The City of Oakland...Figure 21 Bart Daily Riders, Oakland Stations (BART 2000) 35 Figure 22 Proposed Sidewalk Guidelines 67 Figure 23 Proposed Lighting Guidelines (Fehr & Peers Associates,

The City of OaklandPart of the Land Use and Transportation Elementof the City of Oakland‘s General PlanNovember 12, 2002

Pedestrian Master Plan

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mayor and City Council

Mayor Jerry BrownJane Brunner District 1Danny Wan District 2Nancy Nadel District 3Dick Spees District 4Ignacio De La Fuente District 5Moses L. Mayne, Jr. District 6Larry Reid District 7Henry Chang, Jr. At-Large

Citizens Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Joyce Mende Wong District 1Michael Voorhies District 2Flossie Morris District 3Patrick Chellew District 4Xochilt Garcia District 5Thomas Van Demark District 6Edna Gurley District 7 and At-LargeRonald Chan Mayor’s Commission

on AgingLinda Teixeira Mayor’s Commission on

Persons with DisabilitiesRon Bishop Bicycle and Pedestrian

Advisory CommitteeMolly Bradshaw Public Health

ProfessionalWalter Finch Building Owners and

Managers AssociationHeather Hood Urban Ecology

Technical Advisory Committee

Leslie Gould Community and EconomicDevelopment Agency

Natalie Fay Community and EconomicDevelopment Agency

Margaret Stanzione Community and EconomicDevelopment Agency

Lynn Warner Community and EconomicDevelopment Agency

Jon Ewigleben Community and EconomicDevelopment Agency

Raul Godinez Public Works AgencyAmit Kothari Public Works AgencyJoe Wang Public Works AgencyKathryn Hughes Public Works AgencyJose Martinez Public Works AgencyWladimir Wlassowsky Public Works AgencyChristine Calabrese Office of

the City ManagerJim Cunradi Alameda-Contra Costa

Transit DistrictNathan Landau Alameda-Contra Costa

Transit District

Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project

Thomas Van Demark DirectorZachary Wald Pedestrian Plan

Project ManagerAmit Patel Design & Planning

InternJason W. Patton Editor

Consultants

Allan Jacobs Jacobs MacDonald: CityWorks

Mika Miyasota Korve ConsultingCheryl Parker Urban Explorer Noah Raford Urbitran AssociatesBill Reuter Reuter DesignMathew Ridgeway Fehr and Peers Associates

Amit Patel completed the original line drawingsfor the Pedestrian Master Plan. He also took thephotographs, except for those explicitly credited to another source. Historical photographs are courtesy of the Oakland History Room of theOakland Public Library.

Funding provided by a grant from the California State Office of Traffic Safety (OTS).

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).

�1Pedestrian Master Plan |

�

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

Goals 8

The Benefits Of A Walkable City 9

Executive Summary 11

CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 14

Oakland’s Street Grid 16

Walking Rates in Oakland 18

Pedestrian/Vehicle Collision Data 20

School Safety 3 1

Connections to Transit 34

Education and Enforcement 36

Community Outreach 37

CHAPTER 3 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORK 40

Selection of Routes 42

Downtown Pedestrian District 44

Safe Routes to School 46

Safe Routes to Transit 47

Route Types 48

CHAPTER 4 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 50

A Policy Response To Existing Conditions 52

Goal 1: Pedestrian Safety 54

Goal 2: Pedestrian Access 56

Goal 3: Streetscaping And Land Use 58

Goal 4: Education 60

Issues For Further Discussion 6 1

CHAPTER 5 DESIGN ELEMENTS 64

Sidewalk Guidelines 66

Crossing Treatments 73

Traffic Calming 80

CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 88

Policy Implementation 90

Priority Projects 92

Pedestrian Route Network by District 100

Staffing and Community Outreach 108

Funding 109

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A ON-STREET ROUTES 113

APPENDIX B WALKWAYS 122

APPENDIX C STREET TRANSFORMATIONS 138

APPENDIX D FHWA CROSSWALK GUIDELINES 144

APPENDIX E FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN PEDESTRIAN PLANNING 145

PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE

SPACE-SYNTAX

APPENDIX F SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 150

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 | Pedestrian Master Plan

FIGURES

Figure 1 1990 Regional Weekday Walking Trips by Purpose

(MTC 1994, P 12) 18

Figure 2 Walking Trips As a Percentage of Total Trips

by County (MTC 2001B, P 95) 19

Figure 3 Car Ownership in 2000 For Oakland/Alameda

Versus Other Areas (MTC 2001A, p45–54) 19

Figure 4 Pedestrian Collisions Table, 1996-2000 22

Figure 5 Pedestrian Collisions Chart, 1996-2000 22

Figure 6 Primary Collision Factors Table 23

Figure 7 Primary Collision Factors Chart 23

Figure 8 Movement Preceding Collision 24

Figure 9 Pedestrian Action In Collision 24

Figure 10 Pedestrian Action In Vehicle Collisions By Age Group 25

Figure 1 1 Top 10 Intersections by Number of Pedestrian Collisions 25

Figure 12 Top 10 Ranked Intersections for Seniors (1996-2000) 26

Figure 13 Top 10 Ranked Intersections for Children (1996-2000) 26

Figure 14 Top 10 Ranked Vehicle/Collisions Streets

by Number of Collisions 27

Figure 15 Top 10 Ranked Collision Streets

by Total Number of Collisions per Road Mile 27

Figure 16 Pedestrian Injuries/Fatalities

by Age Group (1996-2000) 28

Figure 17 Pedestrian Collisions by Time of Day 29

Figure 18 Pedestrian Injury And Fatality for Selected California

Cities (Averages of SWITRS 1995-1999 Annual Reports) 30

Figure 19 Top Ten Ranked Child Pedestrian/Vehicle

Collisions/Schools (1996-2000) 3 1

Figure 20 AC Transit Daily Riders, Trunk Lines (AC Transit 2002) 34

Figure 21 Bart Daily Riders, Oakland Stations (BART 2000) 35

Figure 22 Proposed Sidewalk Guidelines 67

Figure 23 Proposed Lighting Guidelines

(Fehr & Peers Associates, 2001) 69

Figure 24 Pedestrian Master Plan Priority Projects, 1-5 Years 93

Figure 25 Pedestrian Master Plan Priority Projects, 6-20 Years 96

Figure 26 Potential Project Components and Cost Estimates 115

Figure 27 On-Street Routes 116

Figure 28 Recommendations for Installing Marked Crosswalks 144

ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustration 1 City Route Section 48

Illustration 2 City Route 48

Illustration 3 District Route Section 48

Illustration 4 District Route 48

Illustration 5 Neighborhood Route Section 48

Illustration 6 Neighborhood Route 48

Illustration 7 Neighborhood Hill Route 49

Illustration 8 Walkway Route Section 49

Illustration 9 Walkway Route 49

Illustration 10 Walkway Route Section 49

Illustration 1 1 Walkway Route 49

Illustration 12 Sidewalk For Two Pedestrians 66

Illustration 13 Sidewalk For Two Pedestrians In Wheelchairs 66

Illustration 14 Existing Oakland Sidewalk Standard 66

Illustration 15 City Sidewalk Section 68

Illustration 16 District Sidewalk Section 68

Illustration 17 Neighborhood Sidewalk Section 68

Illustration 18 Walkway Section 68

Illustration 19 Route Lighting 69

Illustration 20 Pedestrian Route Signage 70

Illustration 21 Tree Well 70

Illustration 22 Bus Bulb-Out 71

Illustration 23 Local Intersection 73

Illustration 24 Arterial Intersection 73

Illustration 25 Crosswalk Striping 74

Illustration 26 Accessible Intersection 74

Illustration 27 Bulb-Outs 75

Illustration 28 Refuge Island 76

Illustration 29 Bulb-Outs And Refuge Island 76

Illustration 30 Corner Radius 76

Illustration 31 Slip Turn Before 77

Illustration 32 Slip Turn After 77

Illustration 33 Stop Sign 77

Illustration 34 Traffic Signal 78

continues on next page

3Pedestrian Master Plan |

Illustrations, cont.

Illustration 35 Audible Signal 79

Illustration 36 Speed Hump 80

Illustration 37 Slow Point 8 1

Illustration 38 Chicanes 8 1

Illustration 39 Traffic Circle 82

Illustration 40 Roundabout 82

Illustration 41 Narrow Lanes Before 83

Illustration 42 Narrow Lanes After 83

Illustration 43 Restriping Before 84

Illustration 44 Restriping After 84

Illustration 45 Median Before 85

Illustration 46 Median After 85

Illustration 47 City Route Before 138

Illustration 48 City Route Section Before 138

Illustration 49 City Route After 139

Illustration 50 City Route Section After 139

Illustration 51 District Route Section Before 140

Illustration 52 District Route Before 140

Illustration 53 District Route Section After 140

Illustration 54 District Route After 140

Illustration 55 Neighborhood Route Before 142

Illustration 56 Neighborhood Route After 142

Illustration 57 Neighborhood Route Section Before 142

Illustration 58 Neighborhood Route Section After 142

Illustration 59 Trail Route Before 143

Illustration 60 Trail Route After 143

Illustration 61 Trail Route Section Before 143

Illustration 62 Trail Route Section After 143

MAPS

Map 1 Pedestrian/Vehicle Collisions – Oakland (1996-2000) 21

Map 2 Child Pedestrian/Vehicle Collisions Near Schools—

Oakland (1996-2000) 33

Map 3 Pedestrian Route Network 43

Map 4 Downtown Pedestrian District 45

Map 5 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 1 101






Map 1 1 Pedestrian Route Network – Council District 7 107

Map 12 Walkways – Upper Rockridge 123

Map 13 Walkways – Montclair 124

Map 14 Walkways – Trestle Glen And Oakmore 125

Map 15 Walkways – Lake Merritt And Vicinity 126

Map 16 Walkways – Glen Echo Creek And Grand Lake 127

Map 17 Walkways – Fruitvale And Vicinity 128

Map 18 Walkways – Eastmont And Vicinity 129

Map 19 Walkways – Allendale and Fairfax 130

Map 20 City Of Oakland Pedestrian Volumes –

Space Syntax Model 147



Chapter 1 Introduction and Executive Summary

Vision 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 Oakland

in the forefront of the pedestrian movement. As a matter of fact, we will be one

of the first cities in America to create a Pedestrian Master Plan.

Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, August 14, 2001

The Pedestrian Master Plan promotespedestrian safety and access to helpensure that Oakland is a safe, conven-ient, and attractive place to walk. It establishes a Pedestrian RouteNetwork emphasizing safe routes toschool and connections to transit. Theroutes include streets, walkways, andtrails that connect schools, libraries,parks, neighborhoods, and commercialdistricts throughout the City. It identi-fies priority street segments alongthese routes for targeted improve-ments over the next twenty years. Theplan also identifies new pedestriandesign elements to promote pedestriansafety and access throughout the City.

Policy T4.5 of Envision Oakland, theLand Use and Transportation Elementof the Oakland General Plan, recom-mends the creation of a PedestrianMaster Plan as part of its objective toincrease the use of alternative modesof transportation. While walking isthe least expensive transportationmode, building and maintaining ahigh quality pedestrian infrastructurerequires comprehensive planning andlong term funding. The PedestrianMaster Plan will be a key resource forthe City in securing grants from theincreasingly large pool of funds dedicated to pedestrian safety and livable communities.


The City of Oakland is committed towalking as a form of transportationand recreation that is safe, accessible,healthy, and affordable for all citizens.Every Oaklander is a pedestrian atsome point during the day. We allwalk with or without mobility aids*whether to a school, transit stop, to aparked car, to work, or for exercise.The City also recognizes the value ofwalking for promoting environmentalsustainability and the commercialvitality of downtown and neighbor-hood districts. To promote these bene-fits of a walkable city, the PedestrianMaster Plan specifies the followingfive goals.

1 Pedestrian Safety. Create a street environment that strives toensure pedestrian safety.

2 Pedestrian Access. Developan environment throughout the City –prioritizing routes to school and tran-sit – that enables pedestrians to travelsafely and freely.

3 Streetscaping and Land Use. Provide pedestrianamenities and promote land uses that enhance public spaces andneighborhood commercial districts.

4 Education. Educate citizens,community groups, business associa-tions, and developers on the safety,health, and civic benefits of walkablecommunities.

5 Implementation. Integratepedestrian considerations based onfederal guidelines into projects, poli-cies, and the City’s planning process.

Goals

*Mobility aids are devices including wheelchairs,

walkers, crutches, canes, scooters, and service

animals used by people with disabilities.


The City of Oakland has amongst

the highest walking rates for all

cities in the San Francisco

Bay Area (U.S. Census 2000).

Additionally, approximately one

out of five households in Oakland

does not have an automobile

(MTC 2001a) and 37% of

Californians do not have driver’s

licenses. (STPP 2000a, p. 19).

With these goals, the PedestrianMaster Plan provides targeted solu-tions to pedestrian access and safetyproblems. The solutions also promoteOakland as a walkable city for sus-tainability, equity, vitality, and health– especially for children and seniors.

SafetyContinuous sidewalks and safe cross-ings are the basic building blocks forpedestrian safety.* These elements areessential for the most vulnerable pop-ulations: children, seniors, and per-sons with disabilities.

High speeds and volumes of motorvehicles can create safety concerns forpedestrians and residents.Neighborhood streets that providemotor vehicle shortcuts for throughtraffic are of particular concern to res-idents. On larger streets, high speedsand volumes of motor vehicle trafficcan be at odds with crossing safety,especially on streets with infrequenttraffic signals. According to theFederal Highway Administration,

“At higher speeds, motorists are lesslikely to see a pedestrian, and are evenless likely to be able to stop in time toavoid hitting one” (FHWA 2002b, p.13). In collisions with motor vehicles, apedestrian has an 85% chance of fatali-ty at 40mph, a 45% chance of fatalityat 30mph, and a 5% chance of fatalityat 20mph (FHWA 2002b, p. 13).

A balanced approach to street designregulates motor vehicle speeds andaffords pedestrians safe and conven-ient crossing opportunities. Amplesidewalks also serve to buffer pedestri-ans from motor vehicle traffic. Driversand pedestrians share responsibilityfor pedestrian safety. Education andenforcement to prevent dangerousbehaviors by both of these groups areimportant elements of a comprehen-sive solution.

*California Vehicle Code Section 21949 specifies that “safe and convenient pedestriantravel and access, whether by foot, wheelchair, walker, or stroller, be provided to the residents of the state.”

The Benefits of a Walkable City


SustainabilityWalkable cities reduce environmentalimpacts by promoting walking as a zeroemissions form of transportation. Goodwalking routes to transit complementthe role of public transit in providing anenvironmentally sustainable alternativeto the private automobile. Although typ-ically not counted in transportation sur-veys, every trip on transit is sandwichedbetween two pedestrian trips. Especiallyin conjunction with cycling and transitriding, walking provides a promisingnon-polluting transportation alternative.

EquityWalking is the most inexpensive andbroadly accessible form of transporta-tion and recreation. Walking requires no fare, fuel, or license. For those whocannot afford other modes of trans-portation, the ability to walk safely isessential. For young people, walkingaffords a sense of independence that isnot possible with other modes. Forolder people, walking is an effectivemeans to stay active, both physicallyand socially.

VitalityWalkable cities make for vital and activestreets by promoting commercial andsocial exchange. With approximately40% of the land area of United States’cities dedicated to transportation, streetsand sidewalks are the city’s most expan-sive public spaces. Sidewalks ideallyfunction as positive places to meet, play,live, work, and shop. However, highspeeds and heavy volumes of motorvehicle traffic can create inhospitablecity blocks where people are less likelyto know their neighbors and childrenare not allowed to play (Appleyard1981). In residential areas, motor vehi-cle traffic negatively impacts residentialproperty values. In commercial areas,the most congested streets are often themost economically vital.

HealthWalkable cities promote healthy citizens.Health professionals recommend walk-ing as a form of physical activity to helpprevent a host of diseases including obe-sity, heart disease, and some forms ofcancer. In announcing the nomination

for U.S. Surgeon General, PresidentGeorge W. Bush said, “Walking 30 min-utes a day will dramatically improveyour life.” Drawing on the success ofthe public health model in reducingsmoking, cities are recognizing thatgood places to walk help promotehealthy citizens.

In the United States, 300,000

deaths per year are associated

with obesity and the number of

overweight adolescents almost

tripled in the last twenty years.

While almost two-thirds of children

walked or biked to school only

thirty years ago, less than 10%

do today (STPP 2000a, p. 6).

According to the Surgeon General,

encouraging at least 30 minutes

of walking per day and creating

walkable environments are recom-

mended methods for reducing

overweight and obesity (U.S. Dept.

of Health 2001).

The Benefits of a Walkable City


In the following chapters, thePedestrian Master Plan identifies theexisting conditions for pedestrians inOakland and formulates a pedestrianroute network, policies, and designelements for the City. Taken together,these chapters promote pedestriansafety and access by focusing improve-ments on safe routes to school, con-nections to transit, and in other areasof high pedestrian activity.

Existing ConditionsChapter 2 provides a comprehensivepicture of pedestrian safety and accessin Oakland. It addresses the City’sexisting street conditions, walkingrates, pedestrian/vehicle collision data,school safety, connections to transit,education and enforcement, and the community outreach process for this Plan.

Oakland’s downtown and manyvibrant neighborhoods give it thefoundation for a walkable city.Oakland has amongst the highest

walking rates of cities in the SanFrancisco Bay Area. Large numbers ofpedestrian trips are to AC Transit buslines, Oakland public schools, andBART stations.

Major constraints on walking includepedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts onbusy streets and freeways as physicalbarriers for pedestrians.

On average, a pedestrian/vehicle colli-sion occurs each day in Oakland.Over three-quarters of those collisionsresult in pedestrian injuries. 36 fatalpedestrian collisions occurred between1996 and 2000. Most pedestrian/vehi-cle collisions occur in downtown, inChinatown, and along arterial streets.

By age, children have the highest ratesof pedestrian injury and seniors have thehighest rates of pedestrian fatality. Byrace, African-Americans and Hispanicsare more likely than Caucasians to be apedestrian in a collision.

In developing the Pedestrian MasterPlan, the Oakland Pedestrian

Safety Project (OPSP) conducted 70 community presentations reaching 1,750 Oaklanders.

Through this outreach, citizens identi-fied hundreds of areas of concern,noting in particular the danger ofcrossing streets with two or morelanes in each direction and the safetyof children walking to school.

Sources of additional community inputincluded the City Commissions onAging and Disability and the PublicSafety Committee of the City Council.

Pedestrian Route NetworkChapter 3 presents a long-term visionfor a network of on- and off-streetroutes that extends throughoutOakland. It includes “Safe Routes toSchool” and “Safe Routes to Transit.”The network identifies common walk-ing routes to schools, transit, neighbor-hood commercial districts, majoremployment centers, and other pedestri-an destinations. These routes respondto community concerns over safe routes

Executive Summary


Executive Summary

to these destinations and across majorstreets. They include city routes, districtroutes, neighborhood routes, walkways,and trails.

This chapter explains the DowntownPedestrian District, Safe Routes toSchool, and Safe Routes to Transit. Itdescribes the criteria used in the selec-tion of routes and provides illustrationsof each of the five route types. ThePedestrian Route Network identifiesthose streets in greatest need ofimprovements and those areas whereimprovements will have the greatestimpact. The Pedestrian Route Networkthereby serves as a long term planningtool for targeting pedestrian improve-ments. A citywide map of the networkis included in this chapter. Maps ofeach Council District showing thePedestrian Route Network and priorityprojects are included in the Implemen-tation Plan. A comprehensive survey ofthe Pedestrian Route Network is includ-ed in the appendices.

Policy RecommendationsChapter 4 identifies policies and action

items for meeting the goals of thePedestrian Master Plan. The Land Useand Transportation Element (LUTE) ofthe Oakland General Plan calls for thepreparation, adoption, and implementa-tion of a comprehensive pedestrian planfor the City (LUTE T4.5, p. 58).

Oakland’s General Plan has many poli-cy directives promoting a walkable cityand the goals of pedestrian safety,access, streetscaping and land use, andeducation. Each goal of the PedestrianMaster Plan is listed with policy directives from the LUTE and the pro-posed policies and action items forachieving that goal.

Source documentation including theOpen Space, Conservation, andRecreation (OSCAR) Element, BicycleMaster Plan, and Pedestrian MasterPlans from other cities was consulted indeveloping policies for the OaklandPedestrian Master Plan.

Recommended policies relating toimplementation are listed as part of theImplementation Plan in Chapter 6.

This chapter concludes with a sectionidentifying marked crosswalks, speedhumps, and pedestrian auto-detectionas issues for further discussion. Theseissues require ongoing debate in theCity of Oakland. They lack the neces-sary consensus of stakeholders forestablishing policy positions in thePedestrian Master Plan. The differingviewpoints on these issues are presentedhere to facilitate further discussion onhow best to promote pedestrian safetyand access in the City of Oakland.

Design ElementsChapter 5 identifies guidelines and ele-ments for improving Oakland streetsand paths. Rather than proposingdesign standards, the Pedestrian MasterPlan presents these design elements toinform designers, planners, and policy-makers on available design treatmentsand best practices for pedestrians.

The Design Elements are organized intothree sections. First, the SidewalkGuidelines section proposes minimumrequirements for sidewalks and utilityzones. Second, the Crossing Treatments


section explains best practices for cross-walks and corners. And third, theTraffic Calming section presents con-cepts for reducing motor vehicle speeds.

Implementation PlanChapter 6 contains the ImplementationPlan identifying policies and priorityprojects to promote a safe and walkablecity. Twenty years of projects are identi-fied to rectify existing gaps and short-comings in the City's pedestrian infra-structure. As part of a comprehensiveplanning process, this list of priorityprojects makes Oakland very competi-tive for the growing amount of trans-portation funding directed at pedestriansafety and livable communities. Thischapter identifies staffing needs andfunding sources to help ensure thatthese projects are managed, funded, andimplemented. It also includes maps ofeach Council District showing thePedestrian Route Network and thelocations of priority projects.

Appendices A-B: PedestrianRoute Network Survey

These appendices provide a comprehen-sive survey of the Pedestrian RouteNetwork. They identify the routes thatcomprise the network and potentialimprovements to these routes.Appendix A contains the PedestrianRoute Network Survey for on-streetroutes. It identifies potential projectcomponents and cost estimates fromwhich potential improvements to theroute network are specified. It alsoexplains a route context evaluation as asimple method for comparing potentialimprovements along the PedestrianRoute Network. Appendix B contains asurvey of the City's walkways andincludes a set of maps showing theirlocations throughout the City. Theseappendices provide the starting pointfor: (1) the development of a capitalimprovement program for pedestrianprojects; and (2) the development ofspecific pedestrian improvement proj-ects for specific street segments.

For implementation, the proposedprojects would require additional review by traffic engineer-ing and under the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA).Furthermore, engineering judgment isnecessary to determine the specificlocations and features of each project.

Appendices C-F: Additional Resources

The final four appendices provideadditional resources on pedestrianplanning. Appendix C presents a setof street transformations that providea long-term vision for designingstreets for pedestrians. Appendix Dsummarizes a recommended crosswalkpolicy developed by the FederalHighway Administration. Appendix Eintroduces pedestrian level of serviceand Space-Syntax as two emergingtools in pedestrian planning. Lastly,Appendix F lists the publications usedin writing this Plan.

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 it.Søren Kierkegaard, Danish Philosopher

The Pedestrian Master Plan is based ona survey of the City’s existing streetconditions, an analysis of the City’spedestrian 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

the community outreach process used in gathering data and identifies the roleof the Citizen’s Pedestrian Advisory

Committee (CPAC) and the TechnicalAdvisory Committee (TAC) in the planning process.


Oakland’s downtown and vibrantneighborhoods provide the foundationfor a walkable city. Oakland’s streetgrid was laid out when walking andtransit were the most common modesof transportation. Neighborhoods likeTemescal, Fruitvale, Seminary,Glenview, Lakeshore, and Fairfaxdeveloped with housing and businessesclustered along streetcar lines.

These neighborhoods can be pedestri-an-friendly because they were designedfor people to walk from their homes totrolley stops and the surroundingshops. In neighborhoods with irregularstreet grids, walkways provided pedes-trian access through long blocks toschools, businesses, and transit. Manyof these historical routes still exist andprovide practical and attractive routesfor walkers.

Oakland’s street grid has much varia-tion but generally the shortest blocksare located in the oldest and mostwalkable areas of the city. Short blocksare a standard feature of streets plattedbefore the development of motorized

urban transportation in the late nine-teenth century. Such blocks fit thescale of walking because they providefrequent places to cross and frequentchoices of direction. They make it easyto reach destinations directly and provide numerous route choices thatmake walking interesting and enjoyable.

Opportunities

The following opportunities highlightOakland’s walkability:

� Many neighborhoods contain a mix-ture of homes, businesses, and publicservices within easy walking distanceof each other.

� Short blocks in older sections ofOakland are pedestrian-friendly becausethey increase the number of possiblewalking routes and destinations.

� Old industrial areas of the City arebeing redeveloped as residential and live/work neighborhoods withimproved pedestrian infrastructure.

� Oakland is well-served by publictransit, making walking an impor-

tant mode of transportation for tripsacross the City as well as withinneighborhoods.

� Frank Ogawa Plaza, Jack LondonSquare, and Lake Merritt are livelydestinations explicitly designed forpedestrians.

� Oakland has many walkways andtrails of historic and natural interest

Oakland’s Street Grid


including the Bay Trail and the Ridge Trail.

� The City’s residential traffic calming program has effectivelyreduced motor vehicle speeds in residential neighborhoods.

� Oakland is a leader in ensuring acces-sible streets by providing audiblepedestrian signals and curb ramps.

� The Oakland Pedestrian SafetyProject has been effective in coali-tion-building to promote educationand enforcement for pedestrian safety and access.

ConstraintsThe following constraints limitOakland’s walkability:

� 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).

� More traffic signals are needed,particularly on long corridors with a lot of pedestrian activity.

� Some areas of the City have incom-plete or inadequate sidewalks thatcould discourage pedestrian activity.

� Freeways are physical barriers thatare rarely convenient or pleasant towalk under, over, or near.

� Intersections with freeway on- or off-ramps could create conflicts between pedestrians and drivers transitioning to or from freeway speeds.

� Overflow traffic from congested freeways puts additional pressure on surface streets in the City.

� Newer areas of the City includingparts of the Oakland Hills and EastOakland do not always have side-walks, crosswalks, short blocks, ornumerous destinations within easywalking distance.

� Some street design elements likeextra turn lanes, large corner radii,and frequent driveways improvemotor vehicle access yet decreasepedestrian safety.

� Some older schools may need morevehicle capacity at pick-up and drop-off zones.

� Many Oakland streets lack benches,bus shelters, trees, and other streetfurniture that are important ingredi-ents of a walkable city.


Walking Rates in Oakland

Current and accurate figures on walk-ing rates in the City of Oakland donot exist. However the data that areavailable suggest that the rate of walk-ing in Oakland is amongst the highestin the San Francisco Bay Area. Somefigures are available from U.S. Censusdata on journey to work. Informationat the County and sub-regional levelson walking rates and car-ownership isalso available from the MetropolitanTransportation Commission. Comparedto other areas in the region, the City of Oakland likely has morepedestrian trips because many neigh-borhoods are densely populated andwell served by transit.

The United States Census “journey towork” statistics provide local informa-tion about modal choice for com-muters. The 2000 U.S. Census record-ed that 2.3% of Oaklanders walked towork. Because work trips are general-ly a small percentage of total walkingtrips, this figure is only marginallyuseful. This figure does not countwalking trips to transit as part of thejourney to work nor does it includewalking trips to other destinations.For example, Figure 1 suggests that inthe San Francisco Bay Region thereare seven times as many home-basedpedestrian trips to school as home-based pedestrian trips to work.

