2321 Clarewood Mall7 Clarewood MallClarewood Mall1505VP2NC338NNNMG2331900 MountainCortereal (dead end)3006BP15YCDA001YYMLG234LaSalle (dead end)Medau (dead end)1504BP0NC001NYNLG235Cortereal (dead end)walkway 2341003BP0NC001NYNLG236Swan's MarketSwan's Market20010VP0NC0Y25NYNLG237Clay Jr Way25025BP0NC0Y1NYNLG239Castro at Preservation Park Way505VP0NC003NYNLG24021st Stwalkway 24120030VP8YSB001NYMLGPedestrian Master Plan |135
WALKNWUAMYBERLENGTHWIDTHPUBLIC/PPARSISVAATBEL E(B/SI/MTPAP)IARSSS (AYB/NLE/N (UPH/MIA)BNEDR )RAIL (MY/ANT)EWROIAOLDS, G(CROANNVCUERMLEB, TBEERR,I AOCKSFP ,S SHLITIGAGONLHNTST,E D )(YIR/NTN,/ UN MUBMEBREN ROE)FA RRE SSCIDHEONNOECLAE R(SY/ /TBNRU)AISLLNDOSIPINTEG (S(YN/ONN)PEL,A MNOTDSE (RLAIGTHECT,O ,S NMTDOEIEDTPIEO)RNA T(GEO, OHDEA, OVKY,) BAD):Appendix BWalkwaysFROMTOWALKWAY NAME241walkway 240Grand Ave15015VP12YC001NYMLG242walkway 240Kaiser Plaza15015VP0NC002NYNLG243Grand at Valdez21st at Kaiser Plaza15015VP0NC0Y2NYNLG244Lakeshore AveMerritt Ave at Cleveland StCleveland Cascade2508BP135YC1040NYSMG245Clay StJeferson St25025VP0NC0Y1NYNLG246walkway 116111 Fairmount (into church parking lot)1505BP43YCW00100+NYMLG247Oak StMadison St25010VP0NC0Y1NYNLG248Madison StJackson St25010VP0NC0Y1NYNLG249Jackson StAlice St25010VP0NC0Y2NYNLG250Alice StHarrison St25010VP0NC0Y0NYNLG251Harrison StWebster St2506VP0NC0Y3NYNLG252Alice at 2nd StAmtrak Station20060VP0NB0Y1NYNLG253Alice at Embarc. WAmtrak Station15010VP120YC0Y100+NYNLG2541103 Embarcadero EBay Trail15010BP0NC1Y2NNNLG2551103 Embarcadero EBay Trail15010VP0NC1Y1NNNLG2561755 Embarcadero EBay Trail15010BP0NC122NNNLG257E 7th at 29th AveE 7th at 29th Ave1006BP0NC400NNNLOK258Courtland at ThompsonCourtland at San Carlos25010BP0NG0020YYNLG259Courtland/San CarlosCourtland at Tyrell2506BP0NG0020YYMLG260Courtland at TyrellCourtland at Congress3255BP0NG0020YYNLG261Courtland at CongressCourtland at Fairfax2005BP0NAG0015YYMLOK262Courtland at FairfaxCourtland at Brookdale55010BP0NAD0520YYNMOK2633186 McKillop2600 School5004BP43YA002YYMLOK|Pedestrian Master Plan136
Pedestrian Master Plan |137
:Appendix CStreet TransformationsThe following examples of streettransformations are offered as visionsfor progressive pedestrian projects are only conceptual,serving as illustrations of , they illustrate the extent of possible changes that may beginwith a greater emphasis on designingand planning for Route Before and AfterCity routes connect multiple districtsand define the city as a whole. TheyILLUSTRATION 47 CITY ROUTE BEFOREare busy commercial and residentialstreets lined with storefronts andsidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting,apartment buildings. Large numbers high visibility crosswalks with curbof pedestrians, drivers, transit riders,ramps, pedestrian refuge islands, bikeand bicyclists use city routes. Existing lanes, and street furniture includingconditions often include wide lanes,bike racks and bus shelters with large intersections, limited traffic signage for riders. On-street parking,signals and crosswalks, and dedicatedplanter boxes, and street trees helpILLUSTRATION 48 CITY ROUTE SECTION BEFOREturn lanes that create an inhospitable buffer the sidewalk from motor vehicleenvironment for . The result is boulevards thatIn contrast, consider a city route withpromote social and economic activitythe following improvements: wide and define the character of the city.|Pedestrian Master Plan138
ILLUSTRATION 50 CITY ROUTE SECTION AFTERILLUSTRATION 49 CITY ROUTE AFTERIn contrast, consider a district routeDistrict Route after a “road diet” from two travelBefore and Afterlanes in each direction to one travelDistrict routes serve districts of thelane in each direction plus a center turncity by connecting schools, communitylane. The extra room makes way centers, and neighborhood wider sidewalks, street trees, andThey commonly have cross-town busbike lanes. Pedestrian route signs routes that connect residential neigh-provide guidance to important neigh-borhoods to commercial districts andborhood destinations and pedestrian-transit hubs. A typical district routescale lighting improves safety by pro-might include four travel lanes andviding continuous illumination of thenarrow sidewalks that are interruptedsidewalks. Proposals for lane reductionsby utility poles, broken concrete, andrequire careful study and City Councildriveway curbcuts. approval because such reconfigurationsmay create motor vehicle Master Plan |139
