Common Goals and Strategies For Oakland Transit

COMMON GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR OAKLAND TRANSIT
Common Goals and Strategies for

Oakland Transit
AN ANALYSIS TO FIND TRANSIT CONSENSUS
DANA RUBIN
May
2016

THE REPORT:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
FIGURES & TABLES & PHOTOS

PURPOSE & GOALS
STATE OF OAKLAND TRANSIT
i. RIDERSHIP
ii. FREQUENCY AND CAPACITY
THE BENEFITS OF TRANSIT
i. AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OAKLAND
ii. SB 375: A STATE MANDATE
NEW APPROACHES TO TRANSIT PLANNING
i. TRANSIT COORDINATION
ii. METHODS FOR COORDINATION
PLAN ASSESSMENT
i. METHODOLOGY I
ii. ASSESSING THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
INTERVIEW ASSESSMENT
i. METHODOLOGY II
ii. INTERVIEW SYNOPSIS
DISCUSSION WITH MATRIX: COMMON GOALS FOR OAKLAND TRANSIT
i. THEMES
NEXT STEPS
THE APPENDIX:
o PLANNING DOCUMENTS SYNTHESIZED

I.
FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES:
Figure 1 : Proportion of Public Transportation Users by Census Tract, 2009-2014 American Community Survey
Figure 2: Ladder of transit planning in Oakland, CA
Figure 3: Regional, City, and Neighborhood Plans Reviewed
Figure 4: Plans categorized, ascending from regional authorities, transit agencies, city-wide Oakland Plans, and
neighborhood specific plans
TABLES:
Table1: AC TRANSIT Ridership from the Major Corridors Study, 2016
Table 2: Daily BART ridership reports: Change from April 2006-April 2016
Table 3: Daily Capitol Corridor Ridership: Change from OCT FY 15 OCT FY 16
Table 4: Daily WETA Ridership: Change from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015
Table 5: Goals and Strategies Matrix: Defining the roles of leading and supporting agencies
Table 6: Appendix: Goals and Strategies defined by Oakland planning documents
PHOTOS:
Photo 1: Modes of Transit, AC Transit, WETA, Capitol Corridor and BART
Photo 2: Local wayfinding signs
Photo 3: Improving effectiveness along current routes credit: LA Street Blog
Photo 4: Fruitvale Transit Village, example of a TOD
Photo 5:

Acknowledgements:
With gratitude, to the advisors: Professor Elizabeth Deakin, Professor Karen Trapenberg Frick, and Sara Barz.
Special thanks to Matt Nichols, Iris Starr, Jason Patton, Sarah Fine,
Fern Uennatornwaranggoon, Derek Cheah, and Teddy Forscher.
II.
PURPOSE:
This report, Common Goals and Strategies for Oakland Transit, defines transit goals and strategies that the City of Oakland
and local transit agencies should pursue based on an assessment of thirty-five planning documents, studies, and polices
published within the last decade. In combination with a document analysis, goals and strategies were vetted through an
in-depth interview process with local transit stakeholders and technocrats. This report aims to find consensus and set
common transit objectives with the intention of developing a more transit-oriented Oakland.
THE GOALS:
1. Achieve a state of good repair; maintain
existing transportation infrastructure.

2. Apply parking revenues to support transit.
3. Coordinate with partnering transportation
providers to foster and incentivize ridership.

4. Encourage economic development.
5. Enhance the dissemination of transit
information.
6. Ensure that transit is accessible and equitable.
7. Expand and alter transit service and improve
system connectivity.
8. Improve frequencies and timed transfers.

9. Improve health and safety of the transit system.
10. Increase effectiveness for a more financially
stable transit system.

11. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
12. Improve bus stop locations, amenities, and
facilities.
13. Improve customer service and operational
efficiencies.
14. Implement priority treatments along key transit
corridors.
III.
OAKLAND TRANSIT TRENDS:
Overall Transit Patterns:

Oakland is the transportation hub of the East Bay. The 2009-2014 American Community Survey estimates that nearly 20% of
all Oakland commuters travel by public transportation. And in any given week, more than 100,000 Oakland residents
commute to work by transit, with more than 27% traveling to San Francisco.1 Furthermore, according to the 2012 California
Household Travel Survey, 27% of commuters travel in downtown Oakland specifically by BART and AC Transit.2
Employment Patterns in Transit:
Transit and ground transportation hires more than 4,900 employees within Oakland. Jobs within this industry include rail and
bus operations, as well as other motor transit. Oaklands regional competitiveness within transportation has surged,
increasing the number of jobs in air, water, and transit transportation by 8,500 jobs since 2000.3 Oaklands job share within
transit and ground passenger transportation is five-times greater than the nine-county Bay Area.4
The Transit Agencies serving Oakland:
The four prominent transit providers within Oakland are AC Transit, BART, Capital Corridor, and WETA. Across these four transit
modes, trips to work are the most common. Secondary to work-trips, patrons use BART and AC Transit to reach schools and
educational programs. Capitol Corridor and WETA ridership increases over the weekend when riders use the systems to
reach recreational and social activities.5
San Francisco (27%), Berkeley (7%), San Leandro (3%), Hayward (2%), and Alameda (2%)
Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland and Access to/from West Alameda, 2015
3
AC Transit 2012 Passenger Study, Survey Findings
4
Location Quotient: 5.0
5
Capitol Corridor Performance Report, 2015
2

Percent of transit riders across Oakland census tracts
Figure 3 : Proportion of public transportation users by census yract, 2009-2014 American Community Survey
i) RIDERSHIP:
AC TRANSIT:
AC Transit spans 45-miles north to south and is contained to 5-miles east to west. Downtown Oakland is the center of
AC Transits network, with many patrons originating, transferring, and completing their travel between Jack London
Square and the MacArthur BART station. All but two of AC Transits major corridor lines pass through the central artery
of Oakland. The College/University Avenue corridor (51A/B) has the second highest ridership in the entire system,
transporting more than 20,000 riders per day. Second to the 51A/B is the Transbay NL line from East Oakland to San
Francisco. This line has seen a surge in ridership in the last several years.6 As shared in AC Transits 2012 Passenger
Study, 43% of riders use the system for work related travel, followed by school trips which are responsible for 16% of all
AC Transit trips.7
T FREQUENCY OF
a
ARRIVAL
b
l
e
72R N
72R S
18
1R
DAILY RIDERSHIP
14,789
7,898
6,575
T
Table1: AC TRANSIT Ridership from the Major Corridors Study, 2016
51A/B
57
NL
NL SF
40 N
40 S
20
21
97
99
NUMBER OF RIDERS PER DAY

20,347
11,352
10,372
5,135
4,394
4,227
BART:
Eight BART stations are in Oakland: Rockridge, MacArthur, 12th Street, 19th Street, West Oakland, Lake Merritt, Fruitvale,
and the Coliseum. According to BARTs April 2016 Monthly Ridership report, nearly 70,000 people travel to and from
Oakland each day by BART. And on average, more than 8,000 BART patrons travel within Oakland per day.
Oaklands BART ridership is one-third of all system-wide trips. As noted in the charts below, within the last decade,
BART ridership has increased by approximately 40% for those traveling across the BART system. Weekday and
weekend ridership traveling strictly within Oakland has increased by 20% and 50%, respectively.8
6
7
8
http://www.actransit.org/2014/01/30/high-spiraling-rideship-for-ac-transit/
AC Transit 2012 Passenger Study, Survey Findings
http://www.bart.gov/about/reports/ridership

The steepest decline of BART use has been at the Coliseum station, where vehicle travel has increased within the
neighborhood by 17% since 1998. Similarly to AC Transit destination data, 88% of all BART trips are between home and
work..9
DAILY
RIDERSHIP
( number of
riders/weekday)
ARRIVING
TO
OAKLAND
LEAVING
FROM
OAKLAND
TRAVELING
WITHIN
OAKLAND
APRIL 2006
48,366
46,897
APRIL 2016*
68,837
% CHANGE
42%
DAILY
RIDERSHIP
(number of
riders/Saturday)
ARRIVING
TO
OAKLAND
LEAVING
FROM
OAKLAND
TRAVELING
WITHIN
OAKLAND
7,211
APRIL 2006
21,795
21,446
3,458
67,326
8,565
APRIL 2016
31,139
30,621
5,211
43%
19%
% CHANGE
42%
42%
50%
Table 2a and 2b: Daily BART Ridership reports: change from April 2006-April 2016
CAPITOL CORRIDOR:
Capitol Corridor is a 168-mile inner city Amtrak line. As stated in the agencys Business Plan Update, there are 30
weekday and 22 weekend trips between Sacramento and Oakland. Between Oakland and San Jose, there are 14
trips, seven days a week.10 18% of all Capitol Corridor riders live in Alameda County.11And across the route, 54% of all
riders use the system to commute to work. 22% of riders travel for social and recreational pursuits. Capitol Corridor has
its strength in regional service. However, due to reduced ridership system wide, Capitol Corridor aims to develop
campaigns and programs to increase usership over the next several years.12
2008 BART Station Profile Study