Walking rates from model simulationsare available at the County level.Alameda County has the second highest walking rate when comparedto the other 8 counties in the SanFrancisco Bay Region (Figure 2).

Because the City of Oakland has different characteristics than much ofAlameda County, walking rates for the City are likely higher than ratesfor the County as a whole.

H.B.* H.B.* H.B.* H.B.* OTHERMODE WORK SHOP SOCIAL/RECREATIONAL SCHOOL NON-H.B.* PURPOSES

WALK 3% 8% 10.8% 21.5% 13.7% 9.9%

FIGURE 1 1990 REGIONAL WEEKDAY WALKING TRIPS BY PURPOSE (MTC 1994, P. 12) * H.B. = HOME BASED

Rates of car ownership are useful forconsidering the differences between theCity of Oakland (combined with theCity of Alameda) and the County ofAlameda. Lower car ownership rates inOakland suggest higher rates of walk-ing and transit ridership. Figure 3 compares car ownership rates forselected sub-regions of the nine countySan Francisco Bay Area.

Taken as a whole, these figures suggestthat the City of Oakland has one of thehighest rates of walking for all cities inthe nine-county San Francisco BayRegion. At the county level, AlamedaCounty has the second highest rate fol-lowing San Francisco County. WithinAlameda County, the City of Oakland’sdense development patterns, good tran-sit service, and low levels of car owner-ship suggest that walking rates for the

City are higher than that of theCounty. As discussed in greater detailbelow, the largest shares of walkingtrips in the City of Oakland are likelyto schools and to transit.


WALKING TRIPS AS

COUNTY % OF TOTAL TRIPS

ALAMEDA 12.0%

CONTRA COSTA 5.8%

MARIN 4.6%

NAPA 5.3%

SAN MATEO 8.4%

SANTA CLARA 5.7%

SAN FRANCISCO 21.3%

SOLANO 5.5%

BAY AREA AVERAGE 9.3%

GEOGRAPHICAL ZERO CAR 1-CAR MULTIPLE CAR AVG. CARS/

AREA HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLD

OAKLAND/ALAMEDA 19.3% 40.7% 40.0% 1.375

(HOUSEHOLDS) (32,139) (67,774) (66,609) (166,522)

ALAMEDA COUNTY 10.8% 32.5% 56.7% 1.745

BERKELEY/ALBANY 16.9% 46.6% 36.5% 1.323

SAN FRANCISCO 28.1% 40.4% 31.5% 1.134

BAY AREA REGION 8.9% 29.5% 61.7% 1.847

FIGURE 3 CAR OWNERSHIP IN 2000 FOR OAKLAND/ALAMEDA VERSUS OTHER AREAS (MTC 2001A, PP. 49 – 54)FIGURE 2 WALKING TRIPS AS A PERCENTAGE

OF TOTAL TRIPS BY COUNTY (MTC 2001B, P. 95)

Pedestrians are the most vulnerableroad users and collisions with motorvehicles often result in serious injuryor death. While pedestrian/vehicle col-lisions represent 4% of total collisionsin Oakland, pedestrian fatalities com-prise 39% of the total number of traf-fic fatalities in the City of Oakland.This figure is three times the nationalaverage of 13% (Alameda CountyCongestion Management Agency2001). These numbers may beexplained in part by Oakland havingmore pedestrians than other cities.

The following data are primarily fromthe Statewide Integrated TrafficRecords System (SWITRS), a databaseof collision records collected by localpolice throughout California and theCalifornia Highway Patrol (CHP).

While useful for locating problemareas, collision maps tend to highlightthose areas where large numbers ofpeople walk. For example, areas like Chinatown and InternationalBoulevard have high pedestrian volumes and high numbers of pedes-trian collisions. In contrast, collisionmaps do not identify those areaswhere people avoid walking becausethey are perceived as too dangerousfor pedestrians. For a comprehensiveanalysis, feedback from the communityoutreach process described in the following section balances this short-coming of collision data.


Pedestrian/Vehicle Collision Data

PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONS

SOURCE: SWITRS

5 to 11

3 to 4

1 to 2

HIGH

FOOTHILL

SKYLINE

INTERNATIONAL

BR

OA

DW

AY

GRAND

MO

UN

TAIN

TEL

EG

RA

PH

SAN LEANDRO

40TH

BA

NC

RFT

KELLER

SA

N P

AB

LO

GOLF LINKS

SNAKE

MA

ND

ELA

LINCOLN

I

SH

AT

TU

CK

51ST

TUNNELALCATRA

REDWOOD

HE

GE

NB

ER

GE

R

SEMINARY

FOOTHILL

SKYLINE

INTERNATIONAL

BR

OA

DW

AY

GRAND

MO

UN

TAIN

TEL

EG

RA

PH

SANLEANDRO

40TH

O

BA

NC

RFT

KELLER

SA

NP

AB

LO

GOLF LINKS

SNAKE

MA

ND

ELA

SH

AT

TU

CK

51ST

TUNNELZALCATRA

HE

GE

NB

ER

GE

R

SEMINARY

HIGH

LNCOLN

REDWOOD

MACARTHUR

PARK

LAK

ESH

OR

E

MA

RTI

NLU

THE

RK

ING

JR

MACARTHUR

PARK

LAK

ESH

OR

E

MA

RTI

NLU

THE

RK

ING

JR

O

Z

MAP 1 PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONS —OAKLAND (1996-2000)




Rates of PedestrianCollisionsOn average, a pedestrian/vehicle colli-sion occurs each day in Oakland. The number of collisions hasdecreased slightly in recent years.Possible explanations for this decline

include the extensive education, engineering, and enforcement activitiesof the City of Oakland over the lastfive years. In 2000 there were a totalof 312 collisions involving pedestrians– down 12% from 353 collisions in1996. Pedestrian injury collisionsdeclined from 292 in 1996 to 240 in2000 – a 18% drop. The number ofpedestrian fatality collisions fell from 8in 1996 to 6 in 2000 – a 25% reduc-tion. Over this five year period, 2% ofall pedestrian/motor vehicle collisionsresulted in a pedestrian fatality. Totalpedestrian collisions for 2000 may beartificially low because the OaklandPolice Department did not file reportson non-injury collisions from October2000 to October 2001.

Reasons for Pedestrian Collisions

As Figure 6 demonstrates, vehicledrivers are responsible for approxi-mately 51% of pedestrian/vehicle collisions. Pedestrians are responsiblefor approximately 31% of such collisions and in about 18% of thecases the primary factor is “other” or “unknown.”

Violation of the pedestrian right-of-wayby a motor vehicle driver is the mostcommon cause of pedestrian/vehicle

450

400

350

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1996

INJURY NON-INJURY

NU

MB

ER

OF

PE

DE

ST

RIA

N/V

EH

ICL

E C

OL

LIS

ION

S

FATAL

1997 1998 1999 2000

FIGURE 5 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS CHART, (1996-2000)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TOTAL % TOTAL

INJURY 292 277 309 286 240 1404 77.7%

NON-INJURY 53 73 85 90 66 367 20.3%

FATAL 8 9 8 5 6 36 2.0%

TOTAL 353 359 402 381 312 1807 100%

FIGURE 4 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS TABLE (1996-2000)

collisions. Other common drivermovements include unsafe starting orbacking and unsafe speed. Further-more, 22.4% of pedestrian/vehicle colli-sions are hit-and-run collisions.

When pedestrians are at fault themotorist is generally going straight.When the motorist is at fault it is

generally during a turning movement.Figure 8 shows that 60% of vehiclesare proceeding straight when involvedin a pedestrian/vehicle collision. Left-turn vehicle movements account for15% while right-turn vehicle move-ments account for 10% of the total.For collisions with the pedestrian at

fault, 90% involve drivers proceedingstraight as the movement precedingcollision. For collisions with the driv-er at fault, the majority involve driverturning movements as the movementpreceding collision.

Pedestrian violations are tabulated as a single category in the data so it is notpossible to distinguish the particularpedestrian actions that cause collisions.Some well-known pedestrian violationsinclude failing to obey traffic signalsand jaywalking (crossing outside of alegal crosswalk).

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

PEDESTRIAN DRIVER OTHER

NU

MB

ER

OF

PE

DE

ST

RIA

N/V

EH

ICL

E C

OL

LIS

ION

S

FIGURE 6 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS TABLEFIGURE 7 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS CHART

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR NUMBER % OF TOTAL

PEDESTRIAN

PED VIOLATIONS 513 28.4

PED OR OTHER UNDER INFLUENCE 27 1.5

AUTO RIGHT-OF-WAY VIOLATION 18 1.0

SUBTOTAL 558 30.9

DRIVER

PED RIGHT-OF-WAY VIOLATION 625 34.6

UNSAFE SPEED 70 3.9

UNSAFE PARKING/BACKING 69 3.8

IMPROPER TURNING 54 3.0

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) 34 1.9

IMPROPER PASSING 25 1.4

OTHER HAZARDOUS MOVEMENTS 19 1.1

WRONG SIDE OF ROAD 12 0.7

OTHER IMPROPER DRIVING 2 0.1

HAZARDOUS PARKING 2 0.1

IMPEDING TRAFFIC 1 0.1

SUBTOTAL 913 50.5

OTHER

UNKNOWN 280 15.5

TRAFFIC SIGNAL/SIGN 41 2.3

OTHER THAN DRIVER OR PED 15 0.8

SUBTOTAL 336 18.6

TOTAL 1807 100.0


Half 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-way, pedestrians are in crosswalks90% of the time. By age, seniors arethe most likely to be hit by a vehicle

while in a crosswalk. Conversely, children are the most likely to be hitby a vehicle while not in a crosswalk.

Driver Speed andPedestrian CollisionsData on driver speed is difficult toobtain and this difficulty may explainwhy speeding is infrequently identifiedas a primary collision factor. Accordingto the Oakland Police TrafficEnforcement Division, speed is difficultto determine because accurate estimatesdepend upon forensic analysis ordetailed witness statements. Accordingto National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration data including bothvehicle collisions and pedestrian colli-sions, “In 1997, speeding was a contributing factor in 30% of all fatalcrashes.” (FHWA 2002b, p. 13).

Higher speeds increase the severity of collisions between vehicles andpedestrians. One study identified an85% chance of pedestrian fatality at40mph, which declines to 45% at30mph and 5% at 20mph (FHWA2002b, p. 13). The Federal HighwayAdministration explains, “At higherspeeds, motorists are less likely to seea pedestrian, and even less likely to


1000

1200

800

600

400

200

0STRAIGHT LEFT

TURNRIGHTTURN

BACKING STOPPED OTHER

NU

MB

ER

OF

PE

DE

ST

RIA

N/V

EH

ICL

E C

OL

LIS

ION

S

FIGURE 8 MOVEMENT PRECEDING COLLISION


FIGURE 9 PEDESTRIAN ACTION IN COLLISION


actually stop in time to avoid a crash.At a mere 31 mph, a driver will needabout 200 ft. to stop which mayexceed available sight distance; thatnumber is halved at 19 mph” (FHWA2002b, p. 8).

Location of PedestrianCollisionsMost pedestrian/vehicle collisionsoccur in downtown, in Chinatown,and along arterial streets. Both down-town and Chinatown have high levelsof pedestrian activity and high levels

of motor vehicle traffic on multi-lane,one-way streets. Many signalizedintersections in this area do not havepedestrian signal heads to informpedestrians when it is safe to cross.The city is in the process of installingpedestrian signal heads for all existingtraffic signals.

The following figures show the inter-sections with the greatest number ofpedestrian collisions, senior pedestriancollisions, and child pedestrian colli-sions, respectively. For intersections

with the most pedestrian collisions,seven out of eleven of those intersec-tions have traffic signals. For the senior pedestrian collisions, four of

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

IN CROSSWALK NOT IN CROSSWALKOTHER

CHILDREN ADULTS SENIORS

169

62

220

365

135

198

83

23

26

PE

RC

EN

TAG

E O

F P

ED

ES

TR

IAN

CO

LL

ISIO

NS

FIGURE 10 PEDESTRIAN ACTION IN VEHICLE COLLISION (BY AGE GROUP)

RANK INTERSECTION

1 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD / 64TH AVENUE

2 FRUITVALE AVENUE / FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

3 38TH AVENUE / MACARTHUR BOULEVARD

4 7TH STREET / FRANKLIN STREET


6 14TH STREET / MADISON STREET

7 FRUITVALE AVENUE / MACARTHUR BOULEVARD


9 40TH STREET / TELEGRAPH AVENUE

10 77TH AVENUE / BANCROFT AVENUE

10 D STREET / 98TH AVENUE

COLLISIONS

11

11

9

9

8

8

7

7

7

7

7

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

NO

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

FIGURE 11 TOP 10 RANKED INTERSECTIONS BY NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (1996-2000)



the eleven intersections have trafficsignals and six of out of the elevenintersections are located within 1/4 mileof a senior center. For child pedestriancollisions, six out of ten intersectionshave traffic signals and eight of the tenintersections are located within 1/4 mileof a school.

The pedestrian safety problem is espe-cially severe on Oakland’s arterialstreets. According to the AlamedaCountywide Bicycle Plan, InternationalBoulevard, Foothill Boulevard, andMacArthur Boulevard have the highestnumber of pedestrian collisions for allstreets in the county. Approximately10% of Oakland’s pedestrian colli-sions take place along InternationalBoulevard alone. Figure 14 gives thetop ten pedestrian/vehicle collision

RANK INTERSECTION

1 28TH STREET/BROADWAY

2 38TH AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD

3 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/FRUITVALE AVENUE

4 108TH AVENUE/BANCROFT AVENUE

5 E. 16TH STREET/FRUITVALE AVENUE

6 24TH STREET/MARKET STREET

7 40TH STREET/TELEGRAPH AVENUE

8 41ST STREET/TELEGRAPH AVENUE


10 5TH AVENUE/10TH STREET

COLLISIONS

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

YES

SENIOR CENTER(WITHIN 1/4 MILE)

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

FIGURE 12 TOP 10 RANKED INTERSECTIONS FOR SENIORS (1996-2000)

RANK INTERSECTION

1 33RD STREET/PARK BOULEVARD


3 11TH STREET/JACKSON STREET

4 18TH STREET/MARKET STREET

5 64TH AVENUE/FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

6 68TH AVENUE/FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

7 82ND AVENUE/BANCROFT AVENUE

8 BROOKDALE AVENUE/HIGH STREET

9 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/HIGH STREET

10 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD/98TH AVENUE

COLLISIONS

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

SCHOOL(WITHIN 1/4 MILE)

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

FIGURE 13 TOP 10 RANKED INTERSECTIONS FOR CHILDREN (1996-2000)


streets over the total length of thestreet in the City of Oakland. Figure15 gives the top ten pedestrian/vehiclecollision streets per road mile of thestreet in the City of Oakland.

At-Risk GroupsBy age group, children and seniors arethe most likely to be involved as apedestrian in a pedestrian/vehicle collision. Male drivers are over-repre-sented by sex in pedestrian/vehicle collisions. Furthermore, younger drivers are over-represented by age inpedestrian/vehicle collisions. As pedestrians, African-Americans andHispanics are at an elevated risk of injury.

While data are unavailable for pedes-trian collision rates amongst peoplewith disabilities, they are widely rec-ognized as an at-risk group.

From 1996 to 2000, 1446 injuryrecords specify the pedestrian’s age.For 37% of these, the pedestrianswere children (17 years and under)even though they comprised 25.0%

STREET

1 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD

2 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD

3 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

4 BROADWAY

5 TELEGRAPH AVENUE

6 FRUITVALE AVENUE

7 BANCROFT AVENUE

8 GRAND AVENUE (TIE)

9 12TH STREET (TIE)

10 WEBSTER STREET

FIGURE 14 TOP 10 RANKED VEHICLE/COLLISION STREETS BY TOTAL NUMBER OF COLLISIONS

FIGURE 15 TOP 10 RANKED COLLISION STREETS BY NUMBER OF COLLISIONS PER ROAD MILE

NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLECOLLISIONS (1996-2000)

174

125

96

60

57

50

45

43

43

38

STREET

1 INTERNATIONAL BOULEVARD

2 FRUITVALE AVENUE

3 FRANKLIN STREET


5 TELEGRAPH AVENUE

6 BROADWAY

7 35TH AVENUE

8 HIGH STREET

9 GRAND AVENUE

10 WEBSTER STREET

NUMBER OF PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONSPER ROAD MILE (1996-2000)

26.2

20.1

19.8

18.0

17.5

15.5

13.4

13.3

13.2

12.8

of the City’s population (U.S. Census2000). That children suffer the highestrates of pedestrian injury is generallyattributed to the risk taking behaviorof youth and, for those under 10years of age, a cognitive inability tojudge the speed and danger of motorvehicle traffic.

Children tend to get hit near schools.They are also over-represented in collisions where the pedestrian wascrossing not in a crosswalk. In fact,56% of pedestrian violations are com-mitted by youth even though they represent 25% of the population.

Seniors (65 years and over) suffer thehighest rates of pedestrian fatalityaccounting for 24% of the fatal pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions.However, Oakland seniors comprised10.5% of the population (U.S. Census2000). Seniors tend to get hit neartheir homes and senior centers. Of allage groups, seniors are the most likelyto be hit in crosswalks. Senior fatali-ties are often attributed to the frailtyof older age.

People of color are disproportionatelyrepresented in pedestrian/vehicle colli-sions. In Alameda County, African-

Americans are 2.5 times more likelythan Caucasians to be hospitalized orkilled as a pedestrian in a collision.The rates of pedestrian hospitalizationand fatality are 30.9 per 100,000 for African-Americans and 12.3 per100,000 for Caucasians (Center for Third World Organizing). African-Americans are 50% more likely than Caucasians to be killed in a pedestrian/vehicle collision. Therates of pedestrian fatality are 11.2per 100,000 for African-Americans and 7.4 per 100,000 for Caucasians(Alameda County 2000).


FIGURE 16 PEDESTRIAN INJURIES/FATALITIES BY AGE GROUP (1996-2000)


AGE GROUP 0-4 5-9 10-13 14-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ TOTAL

INJURY 119 193 114 104 131 176 208 174 83 144 1446

FATALITY 2 1 0 0 3 1 5 11 5 9 37

% OF INJURIES 8.2% 13.3% 7.9% 7.2% 9.1% 12.2% 14.4% 12.0% 5.7% 10.0% -

% OF FATALITIES 5.4% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 2.7% 13.5% 29.7% 13.5% 24.3% -

% OFPOPULATION 7.1% 7.5% 5.4% 4.9% 9.6% 18.1% 15.8% 13.5% 7.4% 10.5% -


In the City of Oakland, the density ofpedestrian/vehicle collisions is greatestin minority and low-income neighbor-hoods including Chinatown, theFruitvale, and along International andFoothill Boulevards. These neighbor-hoods are some of the densest in theCity and have high levels of pedestrianactivity and transit ridership. TheSWITRS database, which is the pri-mary source for this data analysis,does not record race or ethnicity inpedestrian/vehicle collisions.

Time of PedestrianCollisionsOverall, pedestrian/vehicle collisionscorrespond to times of high pedestrianand vehicle volumes. The risk ofpedestrian injury rises during the dayand peaks during the evening rushhour. The risk also rises, though lessdramatically, to a peak on Friday.Peak collision times for children arebefore and after school hours. Peakcollision times for adults are themorning and evening rush hours. Forseniors, collisions occur at relativelyconstant levels throughout the daywith a small peak during the morningrush hour. Fewer collisions occur onweekends than during the week.

Collisions with pedestrians occur yearround at consistent levels with a slightrise during the winter months fromOctober to February.

Collisions BetweenPedestrians and BicyclistsWhile bicycling on the sidewalk is anissue for pedestrians, no pedestrian/bicyclist collisions in Oakland wererecorded in the SWITRS database from1996 to 2000. Given the light weightsand typically low speeds of bicyclistscompared to motor vehicles, this issuemay be more annoyance than hazard topedestrians when compared to the fre-quency and risk of pedestrian/motorvehicle collisions.

250

200

150

100

50

0

YOUTH SENIORADULT

12:00TO

1 :59AM

2:00TO

3:59AM

4:00TO

5:59AM

6:00TO

7:59AM

8:00TO

9:59AM

12:00TO

1 :59AM

10:00TO

11 :59AM

12:00TO

1 :59PM

2:00TO

3:59PM

4:00TO

5:59PM

6:00TO

7:59PM

8:00TO

9:59PM

10:00TO

11 :59PM

FIGURE 17 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS BY TIME OF DAY


Oakland Compared to the Rest of CaliforniaRates of pedestrian/vehicle collisionsin Oakland are higher than statewideaverages. In 1999, 19.1% of injuryand fatality collisions in Oaklandinvolved a pedestrian, compared to8.0% statewide. That same year, onein 1,292 Oaklanders was a pedestrianinjury or fatality compared to one in2,700 Californians (Institute ofTransportation Studies 2001).

In the State of California from 1995to 1999, Oakland had the secondhighest rate of pedestrian fatalitiesafter 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.

CITY/POPULATION

OAKLAND399,900

BERKELEY108,900

LONG BEACH452,900

LOS ANGELES3,781,500

RICHMOND93,800

SACRAMENTO396,200

SAN FRANCISCO790,500

SAN JOSE909,100

FATALITIESPER 100,000

3.0

1.7

2.3

3.0

1.3

2.8

3.5

1.9

INJURIESPER 100,000

85.5

129.7

79.1

78.0

50.5

62.7

134.2

45.8

FIGURE 18 PEDESTRIAN INJURY AND FATALITYFOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA CITIES (AVERAGES OF SWITRS 1995-1999 ANNUAL REPORTS)


The Oakland Unified School Districtenrolls 53,000 students in approximately100 schools, of which 61 are elemen-tary schools. Many of these schools arelocated on or near arterial streets. At thedistrict’s largest elementary schools,approximately 75% of children walk to school.

Assuming an average walking rate of50% for students, Oakland publicschools would generate 53,000 week-day pedestrian trips. For example,Hawthorne Elementary is the largestelementary school in the district with 1179 students enrolled in the2001–2002 school year. Three-quarters

of those children walking meansapproximately 875 walking trips to andfrom school, or 1,750 pedestrian tripsper weekday. While exact numbers areunavailable, walking rates are expectedto be much lower for schools in theOakland Hills. Similarly, the total num-ber of weekday pedestrian trips will becomparatively small for schools with sig-nificantly fewer students. At elementaryschools, many parents also walk withtheir children.

Figure 20 lists the public schools withthe greatest number of nearby childpedestrian/vehicle collisions. All of thecollisions listed involved pedestrians of

17 years or under and occurred within1/4 mile of the school. There may besome double counting of collisionsbecause of overlap in the 1/4 mile areaaround schools, which is not correctedfor in this document.

In spring 2002, the TransportationServices Division began examining theexisting conditions at these schools to identify possible pedestrian safetyimprovements. The following chapterson the Pedestrian Route Network andPolicy Recommendations provide addi-tional information on improving schoolsafety in general.

School Safety

RANK SCHOOL

1 GARFIELD YEAR ROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

2 HAWTHORNE YEAR ROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

3 HIGHLAND YEAR ROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

4 FREMONT HIGH SCHOOL

5 MARKHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

6 E MORRIS COX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

7 DEWEY HIGH SCHOOL

8 HOOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

9 FRICK JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

10 FRANKLIN YEAR ROUND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

10 CHARLES WHITTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

10 ELMHURST MIDDLE SCHOOL

ADDRESS

1650 22ND AVENUE

1700 28TH AVENUE

8521 A STREET


7220 KRAUSE AVENUE

9860 SUNNYSIDE STREET

3709 E. 12TH STREET

890 BROCKHURST STREET

2845 64TH AVENUE


2920 E. 18TH STREET

1800 98TH AVENUE

FIGURE 19 TOP TEN RANKED CHILD PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISION SCHOOLS (1996-2000)

NUMBER OF CHILD PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLECOLLISIONS OVER 5 YEARS WITHIN 1/4 MILE

11

9

9 (TIE)

9 (TIE)

9 (TIE)

8

8 (TIE)

8 (TIE)

8 (TIE)

7

7 (TIE)

7 (TIE)




HIGHHIGH

FOOTHILLFOOTHILL

SKYLINE

SKYLINE

INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

BR

OA

DW

AY

BR

OA

DW

AY

GRAND

GRAND

MO

UN

TAIN

MO

UN

TAIN

TE

LE

GR

AP

HT

EL

EG

RA

PH

SAN LEANDRO

SAN LEANDRO

40TH40TH

MACARTHUR

MACARTHURB

AN

CR

OFT

BA

NC

RO

FT

KELLER

KELLER

SA

N P

AB

LO

SA

N P

AB

LO

GOLF LINKS

GOLF LINKS

SNAKE

SNAKE

PARKPARK

MA

ND

EL

AM

AN

DE

LA

LIN

COLN

LIN

COLN

SH

AT

TU

CK

SH

AT

TU

CK

51 ST51 ST

LAK

ES

HO

RE

LAK

ES

HO

RE

TUNNELTUNNELALCATRAZALCATRAZ

REDWOOD

REDWOOD

MA

RTI

N L

UTH

ER

KIN

G J

R

MA

RTI

N L

UTH

ER

KIN

G J

R

HE

GE

NB

ER

GE

RH

EG

EN

BE

RG

ER

SEMINARYSEMINARY

0

0

1

2

1

1

0

1

0

3

4

4

6

8

7

2

1

71

0

1

8

0

05 3

3

1

0 0

0

4

2

0

2

3

0

3

1

1

2

0

1

1

1

9

5

3

0

5

1

3

33

1

0

9

9

0

3

5

0

67

1

0

8

31

1

1

2

3

40

4

0

8

1

0

2

3

9

5

1 1

SCHOOLS

0 to 4 collisions

5 to 11 collisions

Quarter Mile Buffer

MAP 2 CHILD PEDESTRIAN/VEHICLE COLLISIONS NEAR SCHOOLS—OAKLAND (1996-2000)

Connections to Transit

Transit is a significant source ofpedestrian trip generation. TheAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District(AC Transit) and the Bay Area RapidTransit District (BART) are the major

providers of transit service in the Cityof Oakland. AC Transit’s five largestbus lines travel along Oakland’s majorcorridors and there are numeroussmaller lines that cross all areas of theCity. BART serves Oakland with eightpassenger rail stations.

In Oakland, approximately 148,000pedestrian trips on weekdays are to orfrom AC Transit buses.* People usingOakland BART stations may accountfor another 57,000 pedestrian trips.**These numbers are significant becausemany surveys on transportation mode

share do not count how people get toand from transit. To suggest wherethose trips occur, Figure 21 identifiesthe five largest bus lines in Oaklandand their daily patronage. Each of

BUS LINE (CORRIDOR)

40/40L/43 TELEGRAPH/SHATTUCK/FOOTHILL/BANCROFT

51 COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY/BROADWAY/ALAMEDA

57/58 MACARTHUR

72/72L/73 SAN PABLO

82/82L E. 14TH/INTERNATIONAL

5 LINE TOTAL

SYSTEM TOTAL

% OF SYSTEM TOTAL

1998 DAILY PATRONAGE

22,000

17,000

19,000

13,000

22,500

93,500

206,000

45%

* The number of 148,000 pedestrian trips is basedon weekday boardings and alightings for ACTransit’s Central and East Oakland planningzones (AC Transit Boarding and AlightingSurvey, Fall 1997 – Winter 1998). Total pedestri-an trips were computed using AC Transit’s 1993systemwide on-board survey that found 74.0%of respondents walked to the bus and 66.5% ofrespondents walked from the bus. The total fig-ure may be slightly inflated because the CentralOakland planning zone includes Piedmont andEmeryville. On the other hand, the figure may beslightly deflated because it does not includepedestrian trips to or from transbay buses.