:Appendix CStreet Transformationsand stop signs. The illustration showsnot currently exist, natural featuresthe addition of street trees, slowlike creeks, ridges, and shorelines maypoints, pedestrian-scale lighting, andalso define routes for such trails. Thesignage for an exemplary pedestriancontinuing development of the Bayneighborhood route. The speed humpsTrail and the Ridge Trail attest to theand slow points reinforce each otherimportance of long range planningILLUSTRATION 51 DISTRICT ROUTE SECTION BEFOREin slowing traffic while the lightingand the value of natural features inand trees create a vertical bufferbringing such trails to the sidewalk and the street. Trail RouteBefore and AfterUnderused areas beneath BART linesand along railroad tracks provideILLUSTRATION 53 DISTRICT ROUTE SECTION AFTERopportunities for mixed-use paths andgreenways in the City’s most urban-ILLUSTRATION 52 DISTRICT ROUTE BEFOREized neighborhoods. Existing condi-Neighborhood Routetions may include underutilized railBefore and Aftertracks, no sidewalks or trails, andNeighborhood routes are residentialpoor connections to the neighbor-streets with one travel lane in eachhood. By adding mixed-use paths, balldirection plus on-street parallel park-fields, playgrounds, dog runs, anding. At their best, they have sidewalksother public facilities, these kinds ofthat are continuous, unobstructed,projects could be as successful as theILLUSTRATION 54 DISTRICT ROUTE AFTERand well-maintained. Motor vehiclesOhlone Trail in Berkeley, Albany, andmove slowly because of speed humpsEl Cerrito. While rights-of-way may|Pedestrian Master Plan140
Pedestrian Master Plan |141
:Appendix CStreet TransformationsILLUSTRATION 55 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE BEFOREILLUSTRATION 57 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE SECTION BEFOREILLUSTRATION 58 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE SECTION AFTERILLUSTRATION 56 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE AFTER|Pedestrian Master Plan142
ILLUSTRATION 59 TRAIL ROUTE BEFOREILLUSTRATION 61 TRAIL ROUTE SECTION BEFOREILLUSTRATION 60 TRAIL ROUTE AFTERILLUSTRATION 62 TRAIL ROUTE SECTION AFTERPedestrian Master Plan |143
:Appendix DFHWA Crosswalk GuidelinesThe following table is from “SafetyEffects of Marked vs. UnmarkedCrosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations:Executive Summary and RecommendedGuidelines” by the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA 2002a, p. 19).TABLE 29 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT UNCONTROLLED guidelines include intersection and midblock locationsselectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engi-with no traffic signals or stop sign on the approach to theneering study is needed to show whether the location is suitablecrossing. They do not apply to schoolcrossings. A two-way cen-for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site reviewter turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should notmay be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depthbe installed at locations which could present an increased safetystudy of pedestrian volumes, vehicle speeds, sight distance,risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance,vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites. It is recommend-complex or confusing designs, substantial volumes of heavyed that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hourtrucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate(or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) exist at a loca-design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding cross-tion before placing a high priority on the installation of awalks alone will not make crossings safer, nor necessarily resultmarked crosswalk alone. Possible increase in pedestrian crashin more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether markedrisk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestri-crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedes-an facility enhancements. These locations should be closelytrian facility enhancements, as needed, to improve the safety ofmonitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossingthe crossing (., raised median, traffic signal, roadway nar-improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked , enhanced overhead lighting, traffic calming measures,Marked crosswalks alone are not recommended, since pedestri-curb extensions). These are general recommendations; goodan crash risk may be increased with marked judgment should be used in individual cases forConsider using other treatments, such as traffic signals withdeciding where to install crosswalks.** Where speed limitpedestrian signals to improve crossing safety for 40 mph, marked crosswalks alone should not be usedThe raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft wideat unsignalized locations. Candidate sites for marked cross-and 6 ft long to adequately serve as a refuge area for pedestri-walks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and ans in accordance with MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines.|Pedestrian Master Plan144