Capitol Corridor Intercity Rail Service Business Plan Update FY 2014-2015-FY 2015-16, April 2014
11
Capitol Corridor Performance Report, 2015
12
Capitol Corridor Intercity Rail Service Business Plan Update FY 2014-2015-FY 2015-16, April 2014
10

APPROX.
DAILY
RIDERSHIP
OAKLAND
TO
SACRAMENTO
OAKLAND
TO
SACRAMENTO
(JLS)
(COL.)
OAKLAND
TO
SAN JOSE
FY NOV 2015
~220
~67
FY NOV 2016
~233
% CHANGE
5.8%
DAILY RIDERSHIP: Alameda/Oakland Ferry
TOTAL PASSENGERS
FY 2012-2013
~1700
~84
FY 2013-2014
~2,300
~61
~84
FY 2014-2015
~2,590
-8.6%
0%
% CHANGE
50%
Table 3: Daily Capitol Corridor Ridership: OCT FY 16 vs OCT FY 15
Table 4: Daily WETA Ridership: 2012-2015
FERRY:
The Alameda/Oakland ferry provides weekday and weekend service to Alameda, Oakland, and San Francisco
terminals. Seasonal service is provided from Jack London Square to AT&T Park. According to WETAs Short Range
Transit Plan 2015-16 to 2024-25, within the last two years, annual ridership to and from the Alameda/Oakland terminal
has increased by 50%.13 As of June 2015, the Alameda/Oakland ferry line is responsible for 3,267 weekday trips.14
13
14
Short Range Transit Plan FY 2015-2016 to FY2024-25

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/08/24/with-crowds-flocking-to-ferries-agency-considers-adding-new-runs
10
ii) FREQUENCY AND CAPACITY:

BART:
The frequency of BART trains differentiates based on the time-of-day and destination, ranging from 3-4 minute
headways to 20 minute headways on weekends and during non-peak travel.15 System-wide, the most constrained
segment of the rail line is the Transbay Tube, which at present, accommodates 23 trains per hour (22,600 riders) at
peak hours and in peak directions. BART is currently at 86% capacity. This is based on the size of the fleet and the
state of the equipment in use. In current conditions, it is possible for the current system to increase travel load by one
additional train per hour, adding 1,070 passengers.13
AC TRANSIT:
The frequency of AC Transits eleven major corridors ranges from 10 to 45 minutes. Like BART, variation is based on the
time-of-day and destination. In terms of street capacity, there is plenty of it. The Downtown Circulation Study assessed
traffic counts from 2011-2015 to determine downtown Oaklands current street capacity. At present, more than 80%
of the streets are under vehicle capacity. As shared in the report, right-of-way can be reassigned to other road
users without compromising access and circulation for emergency vehicles, transit, and personal vehicles.16
CAPITOL CORRIDOR:
Departures from Capitol Corridors Oakland stations occur approximately every hour for peak commute travel. For
those traveling between 10 am and 4 pm and after 8 pm, frequencies become more occasional, with headways
nearing 2 hours at the Jack London Square station and between 1-3 hours at Oakland Coliseum. Locational capacity
constraints include minimal or expensive car parking at stations and poor access to connecting transit.
15
16
BART schedules: http://www.bart.gov/schedules/bystation

Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland and Access to/from West Alameda, 2015
11

WETA:
On weekdays, the ferries from Oakland to the SF terminals run every 40 minutes during peak hours and every 60 minutes
between 10 a.m.-4 p.m. On weekends, the headways are reduced to every 90 minutes. The Alameda/Oakland ferry
experiences the highest passenger load at peak, more than any other terminal within the system. WETA does not
foresee any changes in the market that would warrant increasing current capacity levels. As indicated, the service
appears to have sufficient capacity to accommodate moderate ridership growth over the next 10 years17
Photo1: Modes of Transit, AC Transit, WETA, Capitol Corridor and BART.