** Data on walking mode share to and from BARTstations in the City of Oakland is not available.The number of 57,000 pedestrian trips is arough estimate based on the following twoassumptions. First, it assumes that averageweekday entrances and exits to the BART sys-tem in the City of Oakland are approximatelyequal. This assumption suggests that there are114,000 entrances to and exits from the BARTsystem in Oakland. Second, it assumes thateach BART rider will be a pedestrian on oneend of her or his trip. This assumption suggeststhat half of all entrances and exits – 57,000 –will be pedestrian trips.

FIGURE 20 AC TRANSIT DAILY RIDERS, TRUNK LINES (AC TRANSIT 2002)



these corridors is identified as a major pedestrian route in thePedestrian Route Network describedin Chapter 3. Figure 21 provides average weekday exits and the walking mode share for AM peakentrances at each BART station

in Oakland. For the stations in down-town Oakland, the pedestrian modeshare for AM peak exits is likely muchhigher than for AM peak entrances.

FIGURE 21 BART DAILY RIDERS, OAKLAND STATIONS (BART 2000)

BART STATIONS

12th Street

19th Street

Coliseum

Fruitvale

Lake Merritt

MacArthur

Rockridge

West Oakland

Oakland Total

AVERAGEWEEKDAY EXITS

12,510

8,327

6,854

8,217

4,655

6,527

4,916

4,979

56,985

WALKING MODAL SHARE (AM PEAK ENTRANCES)

27%

46%

5%

10%

27%

24%

29%

9%

PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS

Downtown location – needs improved access under Interstate 880 to Jack London District.

Downtown location – needs crossing improvements along Broadway and 20th Street.

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 cross.

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.

Downtown location – needs improved access under Interstate 880 to Jack London District.

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.

This station is integrated into the surrounding land uses. Access for pedestrians is excellent. One-way streets surrounding the station area may encourage speeding.

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.


The Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project(OPSP) is responsible for pedestriansafety education in the City ofOakland. Formed in 1995, the OPSPaddresses pedestrian safety by buildingcoalitions between City staff from thePublic Works Agency, Community andEconomic Development Agency, Policeand Fire Services, Life EnrichmentAgency as well as representatives ofthe Oakland Children’s Hospital andother public health agencies and community representatives. Beginningin 2000, the OPSP was funded by atwo-year, $600,000 grant from theState Office of Traffic Safety.

OPSP emphasizes the “three E’s” of pedestrian injury prevention:Education, Engineering, andEnforcement. The major educationalactivities of the OPSP are:

� Walk a Child to School Day (annual event)

� Pedestrian Safety Week (annual event)

� Safe Moves Town (pedestrian safetytraining for children)

� public relations campaigns (including“It’s Our Town, Let’s Slow it Down”)

The Oakland Police Department(OPD) works in conjunction with theOPSP to target enforcement of lawsthat promote pedestrian safety. OPDpedestrian safety programs include thefollowing:

� pedestrian right-of-way enforcement(“pedestrian stings”)

� pedestrian violation enforcement(jaywalking)

� data checklist of pedestrian collisioninformation data (providing addi-tional data on pedestrian collisionscollected by officers)

The perception of criminal activity instreets is a deterrent to pedestrianactivity. In addition to the regular beatoperations of the OPD, the City ofOakland developed the Safe Walks toSchool program through the Office ofthe City Manager to protect childrenfrom assault when walking to andfrom school. The Safe Walks to Schoolprogram is funded from allocations of Community Development Block Grant funds through CommunityDevelopment District Boards.

The Safe Walks to School programplaces site monitors along the mostheavily traveled streets of selectedschools during the hours when childrenare present. Locations for the SafeWalks to School program were selectedby rates of criminal activity affectingyouth and truancy rates. Initiated in2000-2001 school year, the program iscurrently in operation at five OaklandPublic Schools.

Education and Enforcement


The community outreach process forthe Pedestrian Master Plan consisted ofcommunity presentations plus monthlymeetings throughout the two-year plan-ning process of the Citizen’s PedestrianAdvisory Committee (CPAC) and theTechnical Advisory Committee (TAC).

Community OutreachPresentations

The Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project(OPSP) conducted 70 community pre-sentations reaching 1,750 Oaklandersduring the planning process. Members ofthe CPAC and staff of OPSP broughtcitywide collision maps to Neighbor-hood Crime Prevention Councils(NCPCs) and community groupsthroughout the City. Citizens identifiedareas and issues of concern throughthese outreach efforts. The CityCommissions on Aging and Disabilityand the Public Safety Committee of theCity Council were additional sources of input.

The community meetings identifiedthe following two major issuesthroughout the city:

� safety walking along and crossingmajor streets

� safety walking to and aroundschools

Regardless of the particular neighbor-hood, the overwhelming proportion ofcommunity feedback identified cross-ing streets with two or more lanes ineach direction as a major obstacle tosafe and comfortable walking. Thisissue speaks directly to the balancingact between accommodating vehiclestraveling through a neighborhood andaccommodating pedestrians within aneighborhood. Second, communitygroups identified the safety of routesto school and safety along the perime-ter of schools including drop off andpick up areas. In particular, largenumbers of parents driving children to school create hazardous conditionsfor kids. These two issues regarding

schools and major streets are directly

related because community concern is

often greatest where routes to school

cross wide streets.

“At the core…is the pedestrian.

Pedestrians are the catalyst,

which makes the essential quali-

ties of communities meaningful.

They create the place and time

for casual encounters and the

practical integration of diverse

places and people. Without the

pedestrian, a community’s com-

mon ground – its parks, side-

walks, squares and plazas,

become useless obstructions to

the car. Pedestrians are the lost

measure of a community, they

set the scale for both center and

edge of our neighborhoods.”

Peter Calthorpe

Community Outreach


Community Outreach

The following list explains otherissues identified in community meetings as common concerns:

Crossing Issues� Streets with large volumes of motor

vehicles are difficult to cross.

� Many busy pedestrian areas don’thave frequent enough crossings.

� Streets with many lanes are difficultto cross because of their width.

� Drivers often do not yield for pedes-trians at crosswalks.

� Traffic signals do not provideenough crossing time for families,seniors, and persons with disabilities.

� Local streets are dangerous to crosswhen used as “cut-through” routesby drivers.

Enforcement� Speeding cars are a problem on both

one-way and multi-lane streets.

� Speeding cars entering and exitingfreeways threaten pedestrian safety.

� Speeding buses are a problem.

� Double-parked vehicles block sightlines between pedestrians and drivers.

� Cars parked on sidewalks create hazards by forcing pedestrians intothe street.

School Safety Issues� Residents are concerned about driv-

ers failing to yield to pedestrians inschool zones.

� Drivers do not always obey stop signsand crossing guards in school zones.

� Some streets near schools are miss-ing sidewalks.

� Traffic moves too fast near many schools.

� Children do not understand howstreets are dangerous.

� Schools do not have enough crossingguards and stop signs to regulatetraffic.

� Double parking in school zonesneeds more stringent enforcement.

� Residents are frustrated by driverswho “do donuts” on local streetsand near schools.


Streetscaping Issues� The prevalence of trash and petty

crime discourages walking.

� Older curb ramps are too steep forpersons in wheelchairs and createdrainage problems.

� Diagonal curb ramps direct people into the intersection, not the crosswalk.

� Many sidewalks and crosswalks arenot adequately lit.

� Neighborhood commercial streets should be safe and invitingfor pedestrians.

� The area between Lake Merritt andthe Estuary lacks an adequate pedes-trian connection.

Citizen’s PedestrianAdvisory Committee

The Citizen’s Pedestrian AdvisoryCommittee (CPAC) provided continu-ous public oversight and feedbackduring the development of thePedestrian Master Plan. The CPACwas composed of district representa-tives appointed by each CityCouncilmember and one mayoralappointee from each of the MayoralCommissions on Aging and Disability.Additional representatives of severalcommunity stakeholder groups includ-ing the Building Owner’s andManager’s Association (BOMA), theBicycle and Pedestrian AdvisoryCommittee, and Urban Ecology alsoattended meetings. The CPAC metmonthly for one and a half years tooversee the planning process.Members of the CPAC are listed in theAcknowledgements at the beginning ofthis document.

Technical AdvisoryCommitteeThe Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) was comprised of city staff andprovided an analogous role to theCPAC. Meetings included representa-tives from the Public Works Agency,Community and EconomicDevelopment Agency (CEDA), CityManager’s Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) Programs, and other Citydepartments and programs. The TACwas also a forum for working with theAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District(AC Transit). The TAC met monthlyfor over one and a half years.Members of the TAC are listed in theAcknowledgements at the beginning of this document.

Chapter 3 Pedestrian Route Network


A journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step.Lao Tse, Chinese Philosopher

The Pedestrian Master Plan designatesa Pedestrian Route Network thatextends throughout Oakland. The net-work identifies common walking routesto schools, transit, neighborhood com-mercial districts, and other pedestriandestinations. These routes respond tocommunity concerns regarding saferoutes to these destinations and acrossmajor streets. It includes city routes,district routes, neighborhood routes,walkways, and trails.

The Pedestrian Route Network identi-fies those streets in greatest need ofimprovement and those areas whereimprovements will have the greatest

impact. Streets not included in the net-work may also need pedestrianimprovements. The Pedestrian RouteNetwork should not be used as anargument against pedestrian improve-ments on streets that are not designat-ed as part of the Pedestrian RouteNetwork. A survey of the PedestrianRoute Network is included as anappendix. For implementation, theproposed projects would require additional review by traffic engineer-ing and under the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA).Furthermore, engineering judgment isnecessary to determine the specificlocations and features of each project.


The following criteria were used toidentify a draft route network that wasthen refined through community andstaff input. Routes were selected to:

� Connect schools, transit, senior cen-ters, disability centers, libraries,parks, neighborhoods, and commer-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.

Selection of Routes


HIGH

HIGH

FOOTHILL

FOOTHILL

SKYLINESKYLINE

INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

BR

OA

DW

AY

BR

OA

DW

AY

GRANDGRAND

BA

NC

RO

FT

BA

NC

RO

FT

MO

UN

TAIN

MO

UN

TAIN

TELE

GR

AP

HTE

LEG

RA

PH

SAN LEANDR

SAN LEANDR

MACARTHUR

MACARTHUR

KELLERKELLER

SA

N P

AB

LO

SA

N P

AB

LO

GO

LF LINK

S

GO

LF LINK

S

SNAKE

SNAKE

PARKPARK

MA

ND

ELA

MA

ND

ELA

51ST51ST

LINCOLN

LINCOLN

SH

AT

TU

CK

SH

AT

TU

CK

LAKESHORE

LAKESHORE

TUN

NE

LTU

NN

EL

ALCATRAZALCATRAZ

REDWOODREDWOOD

MLK

JR

MLK

JR

HE

GE

NB

ER

GH

EG

EN

BE

RG

SEMINARY

SEMINARY

0 1 20. 5

City Route

District Route

Neighborhood Route

Downtown Ped. Zone

Parks

Water

MILES

MAP 3 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORK

SEE DETAIL

The Pedestrian Master Plan designatesthe downtown area as a pedestrian dis-trict based on high levels of pedestrianactivity, the number of pedestrian tripgenerators, and a pedestrian-friendlystreet grid. This designation signifiesthat every street in the pedestrian district is a pedestrian route, compara-ble to the routes identified throughoutthe rest of the City. In addition to this general designation, pedestrianroutes are identified in the downtownto specify the most important streetsfor prioritizing pedestrian improve-ments. The selection of these routesreflects those streets with the highestpedestrian use, the best connectivity,and pedestrian improvements proposedby the concurrent planning processeslisted below.

This Downtown Pedestrian District isbounded by and includes Brush Street,Grand Avenue, El Embarcadero,Lakeshore Avenue, Channel Park, andthe Oakland Inner Harbor. It includesCity Center, Chinatown, Uptown, Jack London Square, and Produce

Market areas and the Lakeside,Madison Square, and Lafayette Squareneighborhoods. It also includes LakeMerritt. Its designation as a pedestriandistrict reflects the high density ofcommercial, residential, cultural, andrecreational uses all within walkingdistance and well-served by transit.The designation also reinforces theLand Use and TransportationElement’s promotion of a transit-oriented downtown.

Within the Downtown PedestrianDistrict, current pedestrian-related plan-ning processes include the following:

� Chinatown EnvironmentalJustice Planning Grant

� Downtown Streetscape Master Plan

� Downtown Parking and Circulation Master Plan

� Estuary Plan

� Lake Merritt Master Plan

The designation of the DowntownPedestrian District indicates the City’scommitment to the downtown as asafe and enjoyable place to walk. Thefollowing two chapters identify poli-cies and design elements that shouldserve both as resources and bench-marks for ensuring that these andfuture planning processes in the down-town area promote pedestrian safetyand access.


Downtown Pedestrian District


MAP 4 DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT


The Pedestrian Route Network con-nects every public school, park, recre-ational center, and library in the Cityof Oakland. The neighborhood routesof the network were selected fromlocal streets both to serve these desti-nations and provide through routesfor pedestrians. These destinationswere given priority because of thelarge number of pedestrian trips thatthey generate and community concernover the safety of children walking tothese destinations. This sectionexplains how the Pedestrian RouteNetwork can contribute to establish-ing a comprehensive and seamless“Safe Routes to School” program in the City.

The Pedestrian Master Plan recom-mends that the City develop designat-ed “safe routes to school” by integrat-ing existing school safety programswith targeted sidewalk and crossingimprovements. The existing schoolsafety programs include the following:

� Adult crossing guards

� Student safety patrols

� Parent volunteers

� Safe Walks to School program

The Pedestrian Master Plan recom-mends that these programs be coordi-nated to ensure that all schools haveadequate traffic safety programs.Adult crossing guards and studentsafety patrols are already used atmany schools. However, financial con-straints limit adult crossing guards tothose schools with the most severesafety concerns. Some schools thathave requested adult crossing guardsdo not have them. While student safe-ty patrols play an invaluable role, theyare not used at some locations becauseof the traffic risk to the patrols them-selves. At some schools, parent volun-teers are organizing to fill gaps thatare not covered by the adult crossingguards or the child safety patrols.

While the Safe Walks to School pro-gram is focused on criminal activity, it is another important resource fordeveloping a seamless approach tosafe routes to school in the City.

The Pedestrian Master Plan recom-mends that a citywide parent volunteerprogram be established to providetraining, safety equipment, and coordi-nation such that parents who are con-cerned with school safety can help con-tribute to solutions. This programshould augment – not compete – withthe existing programs of adult crossingguards and student safety patrols.Citywide coordination is necessary toensure that these programs worktogether effectively.

To help develop safe routes to school,the Pedestrian Route Network identi-fies candidate streets at the citywidelevel for targeted crossing and sidewalkimprovements. These routes should berefined and further specified based onlocal knowledge of traffic safety condi-

Safe Routes to School


Safe Routes to Transit

tions at each of the approximately 100 schools in the district.

For each individual school, theseroutes will help identify where physicalimprovements and safety programswill have the largest impact. At thecitywide level, the pedestrian/vehiclecollision data for pedestrians 17 yearsand under and within one-quarter mileof a school identifies which schools inthe district are in most immediate needof safety improvements.

Safe Routes to Transit“Safe Routes to Transit” is a strategyfor targeting street improvementswhere they are the most needed andwill have the greatest impact. In theCity of Oakland, AC Transit generates

at least 148,000 weekday pedestriantrips and BART generates at least57,000 weekday pedestrian trips. SafeRoutes to Transit helps operationalizethe Land Use and TransportationElement’s designation of transit streetsand its policy directive for promotingalternative modes of transportation.Targeted street improvements for thesegroups will improve pedestrian safetyand access while promoting trans-portation alternatives in the City.Connecting homes to transit with non-motorized trips has the added benefitof reducing cold starts.

The Pedestrian Route Network identi-fies key routes that serve AC Transitbus lines and BART stations. Theseroutes include the “transit streets”designated by the Land Use andTransportation Element:

Regional Transit Streets

� San Pablo Avenue� International Boulevard� Telegraph Avenue� Foothill Boulevard� MacArthur Boulevard

Local Transit Streets

� Hegenberger/73rd Avenue� College Avenue� Bancroft Avenue� Park Boulevard� 23rd Avenue� 35th Avenue� 40th Street

The Pedestrian Route Network alsodesignates routes that radiate out fromeach BART station to adjoining neigh-borhoods and commercial districts.The identification of these routes bythe Pedestrian Master Plan is aresource for station area planningprocesses to promote pedestrian safetyand access. Pedestrian planningaround BART stations is especiallyimportant given the emerging transit-oriented development at Fruitvale,MacArthur, West Oakland, andColiseum stations. The 12th Street,19th Street, Rockridge, and LakeMerritt stations already have high lev-els of pedestrian activity that warrantimproved pedestrian infrastructure.

A street’s physical form shapes how itis used and perceived. By identifying apedestrian route network, establishingpolicies, and defining design elements,the Pedestrian Master Plan suggestsimproving existing streets by empha-sizing their human scale. The proposedchanges promote pedestrian safety andaccess while improving the appearanceof streets.

City routes designate streets that aredestinations in themselves – places tolive, work, shop, socialize, and travel.

They provide the most direct connec-tions between walking and transit andconnect multiple districts in the City.

District routes have a more local function as the location of schools,community centers, and smaller scale shopping. They are often locatedwithin a single district and help todefine the character of that district.

Neighborhood routes are local streets that connect to schools, parks,recreational centers, and libraries.

They are places for people to meetand they provide the basis for neigh-borhood life. They are used for walk-ing to school, walking for exercise,and safe walking at night.

Walkways are off-street routes that pro-vide shortcuts for pedestrians. They aremost common in older neighborhoodswith hilly terrain and long street blocks.Approximately 200 walkways exist inthe City of Oakland with the highestconcentrations located in the UpperRockridge, Montclair, Trestle Glen, San


Route Types

ILLUSTRATION 6 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE

ILLUSTRATION 5 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE SECTION

ILLUSTRATION 2 CITY ROUTE

ILLUSTRATION 1 CITY ROUTE SECTION

ILLUSTRATION 4 DISTRICT ROUTE

ILLUSTRATION 3 DISTRICT ROUTE SECTION

Antonio, Fruitvale, and Eastmont neigh-borhoods and along Glen Echo Creek.Particularly in hilly areas where streetaccess may be limited or indirect, walk-ways provide important alternate routesfor emergency evacuation.

Most of the approximately 200 walk-ways are located on City controlledrights-of-way for underground sewers.At 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-

veyed the existing walkways in the City.The resulting walkway maps and surveydata are provided in Appendix B. Trailsare off-street routes that often follownatural features like creeks, ridges, and shorelines. They are much longerthan walkways, sometimes unpaved,and separated from streets.


ILLUSTRATION 7 NEIGHBORHOOD HILL ROUTE

ILLUSTRATION 8 WALKWAY ROUTE SECTION

ILLUSTRATION 9 WALKWAY ROUTE ILLUSTRATION 11 WALKWAY ROUTE

ILLUSTRATION 10 WALKWAY ROUTE SECTION

Chapter 4 Policy Recommendations

The City should prepare, adopt, and implement a Bicycle and Pedestrian

Master Plan as a part of the Transportation Element of this General Plan.City of Oakland General Plan, Policy T4.5, p. 58


The Land Use and TransportationElement (LUTE) of the OaklandGeneral Plan recommends the prepara-tion, adoption, and implementation of acomprehensive pedestrian plan for theCity (LUTE T4.5, p. 58, above).Oakland’s General Plan has many clearpolicy directives related to the promo-tion of a walkable City. Other policydirectives from the LUTE are listedbelow with the specific goals of thePedestrian Master Plan. Through thesegoals, policies, and action items, thePedestrian Master Plan places a greateremphasis on pedestrians in the City’songoing work of shaping streets andmanaging traffic.

This emphasis on pedestrian considera-tions parallels new policies within theCalifornia Department ofTransportation (Caltrans) and the

U.S. Department of Transportation(USDOT). The Caltrans DeputyDirective 64 explains, “The Departmentfully considers the needs of non-motorized travelers (including pedestrians, bicyclists, and personswith disabilities) in all programming,planning, maintenance, construction,operations and project developmentactivities and products. This includesincorporation of the best availablestandards in all of the Department'spractices” (Caltrans 2001). TheCaltrans policy is based on a federalpolicy statement on better integratingwalking and bicycling into the nation’s transportation infrastructure(FHWA 2001).

The following policies and actionitems were prepared in consultationwith source documentation including

the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) Element,Oakland Bicycle Master Plan, andPedestrian Master Plans from othercities. The Citizens PedestrianAdvisory Committee (CPAC) and theTechnical Advisory Committee (TAC)reviewed existing City policies withrespect to pedestrians and formulatedthe policies listed below. (Policiesrelating to implementation are listedin the Implementation Plan chapter.)

For implementation, the proposedprojects would require additionalreview by traffic engineering andunder the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,engineering judgment is necessary to determine the specific locations and features of each project.

This section reiterates the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan and sum-marizes key points identified in theExisting Conditions chapter. It linksthe policies of the Pedestrian MasterPlan to the existing conditions bytying both to the Plan’s goals. Theremainder of this chapter on PolicyRecommendations presents the Plan’spolicies in terms of the Plan’s goals.

1 Pedestrian SafetyCreate a street environment thatstrives to ensure pedestrian safety.

� On average, a pedestrian/vehicle col-lision occurs each day in Oakland.

� Most pedestrian/vehicle collisionsoccur in downtown, in Chinatown,and along arterial streets.

� Children are at greatest risk ofpedestrian injury and seniors are atgreatest risk of pedestrian fatality.

� Half of pedestrian/vehicle colli-sions occur when the pedestrian is in a crosswalk.

2 Pedestrian AccessDevelop an environment throughoutthe City – prioritizing routes toschool and transit – that enablespedestrians to travel safely and freely.

� Walking rates in Oakland areamongst the highest of all cities inthe San Francisco Bay Region.

� An estimated 53,000 weekdaypedestrian trips are to and from elementary schools of the OaklandUnified School District.

� Approximately 148,000 weekdaypedestrian trips are to and from AC Transit bus lines in the City of Oakland.

� An estimated 57,000 weekdaypedestrian trips are to and from BART stations in the City of Oakland.

3 Streetscaping and Land Use

Provide pedestrian amenities andpromote land uses that enhance

public spaces and neighborhoodcommercial districts.

� Many Oakland neighborhoods arewalkable because they contain amixture of homes, businesses, andpublic resources within easy walk-ing distance of each other.

� Newer areas of the City includingparts of the Oakland Hills and EastOakland do not always have side-walks, crosswalks, short blocks,and numerous destinations withineasy walking distance.

� Many Oakland streets lack benches,bus shelters, trees, and other streetfurniture that are important ingre-dients of a walkable city.


A Policy Response to Existing Conditions

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 population.

The following sections identify policies and actions for each goal.


Create a street environment thatstrives to ensure pedestrian safety.

General Plan Policies� Objective T6, Safety. Make streets

safe, pedestrian accessible, andattractive. “In the past few years,public hearings have been heldthroughout the city on reducingtraffic in the neighborhoods byslowing it down or redirecting it toarterial streets. Measures that havebeen suggested include speedbumps, traffic diverters, traffic circles, stop signs, and retiming ofsignals. Some of these have beenimplemented, but funding is insuffi-cient to meet all of the public’srequests…Measures to reduce trafficimpacts need to be prioritized andcoordinated with overall circulationplanning” (LUTE, p. 60).

� Policy T6.1, Posting Maximum

Speeds. “Collector streets shall beposted at the lowest possible speed(usually a maximum speed of 25miles per hour), except where a

lower speed is dictated by safety andallowable by law” (LUTE, p. 60).

Policies and Action ItemsPMP Policy 1.1. Crossing Safety:Improve pedestrian crossings in areasof high pedestrian activity where safety is an issue.

Action 1.1.1. Consider the full rangeof design elements – including bulb-outs and refuge islands – to improvepedestrian safety.

Action 1.1.2. Update crossing treat-ment policy guidelines for all types of crossings based on currentfederal research (FHWA 2002a,FHWA 2002b).

Action 1.1.3. Conduct a test of the FHWA-based crosswalk policy (FHWA 2002a) in theFruitvale District.

Action 1.1.4. Use pedestrian safety,bicyclist safety, and residential andbusiness densities to establish lowerspeed limits in areas with a high levelof pedestrian activity or a history of

pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions(California Vehicle Code Section 627).

Action 1.1.5. Evaluate whether toupdate the City’s current lightingpolicy to ensure that crosswalks areproperly lit at night.

Action 1.1.6. Analyze pedestrian/motor vehicle collisions to reduce the incidences of pedestrian/motorvehicle conflict.

PMP Policy 1.2. Traffic Signals: Usetraffic signals and their associated fea-tures to improve pedestrian safety atdangerous intersections.

Action 1.2.1. Review the guidelinesfor signal need prioritization toensure that pedestrian considera-tions are given due consideration.

Action 1.2.2. Create guidelines, pri-orities and a schedule for the instal-lation of pedestrian signal heads atlocations with significant pedestriancrossing volumes.

Action 1.2.3. Seek additional fundsto pay for the retrofitting of traffic


Goal 1: Pedestrian Safety

signals with pedestrian signal headsand the maintenance costs that suchadditions may incur.

Action 1.2.4. Review the signal-tim-ing program to ensure that it incor-porates the needs of pedestrians byproviding adequate crossing times.

Action 1.2.5. Seek funds to addressthe backlog of traffic signals withspecial attention to signals in frontof schools, senior centers, and otherhigh-pedestrian activity centers.

Action 1.2.6. Continue the City’s programs to install audible pedes-trian signals at all new and retrofit-ted traffic signals. Continue the on-demand program to install such sig-nals at additional locations basedon requests from persons with visu-al impairments.

Action 1.2.7. Consider using cross-ing enhancement technologies likecountdown pedestrian signals (adevice not yet approved by State orFederal agencies) at the highestpedestrian volume locations.

PMP Policy 1.3. Sidewalk Safety:Strive to maintain a complete side-walk network free of broken or missing sidewalks or curb ramps.

Action 1.3.1. Conduct a survey ofareas lacking sidewalks and estimatethe cost and feasibility of fillingsidewalk gaps in areas with pedes-trian traffic.

Action 1.3.2. Assign responsibility for sidewalk additions to ensurethat sidewalk gaps are filled.

Action 1.3.3. Create a program toenforce the responsibility of adja-cent property owners for the addi-tion of sidewalks to close gaps andaccompany new development.

Action 1.3.4. Aid in the finance ofsidewalk improvements through thecreation of assessment districts.

Action 1.3.5. Budget funds for addi-tional sidewalks to fill in gaps in thesidewalk network in areas identifiedas high priority for safety reasons.

Action 1.3.6. Implement pedestrian-

scale lighting at regular intervals inareas of high pedestrian activity topromote pedestrian safety and dis-courage criminal activity.

Action 1.3.7. Conduct a survey of allstreet intersections to identify cornerswith missing, damaged, or non-com-pliant curb ramps and create a planfor completing their installation.

Action 1.3.8. Continue the City’s in-fill and on-call curb ramp programs to fulfill the federal mandate for curb ramps at everypedestrian crossing.

Action 1.3.9. Continue and expandthe City’s program of on-demandsidewalk repairs.


Develop an environment through-out the City – prioritizing routesto school and transit – thatenables pedestrians to travel safelyand freely.

General Plan Policies

� Policy T3.5, Including Bikeways

and Pedestrian Walks. “The Cityshould include bikeways and pedes-trian walks in the planning of new,reconstructed, or realized streets,wherever possible” (LUTE, p. 57).

� Policy T4.6, Making Transportation

Accessible for Everyone.