:Appendix EFuture Directions in Pedestrian PlanningThis appendix provides a brief overviewpresence of other motor vehicles. LOSbe unpleasant places to walk and dan-of two emerging tools of significantE indicates maximum use of a facilitygerous places to cross. Second, thereimportance to pedestrian a large number of motor vehiclesare no accepted methodologies forCurrent research on pedestrian level still moving at reasonable speeds. LOSmeasuring the inadequacies of a pedes-of service is developing algorithms toF indicates the breakdown of traffictrian facility, quantifying the benefits ofanalyze the safety and comfort – as wellflow where large numbers of motorpedestrian improvements, or weighingas capacity – of pedestrian are moving at inefficienthow service “improvements” for oneSpace-syntax uses modeling to computespeeds. The Highway Capacity Manualtransportation mode impact service forpedestrian volumes based on a streetalso specifies an analogous system ofother modes. Consequently, servicegrid’s connectivity and its accompanyingevaluation that measures the capacityimprovements for motor vehicles mayland uses. While insufficiently developedof a sidewalk in relation to the numberbe identified and justified in precisefor the completion of this Plan, theseof pedestrians using the facilityterms whereas service improvementstools are identified here as potential(Transportation Research Board 2000).for pedestrians often are limited toresources for future pedestrian this case, LOS A signifies a sidewalkqualitative justifications on the benefitswhere pedestrian movement is notof “alternative” Level of Serviceimpeded by the presence of otherThe Florida Department ofLevel of service (LOS) is a standardpedestrians. At the other extreme, LOSTransportation is developing a multi-measure for evaluating the performanceF indicates a crowded sidewalk wheremodal level of service analysis toof street segments and intersectionspedestrians cannot take full steps andaddress these and other concerns withbased on motor vehicle traffic floware likely bumping into each LOS. The analysis applies towith a simple ranking system of “A”areas designated as multimodal trans-For pedestrian planning, existing LOSthrough “F.” LOS A signifies a facilityportation districts that are character-where each motor vehicle’s movementposes two significant problems. First,ized by mixed-use development, tran-while the pedestrian level of serviceis minimally impeded by the presenceof other motor vehicles. LOS B, C, andmeasures sidewalk capacity it does notD signify an increasing volume ofaddress the safety or quality of themotor vehicles and increasing impedi-pedestrian’s experience. Streets withments to any particular driver by the adequate sidewalk capacity may also Pedestrian Master Plan |145
:Appendix EFuture Directions in Pedestrian Planningsit service, and street priority for include an analysis of pedestrian cross-street level for an entire city. Spacenon-automobile modes. This researchings. At a broader level of criticism,Syntax was created at the Universityidentifies the following most pedestrian level of service does notCollege of London in the mid-1980’ssignificant street factors shaping account for contextual factors like resi-and is widely used throughout Europethe pedestrian experience: dential and commercial densities, streetand Asia. level activity, and connectivity of presence (or absence) of a sidewalkDespite these uses, Space Syntax isthe street grid that are crucial factorslargely unknown in the United States. distance between pedestrians andto overall National Highway Traffic Safetymotor vehiclesAdministration (NHTSA) and theFor additional information, see presence of physical barriers in theFederal Highway AdministrationGuttenplan (2001) and the Floridabuffer space separating pedestrians(FHWA) recently identified pedestrianDepartment of Transportationand vehiclesexposure data as the least understood( most important area of research forning/systems/sm/los/). volume and speed of motor vehiclespedestrian planners and decision-makersA number of other inputs characteriz-Space-Syntax(NHTSA 2000). Space Syntax addressesing street geometry, traffic signaliza-this need by providing pedestrian vol-Space Syntax is a suite of modelingtion, and vehicle flow are also used toume predictions that may be analyzedtools and simulation techniques