Credit: Teddy Forscher and bioprepwatch.com
17
WETA Short-Range Transit Plan FY 2015-16 to FY 2024-25
12
IV.
THE BENEFITS OF TRANSIT:

At its most basic level, public transit is about providing access to all people
(Jarrett Walker, 2012).
The well-being of growing and expanding urban metropolitan regions is intimately connected to the provision of adequate
and appropriate transportation services. This perspective from Professor Alan Murray is just as relevant today as it was
twenty years ago. Evidence for close knit relationships between public transportation services and economic and societal
health is apparent.18 According to a 2011 report published by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), a
dollar invested in public transportation generates four dollars in economic returns.19 From an environmental and human
health perspective, transit provides significant benefits when compared to the automobile.
LaChapelle and Frank (2008) remind us that by definition, transit users are also walkers and therefore, have higher exposure
to physical activity, reducing the on-set of obesity and other diseases.20 And equally as important, the environmental
benefits that public transportation provides are agreeable across scholarship. In his well-acclaimed book, Transit Metropolis,
Robert Cervero speaks to the long-term environmental benefits public transit can provide when paired with smart
technologies, [public transit] can contain traffic congestion, reduce pollution, conserve energy, and promote social
equity21 Furthermore, the APTA shares that eliminating one car from the road, reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 30%.22
For these reasons and beyond them, it is advantageous for local governments to promote and fund public transit to
encourage equitable and sustainable travel between residential zones, commercial districts, and amenities. Yet, despite
the evident benefits, public transit is often considered secondary to auto-travel. The reason for this varies across cities and
18
Murray, Alan T., Rex Davis, Robert J. Stimson, and Luis Ferreira. "Public transportation access." Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 3, no. 5 (1998): 319-328.
http://www.publictransportation.org/benefits/grows/Documents/Economy-Fact-Sheet-2011.pdf
20
Lachapelle, Ugo, and Lawrence D. Frank. "Transit and health: mode of transport, employer-sponsored public transit pass programs, and physical activity." Journal of Public Health Policy (2009): S73-S94.
21
Cervero, Robert. The transit metropolis: a global inquiry. Island press, 1998.
22
APTA: Public Transportation Reduces Greenhouse Gases and Conserves Energy
19
13

regions. However, the consequences of under-funded and under-developed transit have left systems operating below their
potential.
i. AN OPPORTUNTIY FOR OAKLAND:
Oakland is the transportation hub of the East Bay with BART, AC Transit, Amtrak, and ferry service collecting in the greater
downtown area. And in recent years, transit ridership is increasing with more bus and transit riders commuting to and from
the city is for work and enjoyment. This, coupled with policy directives from the regional level to encourage dense, transitoriented development are strong incentives for the City of Oakland to revise current transit practices, in favor of a more
comprehensive and collaborative program. 23
ii.
SB 375: A STATE MANDATE
In 2008, Senate Bill 375 was adopted to reduce state-wide greenhouse gas emissions through more efficient, more compact
development. As detailed by Barbour and Deakin (2012), the bill emphasizes coordinated efforts between land-use and
transportation; the structure of the bill requires that MPOs work with cities within their jurisdictions to set targets to expand
alternative travel options. This request is a challenge as traditional planning practices have often decoupled land-use and
transportation planning. With aggressive enforcement at the state and regional level, it is beneficial for the City of Oakland
and local transit partners, to achieve SB 375 targets by thinking collaboratively and systematically.24
23
24
Plan Bay Area: A strategy for a Sustainable Region, 2013