“Alternative modes of transporta-tion should be accessible for all ofOakland’s population. Including theelderly, disabled, and disadvan-taged” (LUTE, p. 58).

� Policy T4.7, Reusing Abandoned

Rail Lines. “Where rail lines(including siding and spurs) are tobe abandoned, first considerationshould be given to acquiring theline for transportation and recre-ational uses, such as bikeways,

footpaths, or public transit”(LUTE, p. 59).

� Policy T4.10, Converting Underused

Travel Lanes. “Take advantage ofexisting transportation infrastruc-ture and capacity that is underuti-lized. For example, where possibleand desirable, convert underusedtravel lanes to bicycle or pedestrianpaths or amenities” (LUTE, p. 59).

Policies and Action Items

PMP Policy 2.1. Route Network:Create and maintain a pedestrianroute network that provides directconnections between activity centers.

Action 2.1.1. Improve existing con-nections across/under freeways toactivity centers using lighting,acoustics, and other design features.

Action 2.1.2. Develop a system ofsignage for pedestrian facilitiesincluding walkways and trails.

Action 2.1.3. Create trails, identifiedin the Open Space, Conservation,and Recreation (OSCAR) Element

that follow creeks and help promotethe restoration of those creeks.

Action 2.1.4. Avoid the use of pedestrian overpasses and underpass-es for pedestrian crossings on surfacestreets (FHWA 2002b, p. 49).


Goal 2: Pedestrian Access

Action 2.1.5. Install signage to dis-courage drivers from using localstreets as through routes.

Action 2.1.6. Conduct a study toidentify streets with underused trav-el lanes for potential traffic calmingprojects including restriping, lanereduction, and sidewalk widening.

Action 2.1.7. Srive to maintain theexisting walkways to ensure thatthey are safe and free of debris and vegetation.

Action 2.1.8. To the maximumextent possible, make walkwaysaccessible to people with physicaldisabilities.

PMP Policy 2.2. Safe Routes toSchool: Develop projects and pro-grams to improve pedestrian safetyaround schools.

Action 2.2.1. Using the PedestrianRoute Network as a base, workwith schools having the highestwalking rates to designate, improve,and publicize safe routes to school.

Action 2.2.2. Implement a seamlessschool safety program that coordi-nates adult crossing guards, studentsafety patrols, and parent volunteersto ensure that all schools have ade-quate traffic safety programs.

Action 2.2.3. Prioritize crossing andsidewalk improvements aroundschools with the greatest number ofchild pedestrian/vehicle collisions.

Action 2.2.4. Work with schoolshaving inadequate pick-up anddrop-off facilities to develop com-pensatory programs.

Action 2.2.5. All new schools inOakland should consider vehicle

pick-up and drop-off areas to accom-modate child pedestrian safety.

PMP Policy 2.3. Safe Routes toTransit: Implement pedestrianimprovements along major ACTransit lines and at BART stations to strengthen connections to transit.

Action 2.3.1. Develop and imple-ment street designs (like bus bulb-outs) that improve pedestrian/bus connections.

Action 2.3.2. Prioritize pedestrianimprovements at transit locationswith the highest pedestrian vol-umes and the most pedestrian/vehicle collisions.

Action 2.3.3. Prioritize the imple-mentation of street furniture(including bus shelters) at the mostheavily used transit stops.

Action 2.3.4. Improve pedestrianwayfinding by providing local areamaps and directional signage at major AC Transit stops and BART stations.


Provide pedestrian amenities and promote land uses that enhance public spaces and neighborhoodcommercial districts.

General Plan Policies

� Policy T6.2, Improving

Streetscapes. “The City shouldmake major efforts to improve thevisual quality of streetscapes.Design of the streetscape, particu-larly in neighborhoods and com-mercial centers, should be pedestri-an-oriented and include lighting,directional signs, trees, benches,and other support facilities”(LUTE, p. 60).

� Policy T2.2, Guiding Transit-

Oriented Development. “Transit-oriented developments should bepedestrian oriented, encouragenight and day time use, provide theneighborhood with needed goodsand services, contain a mix of landuses, and be designed to be compat-ible with the character of surround-ing neighborhoods” (LUTE, p. 56).

Policies and Action ItemsPMP Policy 3.1. Streetscaping:Encourage the inclusion of street fur-niture, landscaping, and art in pedes-trian improvement projects.

Action 3.1.1. Identify pedestrianroutes in neighborhood commercialdistricts and in the downtown to pri-oritize streetscaping improvements.

Action 3.1.2. Budget funds for theconcrete cutting of tree pits to facil-itate the City’s street tree program.

Action 3.1.3. Prioritize the replace-ment of dead or missing trees atlocations with existing tree pits.

Action 3.1.4. Include pedestrian-scalelighting in streetscaping projects.

Action 3.1.5. Use part of the City’s1.5% Public Art Ordinance andseek additional funding sources toincorporate public art into thePedestrian Route Network.

Action 3.1.6. Work with communitygroups to install signs, artwork, andlandscaping that highlight historicaland community landmarks.

PMP Policy 3.2. Land Use: Promoteland uses and site designs that makewalking convenient and enjoyable.

Action 3.2.1. Use building and zoningcodes to encourage a mix of uses,connect entrances and exits to side-walks, and eliminate “blank walls”to promote street level activity.

Action 3.2.2. Promote parking anddevelopment policies that encouragemultiple destinations within an areato be connected by pedestrian trips.

Action 3.2.3. Consider implementing“pedestrian only” areas in locationswith the largest pedestrian volumes.


Goal 3: Streetscaping and Land Use

Action 3.2.4. Require contractors toprovide safe, convenient, and acces-sible pedestrian rights-of-way alongconstruction sites that require side-walk closure.

Action 3.2.5. Continue the programsto clean up trash and blighted build-ings at the street level and expandthe use of business associations inthis regard.

Action 3.2.6. Encourage the inclu-sion of public walkways or trails inlarge, private developments.

Action 3.2.7. Encourage the develop-ment of pocket parks and plazasthat are along the Pedestrian RouteNetwork.

Action 3.2.8. Discourage motorvehicle parking facilities that createblank walls, unscreened edges alongsidewalks, and/or gaps betweensidewalks and building entrances.


Educate citizens, communitygroups, business associations, and developers on the safety, health, and civic benefits of walkable communities.

General Plan Policies� Objective T4, Alternative Modes

of Transportation. “Increase use of alternative modes of trans-portation” (LUTE, p. 58).

� Policy T4.2, Creating

Transportation Incentives.

“Through cooperation with otheragencies, the City should createincentives to encourage travelers touse alternative transportationoptions” (LUTE, p.58).

Policies and Action ItemsPMP Policy 4.1. Education. Promotesafe and courteous walking and drivingand the benefits of walking throughtargeted outreach programs.

Action 4.1.1. Sponsor Walk toSchool Day as an annual, city-wideevent that encourages people to

walk and promotes both pedestrianand driver safety around schools.

Action 4.1.2. Sponsor PedestrianSafety Week as an annual, city-wide educational event to promotepedestrian and driver safety.

Action 4.1.3. Continue the use of SafeMoves Town in public schools as aneducational tool for pedestrian safety.

Action 4.1.4. Publicize the PedestrianRoute Network through the internetand other means.

Action 4.1.5. Publicize the networkof walkways in brochures thatexplain their history and describesuggested walking tours.

Action 4.1.6. Work with residentsand community groups to expandthe network of walkways on existingCity rights-of-way.

Action 4.1.7. Publicize the City’saudible pedestrian signal networkand provide wayfinding orientationfor persons with visual impairmentsthrough the Mayor’s Commission

on Persons with Disabilities andlocal organizations.

PMP Policy 4.2. Enforcement:Prioritize the enforcement of traffic lawsthat protect the lives of pedestrians.

Action 4.2.1. Develop a fine struc-ture that discourages walking anddriving behaviors that threaten thesafety or access of pedestrians.

Action 4.2.2. Continue the programof radar trailer deployment in highspeed areas.

Action 4.2.3. Continue the programof targeted enforcement of the pedestrian’s right-of-way atunsignalized crosswalks.

Action 4.2.4. Continue the “Stop”program that takes unqualified drivers off the road.

Action 4.2.5. As part of the city budg-et process, consider if an adequatenumber of officers are assigned to traffic enforcement and if additionalofficers could be funded through addi-tional citation revenue.


Goal 4: Education

This chapter concludes with a sectionidentifying marked crosswalks, speedhumps, and pedestrian auto-detectionas issues for further discussion. Theseissues require ongoing debate becausethey lack consensus for establishingpolicy positions in the PedestrianMaster Plan. The differing viewpointson these issues are presented here tofacilitate further discussion on howbest to promote pedestrian safety andaccess in the City of Oakland.

Marked CrosswalksMarked crosswalks are a basic designtreatment for pedestrian crossings. InOakland, they are common at signal-ized and unsignalized intersectionsand comparatively rare at mid-blocklocations. The California Vehicle Coderecognizes crosswalks at all locationswhere streets with sidewalks meet atapproximately right angles (CVCSection 275). This definition appliesfor both marked and unmarked cross-walks except at those locations wherea local authority has placed signs thatprohibit crossing. In the United States,marked crosswalks have been contro-versial because of a complicated history of research on crosswalk safetyand differing approaches for ensuringpedestrian safety.

The City of Oakland’s current cross-walk policy is that new crosswalkswill be installed only at signalized orstop-controlled intersections.Additionally, some signalized intersec-tions in Oakland have recently hadcrosswalks removed that were recog-

nized as especially dangerous forpedestrians. These intersectionsinclude Webster Street at 10th Streetand Lakeshore Avenue at E. 18thStreet. In these instances, pedestriansafety has been promoted by eliminat-ing dangerous crossings.

This policy follows a study by Herms(1972) that found a greater incidence ofpedestrian collisions in marked cross-walks than in unmarked crosswalks at400 uncontrolled intersections in SanDiego, California. A recent study in theCity of Los Angeles found that markedcrosswalks at uncontrolled intersectionsnegatively impacted pedestrian safety(Jones and Tomcheck 2000). To enhancepedestrian safety, the City of Los Angelesis removing many crosswalks citywide.

With this approach, the primary pur-pose of a marked crosswalk is to directpedestrians to a designated location tocross the street. The installation ofcrosswalks beyond this basic purpose isseen as giving the pedestrian a falsesense of security and diluting the effectof crosswalks on drivers.


Issues for Further Discussion

To promote the goals of pedestriansafety and access, the PedestrianMaster Plan recognizes that safe andconvenient crossings are a necessarycomponent of a walkable city. TheCalifornia Vehicle Code explains,“[I]t is the intent of the Legislaturethat all levels of government in thestate, particularly the Department ofTransportation, work to provide con-venient and safe passage for pedestri-ans on and across all streets and high-ways…” (CVC 21949).

The importance of pedestrian accesssuggests that the City of Oakland’scrosswalk policy may benefit fromreconsideration. Marked crosswalksdemonstrate that under state lawpedestrians are legitimate users of theroadway at designated locations.Unfortunately, many pedestrians anddrivers are unaware that unmarkedcrosswalks are legally recognized inthe State of California. This issue isof particular importance because Statelaw specifies that pedestrians have theright-of-way in all legally recognized

crosswalks. Furthermore, the con-trasting colors of marked crosswalksprovide an important resource forpersons with visual impairments whennavigating city streets.

The Pedestrian Master Plan proposesthe reconsideration of Oakland’sexisting crosswalk policy in light ofresearch published in 2002 by theFederal Highway Administration(FHWA 2002a, 2002b) that empha-sizes the importance of both pedestri-an safety and access at crossings. Thisresearch recognizes that the markedcrosswalk is only one of many con-temporary design treatments forensuring safe pedestrian crossings.Where safety considerations permit,crosswalks should be installed to pro-mote pedestrian access. When safecrosswalks cannot be installed ontheir own, additional design treat-ments should be evaluated and imple-mented to ensure that those crossingsare in fact safe. Chapter 5 titled“Design Elements” identifies treat-ments that may be combined with

marked crosswalks to ensure safe andaccessible crossings.

Speed HumpsOakland’s current speed hump pro-gram installed approximately 1,600speed humps on residential streetsfrom March 1, 1995 through March1, 2000. Installation requires a peti-tion with signatures representing 67%of the addresses on the block in ques-tion. A recent evaluation of speedhumps in Oakland shows that chil-dren who have a speed hump on theirblock are 50% less likely to beinjured by a motor vehicle collision(Tester 2001). Speed humps may havebrought down average speeds to thepoint where some collisions are being


Issues for Further Discussion

avoided altogether and the severity ofinjuries is being moderated by slowermotor vehicle speeds.

However, speed humps have twonotable drawbacks. First, they createdelays in emergency vehicle responsetimes. Second, they may cause discom-fort and possible injury for peoplewith disabilities when driving overthem. The City of Oakland is currentlyevaluating chicanes and slow points(also known as chokers) as alternativesto speed humps for slowing motorvehicle traffic on neighborhood streets.(See Chapter 5 on Design Elements forfurther discussion of these treatments.)At this time, the speed hump programremains in effect and no alternativehas been identified with comparableefficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Pedestrian Auto-DetectionPedestrian auto-detection is a conceptfor the automatic detection of pedes-trians at intersections. At traffic sig-nals that do not include pedestrianphases with every signal cycle, pedes-

trians must press buttons to requestsignal phases. At traffic signals thatare not on timers, the presence ofmotor vehicles is commonly recog-nized by a loop detector embedded in the street that triggers the signalphase for those waiting vehicles. New types of detectors based on electromagnetic sensors are creatingadditional possibilities for servingintersection users. However, two sig-nificant issues indicate that pedestrianauto-detection remains an unresolvedissue for the City of Oakland. First,the technology remains unprovenbecause it is characterized by an unac-ceptable rate of false triggers. Second,the concept of pedestrian auto-detec-tion is arguable because the act ofpushing a button may be a reminderto the pedestrian to be careful whencrossing the street.

While the technology remainsunproven, the Pedestrian Master Planrecognizes that it could develop to thepoint where the auto-detection ofpedestrians is technically reliable.

If such systems emerge, they wouldhave three significant advantages.First, people with visual impairmentswould not need to find pedestrian callbuttons. Pedestrian auto-detectionwould also eliminate the need ofretrofitting push buttons with audiblecall buttons. Second, such detectorscould dynamically set the length ofthe pedestrian phase by recognizingwhen people have not cleared theintersection in the allotted time. Byusing real-time sensing, the systemcould provide additional crossing timefor those who need it. Third, pedestri-an auto-detection would provideequal treatment for pedestrians atintersections where motor vehicles arecurrently auto-detected. These sys-tems could also be used at crosswalkswhere push buttons would otherwisebe located in inconvenient locations.


Chapter 5 Design Elements


I have met but one or two people who understand the art of walking.Henry David Thoreau, American Philosopher

This section identifies design elementsfor improving Oakland streets, side-walks, and paths. Rather than propos-ing design standards, the PedestrianMaster Plan presents design elementsto inform designers, planners, and pol-icymakers on available design treat-ments and best practices for pedestri-ans. When implementing these ele-ments, engineering judgment willdetermine the specific locations andfeatures of each design.

The Design Elements are organizedinto the following three sections. First,the Sidewalk Guidelines section givesminimum requirements for sidewalksand utility zones. Second, the CrossingTreatments section explains best prac-tices for crosswalks and corners. Andthird, the Traffic Calming sectionpresents concepts for reducing motorvehicle speeds.

Proposed sidewalk guidelines apply to new development and depend uponavailable street width, motor vehiclevolumes, surrounding land uses, andpedestrian activity levels. Standardizingsidewalk guidelines ensures a minimumlevel of quality for all sidewalks.

The City of Oakland currentlyrequires a minimum 48" wide side-walk with a 36" through passage fornew development. For projects thatretrofit existing sidewalks, widthmust conform to the existing condi-tions on the block. These dimensionsconform to sidewalk requirementsfound in the Americans withDisabilities Act AccessibilityGuidelines (ADAAG) which are

minimum widths for passage, notsidewalk width recommendations.

The Institute for TransportationEngineers recommends planning side-walks that are a minimum 60" widewith a planting strip of 24" on localstreets and in residential and commer-cial areas.

Sidewalk and Utility Zone Widths

Sidewalks consist of the through pas-sage zone and the utility zone. Thethrough passage zone is the paved partof the sidewalk pedestrians use. Thiszone should be wide enough to accom-modate different walking speeds andshared use by people with mobility

aids. It should also be proportionate tostreet size and pedestrian volumes.

All streets require a utility zone to accommodate above ground public infrastructure including street furniture, lampposts, street trees, and signs. Locating this infrastructurein the utility zone prevents it fromencroaching on the through passagezone. The utility zone also creates animportant buffer between pedestrians

and motor vehicles by providing ahorizontal separation and a verticalbuffer. Vertical elements like utilitypoles, signs, parking meters, andstreet trees improve pedestrian safetyand comfort by buffering the sidewalk


Sidewalk Guidelines

60"

ILLUSTRATION 12

SIDEWALK FOR TWO PEDESTRIANS

ILLUSTRATION 13

SIDEWALK FOR TWO PEDESTRIANS

IN WHEELCHAIRS

72"

48"

ILLUSTRATION 14

EXISTING OAKLAND SIDEWALK STANDARD


from travel lanes. This bufferingeffect is similar to that provided bycurbside motor vehicle parking.

On local hill streets where sidewalksare not possible, a wide shoulder orsidewalk striping with parking restric-tions is an acceptable alternative.Walkways and trails do not have utili-ty zones but still require a minimumthrough passage zone. For accessibili-ty for persons with disabilities, side-walks should be continuous, stable,firm, and slip-resistant with minimumrunning slopes and cross slopes.

The proposed guidelines would applyto sidewalks accompanying newdevelopment with sufficient right-of-way. For sidewalk retrofits, theexisting City policy of sidewalk widthconforming to existing conditionswould still apply.

Sidewalk MaterialsPaving materials should be consistent,durable, accessible to people usingmobility aids, and smooth enough forpassage but not slippery. Concrete

paving is recommended for arterial,collector, and local sidewalks. Theconcrete should be textured for safetyand scored to match existing patterns.In pedestrian activity areas, paintedcurbs should be textured to ensuretraction. To support pedestrians,cyclists, and joggers, trails may beconstructed of asphalt, crushed gran-ite, or bark mulch. However, concreteis the preferred paving material.

Special paving may occur at neighbor-hood commercial areas, schools, andparks to give them a distinctive identity. Acceptable materials includebrick or concrete pavers, stained orscored concrete, decorative tile, rubberized sidewalk coatings, stone,slate, and granite if they provide aconsistently smooth travel surface and

good traction. The careful selection of such materials for contrasting colors or textures can provide valuablewayfinding cues for people with visual impairments.

WalkwaysWalkways are usually made of con-crete, wood, or stone. The construc-tion of new walkways and the recon-struction of existing walkways shouldavoid wood to minimize long-termmaintenance costs. Where wood isused, the construction should be ofRedwood or Douglas Fir. Continuoushandrails of wood on wood stairs andmetal on concrete stairs are requiredon both sides. Stairs should have 7"closed risers, 11" treads with non-slipsurfacing, contrasting striping, andsufficient clearance from surrounding

STREET TYPE THROUGH PASSAGE ZONE UTILITY ZONE TOTAL WIDTH

ARTERIAL (CITY) 96" 48" 144"

COLLECTOR (DISTRICT) 72" 48" 120"

LOCAL (NEIGHBORHOOD) 60" 48" 108"

WALKWAY 48" - 48"

TRAIL 72" - 72"

FIGURE 22 PROPOSED SIDEWALK GUIDELINES


Sidewalk Guidelines

48"

ILLUSTRATION 16

DISTRICT SIDEWALK SECTION

ILLUSTRATION 15

CITY SIDEWALK SECTION

ILLUSTRATION 18

WALKWAY SECTION

72"

ILLUSTRATION 17

NEIGHBORHOOD SIDEWALK SECTION

48" 96" 48" 60"

48"


vegetation. Stair flights should be 12’ in length or less and separated by5’ landings with concrete footings.

LightingPedestrian-scale lighting improvesaccessibility by illuminating side-walks, crosswalks, curbs, curb ramps,and signs as well as barriers andpotential hazards. From the pedestri-an’s point of view, frequent lamppostsof lower height and illumination arepreferred over fewer lampposts thatare very tall and bright. The Plan rec-ommends the use of pedestrian-scalelighting in areas of high pedestrianactivity and where implementation ispractical. Lampposts should be staggered on opposite sides of the

street and be placed at crosswalks,bus stops, and corners. These lamp-posts provide vertical buffers betweenthe sidewalk and street and helpdefine pedestrian areas.

Pedestrian-scale lighting and motorvehicle-scale lighting each should beprovided as a complement to the otherto ensure that both sidewalks andtravel lanes are effectively illuminated.

Pedestrian-scale lighting may beinstalled between existing lamppoststo obtain the frequencies given in thetable below. They must be located atleast ten feet from the full growthcanopy of adjacent trees. Poles andfixtures should be chosen from existing

models identified by the City. Existingstandards require hoods on lamppoststo reduce light pollution.

ILLUSTRATION 19 ROUTE LIGHTING

STREET LAMPPOST DISTANCE BETWEEN SIDEWALK CROSSWALKTYPE HEIGHT LAMPPOSTS ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION

ARTERIAL 14’ 50’ 0.9 FC (10 LUX) 2.0 FC (22 LUX)

COLLECTOR 12’ 50’ 0.6 FC (6 LUX) 1.0 FC (11 LUX)

LOCAL 12’ 50’ 0.2 FC (2 LUX) 0.5 FC (5 LUX)

WALKWAY 12’ 30’ (OR AT LANDINGS) 0.2 FC (2 LUX) 0.5 FC (5 LUX)

TRAIL 12’ 30’ 0.2 FC (2 LUX) 0.5 FC (5 LUX)

FIGURE 23 PROPOSED LIGHTING GUIDELINES (FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, 2001)

Sidewalk Guidelines

These hoods should also be designedto direct lighting onto the sidewalks.The installation of new lightingshould take into account potentialoverflows that may adversely affectadjacent residents. The proposedlighting guidelines provide guidancein establishing adequate pedestrian-scale lighting for a range of rights-of-way. The implementation of pedestri-an-scale lighting should occur as partof pedestrian-oriented street projectsas they are completed in the City.The Pedestrian Master Plan does notpropose stand-alone lighting projects.

Signage

The Pedestrian Route Network willinclude signage for pedestrians to aidin wayfinding. The signs will consist of a distinctive logo and directionalguidance to neighborhood destinations.They will be attached to lampposts andlocated at decision points along theroute network.

For example, destinations like theOakland Rose Garden are often

invisible from adjacent streets likeOakland and Grand Avenues andwould benefit from pedestrian-scalesignage. The City of Berkeley’s bicycleboulevard program includes a success-ful signage component that may serveas an exemplar. Pedestrian signagewill comply with the criteria for char-acter proportion, height, and contrastspecified by the Manual on UniformTraffic Control Devices and theAmericans with Disabilities ActAccessibility Guidelines. The imple-mentation of these signs should occuras part of pedestrian-oriented streetprojects as they are completed in the City. The Plan does not proposestand-alone signage projects.

PlantingsTrees are a dramatic street improve-ment that creates an attractive visualand psychological separation forpedestrians between the sidewalk andthe roadway. Trees may also encour-age drivers to move through an areamore slowly. They can be located inthe utility zone to provide sidewalkshading or placed between on-streetparking spaces in tree bulb-outs wheresidewalks are narrow. (See the expla-nation of Bulb-outs, below.) For highpedestrian traffic areas, crushed granitein tree wells is preferred over tree grat-ings. Tree cages are also acceptable.Refer to the City of Oakland StreetTree Plan for appropriate tree types,


ILLUSTRATION 20 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE SIGNAGE

ILLUSTRATION 21 TREE WELL

spacing, tree well sizes, maintenancestandards, and potential conflicts withutilities and street lights. The StreetTree Plan is available from theDepartment of Parks and Recreation.

Street FurnitureStreet furniture includes benches, mail-boxes, trash and recycling receptacles,bike racks, newspaper boxes, drinkingfountains, information boards, kiosks,parking meters, artwork, publicphones, signs, bus shelters, and otheritems used by pedestrians. These fea-tures humanize the scale of a streetand encourage pedestrian activity.Street furniture should be placed in the utility zone to maintain throughpassage zones for pedestrians and toprovide a buffer between the sidewalkand the street. For bus shelters oncrowded sidewalks, bus bulb-outs arerecommended for providing additionalspace. (See the explanation of Bulb-outs, below.) Bus shelters should alsohave clearly displayed bus schedulesand city maps for way-finding.

Building EdgesPlacement of street furniture alongbuilding edges is acceptable if thethrough passage zone is preserved.Buildings with lower floor windows,canopies for rain protection, tables,umbrellas, signs, planters, benches,and other street furniture contributeto street life and enhance the pedes-trian environment.

WayfindingStraightforward and predictable rout-ing along sidewalks supports wayfind-ing by persons with visual impair-ments. Open areas that do not have

detectable landmarks like curbs andbuilding edges may not provide suffi-cient cues. Where a sidewalk bordersa park, parking lot, or building set-back, a raised edge should be providedas a shoreline for cane travelers.Tactile curb markings may also beused to indicate the location of streetedges and pedestrian crossings. Thesidewalk’s through passage zoneshould not be obstructed or narrowedby street furniture, especially at turnsand ramps. Additionally, itemsinstalled for pedestrian use on oralong sidewalks should be accessiblefor persons with disabilities.

DrivewaysDriveway entrances can be both dan-gerous and inconvenient for pedestri-ans. Driveway curbcuts that extendinto the through passage zone maycause people on foot or in wheelchairs


ILLUSTRATION 22 BUS BULB-OUT


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 parking.

As redevelopment or new developmentallows, minimum driveway widths andfrequencies should be promoted as permitted by the planning code.Wherever 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 possible.Driveways should also be spaced at aminimum of 20’ to reduce the amountof curbside parking eliminated.


Crossing Treatments

Crossing treatments help pedestriansget from one side of the road to theother and provide continuity to side-walks. Crossing treatments are classi-fied as either passive or active treat-ments. Passive treatments are physicalimprovements like crosswalks or curbramps that do not change in time.Active treatments like traffic signalsand audible pedestrian signals havemultiple states that are triggered byautomated detection or activated bypedestrians. Both types of treatmentsmay be combined to create a compre-

hensive crossing system. With all treat-ments, engineering judgment is neces-sary to determine the specific locationsand features of each project.

Passive CrossingTreatmentsCrosswalksSafe and frequent pedestrian crossingsare a basic building block of the pedestrian infrastructure. A crosswalkis an area of roadway designated forpedestrian crossings and is a continua-tion of the sidewalk across an intersec-

tion. In addition to marked crosswalks,unmarked crosswalks are legally recog-nized at most intersections of streetsthat have sidewalks and meet at rightangles. California State law requiresdrivers to yield to pedestrians in bothmarked and unmarked crosswalks.Marked crosswalks should be straightfor easy navigation and perpendicularto the sidewalks to minimize crosswalklength. However, ensuring the safety ofcrossings is the most important priori-ty and engineering judgment should beused on a case-by-case basis. In loca-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 access.

The 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 titled“FHWA Crosswalk Guidelines.”ILLUSTRATION 24 ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONILLUSTRATION 23 LOCAL INTERSECTION

Crosswalk Striping Crosswalks can be marked with paint,reflective tape, signs, and/or lighting.Two types of crosswalk striping areused in Oakland: standard striping and high-visibility ladder striping.Crosswalks marked in yellow indicatethat a crossing is in a school zone.While striping of all four legs of anintersection is recommended, engineer-ing judgment should be used in all cases.