used tocompute pedestrian LOS. This outputwith pedestrian collision data. Theanalyze pedestrian movement and tois also used as an input for computingresulting risk index provides plannerspredict pedestrian volume. Spacetransit LOS. with an intersection by intersection list,Syntax uses the layout and connectivitynormalized by volume, of a city’s mostFor future pedestrian planning, such aof urban street grids to generatedangerous would be useful for iden-“movement potentials” which it com-tifying inadequacies in existing pedes-pares to sampled pedestrian counts atTo predict pedestrian volumes in thetrian facilities and specifying the bene-key locations and land-use indicatorsCity of Oakland, GIS centerline filesfits of potential pedestrian improve-such as population density. The result-were used to construct a model net-ments. A significant shortcoming ofing correlations are used to predictwork of the City’s approximately 7,000this methodology is that it does notpedestrian volumes on a street by streets. This network was fed into the|Pedestrian Master Plan146
© Noah Raford, 2002MAP 20 CITY OF OAKLAND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES—SPACE SYNTAX MODELLEGENDRELATIVE PEDESTRIAN RISKSLIGHTLY DANGEROUSMODERATELY DANGEROUSMOST DANGEROUSPREDICTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME0 - 49 PEDESTRIANS50 - 107 PEDESTRIANS108 - 169 PEDESTRIANS110 - 241 PEDESTRIANS242 - 511 PEDESTRIANS511 PEDESTRIANS OR MOREOrange balloons measure actual pedestrian risk as a function of annualaccidents per peak hour estimates are accurate +/- 23% (R=, p<). Values should be taken as estimates only. Thanks to the Space Syntax Laboratory, the UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center,Urbitran Associates, and the Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project. Pedestrian Master Plan |147
:Appendix EFuture Directions in Pedestrian PlanningOvation Space Syntax processingshades of orange. White coloredper peak hour with several streetsengine for processing. The model’s streets equal low volume, whileincluding Broadway exhibiting much initial output was weighted with 2000orange equals high volume. Orangehigher predictions. Census population density at theballoons of varying size represent theDespite its limitations as a model,block group level and calibrated withlevel of pedestrian risk for the city'sSpace Syntax is effective for predictingpedestrian counts. Ninety-four pedes-most dangerous intersections. Thispedestrian volumes in great counts were used spanning 42was determined by dividing the Unlike traditional travel demand different intersections. The prelimi-annual number of collisions by themodels analyzing traffic by Trafficnary model produced a .56 correlationpeak hour pedestrian flow to create Analysis Zone (TAZ) or census tract,coefficient between predicted pedestriana Pedestrian Risk Index. Space Syntax provides fine detail byvolumes, population density, andmodeling street segments and intersec-This innovative approach allows deci-observed pedestrian counts. A secondtions. The model is also less compli-sion makers to include city-wideround of calibration including popula-cated than other pedestrian modelingpedestrian exposures in their safetytion density modifiers to the centralpackages (such as Paramics) which useanalysis for the first time, a key factorbusiness district resulted in a .77 micro-simulation, cellular automata, in determining actual pedestrian coefficient.* This modeland other “agent-based” highest pedestrian volumes arewas used to estimate pedestrian However, the Space Syntax interface ispredicted in downtown with othervolumes for streets throughout thecomplicated and requires advancedhigh volume predictions for the northCity. These data were segmented knowledge of GIS,spatial projections,and east of Lake Merritt and the areaby intersection and compared toand database manipulation. In terms ofsurrounding the intersection ofSWITRS pedestrian collision data the modeling, little work has been doneFruitvale Avenue and Foothillto establish the risk integrate more sophisticated land-Boulevard. Downtown streets accountuse measures into the analysis. Map 20 shows predicted pedestrianfor nearly 5% of the City’s total*Very few people live in Oakland’s central businessvolumes by street segment wherepedestrian volume yet comprise district, resulting in very low estimates of daytimedarker shades represent higher vol-only 1% of total street area. Thepopulation density from the 2000 Census. Densitymodifiers were derived from 2000 employment umes. The pedestrian volume map dis-mean peak hour pedestrian flow statistics provided by the State of California’splays peak hour pedestrian flow infor downtown was 245 pedestriansEconomic Development Department|Pedestrian Master Plan148