High contrast crosswalk striping alsohelps people with visual impairmentsto cross streets. Striping should corre-spond to the width and location ofsidewalks. For improved wayfinding,

crosswalk edge stripes can be slightlyraised for people using canes.

Crosswalk Paving

Crosswalks may be further markedwith distinctive paving materials, col-ors, or textures. Concrete is preferredover brick for its durability. Concretemay be stained or embossed with pat-terns to give crossings in a particulararea a distinctive feel. Textures shouldbe selected to provide a smooth travelsurface and good traction. Pedestriancrossings at railroad tracks should useconcrete rather than asphalt to ensureas smooth and constant of travel sur-face as possible. Asphalt is a poormaterial for railroad crossings becauseit tends to curl and crumble at itsedges along the rails.

Curb Ramps

According to ADA regulations, allstreets with sidewalks and curbs orother barriers must have curb rampsat intersections (U.S. Access Board1999, p. 58). The City of Oaklandrequires curb ramp installation at all

street intersections contained withinstreet resurfacing, sidewalk improve-ment, utility, new construction, andalteration projects. New curb rampsmust comply with the requirements of the State of California Code ofRegulations Title 24 and theAmericans with Disabilities ActAccessibility Guidelines.

Curb ramps should be oriented todirect pedestrians to the opposite cor-ner and to provide a direct connectionbetween the sidewalk through passagezone and the crosswalk. Diagonal corner curb ramps are sometimes an


Crossing Treatments

ILLUSTRATION 25 CROSSWALK STRIPING ILLUSTRATION 26 ACCESSIBLE INTERSECTION


acceptable alternative for retrofits.However, signalized intersections onarterial streets should have one curbramp per marked crosswalk at eachcorner. Refer to City of OaklandStandard Details for Public Works forcurb ramp design guidelines.

Texture and ContrastSharply contrasting colors help peoplewith visual impairments identify cross-walks and the boundaries betweensidewalks and roadways. Corners andcrosswalks should be boldly markedwith contrasting colors and textures.Markings can be designed to be bothfunctional and attractive.

Bulb-outsBulb-outs reduce the crossing distancefor pedestrians, increase visibility formotorists and pedestrians, prevent ille-gal parking at corners, and provideadditional room for people waiting tocross the street. The added space mayalso be used for street furniture likebenches, bike racks, and street trees.Bulb-outs are also important foraccessibility because they providespace for curb ramps, crossing but-tons, and a safe waiting area. Busbulb-outs provide space for bus shelters and increase the pick up anddrop off efficiency of transit.

Wherever possible, a bulb-out locatedat a bus stop should be designed as abus bulb-out. If a bus bulb-out is notpossible, the bulb-out should bedesigned with special care so as not tointerfere with bus movements. Treebulb-outs can be used where sidewalkswould otherwise be too narrow forplantings. Bulb-outs can be used atmid-block crossings and are beneficialwhen combined with pedestrian

refuges. All bulb-outs should extendinto the street no further than the edgeof the travel or bike lane. Bulb-outsand accompanying street furniture willrequire additional maintenance.

Refuge IslandsRefuge islands are located at cross-walks in the middle of streets to provide a safe waiting area for pedes-trians. They may include curbs andbollards to ensure the safety of wait-ing pedestrians. A refuge island maybe part of a median or a stand-alonefeature (see Medians below). Byallowing pedestrians to cross only halfof the street and then wait, the refugeisland increases the number of gaps in

ILLUSTRATION 27 BULB-OUTS


traffic that are safe for crossing. Whileincreasing the visibility of pedestriancrossings, refuge islands decrease thepercentage of pedestrian collisions byreducing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts,motor vehicle speeds, and exposuretime for pedestrians (FHWA 2002b, p.72). The waiting area in refuge islands

should be in line with the crosswalkand as wide as the crosswalk such thatpersons with disabilities are able topass through without obstruction.

Corner RadiusA corner’s turning radius determineshow fast a driver can comfortably makea turn. A tighter turn or shorter radiusforces drivers to slow down allowingthem to see pedestrians better and stopmore quickly. Slow corners with shortturning radii increase safety for pedes-trians at intersections by creating moresidewalk space and less road space. A decreased curb radius also allows forthe placement of curb ramps that arealigned parallel to crosswalks. A 10'turning radius is recommended forstreets with curbside parking. Forstreets without curbside parking, a 20'turning radius is recommended.

Streets with significant volumes of trucktraffic may also have larger corner radii.

Slip TurnsAlso known as free right turns, slipturns allow motor vehicles to corner athigher speeds and merge with throughvehicle traffic. However, drivers lookingover their left shoulders to merge withvehicle traffic are less likely to seepedestrians entering the intersectionfrom the right. The removal of slipturns decreases pedestrian crossing distances, reduces the speed of turningvehicles, and improves pedestrian visi-bility. To address these three issues, slip turns may be converted to conven-tional corners or made into pedestrianareas with benches, transit stops, light-ing, or selective planting. Where slipturns cannot be eliminated, the problemof vehicle speed may be addressed withtraffic signals. However, this solutiondoes not address the increased crossingdistance and decreased visibility createdby slip turns. The problem of visibilitymay be addressed with an improved slipturn design (FHWA 2002b, p. 59).

Crossing Treatments

ILLUSTRATION 28 REFUGE ISLAND

ILLUSTRATION 29

BULB-OUTS AND REFUGE ISLAND

ILLUSTRATION 30 CORNER RADIUS


Safety Barrels, Posts, and BollardsAdding vertical elements at the road-way center line is an inexpensive solution for slowing motor vehicletraffic and improving safety at pedes-trian crossings. They can also be usedtemporarily to test and fine-tune proposed crossing treatments such asrefuge islands or bulb-outs. Barrels,

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 Oakland.Their inclusion in this plan does notindicate approval or endorsement bythe Public Works Agency.

Flashers and Overhead SignsFlashers are signs showing the univer-sal pedestrian symbol hung from amast arm that extends over the street.The symbol may be marked in stan-dard yellow, fluorescent yellow, orLED displays. They alert drivers topedestrian activity and mitigate safetyconcerns. Flashers are even more visi-ble when combined with overheadsigns indicating a pedestrian crossing.

Speed Limit SignsSpeed limit signs should be posted regularly according to Federal guide-lines and standards.

Stop SignsDrivers are more likely to yield topedestrians when they are alreadystopped at an intersection. However,stop signs may only be installed wherethe combined crossing volume of vehicles and pedestrians is comparableto the main street traffic volume.

Active CrossingTreatmentsTraffic SignalsTraffic signals provide protected cross-ing opportunities for pedestrians andmay be used with other solutions categorized as either passive or active.Traffic signals can be especially

ILLUSTRATION 31 SLIP TURN BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 33 STOP SIGN

ILLUSTRATION 32 SLIP TURN AFTER


effective at maintaining vehicle flowwhile limiting vehicle speeds to pro-vide a safe and comfortable pedestrianenvironment. However, such speedregulation requires numerous trafficsignals on a single street and the careful coordination of traffic signal timings. See also PedestrianSignals below.

Pedestrian Signals

Pedestrian signals work in conjunctionwith traffic signals to assign right-of-

way 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”that is readily identifiable for peoplewith limited vision.

The timing of traffic signals may beadjusted in the following ways to ben-efit pedestrians. These approaches areexperimental and should be tailored toparticular circumstances by engineer-ing judgment.

� Set the Walk Phase based on awalking speed of 3.5 ft/sec at inter-sections commonly used by seniorsor persons with disabilities. TheCity establishes standard crossingtimes based on a walking speed of 4 ft/sec.

� Leading Pedestrian Interval Timingimproves the visibility of pedestri-ans by allowing them to enter anintersection before vehicles withconflicting movements.

� Scramble Pedestrian Signals allowpedestrians to cross in all directionsduring the walk phase. The City ofOakland has tested such a system at 8th and Webster Streets althoughthis system has not yet been approvedby State or Federal agencies.

� Countdown Signals let pedestriansknow the exact amount of timeremaining in the walk phase. Thesesystems are being installed through-out San Francisco although theyhave not yet been approved by Stateor Federal agencies.

� Audible Signals indicate to personswho are blind or have low vision

Crossing Treatments

ILLUSTRATION 34 TRAFFIC SIGNAL


the direction in which it is safe tocross. They should be installed atintersections with new traffic signals,actuated signal timings, complex traffic patterns, or irregular trafficvolumes. Traffic signals should beretrofitted wherever there is a requestfrom persons with visual impairments.

Pedestrian Call Buttons

Pedestrian call buttons and kickplatesallow pedestrians to request a signalphase for safe crossing. Audible callbuttons should be installed in conjunc-tion with audible pedestrian signals.They should be conveniently located

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).

FlagsPedestrian flags increase the visibilityof pedestrians who carry them atcrosswalks. The bright orange flagsare an inexpensive approach toimproving safety at high volumeintersections. The City of Berkeley is currently experimenting withpedestrian flags. They are not cur-rently used by the City of Oakland.Their inclusion in this plan does not indicate approval or endorsementby the Public Works Agency.

ILLUSTRATION 35 AUDIBLE SIGNAL


Traffic calming modifies the physicalarrangement of a street to deflect thepath of motor vehicles and therebyslow traffic. It provides a cost-effec-tive alternative to traffic signals forreducing motor vehicle speeds andimproving pedestrian safety. Twotypes of deflection are discussed inthis section:

� Vertical deflection slows traffic bymaking motor vehicles drive overtraffic calming devices.

� Horizontal deflection slows motorvehicles by changing the streetwidth or course of travel.

Vertical DeflectionSpeed HumpsSpeed humps are broad and gentlysloping mounds of asphalt addedacross the width of a street to slowtraffic. They are like speed bumpsexcept they tend to be wider such thatthe slope of the bump is more gradual.Oakland has installed speed humps on many neighborhood streets as partof its citywide traffic calming effort.

To qualify for a speed hump in theCity of Oakland, a street must meetthe following criteria:

� It must be classified as a local street.

� 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 mph.

� The block must not be on ACTransit route.

� The street cannot be a cul-de-sac or dead-end street.

� It must be in a grid street system.

� It must not be in the Oakland Hills area.

Rumble Strips

Rumble strips are textured materialsin pavement such as raised plasticbumps that make a rumbling soundwhen cars pass over. They may beused to create awareness of upcomingpedestrian traffic or of speed limittransitions like at freeway off-ramps.

Traffic Calming

ILLUSTRATION 36 SPEED HUMP


Raised CrosswalksRaised crosswalks provide a continu-ous street crossing for pedestrians atsidewalk level. They additionally worklike speed humps to slow motor vehicle traffic at crosswalks. Whileeliminating the need for curb ramps,raised crosswalks should be marked or textured so that persons with visualimpairments are able to identify thestreet edge. The City of Oakland cur-rently does not use raised crosswalks.

Horizontal Deflection Slow PointsA slow point is an extension of thesidewalk curb in the middle of a block.Slow points are also known as chokersbecause they narrow the street to slowdown motorists. Slow points and bulb-outs are similar in that both extend the curb line to narrow the street andthereby slow traffic. However, bulb-outs are located at crosswalks whereasslow points are not. The extra public

space created by a slow point may be used for benches, bike racks, orstreet trees. Slow points and theiraccompanying street furniture mayrequire additional maintenance com-pared to unimproved street segments.

ChicanesChicanes 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 POINT

ILLUSTRATION 38 CHICANES

ILLUSTRATION 40 ROUNDABOUT

ILLUSTRATION 39 TRAFFIC CIRCLE


Traffic 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 direction.Traffic circles can include landscapingor trees.

RoundaboutsRoundabouts are an alternative to signalized intersections. They use araised 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).

Traffic Calming

ILLUSTRATION 41 NARROW LANES BEFORE


Narrow LanesTen foot lanes increase street flexibili-ty in areas with limited rights-of-wayand may reduce motor vehicle speeds.Compared 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 outerlanes 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 collisions.

ILLUSTRATION 42 NARROW LANES AFTER

Restriping 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. For 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 congestion.


Traffic Calming

ILLUSTRATION 43 RESTRIPING BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 44 RESTRIPING AFTER

Medians and Access ControlMedians increase safety by separatingoncoming motor vehicle traffic andminimizing turning conflicts. Theymay be constructed with curbs orpainted stripes and combined withpedestrian refuge islands. Mediansalso increase the safety of markedcrosswalks at uncontrolled intersec-tions (FHWA 2002a). Medians withlandscaping will beautify wide streetsby breaking up large expanses ofpavement and making the street feelsmaller. Wide medians can be used fortrails or transit stops. Through anapproach known as “access control,”a street’s efficiency may be increasedby limiting the number of locationswhere left turns are allowed.

The benefits of medians should be weighed against the following disadvantages:

� Medians reduce street flexibility by increasing the cost of reconfigu-rations. Future development, usagepatterns, and changing transportationdemands may require reconfigura-tions to accommodate bicycle lanes,bus rapid transit lanes, light railright-of-way, or new turning movements.

� Medians use limited street width that may be allocated instead topedestrian, bicyclist, or motor vehicle capacity.

� Medians with plantings may reducesight lines. Additionally, street treesand plants located along the side-walk will have a more immediatebenefit to pedestrians.


ILLUSTRATION 45 MEDIAN BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 46 MEDIAN AFTER


On-Street Parking

On-street parking slows traffic andacts as a buffer between pedestriansand motor vehicles. It increases thenumber of people on the street andthereby increases public safety.Diagonal parking may be used to nar-row streets but it causes serious con-flicts with bicyclists.

Street Closure

Partial street closures on local streetsdivert through motor vehicle trafficaway from neighborhoods while main-taining access for pedestrians, cyclists,and emergency vehicles. Partial clo-sure is accomplished by installing aphysical barrier at one end of thestreet with accompanying signage. Thebarriers may include planters. Curbscan be constructed to create closedstreets or diagonal diversion at inter-sections. In addition to the street inquestion, surrounding streets may besignificantly affected by a street clo-sure. The City of Oakland has anexisting petition process for the imple-

mentation of partial street closuresthat involves residents on affectedstreets. Decisions are based on engi-neering judgment, community input,and council approval. According to arecent study conducted in Oakland,children who live on streets connecteddirectly to arterial streets are twice aslikely to be hit by an automobile intheir neighborhood as children wholive on streets that do not directlyconnect to arterials (Tester 2001).Street closure may be an effective safe-ty solution by keeping unnecessarymotor vehicle traffic out of residentialneighborhoods. Numerous street closures exist in the Clinton Parkneighborhood of Oakland.

Pedestrian Only StreetsBlocking off both ends of a street cre-ates a pedestrian mall and public openspace. There are many examples ofpedestrian streets in Oakland. SanPablo Avenue in downtown was trans-formed into Frank Ogawa Plaza, thecivic center and heart of Oakland.13th Street in downtown was made

into City Center, a BART station, anda vibrant shopping area. 34th Avenuewill become a pedestrian connectionto the Fruitvale BART station.

The key to good pedestrian-onlystreets is to make sure they connectimportant places and are pleasant and active in themselves. Civic areas, high-density residential buildings, and public transit are all catalysts forpedestrian street activity. Streets alsomay be temporarily closed to motorvehicle traffic like 9th Street for theFriday Farmers’ Market in OldOakland. Local residential streets can be designed to become play streets with priority given to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Traffic Calming


Chapter 6 Implementation Plan


Walking is the oldest and most basic form of human transportation. It requires

no fare, no fuel, no license, and no registration. With the exception of devices

to enhance the mobility of the disabled, walking demands no special equipment.

Thus, walking is the most affordable and accessible of modes.

Pedestrian Master Plan, City of Portland, Oregon

The Pedestrian Master Plan identifiespolicies and priority projects to pro-mote a citywide effort to create a safeand walkable city. Twenty years ofpriority projects are identified to recti-fy existing gaps and shortcomings inthe City’s pedestrian infrastructure. As part of a comprehensive planningprocess, these projects are highly com-petitive for the growing amount oftransportation funding directed atpedestrian safety and livable commu-nities. After reiterating the Plan’s

goals, this chapter identifies the imple-mentation policies, priority projects,staffing needs, and funding sources to ensure that these projects are managed, funded, and implemented.For implementation, the proposed projects would require additionalreview by traffic engineering andunder the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,engineering judgment is necessary todetermine the specific locations andfeatures of each project.

To promote Oakland as a walkablecity, the Pedestrian Master Plan speci-fies the following five goals:

Pedestrian Safety. Create a streetenvironment that strives to ensurepedestrian safety.

Access. Develop an environmentthroughout the City – prioritizingroutes to school and transit – thatenables pedestrians to travel safelyand freely.

Streetscaping and Land Use. Providepedestrian amenities and promote land uses that enhance public spacesand neighborhood commercial districts.

Education. Educate citizens, community groups, business associations, and developers on the safety, health, and civic benefits of walkable communities.

Implementation. Integrate pedestrianconsiderations based on federal guide-lines into projects, policies, and theCity’s planning process.

The priority projects identified belowemphasize the goals of pedestrian safe-ty, access, and streetscaping. Pedestriansafety and access are also addressedthrough the education policies speci-fied in the Policy Recommendationschapter. The implementation goalencompasses the other four goals byestablishing a more prominent role forpedestrian considerations in the workof City staff. To achieve these goals,the Pedestrian Master Plan identifiesthe following implementation policiesand suggested ordinances to be consid-ered for adoption.

General Plan PoliciesPolicy T4.1, Incorporating DesignFeatures for Alternative Travel: “TheCity will require new development,rebuilding, or retrofit to incorporatedesign features in their projects thatencourage use of alternative modes oftransportation such as transit, bicy-cling, and walking” (LUTE, p. 58).

Implementation PoliciesPMP Policy 5.1. Dedicate the neces-sary staff support to implement thePedestrian Master Plan.

PMP Policy 5.2. Conduct public out-reach to residents, merchants, andproperty owners affected by majorpedestrian improvements scheduledfor implementation.

PMP Policy 5.3. Coordinate pedestrianimprovement projects with scheduledprojects for street re-paving, streetscap-ing, and utility undergrounding.

PMP Policy 5.4. Revise existingdesign standards where necessaryusing federal guidelines for arterial,collector, and local streets to ensurepedestrian safety and access.

PMP Policy 5.5. Work with existingand future plans to ensure that theypromote the safety, convenience, andenjoyability of walking, while meetingapproved design guidelines.

Policy Implementation


These plans include but are not limited to the following:

Downtown Pedestrian District� Chinatown “Environmental Justice”

Planning Grant

� Downtown Parking and CirculationMaster Plan

� Downtown Streetscape Master Plan

� Estuary Plan

� Lake Merritt Master Plan

BART Station Areas

� Coliseum BART Station Area Plan

� Fruitvale Transit Village Plan

� MacArthur Transit Village Plan

� West Oakland Transit Village Plan

Corridor and StreetscapingImprovements� AC Transit Major Investment Study

� Eastlake Streetscape and Pedestrian Enhancement Project

� International Boulevard Streetscape Plan

� Laurel District “Transportation forLivable Communities” PlanningGrant

� MacArthur Streetscape Plan

� San Pablo Corridor Plan

� Splash Pad Park Streetscape Plan

Other Pedestrian-Related Plans� Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) Transition Plan

� Bay Trail Master Plan

� Open Space, Conservation, andRecreation Element – Trail Plans

Suggested Ordinances� Consider adopting an ordinance

to codify the design guidelines for sidewalks recommended by thePedestrian Master Plan.

� Consider adopting an ordinance tocodify a crossing treatment policybased on current research by theFederal Highway Administration(2002a, 2002b).



Priority Projects

The following list identifies twentyyears of priority projects to improvesafety, access, and streetscaping forpedestrians in the City of Oakland. Itis prioritized into two phases: projectsto be completed within one to fiveyears and projects to be completedwithin six to twenty years. This list iscomposed of projects approved byCity Council for Measure B fundingand additional projects identified bythe survey of the Pedestrian RouteNetwork. In spring 2002, CityCouncil approved a project list as theCity’s recommended pedestrian andbicycle safety projects for the AlamedaCounty Transportation ImprovementAuthority (ACTIA). These projects are

eligible for funding from the MeasureB 1/2 cent sales tax for transportationin fiscal year 2002-03 to fiscal year2007-08. The priority project list alsoincludes potential projects identifiedby the survey of the Pedestrian RouteNetwork. The majority of projectsspecified by the Measure B list werealso identified by the route networksurvey. The projects identified by theroute network survey but not includedin the City’s Measure B projects arelisted as “Candidate Sites” for pedes-trian and crosswalk improvementsunder both phases.

Pedestrian safety and access are central components of this list. Whenadopting the Measure B list, CityCouncil identified the importance ofstreetscaping projects that improvepedestrian safety. They emphasizedthat streetscaping projects with a pri-mary focus on aesthetics are of sec-ondary importance. Additionally, thestreet re-striping projects identified asbicycle projects are important pedes-trian improvements. Street re-striping

projects benefit pedestrian crossingsafety by reducing the number ofmotor vehicle travel lanes. For pedes-trians beginning to cross the street,bicycle lanes also provide an impor-tant buffer zone and improve visibilitywith motor vehicle drivers.

For implementation, the proposedprojects would require additionalreview by traffic engineering andunder the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,engineering judgment is necessary todetermine the specific locations andfeatures of each project.


FIGURE 24 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 1-5 YEARS

PROJECT NAME

1 PROJECT SHORTFALLS

Streetscape Projects

Eastlake Phase I (International: 5th-10th/E 12th: 5-8th)

San Pablo Median (53rd - 67th)

Splash Pad Park Streetscape (Grand/LakePark/ Lakeshore/MacArthur)

Washington Streetscape Improvements(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)

2 LOCAL MATCH FOR NEW GRANTS

Hazard Elimination and Safety (HES) Grants

Safe Routes To School (SRS) Grants

Tree Damaged Sidewalk/Curb & Gutter Repair

3 NEW PED/BIKE PROJECTS

Pedestrian Access/Safety

Signal Improvements

Signal Countdowns and Pedestrian Signals (Citywide)

Traffic Signals (Citywide - one signal per year)

Traffic Signal Modifications (Citywide)

On-Call Audible Signal Program

Pedestrian 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)

ESTIMATEDCOST ($000)

250

100

100

200

200

200

250

520

450

1,250

125

450

GAPCLOSURE

X

X

X

INTERMODALCONNECTION

X

X

ADA

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

BIKE PED

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

SPONSORAGENCY

CEDA

PWA

CEDA

CEDA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

COMMENTS SHORTFALLS ON FUNDED PROJECTS

contingency

pedestrian refuge

street median/sidewalk/curb ramps

feasibility, design & construction


$40K annual request

$50K annual request

Match for $4M federal grants

Outside grants will also be sought for these projects

$90K annual request

$250K annual request

$25K annual request

$90K annual request

COUNCILDIST

2

1

2

3

1,3

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL


PROJECT NAME

35th 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 Avenue

Candidate 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 centers

Other Ped Projects

27th/Bay Place Ped and Bike Improvements (Grand Ave - Telegraph)

Coliseum 66th Overpass (Bike and Ped Impr)

Hill Area Stairway Rehabilitation (one stairway)

MacArthur BART Underpass, Transit Villageand Access Improvements


Coliseum BART Transit Hub Streetscape

Eastlake Phase II (International:10th-14th; E 12th -8th to 14th Avenue)

Grand Avenue Streetscape (I-580 to Harrison)



International Blvd Streetscape and Fruitvale up to 33rd

Laurel District/MacArthur Streetscape Phase II

San Pablo Gateway at Emeryville Border

Seminary/MacArthur Streetscape

Downtown Streetscape Master Plan Projects

Oak St. Street/Sidewalks 2nd to 14th


1,000

200

400

375

TBD

2,000

1,800

TBD

2,400

2,200

TBD

2,000

2,000

BIKE PED

X

X X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GAPCLOSURE

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

COUNCILDIST

ALL

3

7

4

1

7

2

3

5

4

1

6

2

ADA

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SPONSORAGENCY

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA















FIGURE 24 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 1-5 YEARS (CONTINUED)


PROJECT NAME

Telegraph Ave Street/Sidewalks 16th-20th

Telegraph Ave (20th - 40th )bike and ped

Webster St. Street/Sidewalks 6th to 11th

Chinatown Streetscape Project

Temescal Area Improvements

West Oakland 8th St (Market to Pine; Center -7th & 8th; Mandela - 7th & 8th)

Webster St. Street/Sidewalks 6th to 11th

West Oakland Bay Trail Sidewalk Improvements(2nd/Brush/3rd St. between Broadway-Union)

West Oakland Transit Village Access(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)

Bancroft Avenue (98th to San Leandro border)

Broadway Corridor (MacArthur to Old Tunnel Road)

MacArthur Blvd (Park to Lake Merritt)

Telegraph Ave Restriping (Aileen to Berkeley border)

4 Citywide Curb Ramp Program

On-call curb ramp program

5 Street Resurfacing Program

New Curb Cuts for Pedestrian Ramps

Street Name & Traffic Sign Replacement

TOTAL Estimated Cost (Year 1-5 program)


2,500

TBD

1,000

TBD

TBD

600

1,000

100

TBD

100

200

200

50

250

450

1,250

1,000

27,070

BIKE PED

X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

GAPCLOSURE

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ADA

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SPONSORAGENCY

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

PWA

CEDA

CEDA

PWA

CEDA

CEDA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

COMMENTSSHORTFALLS ON FUNDED PROJECTS














$50K annual request

$90K annual request local match for app. $400,000/annual Federal Grants

Backfills portion of street resurfacing program costs



COUNCILDIST

3

1

2

2

1

3

2

3

3

7

1

2

1

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL



PROJECT NAME

1 PROJECT SHORTFALLS


Broadway Streetscape, Phase II (9th to 17th)

2 LOCAL MATCH FOR NEW GRANTS

Hazard Elimination and Safety (HES) Grants

Safe Routes To School (SRS) Grants

Tree Damaged Sidewalk/Curb & Gutter Repair


Pedestrian Access/Safety

Signal Improvements

Traffic Signal Countdowns and PedestrianSignals (Citywide)

Traffic Signals (Citywide - one signal per year)

Traffic Signal Modifications (Citywide)

On-call Audible Signal Program

Pedestrian and Crosswalk Improvements (Citywide)

Candidate Streets (based on highest collisions):High 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 Ave.

Other Ped Projects

12th Street Corridor (Oak to International) ped/bike and multi-use path; and Lake Merrittconnection, crosswalks and ped signals


TBD

600

750

520

1,350

3,750

375

1,350

3,750

3,000

BIKE PED

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

GAPCLOSURE

X


X

X

COUNCILDIST

2

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

2

ADA

X

X

X

SPONSORAGENCY

CEDA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

CEDA


Shortfalls on funded projects

sidewalk treatments

Use to leverage new grants

$40K annual request

$50K annual request

Match for $4M federal grants

Outside grants will also be sought for these projects

$90K annual request


$25K annual request/design & construction

$90K annual request

$250K annual request/design & construction


FIGURE 25 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN PRIORITY PROJECTS, 6-20 YEARS


PROJECT NAME

Eastlake Phase II (International - 10th-14th; E 12th -8th to 14th Avenue)

El Embarcadero/Grand Ave. Bike and Ped Impr

Foothill (28th Ave to High)

Hill Area Stairway Rehabilitation (one stairway)

International Blvd. Streetscape - (Fruitvale to 39th & portions of Fruitvale and East 12th)

International Blvd. Streetscape (42nd Aveto San Leandro border)


23rd Avenue Streetscape

Fruitvale Avenue (Estuary to MacArthur)

Lake Merritt Channel Park Connection

Lake Merritt Multi-Use Path Widening

MacArthur BART Underpass and Access Improvements

MacArthur, West Oakland, Coliseum, andFruitvale BART Station Transit VillageBike/Ped Improvements

Railroad Crossing Sidewalk Approaches (citywide)

San Pablo Gateway at Emeryville Border

Street Re-Striping(Approved as per Bicycle Master Plan andMeasure B Priority List submitted to CityCouncil on June 11, 2002)

40th-Linda Street (Emeryville Border to Piedmont Border)

82nd-Golf Links (San Leandro to Mountain Blvd.)

Bay Trail Linkage - Brooklyn Basin Gap

Bay Trail Linkage - High Street Gap

Oakland Army Base Bay Trail Connection

Broadway Corridor (25th St. to Embarcadero)

Foothill Blvd (42nd to Lake Merritt)

Fruitvale/Coolidge (East 12th St. to MacArthur Blvd.)

Market St/West St/Genoa Corridor(MacArthur to Berkeley border)

Oak St/Madison Corridor (Lakeside Dr. to 2nd St.)


1,800

500

TBD

375

12,100

2,000

TBD

TBD

TBD

4,373

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

200

400

500

2,000

TBD

200

300

400

200

150

BIKE PED

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X

GAPCLOSURE

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

COUNCILDIST

2

3

3

4

5

5,6,7

2

5

2

2,3

1

1,2,3,7

VARIOUS

1

1

6,7

5

5

3

2,3

2,5

4,5

1,3

2

ADA

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SPONSORAGENCY

PWA

CEDA

PWA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

PWA

CEDA

PWA

PWA

CEDA

CEDA

CEDA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA





























PROJECT NAME

Park Blvd/2nd Ave. (Bike Path and lane -Estuary to Shepherd Canyon)

4. Citywide Curb Ramp Program

On-Call Curb Ramp Program

5. Street Resurfacing Program

New Curb Cuts for Pedestrian Ramps

Street Name & Traffic Sign Replacement

TOTAL Estimated Cost (Year 6-20 program)


2,000

750

1,350

3,750

1,000

49,793

BIKE PED

X X

X

X

X

X

GAPCLOSURE

X

X

X


X

X

X

COUNCILDIST

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ADA

X

X

X

SPONSORAGENCY

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA

PWA



$50K annual request (local match app. $400,000 Fed. Grants)

$90K annual request

Backfills portion of st. resurfacing prog. costs


$200K annual request (5 years)


The 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 Route Network by District


Rockridge BART Stn.Rockridge BART Stn.

MacArthur BART Stn.MacArthur BART Stn.

40TH40TH

MO

UNTAIN

MO

UNTAIN

AP

HA

PH

YY

SA

N P

AB

LO

SA

N P

AB

LO

SNAKE

SNAKE

SH

AT

TU

CK

SH

AT

TU

CK

51ST51ST

TUNNELTUNNELALCATRAZ

ALCATRAZ

PARKPARK

0 1 20. 5

ROUTE TYPE

City

District

Neighborhood

Bay Trail

Priority Projects

Council District

Parks

Water

Schools

Senior Ctrs/Libraries/Rec Ctrs

NCR Areas

MILES

MAP 5 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE NETWORK COUNCIL DISTRICT 1


19th St BART Stn.19th St BART Stn.


Lake Merritt BART StnLake Merritt BART Stn

Fruitvale BART Stn.Fruitvale BART Stn.

West Oakland StnWest Oakland Stn

FOO

THILL

FOO

THILL

GRANDGRAND

INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

PARKPARKB

RO

AD

WA

Y

BR

OA

DW

AY

MA

ND

ELA

MA

ND

ELA

MA

CA

RTH

UR

MA

CA

RTH

UR

LAKESHORELAKESHORE

TEL

EG

RA

PH

TEL

EG

RA

PH

LINCOLN

LINCOLN

MA

RTI

N L

UTH

ER

KIN

G J

R

MA

RTI

N L

UTH

ER

KIN

G J

R

ROUTE TYPE

City

District

Neighborhood

Bay Trail

Priority Projects

Council District

Parks

Water

Schools


NCR Areas

0 1 20. 5

MILES



RR




MacArthur BART Stn.MacArthur BART Stn.

West Oakland StnWest Oakland Stn

BR

OA

DW

AY

BR

OA

DW

AY

TEL

EG

RA

PH

TEL

EG

RA

PH

40TH40TH

GRANDGRAND

SA

N P

AB

LO

SA

N P

AB

LO

MA

ND

EL

AM

AN

DE

LA

SH

AT

TU

CK

SH

AT

TU

CK

51ST51ST

ALCATRAZALCATRAZ

LAK

ESHO

RE

LAK

ESHO

RE

FOO

TFO

OT

PAPA

0 1 20. 5

ROUTE TYPE

City

District

Neighborhood

Bay Trail

Priority Projects

Council District

Parks

Water

Schools


NCR Areas

MILES



SKYLINE

SKYLINE

HIGHHIGH

MO

UN

TAIN

MO

UN

TAIN

SNAKESNAKE

PARKPARK

LINCOLN

LINCOLN

MACARTHUR

MACARTHUR

TUN

NE

LTU

NN

EL

REDWOOD

REDWOOD

GR

AN

DG

RA

ND

LAKESHORE

LAKESHORE

SEMINARYSEMINARY

0 1 20. 5

ROUTE TYPE

City

District

Neighborhood

Bay Trail

Priority Projects

Council District

Parks

Water

Schools


NCR Areas

MILES





HIGH

HIGH

FOO

THILL

FOO

THILL

INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

MACARTHUR

MACARTHUR

SAN LEANDRO

SAN LEANDRO

PARKPARK

SEMINARY

SEMINARY

LINCOLN

LINCOLN

ENBERGER

ENBERGER

REDWOODREDWOOD

0 1 20. 5

ROUTE TYPE

City

District

Neighborhood

Bay Trail

Priority Projects

Council District

Parks

Water

Schools


NCR Areas

MILES



vale BART Stn.vale BART Stn.

C SC S

HIGHHIGH

SKYLINE

SKYLINE

FOOTHILLFOOTHILL

ININ

SAN LEANDRO

SAN LEANDRO

KELLER

KELLER

BA

NC

R

BA

NC

R

GOLF LINKS

GOLF LINKS

MOUNTAIN

MOUNTAIN

PARKPARK

MA

CA

RT

HM

AC

AR

TH

LINCOLN

LINCOLN

REDWOOD

REDWOOD

SEMINARY

SEMINARY

0 1 20. 5

ROUTE TYPE

City

District

Neighborhood

Bay Trail

Priority Projects

Council District

Parks

Water

Schools


NCR Areas

MILES




Coliseum BART Stn.Coliseum BART Stn. INTER

NA

TION

AL

INTER

NA

TION

AL

SAN LEANDRO

SAN LEANDRO

FOOTHILLFOOTHILL

HIGH

HIGH

MA

CA

RT

HU

R

MA

CA

RT

HU

R

KELLER

KELLER

GOLF LINKSGOLF LINKS

OUNTAIN

OUNTAIN

SK

YLIN

ES

KY

LINE

SEMINARY

SEMINARY

0 1 20. 5

ROUTE TYPE

City

District

Neighborhood

Bay Trail

Priority Projects

Council District

Parks

Water

Schools


NCR Areas

MILES



Staffing and Community Outreach

The Pedestrian Master Plan willrequire the dedicated efforts of citystaff to fund, manage, and implementthe policies and proposed projects.This plan recommends the creation ofa full-time, managerial-level staff posi-tion. This person would provideexpertise on pedestrian-related proj-ects and policies to ensure the effectiveimplementation of the PedestrianMaster Plan. Additional engineering,administrative, and traffic mainte-nance staff time will be required tosupport the realization of the Plan.

Those responsibilities will include staffsupport and coordination for the con-tinuation of the Citizens PedestrianAdvisory Committee (CPAC). In addi-tion to facilitating public participationby stakeholders, this committee willprovide a regular forum for adaptingthe Plan through time and for review-ing other plans and projects in the Citythat are affected by the PedestrianMaster Plan. The continuing role ofthe CPAC should be clarified withrespect to the Bicycle and PedestrianAdvisory Committee (BPAC) and thestaff person should promote communi-cation and coordination between thetwo advisory committees.

Major projects require communityoutreach processes to identify stake-holders, educate them on projects, andprovide opportunities for commentand dialog. The education componentis especially important given the widerange of pedestrian design treatmentsthat may be unfamiliar to many peo-ple. These processes should promoteconsensus building between stakehold-ers and occur before City Councilapproval and grant funding areobtained. The community outreachprocess for particular projects shouldalso build on the extensive communityoutreach process described in thechapter on “Existing Conditions.”


Funding

In the City of Oakland, pedestrianinfrastructure is financed through Cityprograms and grant funding fromcounty, regional, state, and federalagencies. Grants are likely the majorsource of current funding for pedestri-an improvements in the City ofOakland and a growing pot of stateand federal transportation funding is earmarked specifically for livable communities and pedestrian safetyprojects. For example, the City ofOakland received two “Safe Routes to School” grants for $450,000 and$499,000 in 2001 and 2002, respec-tively, to improve pedestrian safetyand access around schools throughoutthe City. Furthermore, most state and federal funding for roadway improve-ments is now flexible enough to beused for pedestrian improvements.

The projects proposed by thePedestrian Master Plan are formulatedto be very competitive in attractingthese grants. The Plan also capitalizeson the flexibility of current grant programs to fund pedestrian improve-ments as a part of larger transportationprojects. The following list identifiesexisting City programs and promisingsources for additional grant funding.

City Programs� The On-Call Curb Ramp Program

funded by the Americans withDisabilities Act Programs Divisionreceives $90,000/year for on-demand projects.

� The In-Fill Curb Ramp Programadministered by the Public WorksAgency spends approximately$400,000/year of TEA, TDA, andMeasure B funds for curb ramp in-fill projects.

� The Audible Signal Program fundedby the Americans with DisabilitiesAct Programs Division receives$90,000/year for on-demand projects.

� The Speed Hump Program adminis-tered and funded by the Transpor-tation Services Division evaluates andimplements on-demand projects.

� Each Council District is allocated$225,000/year as a “pay-go”allowance that is sometimes usedfor pedestrian safety improvements.

� The Street Tree Program is financedby an assessment on property taxesthat raises approximately $2.5 million/year.

� The municipal Capital ImprovementProgram (CIP) funds pedestrianimprovements including traffic sig-nals, sidewalk repair, and streetscap-ing. $1 million was dedicated to spe-cific pedestrian safety projects in the2001-2002 fiscal year.

� Community Development BlockGrants (CDBG) provide$300,000/year to each communitydistrict for capital improvements inlow-income neighborhoods.

� Other sources of City funding forpedestrian improvements mayinclude local assessment districts,developer exactions, local bonds,and code enforcement.

Note: Depending on the cause of dam-age, sidewalk repairs are either theresponsibility of the City or of the adja-cent property owner. The Public WorksAgency is responsible for fulfilling thecity’s obligations and their SidewalkMaster Plan is expected to make recom-mendations on funding sources.

Grants

Alameda CountyTransportationImprovement Authority(ACTIA)

� The Measure B non-motorized pro-gram provides $740,000/year to the City of Oakland for pedestrianand bicycle improvements.

Metropolitan TransportationCommission (MTC) � TDA Article 3 provides $250,000 to

$350,000 per year for pedestrian andbicycle facilities. Presently, $125,000per year of this amount is earmarkedfor the City’s curb ramp program toimprove access for persons with dis-abilities.

� The Surface TransportationProgram (STP) provides $21 mil-lion/year countywide in federalfunds requiring an 11.5% match forinfrastructure maintenance.

� The Congestion Mitigation and AirQuality (CMAQ) program provides$12-25 million/year countywide infederal funds requiring an 11.5%match for clean air projects includ-ing signal timing.

� Transportation EnhancementActivities / Transportation forLivable Communities (TEA/TLC)provides $27 million/year for theSan Francisco Bay region requiringan 11.5% match for transportation


Funding

enhancements including pedestrianand bicycle facilities.

� Housing Incentive Program (HIP)provides between $500-$2,000/unitfor streetscape improvements basedon affordable housing densitiesfrom 25 units/acre to 60 units/acre.The program has a $9 millionregional cap for 2001-2003.

� Statewide TransportationImprovement Projects (STIP) pro-vide $20-25 million/year in statefunds for capital projects includedin the countywide plan.

Bay Area Air QualityManagement District� TFCA provides $5 million/year

region-wide in state funds requiring25% local match for projects thatimprove air quality including pedes-trian/bicycle improvements and sig-nal timing.

State Government� Safe Routes to School provides $20

million/year in competitive grants

for school-area pedestrian and bicy-cle improvements.

� Safe Passage provides $17million/year statewide for trafficcalming and pedestrian and bicyclefacilities around schools.

� The Bicycle Transportation Accountprovides $5 million/year statewidefor bicycle projects in approvedbicycle plans (with $375,000 limitper project). While this funding can-not be used for pedestrian projects,bicycle projects are sometimes com-patible with and reinforcing ofpedestrian improvements.

� Hazard Elimination provides$360,000/project biannually with a10% match to eliminate safetyproblems on public roads.

� Proposition 12 (Park Bonds) pro-vides funds for trail segments, espe-cially those linking the Bay andRidge Trails.

� Proposition 13 (Water Bonds) pro-vides funds for creek and watershed

restoration associated with buildingalong creeks.

� Jobs/Housing Balance provides$100 million/year for transporta-tion, schools, and parks.

� The State Gas Tax is subvenedthrough the Capital ImprovementProgram (CIP) for streets and roads.

� “Rails to Trails”-style projects arealso sometimes eligible for statefunding.

Federal Government� The Federal Emergency

Management Agency may be afunding source for walkways in thehills as emergency earthquake orfire routes.

� Transportation Enhancements are10% of each state’s SurfaceTransportation Program (STP) funds to be used for intermodalprojects that promote trans-portation options.

1 1 1Pedestrian Master Plan |

Appendices

Appendix A: On-Street Routes

This appendix contains the PedestrianRoute Network Survey for on-streetroutes. All streets included in the routenetwork are listed along with the end-points of the route on that street, thetype of route, and the location of theroute by council district. The PedestrianRoute Network Survey identified short-comings in the pedestrian infrastructurealong the route network. Potentialproject components were then appliedto particular street segments to build along list of potential pedestrianimprovements throughout the City.These components and their associatedabbreviations are explained in the figure titled “Potential ProjectComponents and Cost Estimates.”

Project Context EvaluationGiven the large number of streets in thePedestrian Route Network, a simplescheme was developed for evaluatingthe respective contexts of potentialprojects. The evaluation allows for aninitial comparison of the relativeimportance and impact of potentialprojects on streets dispersed through-

out the City. This section explains thenumbers listed under the column titled“Context” in the figure listing “On-Street Routes.” The potential projectsidentified in the Pedestrian RouteNetwork survey provide a comprehen-sive examination of pedestrian condi-tions in the City. Priority projects areidentified in the Implementation Plan.

Criteria were developed as yes/noquestions to address the issues of safety,pedestrian activity areas, transporta-tion connections, feasibility, and equity. “Safety” addresses how wellthe potential project would improvesafety and access for pedestrians on the street itself. “Pedestrian ActivityAreas” identifies the relative impor-tance of particular streets based on theactivity centers and pedestrian volumesthat those streets serve. “TransportationConnections” considers how well theproject’s pedestrian improvements alsosupport train, bus, and bike ridership.“Feasibility” specifies the practicalityand effectiveness of implementing theprojects. And lastly, “Equity” address-

es how the benefits of potential projects are distributed.

On its own, this context evaluation isnot adequate for prioritizing futurepedestrian projects. Differences of one or two points between potentialprojects may not be significant. Allevaluation criteria are given equalweight. Because this evaluation doesnot take into account the length ofstreet segments, longer segments tend to be evaluated more favorably.Professional judgment and citizen inputshould continue to shape project priori-tization. For implementation, the proposed projects would require additional review by traffic engineeringand under the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA). Furthermore,engineering judgment is necessary todetermine the specific locations andfeatures of each project.




The following questions were asked of each potential project identified bythe Pedestrian Route Network survey.Each “yes” answer was counted as onepoint. The results are listed under the“Context” column in the figure titled“On-Street Routes.”

Safety� Does the project improve a street

with a history of pedestrian collisions?

� Does the project improve dangerous crossings?

� Does the project complete missing sidewalks?

� Does the project improve access for persons with disabilities?

Pedestrian Activity Areas

� Does the street serve a pedestrian-oriented commercial district?

� Does the street serve a school zone?

� Does the street serve a facility forseniors or people with disabilities?

� Does the street serve a park?

� Does the street carry a high volumeof pedestrians?

Transportation Connections� Is the street located within 1/2 mile

of a BART station?

� Does the street have bus service or does it connect to a street with bus service?

� Does the project improve routes specified by the BicycleMaster Plan?

Feasibility� Does the project have local support?

� Is the project compatible with current land uses?

� Do the project’s benefits substantiallyoutweigh its costs?

� Is funding readily available for thistype of project?

Equity� Does the project contribute to

the mitigation of transportationproblems caused by past projects?

� Does the project address residentconcerns identified in outreach presentations?


COMPONENT UNIT COST*

CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS

CI 1 4-foot wide minimum median with refuges for length of street $135 (per linear foot)

CI 2 4-foot wide minimum refuge islands at regular intervals at intersections $2,525 (includes improvement to existing median) (20 feet in length)

CI 3 6-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 4 Signalized intersection with pedestrian signal heads at all approaches $135,000 and audible pedestrian signals (per intersection)

WIDEN SIDEWALKS

WS 1 Replace 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 2 Replace 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 3 Tree bulb-outs, 4 X 6 curbed tree wells in the parking zone at regular intervals $2,500(approx. 30 feet) (per tree well)

TRAIL

T1 Concrete 6-foot path $50 (per linear foot)

T2 Wood staircase, 6-foot width, with wood handrails $250(per linear foot)

T3 Cement staircase, 6-foot width, with metal handrails $1,000(per linear foot)

STREETSCAPING

L1 Pedestrian-scale historic-style lighting at 50-foot intervals on 14-foot post $7,500(per light standard)

S1 Rectangular 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: 25.0%, Design: 12.0%, Construction Management: 8.0%, Contract Compliance: 3.5%

FIGURE 26 POTENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS AND COST ESTIMATES

FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES



NAME

105th Avenue106th Avenue10th Avenue13th Avenue14th Avenue14th Street16th Avenue16th Street17th Street18th Street19th Avenue20th Street23rd Avenue27th Street28th Avenue29th Avenue29th Street32nd Street/Brockhurst Street34th Street35th Avenue/Redwood Rd.37th Avenue38th Avenue38th Avenue38th Street39th Avenue3rd Street40th Avenue40th Street42nd Street45th Street51st Street/Pleasant Valley Avenue52nd Avenue54th Avenue54th Street55th Avenue55th Street59th Street/ Forest Avenue5th Avenue61st Street62nd Avenue63rd Street64th Avenue66th Avenue66th Avenue/ Havenscourt Blvd.69th Avenue73rd Avenue/ Hegenberger73rd Avenue/ Hegenberger77th Avenue79th Avenue7th Street7th Street

LOCATION

E12th St to MacArthur BlvdBrush St. to Mandela Pkwy

E12th to MacArthurSan Pablo Ave to Harrison

International Blvd to Redwood Rd

Foothill to MacArthurInternational to Foothhill, Spot: Mid-block

Union St to Mandela Pkwy

Whole Street

Shattuck Ave. to Rose Ave.

San Leandro to OakportBancroft to Oakport

Highway 880 to InternationalInternational to MacArthur

880 to Oakland Middle HarborWood St. to Brush St.

ROUTE TYPE

DistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictCityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodCityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodCityCityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodCityCity

DISTRICT

7722

2,532233

2, 535355333

4, 55

4, 553435

1,31115516112161666

6, 7766633

CONTEXT

1011

109

13

7

9

10

9

9

1210

613

POTENTIAL PROJECTCOMPONENTS

CI-2, CI-3CI-2, CI-3

CI-3 CI-2, CI-3

CI-3

CI-3 (SPOT)

EXISTING PLAN: BAY TRAIL, T-1

CI-2, CI-3

CI-2, CI-3

WS-2 WS-1

CI-2, WS-2CI-2, CI-3

WS-2 CI-2, CI-3


NAME

81st Avenue82nd Avenue85th Avenue88th Avenue8th Street92nd Avenue98th Avenue98th Avenue9th AvenueAcalanes DriveAdeline StreetAileen StAlameda AvenueAlcatraz AvenueAlida StreetApgar StreetAscot DriveAthol AvenueAvenal AvenueBancroft AvenueBancroft AvenueBay Pl.Bellvue AvenueBergedo DriveBirch StreetBoulevard WayBrann StreetBreed StreetBroadway AvenueBroadway AvenueBroadway Terr.Brookdale AvenueBrooklyn AvenueBrown AvenueCairo Rd.California StreetCamden StreetCampbell StreetCampus DriveCanon AvenueCarlson StreetCarmel StreetCarrington Street/ Galindo StreetCarson StreetCastle DriveChabot Rd./ Roble Rd.Chetwood StreetClaremont AvenueClarewood DriveClay StreetCleveland Street

LOCATION

MacArthur to International

Union St to Pine St

Golf Links Road to Airport DriveMacArthur to San Leandro

Whole Street

Camden to 106thInternational to Camden

College to MacArthurHighway 13 to CollegeBroadway to Highway 13 (Lake Temescal)

Whole Street

ROUTE TYPE

NeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodCityCityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodCityCityDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodCityCityDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhood

DISTRICT

6,76,777377727

1, 335141436

6,75,63376267111

4, 5, 624746364445

4, 64121432


CI-3

EXISTING PLAN: ACORN-PRESCOTT PLAN

EXISTING PLAN: AIRPORT CONNECTOR, CI-3

WS-1

CI-3

CI-2, CI-3 CI-3

CI-1, CI-3CI-2, CI-3WS-1

CI-3

CONTEXT

10

9

10

15

11

1012

12117

10

FIGURE 27 ON-STREET ROUTES (CONTINUED)



NAME

Clifton StreetColby StCollege AvenueColumbian DriveCongress AvenueCoolidge AvenueCourtland Avenue/42nd AvenueD StreetDavidson WayDoolittle DriveDover StreetDowntown Streetscape andTransportation Master PlansDurant StreetE 12th StreetE StreetE. 10th StreetE. 12th StreetE. 15th StreetE. 16th StreetE. 18th StreetE. 19th StE. 21st StreetE. 23rd StreetE. 24th StreetE. 27th StreetE. 27th StreetE. 28th StreetE. 31st StreetE. 38th StreetE. 9th StreetE12st StreetE18th StreetEcho StreetEdes AvenueEdgewater DriveElysian FieldsEmbarcadero EastEmbarcadero WestEmpire Rd.Estepa DriveEuclid AvenueExcelsior AvenueFallon StreetFerro StreetFilbert StreetFleming AvenueFontaine StreetFoothill Blvd.Foothill Blvd.Ford Street

LOCATION

Whole Street

MacArthur to FoothillInternational to High

19th Ave to 13th Ave

1st Ave. to 13th Ave.1st Ave. to 14th Ave

1st-13th Ave., 19th Ave. to FruitvalePark Blvd to Lakeshore

whole streetHegenberger to Damon Slough

14th Ave to MacArthurLakeshore to 14th Ave

ROUTE TYPE

NeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhood

DistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodCityCityNeighborhood

DISTRICT

11164

4,557271

2,3

72752255

2,52,5525225252

2,31777

2,52,3773

2,423367

2,4,5,62,35

CONTEXT

12

109

10

11

7

14


POTENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS

CI-3, WS-3

CI-3WS-1

EXISTING PLAN: DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE

AND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLANS

EXISTING PLAN: EASTLAKE COMMUNITY PLAN

CI-2, CI-3

T-1

WS-2



NAME

Forest AvenueFruitvale AvenueFruitvale AvenueGenoa StreetGlen Park Rd.Glenfield AvenueGolf Links/ Grass ValleyGrand AvenueGrand AvenueGreenly DriveGrizzly Peak Blvd.Grosvenor Rd./ LaSalle AvenueHampel StreetHarbor Bay Pkwy.Harbord DriveHarrison StreetHearst AvenueHegenberger LoopHigh StreetHigh StreetHiller Rd.International Blvd.John StreetJones AvenueKansas StreetKeller AvenueKennedy StreetKingsland AvenueKnight StreetKrauseLa Cresta AvenueLake Merritt Master PlanLake Park AvenueLakeshore Avenue/ Lakeside DriveLaurel StreetLawlor StreetLawton AvenueLemert Rd./ Tiffin Rd.Liggett Estates DriveLincoln Avenue/ Joaquin Miller Rd.Linda AvenueLongridge Rd.MacArthur Blvd.MacArthur Blvd.MacArthur Blvd.MacArthur Blvd.MacArthur Blvd.MacArthur Blvd.MacArthur Blvd.Maddux DriveMadeline Street

LOCATION

Foothill to AlamedaMacarthur to Foothill

580 to Jean St.580 to Mandela Parkway

Bayo Vista to Oakland Ave

MacArthur to San LeandroSan Leandro to Alameda Ave

whole street

Grand Ave. to Lakeshore Ave.

Near Head Royce School

Coolidge Ave to 35th AveFruitvale to Park AveHigh St to 35th Ave (Laurel District)Lakeshore to Park BlvdSan Leandro Border to 73rd AveSan Pablo Ave. to Piedmont Ave.Seminary to 580

ROUTE TYPE

NeighborhoodCityCityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictCityCityNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodCityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhood

DistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodCityCityCityCityCityCityCityNeighborhoodNeighborhood

DISTRICT

15

4,5144723612474

1,347

4,5, 65,6

12,5,6,7

174

6,756764

2,32

2,3471444124

2,442

6,71,3674

POTENTIAL PROJECT COMPONENTS

CI-2, CI-3 CI-2, CI-3

CI-2, CI-3EXISTING PLAN: GRAND AVE. IMPROVEMENTS

CI-3

CI-2, CI-3 CI-3, WS-1

EXISTING PLAN: INTERNATIONAL BLVD. MAIN ST.; CI-2, CI-3

EXISTING PLAN: LAKE MERRITT MASTER PLANEXISTING PLAN: SPLSH PAD STRTSCP. IMPRV. PLAN

WS-1 (SPOT)

CI-3, WS-3 CI-3EXISTING PLAN: LAUREL DISTRICT STREETSCAPE PLAN

CI-3EXISTING PLAN: MACARTHUR REDEVELOP. PLAN

CI-2, CI-3WS-2 (1-SIDED)

CONTEXT

1413

1313

8

138

15

11

9

101212912117



NAME

Malcom AvenueMandana Blvd.Mandela ParkwayMaple StreetMaritime StreetMarket StreetMiddle Harbor Rd.MLKMLKMontana StreetMontecito Avenue/ Adams StreetMonteray Blvd.Monticello AvenueMoraga AvenueMountain Blvd.NewtonOakland AveOutlook AvenuePark Blvd.Park Blvd.Parker AvenuePenniman AvenuePeralta StreetPerkins StreetPicardy DrivePiedmont AvenuePlymouth Street/ Arthur StreetRedwood Rd.Richmond Blvd.Ritchie StreetRudsdale StreetSalisbury StreetSan LeandroSan Pablo AvenueSanta Clara AvenueSchool StreetSeminary AvenueSequoyah Rd.Shafter AvenueShattuck AvenueShepherd Canyon Rd.Skyline Blvd.Snake Rd.Stanford AvenueSteele StreetSunnyhills Rd.Sunnyside StreetSuter StreetTelegraph AvenueThe Uplands/ Alvarado Rd.Thornhill Drive

LOCATION

whole street

6th St. to Alcatraz Ave.

47th St. to DowntownAlcatraz to 47th St.

Piedmont Border to Mountain Blvd.Whole Street

Harrison to Bayo Visto

MacArthur to E 18th St. MacArthur to Highway 13

Whole Street

Whole Street, Spot: Redwood @ Mountain

Fruitvale BART to Coliseum BARTWhole streetGrand Ave. to MacArthur Blvd.