For example, the Space Syntax modelfor Oakland under-predicted severalkey intersections in the downtownbecause it does not include mass transitas a source of pedestrian , recreational activity on thestreets surrounding Lake Merritt was not included in the model. SpaceSyntax also does not address behav-ioral factors such as street preferences, perceptions of safety, aesthetics, andthe additional information, see the Space Syntax Laboratory( Master Plan |149
:Appendix FSelected BibliographyAlameda-Contra Costa Transit , Reid. 1999 (August). TrafficFehr & Peers Associates. 2001. Existing2002 (January). AC Transit Short RangeCalming: State of the Practice. Crosswalk Warrants. San Francisco, Plan, 2001-2010. Oakland, for the . Department Guttenplan, Martin, Bruce W. Landis,of Transportation, Federal HighwayAlameda County. 2000 (July). AlamedaLinda Crider, and Douglas S. , Office of SafetyCounty Health Status Report . “Multi-Modal Level of ServiceResearch and Development and Office Oakland, CA: Alameda County Public(LOS) Analysis at a Planning Level.”of Human Environment; prepared byHealth Department, CommunityTRB Paper No. of Transportation , Planning and EducationHerms, . 1972. Pedestrian (CAPE).Study: Accidents in Painted andFederal Highway Administration. County CongestionUnpainted Crosswalks. Washington, DC:Accommodating Bicycle and PedestrianManagement Agency. 2001 (July).Highway Research Board. HRR : A Recommended Approach. Countywide Bicycle of Transportation Studies. 2001Department of TransportationPrepared by Wilbur Smith Associates.(February). City of Oakland: An( Donald. 1981. Livable Enforcement and Engineering Analysisbikeped/)., CA: University ofof Traffic Safety Programs. Richmond,Federal Highway Administration. 2002aCalifornia : University of California, Richmond(February). Safety Effects of MarkedField Area Rapid Transit District. 2000Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at(September). Five and Ten Year AccessInsurance Institute for Highway Locations: , . “Roundabouts.” Status and RecommendedVol. 35, No. 5, May Department of . McLean, VA: (March) Accommodating Non-Department of Transportation. Jones, Thomas L. and Patrick Travel. Deputy . “Pedestrian Accidents in MarkedNumber: Unmarked Crosswalks: AFederal Highway Administration. 2002bQuantitative Study.” ITE for Third World Organizing.(March). Pedestrian Facilities . Transportation forGuide: Providing Safety and Communities. Oakland, CA. McLean, VA: . Department ofMetropolitan Transportation . (December). San Francisco Bay Area |Pedestrian Master Plan150
1990 Regional Travel Characteristics,Oakland, City of. 1998 (March). EnvisionTester, June M. 2001. “Child PedestrianWorking Paper #4, 1990 MTC TravelOakland: Land Use and TransportationInjury in Oakland.” Oakland, . Oakland, , City of Oakland General , CA: Community and EconomicMetropolitan Transportation Research Board. (May). Travel Forecasts for the Highway Capacity Manual. Washington,San Francisco Bay Area, 1990 – 2025:Oakland, City of. 1999 (July). .: National Research Ownership, Trip Generation andMaster Plan, Part of the Land Use &. Access Board. 1999, Distribution, Data Element of the OaklandAccessible Rights-of-Way: A DesignOakland, Plan. Oakland, . Washington, DC: Transportation , City of. 1998a (June). PortlandArchitectural and Transportation 2001b (May). 1998 Pedestrian Design , OR:Barriers Compliance. Base Year Validation of Travel DemandOffice of Transportation, Engineering . Department of Health and HumanModels for the San Francisco Bay Development, Pedestrian TransportationServices. 2001. The Surgeon General’s Area (BAYCAST-90), Technical to Action to Prevent and DecreaseOakland, , City of. 1998b (June). PortlandOverweight and Obesity. Rockville, MD:National Highway Traffic SafetyPedestrian Master , OR:. Department of Health and HumanAdministration and Federal HighwayOffice of Transportation, Engineering Services, Public Health Service, Office ofAdministration. 2000 (April). Pedestrianand Development, Pedestrianthe Surgeon Bicycle Strategic Planning ResearchTransportation , Final Report. Surface Transportation Policy , City of. 1996 (June). Open2000a (May). Beyond Gridlock: MeetingSpace, Conservation, and RecreationCalifornia’s Transportation Needs in the(OSCAR) Element, City of OaklandTwenty First Century. Washington, Plan. Oakland, Transportation Policy , City of. 1998 (January). Street2000b (September). Dangerous by Tree Plan. Oakland, CA: Parks,Design: Pedestrian Safety in and Cultural , Master Plan |151