San Leandro to Sunnymere

Whole Street

Whole Street, Spot: Stanford @ Powell

Whole Street

Moraga to Alhambra

ROUTE TYPE

NeighborhoodNeighborhoodCityNeighborhoodDistrictCityDistrictCityCityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodCityCityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodCityCityDistrictDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodCityNeighborhoodDistrict

DISTRICT

72343

1,33

1,31434

4, 61,4

1,4,6,72

1,2,36

2,32, 4

64336

1,36, 74,61, 3675

5,6,71, 324671144414274

1,314

CONTEXT

13

14

129

1110

10

1313

11

12

9

121311

12

12

8

13

10



EXISTING PLAN: MANDELA PKWY

WS-1

WS-2CI-2, CI-3

WS-1 (1-SIDED) WS-1

CI-3

CI-3 CI-2, CI-3

CI-3, WS-3

CI-3 (SPOT)

T-1EXISTING PLAN: SAN PABLO PLAN CI-1, WS-1

CI-3

CI-3, WS-3

CI-2 (SPOT), CI-3 (SPOT) T-1

TELEGRAPH NORTHGATE PLAN; CI-2, CI-3, WS-3

WS-1, T1


NAME

Tompkins AvenueTopanga DriveTrestle GlenTunnel Rd.Union StVan Dyke AvenueVicksburg AvenueWebster StreetWellington StreetWest StreetWilshire BoulevardWood StreetWoodruff Avenue

LOCATION

MLK to 14th St.

ROUTE TYPE

NeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodDistrictNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhood

DISTRICT

4,672131

4,62,34

1,34

1,34


WS-1, T-1

CONTEXT

13


Appendix B: Walkways

This appendix contains the PedestrianRoute Network Survey for walkways.Eight maps show walkway locationsthroughout the City and an accompa-nying table provides detailed surveyinformation for each walkway.



169

168

227

22

166

6

8

86

797

215

85

88

175

211

82

128

137

144

145

143

139

146

172

92

83

89

167

9396

173

127

91

232

81

129

95 94

198

147

14

140138

141

2

84

135

21051ST51ST

CLA

REM

ON

T

CLA

REM

ON

T

CO

LLEG

EC

OLLE

GE

TUNNELTUNNEL

MO

UN

TAIN

MO

UN

TAIN

TELE

GR

AP

HTE

LEG

RA

PH

ALCATRAZALCATRAZ

BROADWAY

BROADWAY

GRIZZLY PEAK

GRIZZLY PEAK

SKYLINESKYLINE

THO

RN

HIL

L

THO

RN

HIL

L

BR

OA

DW

AY

BR

OA

DW

AY

BROADWAYBROADWAY

0 .25 .50. 125

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

Parks

Water

MILES

123125

MAP 12 WALKWAYS UPPER ROCKRIDGE


233

5

13

1617

2

18

184

185

211

12

128

197

234

124

183

127

208

22

125 123

8

129

21209 0

SKYLINESKYLINE

SNAKESNAKE

MO

UN

TAIN

MO

UN

TAIN

MO

RAGA

MO

RAGA

GRIZZLY PEAKGRIZZLY PEAK

THORNHILL

THORNHILL

WESTWEST

0 .25 .50. 125

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

Parks

Water

MILES

MAP 13 WALKWAYS MONTCLAIR


23

70

0

55

8 7

5

21

218

63

57

60

6170

53 5249

59

56

43

62

50

64

214

46

47

58

217

204

203

206

44

199

45

202

54

100

159

51

200229

5

205

201

PARKPARK

LINCO

LN

LINCO

LN

MO

UN

TAIN

MO

UN

TAIN

TRESTLE GLEN

TRESTLE GLEN

23R

D23

RD

14TH14TH 35

TH35

TH

SNAKE

SNAKE

LAKESHORELAKESHORE

REDWOODREDWOOD

FRU

ITV

ALE

FRU

ITV

ALE

MACARTHUR

MACARTHUR

LAKE PARK

LAKE PARK

PARKPARK

MACARTHURMACARTHUR

0 .25 .50. 125

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

Parks

Water

MILES

MAP 14 WALKWAYS TRESTLE GLEN AND OAKMORE


230

74

60

6170

247

245

248

250252

253

238

249

237

251

225

71

73

244

104103

72

204

241

216

246

116

105

203

206

240

243

192

100

222

163

119

236

102

115

114

239

15TH15TH

LAK

ES

HO

RE

LAK

ES

HO

RE

14TH14TH

MA

RK

ET

MA

RK

ET

PARKPARK

WE

ST

WE

ST

27TH27TH

SA

N P

AB

LOS

AN

PA

BLO TE

LEG

RA

PH

TELE

GR

AP

H

GR

AN

DG

RA

ND

INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

7TH7TH

AD

ELI

NE

AD

ELI

NE

EMBARCADERO

EMBARCADERO

MA

RTI

N L

UTH

ER

KIN

G J

R

MA

RTI

N L

UTH

ER

KIN

G J

R

LAKE PARK

LAKE PARK

TRESTLE GLEN

TRESTLE GLEN

18TH18TH

OAKLAND

OAKLAND

FOOTHILL

FOOTHILL12TH12TH

BAYBAY

MA

CA

RTH

UR

MA

CA

RTH

UR

14TH14TH

12TH12TH

12TH12TH

LAKE PARK

LAKE PARK

FOOTHILL

FOOTHILL

GRANDGRAND

118

0 .25 .50. 125

Walkways

Trails

Creeks and Streams

Bay Trail

Parks

Water

MILES

MAP 15 WALKWAYS LAKE MERRITT AND VICINITY


230

74

60

70

75

221

71

80

73

98

78

72

171

241

246

203

240

243

92

79

117

76

77

119

81

115

223

40TH40TH

WE

ST

WE

ST

51ST51ST

TELE

GR

AP

HTE

LEG

RA

PH

AD

ELI

NE

AD

ELI

NE

MA

RK

ET

MA

RK

ET

PIEDMONT

PIEDMONT

SA

N P

AB

LOS

AN

PA

BLO

MACARTHURMACARTHUR

27TH27TH

LAKESHORE

LAKESHORE

GR

AN

DG

RA

ND

MORAGAMORAGA

MA

RT

IN L

UT

HE

R K

ING

JR

MA

RT

IN L

UT

HE

R K

ING

JR

OAKLAND

OAKLAND

PER

ALTA

PER

ALTA

HARRISON

HARRISON

14TH14TH

SH

AT

TU

CK

SH

AT

TU

CK

BROADWAY

BROADWAY

BAYBAY

LAKE PALAKE PA

BR

OA

DW

AY

BR

OA

DW

AY

GRANDGRAND

27TH27TH

MACARTHUR

MACARTHUR

0 .25 .50. 125

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

Parks

Water

MILES

116

220

118

170

MAP 16 WALKWAYS GLEN ECHO CREEK AND GRAND LAKE


33

262

263

41

38

39

34

40

258

260

43

36

104103

259

105

69

261

120

32

159

101

112

35

65

102

257

219

111

35TH35TH

FOOTHILL

FOOTHILL

38TH

38TH

12TH12TH

55TH

55TH

14TH14TH

CO

OLI

DG

E

CO

OLI

DG

E

23R

D23

RD

INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

FRU

ITV

ALE

FRU

ITV

ALE

42ND

42ND

SCHOOL

SCHOOL29

TH29

TH

BANCROFTBANCROFT

SAN LEANDRO

SAN LEANDRO

MACARTHUR

MACARTHUR

SEMINARY

SEMINARY

REDWOODREDWOOD

HIGH

HIGH

FRU

ITV

ALE

FRU

ITV

ALE

MAC

ARTH

UR

MAC

ARTH

UR

666

7

0 .25 .50. 125

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

Parks

Water

MILES

MAP 17 WALKWAYS FRUITVALE AND VICINITY


22

23

25

28

27

26

30

24

37

36

207 152

151

120

224

35

SK

YLIN

ES

KY

LINE

73RD73RD

KELLER

KELLER

MO

UN

TAIN

MO

UN

TAIN

66TH66TH

FOOTHILLFOOTHILL

BANCROFT

BANCROFT

ARTHUR

ARTHUR

SEMINARYSEMINARY

MAC

ARTH

UR

MAC

ARTH

UR

55TH

55TH

BANCROFTBANCROFT

�

0 .25 .50. 125

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

Parks

Water

MILES

MAP 18 WALKWAYS EASTMONT AND VICINITY


33

262

41

38

34

4039

258

225

9

264

26160

56

32

54

FOOTHILLFOOTHILL

35TH

35TH

38TH

38TH

INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL

55TH

55TH

SAN LEANDRO

SAN LEANDRO

42ND

42ND

EM

BA

RC

AD

ER

OE

MB

AR

CA

DE

RO

SEMINARY

SEMINARY

29TH

29TH

12TH12TH

COLISEU

M

COLISEU

M

66TH66TH

23RD

23RD

14TH

14TH

BANCROFT

BANCROFT

CO

OLI

DG

E

CO

OLI

DG

E

HIGH

HIGH

FRU

ITV

ALE

FRU

ITV

ALE

DOOLITTLEDOOLITTLE HE

GE

NB

ER

GE

RH

EG

EN

BE

RG

ER

FRU

ITV

ALE

FRU

ITV

ALE

12TH12TH

66TH66TH

HIGH

HIGH

0 .25 .50. 125

Walkways

Creeks and Streams

Bay Trail

Parks

Water

MILES

2

257

219

2

112

MAP 19 WALKWAYS ALLENDALE AND FAIRFAX




2 6947 Colton 2 Lodge Ct. 110 5 B P 0 N A 0 0 2 N Y N M G

5 6259 Clive 2751 Darnby 200 3 B P 11 N CA 0 0 4 N Y M L OK

7 2700 Las Aromas 2701 Mountain Gate @ Castle 245 6 B P 8 N A 0 0 4 Y N S L OK

8 2646 Camino Lenada 2700 Las Aromas 320 6 B P 16 Y AS 0 0 4 Y N S L OK

12 15 Diaz Pl. 5680 Cabot 200 4 B P 98 Y C 0 0 4 Y Y M L G

13 1670 Mountain 5707 Cabot 250 4 B P 180 Y C 0 0 3 Y Y M M OK

16 1844 Magellan Gaspar (dead end) 300 4 B P 187 Y C 0 0 4 Y Y S L G

17 5600 Colton 1833 Magellan 250 4 B P 143 Y C 0 0 4 Y Y S L G

18 1893 Magellan Cortereal (dead end) 300 4 B I 0 N D 0 0 2 Y Y M H B

21 2220 Braemar driveway of Beehive Center (2735 Monterey) 300 3 B P 52 Y DWC 0 0 3 N Y S M OK

22 3601 73rd 7209 Sunkist Mayfield Path 400 10 B P 13 Y ADW 1 Y 6 Y Y S M B

23 7500 Hillmont 7501 Sunkist 400 10 B P 0 N D 0 0 4 Y Y S M OK

24 7695 Crest 7640 Sunkist 250 10 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 N N S M B

25 7864 Hillmont 7879 Michigan 300 8 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 N N M H B

26 7852 Outlook 7852 Hillmont Cumberland Way 250 8 B I 0 N D 1 0 4 N N M M B

27 7835 Outlook 2920 Parker 400 5 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 N Y M L B

28 6624 Simson 6625 Mokelumne 300 10 B I 0 N DA 0 0 4 Y Y M M B

30 2848 Seminary 2851 60th 225 6 B P 0 N C 1 0 4 Y Y N L G

32 3226 Herriott 4511 Camden 150 4 B P 0 N A 0 0 3 N N S L OK

33 3151 Courtland 3150 High St. 350 6 P I 0 N D 0 Y 20 N Y N L B

34 4415 Masterson 4412 MacArthur Madrone Path 200 5 B P 0 N C 2 0 4 N Y N L G

35 4400 Pampas 3811 Madrone 100 5 B P 11 N C 0 0 3 N N M L G

36 4500 Steele 4451 Worden 175 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 Y N M L G

37 4445 Tompkins 4456 Hyacinth 175 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 Y Y N M G

38 2198 42nd 2185 High San Carlos Walk 250 5 B P 8 Y C 2 0 4 Y Y M M OK

39 2190 41st 2195 42nd 250 5 B P 26 Y C 0 0 5 Y Y N M OK

40 2215 41st 2201 Rosedale 200 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 Y N M M G

41 2102 Harrington 2141 Ransom Carrington Way 250 5 B P 73 Y C 2 Y 5 Y Y S M B

43 3136 Madeline 3111 California 250 6 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 N N M M G

44 3579 Wilson 2511 Damuth 200 5 B P 7 N AC 0 0 4 N Y N M OK

45 1921 Oakview 1745 Leimert 200 5 B P 93 N AW 0 0 4 N Y S L B

46 1774 Leimert 4350 Bridgeview Bridgeview Path 250 5 B P 87 N C 0 0 4 N Y S M OK

47 4326 Arden Pl. 4341 Bridgeview Bridgeview Path 200 5 B P 36 Y C 1 0 4 N Y S L G

49 4645 Park Blvd. 4658 Edgewood Ave. Elsinore Walk 175 4.5 B P 0 N C 2 0 4 N Y N L G

50 4630 San Sebastian 4639 Edgewood Ave. 200 4.5 B P 12 Y C 0 0 4 N N M L G

51 1075 Glendora dead end walkway Glendora Path 325 4 B P 3 N C 1 0 10 N N M M G

52 1601 Trestle Glen 1000 Elbert 400 3 B P 42 Y C 0 1 3 N N M M OK

53 1586 Trestle Glen 4 Bowles 250 4 B P 97 N CAW 0 0 4 N N S H B

54 5 Bowles 2 Van Sicklen Pl. 150 4 B P 31 N AW 0 0 4 N N S H B

55 920 Carlston 839 Portal 250 2.5 B P 0 N CA 0 1 4 N N M H OK

56 1000 Longridge 853 Paramount 200 5 B P 10 N C 0 0 4 Y Y M M G

57 805 Calmar 800 Santa Ray 300 5.5 B P 141 N C 0 0 4 N N S M G

58 4117 Balfour 786 Calmar 250 6 B P 63 N C 0 0 4 N N S H B

59 4117 Balfour 713 Wala Vista 250 6 B P 104 N C 0 0 4 N N S H G

FROM TO WALKWAY NAME LENGTH

WALKW

AYNUM

BER

WID

TH

PUBLIC/P

RIVATE (B

/P)

PASSABLE/I

MPA

SSABLE (P/I)

STAIR

S (Y/N

/NUM

BER)

HAND RAIL

(Y/N

)M

ATERIALS (C

ONCRETE, ASPHALT

, DIR

T,

WOOD, G

RAVEL, BRIC

K, STO

NE)

NUMBER O

F SIG

NS

LIGHT (Y

/N/N

UMBER)

NUMBER O

F RESID

ENCES/BUIL

DINGS

NEAR SCHOOL (Y

/N)

NEAR TRANSIT

(Y/N

)

SLOPE (N

ONE, MODERATE, S

TEEP)

PLANTS (L

IGHT,

MODERATE, H

EAVY)

CONDITIO

N (GOOD, O

K, BAD)


60 3879 Balfour 647 Wala Vista 250 6 B P 75 N C 0 2 4 N Y M M G

61 500 Rosemount 872 Northvale 300 5 B P 22 N C 0 0 4 Y N M M G

62 1329 Barrows 1332 Holman 300 5 B P 78 Y CWA 0 0 4 N Y S H G

63 4168 Greenwood 4187 Park Blvd 500 5 B P 83 Y C 0 4 30 N Y M L G

64 1443 E 36th 1442 MacArthur 200 5 B P 16 Y CA 0 1 5 Y Y M M G

65 2441 Castello 2543 Pleasant 100 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 2 N Y N H G

66 3020 Sheffield 3021 McKillop 150 3 B P 0 N AD 0 0 3 Y N M H B

67 2600 School 2906 McKillop 500 5 B P 0 Y A 0 0 3 Y Y S M OK

69 2745 25th 2397 Grande Vista Pl. 150 5 B P 15 Y C 0 0 8 Y N M M G

70 4079 Lakeshore 1052 Annerley Rd. Portsmouth Walk 200 5 B P 8 N C 2 0 5 N Y M M G

71 853 Walker 847 Vermont Davidson Way 250 8 B P 146 N C 1 Y 20 N Y M M OK

72 853 Walker 3560 Grand Davidson Way 200 7 B P 60 Y C 1 Y 4 N Y M L G

73 564 Valle Vista 3629 Grand Bonham Way 250 5 B P Y N C 1 0 6 Y Y M M G

74 538 Mira Vista 564 Valle Vista Bonham Way 400 5 B P 20 N C 1 0 6 Y Y M M G

75 3800 Harrison 601 Oakland 300 5 B P 9 Y C 1 0 50 N N N M G

76 602 El Dorado Harrison St. Oscar's Alley 250 5 B P 0 N C 1 0 75 N N M M G

77 4200 Entrada 4215 Glen 130 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 3 N N N L OK

78 4507 Pleasant Valley 4466 Piedmont 230 8 B P 13 Y CW 0 0 0 N Y M L OK

79 4486 Pleasant Valley 4507 Pleasant Valley 185 8 B P 0 N C 0 0 0 N Y N L OK

80 4463 Moraga 4486 Pleasant Valley Ct. S. 230 8 B P 17 Y C 0 0 1 N N N L OK

81 Broadway at College 318 Hemphill 100 10 B P 0 N C 0 Y 1 Y Y N M G

82 6098 Rockridge Blvd. N. 6001 Ocean View Ridgeview Path 250 6 B P 47 Y C 1 0 0 N N M M OK

83 6041 Margarido 6135 Rockridge Blvd. N. 170 6 B P 72 N C 0 0 4 N N M M OK

84 6132 Margarido Freeway @ Broadway 150 6 B P 111 Y C 0 0 0 Y Y N M OK

85 6128 Rockridge Blvd S. 5972 Margarido Prospect Steps 350 6 B P 47 N C 2 0 4 N N M M OK

86 5972 Margarido 5975 Manchester Prospect Steps 165 6 B P 76 N C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK

87 6141 Ocean View 6000 Manchester West Lane 320 8 B P 31 Y C 2 0 2 N Y S L OK

88 5361 Margarido 6101 Rockridge Blvd. S. 270 5 B P 56 N C 0 0 4 N Y M M OK

89 5000 Acacia 5918 Margarido Quail Lane 200 6 B P 42 Y C 1 0 4 N Y M H G

91 101 Alpine Terrace 6247 Acacia Locarno Path 160 10 B P 62 N C 2 0 0 N N M M OK

92 6247 Acacia 245 Cross Rd. Locarno Path 220 8 B P 88 N C 1 0 4 N N M M OK

93 6188 Oceanview 6394 Brookside Brookside Lane 180 6 B P 63 Y C 2 0 3 Y N M M G

94 200 Cross 6196 Mathieu Verona Path 150 6 B P 52 Y C 1 0 0 N N M M G

95 6196 Mathieu 6190 Acacia Verona Path 115 6 B P 21 Y C 2 0 3 N Y M M G

96 5850 Romany 59 Yorkshire Dr. Andeer Path 210 5 B P 43 Y CA 2 Y 2 N Y M M G

97 5766 Claremont 5651 Oak Grove Pedestrian Way 300 7 B P 0 N C 2 Y 4 N Y N M G

98 516 52nd St. 517 53rd St. 200 6 B P 0 N C 0 1 5 N Y N L G

100 3101 Park Blvd 33 Home Place 200 10 B I Y Y CA 0 0 17 Y Y M M G

101 2622 14th Ave 2573 Wallace E. 26th St. Way 150 6 B P 61 Y C 2 0 8 N Y M M G

102 2505 Wallace 2510 14th Ave. E. 25th St. Way 150 6 B P 5 N C 2 0 10 N Y M L G

103 2315 17th Ave 2342 14th Ave Comstock Way 200 6 B P 52 Y C 2 1 6 N Y M M OK

104 2300 14th Ave. 2301 17th Ave. 250 6 B P 90 Y C 0 1 10 N Y S L G

105 1747 22nd Ave 1740 21st Ave 200 6 B P 0 N DA 0 Y 4 Y Y M H B

1 1 1 2350 E. 22nd 2216 Inyo 100 6 B P Y N C 0 0 3 Y Y M M OK


WALKW

AYNUM

BER

WID

TH

PUBLIC/P

RIVATE (B

/P)

PASSABLE/I

MPA

SSABLE (P/I)

STAIR

S (Y/N

/NUM

BER)

HAND RAIL

(Y/N

)M

ATERIALS (C

ONCRETE, ASPHALT

, DIR

T,

WOOD, G

RAVEL, BRIC

K, STO

NE)

NUMBER O

F SIG

NS

LIGHT (Y

/N/N

UMBER)

NUMBER O

F RESID

ENCES/BUIL

DINGS

NEAR SCHOOL (Y

/N)

NEAR TRANSIT

(Y/N

)

SLOPE (N

ONE, MODERATE, S

TEEP)

PLANTS (L

IGHT,

MODERATE, H

EAVY)

CONDITIO

N (GOOD, O

K, BAD)


112 2777 21st 2784 Foothill 175 6 B P 0 N C 0 Y 5 Y Y N L OK

114 627 Beacon St. 569 Merritt Ave. 150 8 B P Y Y C 0 0 13 N N S M G

115 Harrison 171 Vernon Terrace 250 5 B P 56 Y C 0 2 4 Y Y S M G

116 128 Hamilton 251 28th St. 250 4 B P 86 Y C 0 Y 100+ N Y S L G

117 261, 269 Fairmont Ter. 3000 Richmond Ave. 250 5 B P 76 Y C 0 4 50 N Y M M OK

118 309 Oakland Ave 3020 Harrison Frisbie Way 175 5 B P 14 Y C 1 2 4 N Y M L G

119 243 Orange 264 Oakland Ave. Perkins Way 150 10 B P 17 Y C 1 2 4 N Y N M G

120 14 Wyman MacArthur at Richards Rd. 300 10 B I 9 N WD 0 0 3 Y Y S H B

123 5500 Doncaster 6086 Valley View Merriewood Stairs 250 5 B P 168 Y WG 0 0 3 N Y S L G

124 drvy of 1716 Gouldin 6067 Aspinwall 300 4 B P 0 N D 0 0 3 Y Y M M B

125 6086 Valley View 5921 Merriewood Merriewood Stairs 150 5 B P 122 Y W 0 1 4 N Y M N G

127 7007 Broadway Ter. 151 Taurus 200 3 B I 35 Y DW 0 0 4 N Y M M B

128 Virgo (dead end) Taurus (dead end) 500 2 ? I 0 N D 0 0 2 N N M M B

129 6150 Pinewood 6106 Fairlane Dr. 150 4 B P 62 Y C 0 0 2 N N M L G

135 1 Evergreen Ln 50 Alvarado Pl Evergreen Path 400 5 B P 128 Y CA 2 0 3 N N S L G

137 73 Alvarado Claremont Hotel parking lot 250 6 B P 45 N CAS 0 0 1 N Y S M OK

138 5859 Buena Vista 5501 Golden Gate Gondo Path 75 5 B P 31 Y C 1 0 2 Y N S L G

139 6000 Buena Vista 5232 Golden Gate Chaumont Path 275 6 B P 48 N C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK

140 5991 Contra Costa 6000 Buena Vista Chaumont Path 220 6 B P 76 N C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK

141 5176 Golden Gate 6105 Buena Vista Belalp Path 250 6 B P 58 Y C 2 0 2 N Y M H OK

142 6105 Buena Vista 6100 Contra Costa Belalp Path 160 6 B P 71 Y C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK

143 6190 Buena Vista 6192 Contra Costa Arbon Path 250 6 B P 111 Y C 2 0 2 N Y M M OK

144 6190 Buena Vista 6190 Broadway Terrace Arbon Path 290 6 B P 67 Y C 2 0 4 N Y M M OK

145 6370 Broadway Ter. 6353 Contra Costa Erba Path 295 5 B P 80 Y C 2 0 0 Y Y M L G

146 6261 Broadway Ter. 155 Florence Ratondo Path 250 6 B I 0 N DC 1 0 4 Y Y S M B

147 5891 Morpeth 4905 Proctor 175 5 B P 83 N C 0 0 3 N N M M G

151 7873 Greenly 7886 Sterling 250 10 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 Y Y S M B

152 7887 Sterling 7920 Crest 300 10 B I 0 N D 0 0 4 Y Y S M B

153 8901 Seneca 8900 Burr 375 5 B I 90 Y CAWD 0 0 4 Y Y S H B

154 8500 Thermal 8522 MacArthur 450 6 B P 164 Y C 0 2 8 Y Y S L OK

155 3239 Blandon 9110 Fontaine 160 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 Y Y N M G

159 Palmer Ave (dead end) 1647 E 33rd St 50 5 B P 17 N C 0 Y 6 N Y M L G

163 Frank Ogawa Plaza Broadway Kahn Alley 175 35 B P 0 N C 0 Y 0 N Y N L G

166 169 Alvarado 277 Alvarado Willow Walk 300 5 B P 77 Y CSA 2 0 4 N N S L OK

167 Hudson St at freeway 482 Hardy St 150 6 B P 0 N A 0 0 1 N Y N M G

168 485 Hardy St. 482 Clifton St. 600 6 B P 0 N AC 0 0 25 N Y N M G

169 485 Clifton St Cavour St at Redondo 400 6 B P 0 N A 0 0 10 N N N M OK

170 2020 Panama Ct. 109 Monte Vista 150 6 B P 0 N C 0 0 4 N Y M M G

171 109 Monte Vista 72 Montel 270 4 B P 0 Y A 0 0 2 N Y M M OK

172 6142 Ocean View 6245 Brookside Ave Claremont Path 250 6 B P 65 Y C 2 0 4 Y Y M M G

173 5600 Golden Gate Av. 5747 Buena Vista Rd. Arollo Path 140 6 B P 64 Y C 2 0 4 Y Y S L G

175 200' Broadway Ter. 50 Mandalay 200 2 B I 0 N D 0 0 1 Y Y S M B

183 6025 Bruns Montclair Park Bruns Overcrossing 300 6 B P 65 Y C 0 5 1 Y Y M L G

184 Alhambra Ln at Thornhill Elementary 1715 Alhambra Ln 250 3 B I 0 N D 0 0 3 Y Y S H B



WALKW

AYNUM

BER

WID

TH

PUBLIC/P

RIVATE (B

/P)

PASSABLE/I

MPA

SSABLE (P/I)

STAIR

S (Y/N

/NUM

BER)

HAND RAIL

(Y/N

)M

ATERIALS (C

ONCRETE, ASPHALT

, DIR

T,

WOOD, G

RAVEL, BRIC

K, STO

NE)

NUMBER O

F SIG

NS

LIGHT (Y

/N/N

UMBER)

NUMBER O

F RESID

ENCES/BUIL

DINGS

NEAR SCHOOL (Y

/N)

NEAR TRANSIT

(Y/N

)

SLOPE (N

ONE, MODERATE, S

TEEP)

PLANTS (L

IGHT,

MODERATE, H

EAVY)

CONDITIO

N (GOOD, O

K, BAD)


185 Armour Dr (N) S) Armour Dr. 300 3 B I 0 N D 0 0 1 Y Y S H B

192 Calmar at Mandana 704 Longridge 250 5 B P 96 N AC 0 0 4 N Y M M OK

197 5945 Zinn Drake/Asilomar 200 3 B I 33 N DW 0 0 4 N Y M M B

198 4900 Harbord 72 Sonia 200 3 B P 18 N CDB 0 0 4 Y N M M OK

199 1096 Clarendon 1099 Mandana 200 5 B P 7 Y C 0 0 4 Y Y M M OK

200 1116 Longridge 32 Mandana Circle 250 5 B P 41 N C 0 0 4 Y Y M M OK

201 903 Wawona 939 Portal 150 5 B P 77 Y C 0 0 3 N N M M G

202 801 Santa Ray 800 Mandana 200 5 B P 6 N C 0 0 4 N Y M M OK

203 700 Mandana 689 Santa Ray 200 5 B P 16 N AWD 0 0 4 N Y M M OK

204 1085 Brookwood 850 Alma 250 5 B P 148 Y AW 0 0 4 N Y S L OK

205 906 Hillcroft 924 Larkspur Rd 175 5 B P 58 N CWA 0 0 4 N N S M OK

206 796 Rosemount 801 Longridge 200 6 B P 27 N C 0 0 4 N Y M M OK

207 7867 Sunkist 7872 Michigan 300 6 B I Y Y DW 0 0 4 N N M M B

208 1837 Indian 25 Overlake Ct. 250 4 B P 107 N AW 0 1 5 Y Y M N OK

209 5607 Merriewood 5901 Marden Ln 100 4 B P 110 Y WA 0 1 4 Y Y M N G

210 5901 Marden Ln 5925 Thornhill 100 4 B P 72 Y WA 0 0 4 Y Y M N OK

211 Florence & Merriewood 5733 Grisborne Ave. 175 3 B I 0 N D 0 0 5 Y Y M M B

214 Leimert @ Monterey Joaquin Miller Ct. 6 @ Mountain Dimond Canyon Trail 170 8 B P 0 N C 2 0 0 N Y N L G

215 Morpeth & Harbor 30 Mandalay (backside of St. Theresa Church) 250 10 B P 0 N A 0 0 8 Y Y M L G

216 10th & Alice 11th and Alice 200 6 B P 0 N A 0 0 0 Y Y N L OK

217 1011 Hubert 982 Grosvenor 200 4 B P 9 N A 0 0 6 N N M M G

218 849 Walavista walkway 55 800 5 B P 0 N CAD 0 Y 20 N N N M OK

219 3331 E 8th St E. 9th St. & 34th Ave. 100 5 B P 0 N C 0 0 0 Y Y N L B

220 Croxton & Richmond 3084 Richmond 100 6 B P Y Y C 0 0 20 N N M L OK

221 3084 Richmond 3287 Kempton 250 6 B P 159 Y C 0 Y 20 N N M M OK

222 1733 Broadway 1720 Telegraph 125 10 B P 0 N C 0 Y 0 N Y N L G

223 78 Rio Vista 645 Fairmount 175 2x5' B P Y Y C 0 0 7 N N S M OK

224 4305 Harbor View 4069 Huntington 175 5 B P 0 N D 0 0 4 N N M L G

225 1568 Madison 1547 Lakeside 300 4 P P 0 N C 0 6 80 N Y M L G

226 81 Alvarado 681 Alvarado Eucalyptus Path 400 5 B P 139 Y CA 2 3 10 N N S M G

227 mid. of Euc. Path middle of Willow Walk Sunset Trail 900 4 B P 0 N A 1 0 20 N N N L OK

228 6101 Thornhill 5500 Doncaster Merriewood Stairs 200 5 B P 98 Y WG 0 0 3 N Y S L G

229 780 Carlston 910 Paramount 200 5 B I 101 N C 0 0 3 Y Y S H OK

230 walkway 192 619 Paloma 1700 10 B P 0 N D 0 0 30 N N N L G

231 717 Longridge 707 Rosemount 50 5 B P 7 N CG 0 0 1 N Y M M G

232 1 Clarewood Mall 7 Clarewood Mall Clarewood Mall 150 5 V P 2 N C 3 3 8 N N N M G

233 1900 Mountain Cortereal (dead end) 300 6 B P 15 Y CDA 0 0 1 Y Y M L G

234 LaSalle (dead end) Medau (dead end) 150 4 B P 0 N C 0 0 1 N Y N L G

235 Cortereal (dead end) walkway 234 100 3 B P 0 N C 0 0 1 N Y N L G

236 Swan's Market Swan's Market 200 10 V P 0 N C 0 Y 25 N Y N L G

237 Clay St. Jefferson St. 250 20 V P 8 Y SB 0 Y 1 N Y N L G

238 Jefferson St. MLK Jr Way 250 25 B P 0 N C 0 Y 1 N Y N L G

239 Castro St. 13th at Preservation Park Way 50 5 V P 0 N C 0 0 3 N Y N L G

240 21st St walkway 241 200 30 V P 8 Y SB 0 0 1 N Y M L G


WALKW

AYNUM

BER

WID

TH

PUBLIC/P

RIVATE (B

/P)

PASSABLE/I

MPA

SSABLE (P/I)

STAIR

S (Y/N

/NUM

BER)

HAND RAIL

(Y/N

)M

ATERIALS (C

ONCRETE, ASPHALT

, DIR

T,

WOOD, G

RAVEL, BRIC

K, STO

NE)

NUMBER O

F SIG

NS

LIGHT (Y

/N/N

UMBER)

NUMBER O

F RESID

ENCES/BUIL

DINGS

NEAR SCHOOL (Y

/N)

NEAR TRANSIT

(Y/N

)

SLOPE (N

ONE, MODERATE, S

TEEP)

PLANTS (L

IGHT,

MODERATE, H

EAVY)

CONDITIO

N (GOOD, O

K, BAD)


241 walkway 240 Grand Ave 150 15 V P 12 Y C 0 0 1 N Y M L G

242 walkway 240 Kaiser Plaza 150 15 V P 0 N C 0 0 2 N Y N L G

243 Grand at Valdez 21st at Kaiser Plaza 150 15 V P 0 N C 0 Y 2 N Y N L G

244 Lakeshore Ave Merritt Ave at Cleveland St Cleveland Cascade 250 8 B P 135 Y C 1 0 40 N Y S M G

245 Clay St Jeferson St 250 25 V P 0 N C 0 Y 1 N Y N L G

246 walkway 116 111 Fairmount (into church parking lot) 150 5 B P 43 Y CW 0 0 100+ N Y M L G

247 Oak St Madison St 250 10 V P 0 N C 0 Y 1 N Y N L G

248 Madison St Jackson St 250 10 V P 0 N C 0 Y 1 N Y N L G

249 Jackson St Alice St 250 10 V P 0 N C 0 Y 2 N Y N L G

250 Alice St Harrison St 250 10 V P 0 N C 0 Y 0 N Y N L G

251 Harrison St Webster St 250 6 V P 0 N C 0 Y 3 N Y N L G

252 Alice at 2nd St Amtrak Station 200 60 V P 0 N B 0 Y 1 N Y N L G

253 Alice at Embarc. W Amtrak Station 150 10 V P 120 Y C 0 Y 100+ N Y N L G

254 1103 Embarcadero E Bay Trail 150 10 B P 0 N C 1 Y 2 N N N L G

255 1103 Embarcadero E Bay Trail 150 10 V P 0 N C 1 Y 1 N N N L G

256 1755 Embarcadero E Bay Trail 150 10 B P 0 N C 1 2 2 N N N L G

257 E 7th at 29th Ave E 7th at 29th Ave 100 6 B P 0 N C 4 0 0 N N N L OK

258 Courtland at Thompson Courtland at San Carlos 250 10 B P 0 N G 0 0 20 Y Y N L G

259 Courtland/San Carlos Courtland at Tyrell 250 6 B P 0 N G 0 0 20 Y Y M L G

260 Courtland at Tyrell Courtland at Congress 325 5 B P 0 N G 0 0 20 Y Y N L G

261 Courtland at Congress Courtland at Fairfax 200 5 B P 0 N AG 0 0 15 Y Y M L OK

262 Courtland at Fairfax Courtland at Brookdale 550 10 B P 0 N AD 0 5 20 Y Y N M OK

263 3186 McKillop 2600 School 500 4 B P 43 Y A 0 0 2 Y Y M L OK



WALKW

AYNUM

BER

WID

TH

PUBLIC/P

RIVATE (B

/P)

PASSABLE/I

MPA

SSABLE (P/I)

STAIR

S (Y/N

/NUM

BER)

HAND RAIL

(Y/N

)M

ATERIALS (C

ONCRETE, ASPHALT

, DIR

T,

WOOD, G

RAVEL, BRIC

K, STO

NE)

NUMBER O

F SIG

NS

LIGHT (Y

/N/N

UMBER)

NUMBER O

F RESID

ENCES/BUIL

DINGS

NEAR SCHOOL (Y

/N)

NEAR TRANSIT

(Y/N

)

SLOPE (N

ONE, MODERATE, S

TEEP)

PLANTS (L

IGHT,

MODERATE, H

EAVY)

CONDITIO

N (GOOD, O

K, BAD)


The following examples of streettransformations are offered as visionsfor progressive pedestrian planning.These projects are only conceptual,serving as illustrations of ideas.However, they illustrate the extent of possible changes that may beginwith a greater emphasis on designingand planning for pedestrians.

City Route Before and AfterCity routes connect multiple districtsand define the city as a whole. Theyare busy commercial and residentialstreets lined with storefronts andapartment buildings. Large numbers of pedestrians, drivers, transit riders,and bicyclists use city routes. Existing conditions often include wide lanes,large intersections, limited traffic signals and crosswalks, and dedicatedturn lanes that create an inhospitable environment for pedestrians.

In contrast, consider a city route withthe following improvements: wide

sidewalks, pedestrian-scale lighting,high visibility crosswalks with curbramps, pedestrian refuge islands, bikelanes, and street furniture includingbike racks and bus shelters with signage for riders. On-street parking,planter boxes, and street trees helpbuffer the sidewalk from motor vehicletraffic. The result is boulevards thatpromote social and economic activityand define the character of the city.


Appendix C: Street Transformations

ILLUSTRATION 48 CITY ROUTE SECTION BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 47 CITY ROUTE BEFORE

District Route Before and AfterDistrict routes serve districts of thecity by connecting schools, communitycenters, and neighborhood shops.They commonly have cross-town busroutes that connect residential neigh-borhoods to commercial districts andtransit hubs. A typical district routemight include four travel lanes andnarrow sidewalks that are interruptedby utility poles, broken concrete, anddriveway curbcuts.

In contrast, consider a district routeafter a “road diet” from two travellanes in each direction to one travellane in each direction plus a center turnlane. The extra room makes way for wider sidewalks, street trees, andbike lanes. Pedestrian route signs provide guidance to important neigh-borhood destinations and pedestrian-scale lighting improves safety by pro-viding continuous illumination of thesidewalks. Proposals for lane reductionsrequire careful study and City Councilapproval because such reconfigurationsmay create motor vehicle congestion.

ILLUSTRATION 49 CITY ROUTE AFTER


ILLUSTRATION 50 CITY ROUTE SECTION AFTER



Neighborhood RouteBefore and AfterNeighborhood routes are residentialstreets with one travel lane in eachdirection plus on-street parallel park-ing. At their best, they have sidewalksthat are continuous, unobstructed,and well-maintained. Motor vehiclesmove slowly because of speed humps

and stop signs. The illustration showsthe addition of street trees, slowpoints, pedestrian-scale lighting, andsignage for an exemplary pedestrianneighborhood route. The speed humpsand slow points reinforce each otherin slowing traffic while the lightingand trees create a vertical bufferbetween the sidewalk and the street.

Trail RouteBefore and AfterUnderused areas beneath BART linesand along railroad tracks provideopportunities for mixed-use paths andgreenways in the City’s most urban-ized neighborhoods. Existing condi-tions may include underutilized railtracks, no sidewalks or trails, andpoor connections to the neighbor-hood. By adding mixed-use paths, ballfields, playgrounds, dog runs, andother public facilities, these kinds ofprojects could be as successful as theOhlone Trail in Berkeley, Albany, andEl Cerrito. While rights-of-way may

not currently exist, natural featureslike creeks, ridges, and shorelines mayalso define routes for such trails. Thecontinuing development of the BayTrail and the Ridge Trail attest to theimportance of long range planningand the value of natural features inbringing such trails to fruition.

ILLUSTRATION 53 DISTRICT ROUTE SECTION AFTER

ILLUSTRATION 51 DISTRICT ROUTE SECTION BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 52 DISTRICT ROUTE BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 54 DISTRICT ROUTE AFTER




ILLUSTRATION 55 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 58 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE SECTION AFTERILLUSTRATION 56 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE AFTER

ILLUSTRATION 57 NEIGHBORHOOD ROUTE SECTION BEFORE


ILLUSTRATION 59 TRAIL ROUTE BEFORE ILLUSTRATION 61 TRAIL ROUTE SECTION BEFORE

ILLUSTRATION 62 TRAIL ROUTE SECTION AFTERILLUSTRATION 60 TRAIL ROUTE AFTER


Appendix D: FHWA Crosswalk Guidelines

The following table is from “SafetyEffects of Marked vs. UnmarkedCrosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations:Executive Summary and RecommendedGuidelines” by the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA 2002a, p. 19).

These guidelines include intersection and midblock locations

with no traffic signals or stop sign on the approach to the

crossing. They do not apply to schoolcrossings. A two-way cen-

ter turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not

be installed at locations which could present an increased safety

risk to pedestrians, such as where there is poor sight distance,

complex or confusing designs, substantial volumes of heavy

trucks, or other dangers, without first providing adequate

design features and/or traffic control devices. Adding cross-

walks alone will not make crossings safer, nor necessarily result

in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether marked

crosswalks are installed, it is important to consider other pedes-

trian facility enhancements, as needed, to improve the safety of

the crossing (e.g., raised median, traffic signal, roadway nar-

rowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic calming measures,

curb extensions). These are general recommendations; good

engineering judgment should be used in individual cases for

deciding where to install crosswalks.** Where speed limit

exceeds 40 mph, marked crosswalks alone should not be used

at unsignalized locations. Candidate sites for marked cross-

walks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully and

selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engi-

neering study is needed to show whether the location is suitable

for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering study, a site review

may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in-depth

study of pedestrian volumes, vehicle speeds, sight distance,

vehicle mix, etc. may be needed at other sites. It is recommend-

ed that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour

(or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians) exist at a loca-

tion before placing a high priority on the installation of a

marked crosswalk alone. Possible increase in pedestrian crash

risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestri-

an facility enhancements. These locations should be closely

monitored and enhanced with other pedestrian crossing

improvements, if necessary, before adding a marked crosswalk.

Marked crosswalks alone are not recommended, since pedestri-

an crash risk may be increased with marked crosswalks.

Consider using other treatments, such as traffic signals with

pedestrian signals to improve crossing safety for pedestrians.

The raised median or crossing island must be at least 4 ft wide

and 6 ft long to adequately serve as a refuge area for pedestri-

ans in accordance with MUTCD and AASHTO guidelines.

TABLE 29 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLING MARKED CROSSWALKS AND OTHER NEEDED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS

AT UNCONTROLLED LOCATIONS.


Appendix E: Future Directions in Pedestrian Planning

This appendix provides a brief overviewof two emerging tools of significantimportance to pedestrian planning.Current research on pedestrian level of service is developing algorithms toanalyze the safety and comfort – as wellas capacity – of pedestrian facilities.Space-syntax uses modeling to computepedestrian volumes based on a streetgrid’s connectivity and its accompanyingland uses. While insufficiently developedfor the completion of this Plan, thesetools are identified here as potentialresources for future pedestrian planning.

Pedestrian Level of ServiceLevel of service (LOS) is a standardmeasure for evaluating the performanceof street segments and intersectionsbased on motor vehicle traffic flowwith a simple ranking system of “A”through “F.” LOS A signifies a facilitywhere each motor vehicle’s movementis minimally impeded by the presenceof other motor vehicles. LOS B, C, andD signify an increasing volume ofmotor vehicles and increasing impedi-ments to any particular driver by the

presence of other motor vehicles. LOSE indicates maximum use of a facilitywith a large number of motor vehiclesstill moving at reasonable speeds. LOSF indicates the breakdown of trafficflow where large numbers of motorvehicles are moving at inefficientspeeds. The Highway Capacity Manualalso specifies an analogous system ofevaluation that measures the capacityof a sidewalk in relation to the numberof pedestrians using the facility(Transportation Research Board 2000).In this case, LOS A signifies a sidewalkwhere pedestrian movement is notimpeded by the presence of otherpedestrians. At the other extreme, LOSF indicates a crowded sidewalk wherepedestrians cannot take full steps andare likely bumping into each other.

For pedestrian planning, existing LOSposes two significant problems. First,while the pedestrian level of servicemeasures sidewalk capacity it does notaddress the safety or quality of thepedestrian’s experience. Streets withadequate sidewalk capacity may also

be unpleasant places to walk and dan-gerous places to cross. Second, thereare no accepted methodologies formeasuring the inadequacies of a pedes-trian facility, quantifying the benefits ofpedestrian improvements, or weighinghow service “improvements” for onetransportation mode impact service forother modes. Consequently, serviceimprovements for motor vehicles maybe identified and justified in preciseterms whereas service improvementsfor pedestrians often are limited toqualitative justifications on the benefitsof “alternative” transportation.

The Florida Department ofTransportation is developing a multi-modal level of service analysis toaddress these and other concerns withexisting LOS. The analysis applies toareas designated as multimodal trans-portation districts that are character-ized by mixed-use development, tran-

sit service, and street priority for non-automobile modes. This researchidentifies the following most significant street factors shaping the pedestrian experience:

� presence (or absence) of a sidewalk

� distance between pedestrians andmotor vehicles

� presence of physical barriers in thebuffer space separating pedestriansand vehicles

� volume and speed of motor vehicles

A number of other inputs characteriz-ing street geometry, traffic signaliza-tion, and vehicle flow are also used tocompute pedestrian LOS. This outputis also used as an input for computingtransit LOS.

For future pedestrian planning, such amethodology would be useful for iden-tifying inadequacies in existing pedes-trian facilities and specifying the bene-fits of potential pedestrian improve-ments. A significant shortcoming ofthis methodology is that it does not

include an analysis of pedestrian cross-ings. At a broader level of criticism,pedestrian level of service does notaccount for contextual factors like resi-dential and commercial densities, streetlevel activity, and connectivity of the street grid that are crucial factorsto overall walkability.

For additional information, seeGuttenplan (2001) and the FloridaDepartment of Transportation(http://www11.myflorida.com/plan-ning/systems/sm/los/default.htm).

Space-Syntax

Space Syntax is a suite of modelingtools and simulation techniques used toanalyze pedestrian movement and topredict pedestrian volume. SpaceSyntax uses the layout and connectivityof urban street grids to generate“movement potentials” which it com-pares to sampled pedestrian counts atkey locations and land-use indicatorssuch as population density. The result-ing correlations are used to predictpedestrian volumes on a street by

street level for an entire city. SpaceSyntax was created at the UniversityCollege of London in the mid-1980’sand is widely used throughout Europeand Asia.

Despite these uses, Space Syntax islargely unknown in the United States.The National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) and theFederal Highway Administration(FHWA) recently identified pedestrianexposure data as the least understoodand most important area of research forpedestrian planners and decision-makers(NHTSA 2000). Space Syntax addressesthis need by providing pedestrian vol-ume predictions that may be analyzedwith pedestrian collision data. Theresulting risk index provides plannerswith an intersection by intersection list,normalized by volume, of a city’s mostdangerous intersections.

To predict pedestrian volumes in theCity of Oakland, GIS centerline fileswere used to construct a model net-work of the City’s approximately 7,000streets. This network was fed into the




© N

oah

Raf

ord

, 20

02

MAP 20 CITY OF OAKLAND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES—SPACE SYNTAX MODEL

LEGEND

RELATIVE PEDESTRIAN RISK

SLIGHTLY DANGEROUS

MODERATELY DANGEROUS

MOST DANGEROUS

PREDICTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME

0 - 49 PEDESTRIANS

50 - 107 PEDESTRIANS




511 PEDESTRIANS OR MORE

Orange balloons measure actual pedestrian risk as a function of annualaccidents per peak hour pedestrian.

Volume estimates are accurate +/- 23% (R=0.7713, p<0.0001). 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.

Ovation Space Syntax processingengine for processing. The model’s initial output was weighted with 2000Census population density at theblock group level and calibrated withpedestrian counts. Ninety-four pedes-trian counts were used spanning 42different intersections. The prelimi-nary model produced a .56 correlationcoefficient between predicted pedestrianvolumes, population density, andobserved pedestrian counts. A secondround of calibration including popula-tion density modifiers to the centralbusiness district resulted in a .77 correlation coefficient.* This modelwas used to estimate pedestrian volumes for streets throughout theCity. These data were segmented by intersection and compared toSWITRS pedestrian collision data to establish the risk index.

Map 20 shows predicted pedestrianvolumes by street segment wheredarker shades represent higher vol-umes. The pedestrian volume map dis-plays peak hour pedestrian flow in

shades of orange. White coloredstreets equal low volume, whileorange equals high volume. Orangeballoons of varying size represent thelevel of pedestrian risk for the city'smost dangerous intersections. Thiswas determined by dividing the annual number of collisions by thepeak hour pedestrian flow to create a Pedestrian Risk Index.

This innovative approach allows deci-sion makers to include city-widepedestrian exposures in their safetyanalysis for the first time, a key factorin determining actual pedestrian risk.The highest pedestrian volumes arepredicted in downtown with otherhigh volume predictions for the northand east of Lake Merritt and the areasurrounding the intersection ofFruitvale Avenue and FoothillBoulevard. Downtown streets accountfor nearly 5% of the City’s totalpedestrian volume yet comprise only 1% of total street area. Themean peak hour pedestrian flow for downtown was 245 pedestrians

per peak hour with several streetsincluding Broadway exhibiting much higher predictions.

Despite its limitations as a model,Space Syntax is effective for predictingpedestrian volumes in great detail.Unlike traditional travel demand models analyzing traffic by TrafficAnalysis Zone (TAZ) or census tract,Space Syntax provides fine detail bymodeling street segments and intersec-tions. The model is also less compli-cated than other pedestrian modelingpackages (such as Paramics) which usemicro-simulation, cellular automata, and other “agent-based” approaches.However, the Space Syntax interface iscomplicated and requires advancedknowledge of GIS, spatial projections,and database manipulation. In terms ofthe modeling, little work has been doneto integrate more sophisticated land-use measures into the analysis.

*Very few people live in Oakland’s central businessdistrict, resulting in very low estimates of daytimepopulation density from the 2000 Census. Densitymodifiers were derived from 2000 employment statistics provided by the State of California’sEconomic Development Department



For example, the Space Syntax modelfor Oakland under-predicted severalkey intersections in the downtownbecause it does not include mass transitas a source of pedestrian activity.Similarly, 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 like.

For additional information, see the Space Syntax Laboratory(http://www.spacesyntax.com/).


Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.2002 (January). AC Transit Short RangeTransit Plan, 2001-2010. Oakland, CA.

Alameda County. 2000 (July). AlamedaCounty Health Status Report 2000.Oakland, CA: Alameda County PublicHealth Department, CommunityAssessment, Planning and EducationUnit (CAPE).

Alameda County CongestionManagement Agency. 2001 (July).Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan.Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates.

Appleyard, Donald. 1981. Livable Streets. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 2000(September). Five and Ten Year AccessTargets. Oakland, CA.

California Department of Transportation.2001 (March) Accommodating Non-Motorized Travel. Deputy DirectiveNumber: DD-64.

Center for Third World Organizing.Forthcoming. Transportation forHealthy Communities. Oakland, CA.

Ewing, Reid. 1999 (August). TrafficCalming: State of the Practice. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal HighwayAdministration, Office of SafetyResearch and Development and Office of Human Environment; prepared byInstitute of Transportation Engineers.FHWA-RD-99-135.

Federal Highway Administration. 2001.Accommodating Bicycle and PedestrianTravel: A Recommended Approach. U.S.Department of Transportation(www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm).

Federal Highway Administration. 2002a(February). Safety Effects of MarkedVersus Unmarked Crosswalks atUncontrolled Locations: ExecutiveSummary and RecommendedGuidelines. McLean, VA: U.S.Department of Transportation. FHWA-RD-01-075.

Federal Highway Administration. 2002b(March). Pedestrian Facilities UsersGuide: Providing Safety and Mobility.McLean, VA: U.S. Department ofTransportation. FHWA-RD-01-102.

Fehr & Peers Associates. 2001. ExistingCrosswalk Warrants. San Francisco, CA.

Guttenplan, Martin, Bruce W. Landis,Linda Crider, and Douglas S. McLeod.2001. “Multi-Modal Level of Service(LOS) Analysis at a Planning Level.”TRB Paper No. 01-3084.

Herms, B.F. 1972. Pedestrian CrosswalkStudy: Accidents in Painted andUnpainted Crosswalks. Washington, DC:Highway Research Board. HRR 406.

Institute of Transportation Studies. 2001(February). City of Oakland: AnEnforcement and Engineering Analysisof Traffic Safety Programs. Richmond,CA: University of California, RichmondField Station.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.2000. “Roundabouts.” Status Report.Vol. 35, No. 5, May 13.

Jones, Thomas L. and Patrick Tomcheck.2000. “Pedestrian Accidents in Markedand Unmarked Crosswalks: AQuantitative Study.” ITE Journal.September.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission.1994 (December). San Francisco Bay Area


Appendix F: Selected Bibliography

1990 Regional Travel Characteristics,Working Paper #4, 1990 MTC TravelSurvey. Oakland, CA.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission.2001a (May). Travel Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area, 1990 – 2025:Auto Ownership, Trip Generation andTrip Distribution, Data Summary.Oakland, CA.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission.2001b (May). 1998 Base Year Validation of Travel DemandModels for the San Francisco Bay Area (BAYCAST-90), Technical Summary.Oakland, CA.

National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration and Federal HighwayAdministration. 2000 (April). Pedestrianand Bicycle Strategic Planning ResearchWorkshops, Final Report.

Oakland, City of. 1996 (June). OpenSpace, Conservation, and Recreation(OSCAR) Element, City of OaklandGeneral Plan. Oakland, CA.

Oakland, City of. 1998 (January). StreetTree Plan. Oakland, CA: Parks,Recreation and Cultural Services.

Oakland, City of. 1998 (March). EnvisionOakland: Land Use and TransportationElement, City of Oakland General Plan.Oakland, CA: Community and EconomicDevelopment Agency.

Oakland, City of. 1999 (July). BicycleMaster Plan, Part of the Land Use &Transportation Element of the OaklandGeneral Plan. Oakland, CA.

Portland, City of. 1998a (June). PortlandPedestrian Design Guide. Portland, OR:Office of Transportation, Engineering andDevelopment, Pedestrian TransportationProgram.

Portland, City of. 1998b (June). PortlandPedestrian Master Plan. Portland, OR:Office of Transportation, Engineering and Development, PedestrianTransportation Program.

Surface Transportation Policy Project.2000a (May). Beyond Gridlock: MeetingCalifornia’s Transportation Needs in theTwenty First Century. Washington, DC.

Surface Transportation Policy Project.2000b (September). Dangerous by Design: Pedestrian Safety in California.Washington, DC.

Tester, June M. 2001. “Child PedestrianInjury in Oakland.” Oakland, CA.Unpublished paper.

Transportation Research Board. 2000.Highway Capacity Manual. Washington,D.C.: National Research Council.

U.S. Access Board. 1999, November.Accessible Rights-of-Way: A DesignGuide. Washington, DC: U.S.Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance.

U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices. 2001. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and DecreaseOverweight and Obesity. Rockville, MD:U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, Public Health Service, Office ofthe Surgeon General.


Documents

The City of Oakland...Figure 21 Bart Daily Riders, Oakland Stations (BART 2000) 35 Figure 22 Proposed Sidewalk Guidelines 67 Figure 23 Proposed Lighting Guidelines (Fehr & Peers Associates,