Barbour, Elisa, and Elizabeth A. Deakin. "Smart growth planning for climate protection: Evaluating California's Senate Bill 375." Journal of the American Planning Association 78, no. 1 (2012): 70-86.
14
V.
NEW APPROACHES TO TRANSIT PLANNING:
In her newly published book, Street Fight, Janette Sadik-Khan says, buses are as sexy as Amish dresses We all know the
story, buses and rail have been the step-child to auto-centric development thanks to a strong automobile lobby, which
replaced street-cars with publically funded highways in the mid-twentieth century. This pattern has perpetuated, providing
insufficient financing for transit investments. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, recently shared that $24.5 billion is
needed per year to improve the countrys transit-systems. 25
However, the optimistic planner would see a glass half-full. U.S. cities from Denver to Chicago are turning to transit systems
to mobilize commuters cost-effectively. There is transit growth occurring in some of the most unlikely of places. According to
the most recent American Community Survey, the Los Angeles metro-area experienced a 10% increase in transit ridership,
due in part to the launch of the Los Angeles Transit Neighborhood Initiative and the new subway expansion to Santa
Monica.
Government entities are re-invigorating transit mobility through local and regional funding mechanisms. This includes bond
measures, local tax increases, and development fees. In 2014, Alameda County passed Measure BB, a half-cent sales tax to
sponsor transportation investments in the East Bay. This emergence of funding, $8 billon over thirty years, gives Oakland
motivation to update practices and reconsider how staff, resources, and cross-agency collaboration can keep Oakland
competitive for new transit funding.
25
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19495&omniRss=press_releasesAoc&cid=102_P_R
i.
TRANSIT COORDINATION:
Transit planning, like other planning disciplines, extends beyond geographical and political constraints; transit
planning includes multiple organizations, agencies, and perspectives. Hence, it is a great accomplishment
when we are able to pair solutions to a need, and do so in a manner that is agreeable to all concerned
parties.
Christensen (1985) approached this classic planners dilemma with a matrix to suggest how civil servants can
find solutions to complex needs. The matrix, divided into four quadrants, shows that for a portion of our planning
needs, we are unsure how to link concerns with solutions. Its the question of how do we solve a problem and
with what tools? It is within this quadrant that it is critical to work with planning partners to form goals and
strategies that are agreeable.26
When the problem is known but the solution is unknown, innovation is needed.
(Christensen, 1985)
26
Christensen, Karen S. "Coping with uncertainty in planning." Journal of the American Planning Association 51, no. 1 (1985): 63-73.
16

Planners, engineers, transit activists, partner agencies, developers, and government officials have their own objectives and
perspectives for solving Oaklands transit needs. Arguably, for success to be achieved, it is beneficial if the expertise of all
concerned stakeholders be included in the planning and implementation process. As offered by Span et al., excluding
professional organizations from governance results in poor-quality public service 27
Furthermore, Barbara Gray, a professor of organizational behavior, suggests that planning should be discursive and
collaborative if a problem is too daunting for one agency to solve.28 The collaboration process begins by acknowledging
the problem. Following an acknowledgment of a problem, municipal governments need to engage in comprehensive
planning. Emeritus Professor Judith Innes, shares that comprehensive planning is a package of policies that work together. In
this case, collaborative policies to build a comprehensive transit program. 29
In a 1994 research study, Innes reviewed eight cities participating in coordinated planning. Players were brought to a table
and kept there, searching for agreement with their adversaries by external incentives.30 In all cases, Innes reports that the
groups found consensus, designing proposals for long-term implications. Inness case studies, acknowledged that consensus
planning promotes what is good for a particular place. And contrary to traditional practices, censuses building, a series of
linked conversations, inherently achieves cooperation and avoids politicization.
27
Span, Kees CL, Katrien G. Luijkx, Jos MGA Schols, and Rene Schalk. "The relationship between governance roles and performance in local public interorganizational networks: A conceptual analysis." The American
Review of Public Administration (2011): 0275074011402193.
28
Gray, Barbara. "Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration."Human relations 38, no. 10 (1985): 911-936.
29
Innes, Judith E. "Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal." Journal of the American planning association62, no. 4 (1996): 460-472.
30
Innes, J. "Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planner." Berkeley, Calif.: University of California at Berkeley(1994).
ii.
METHODS FOR COORDINATION:
There are a variety of methods for achieving a high level of interagency coordination. To begin, trust at the managerial
level is crucial. Managers that are willing and eager to cross-pollinate ideas, offer flexibility, and share resources will foster
accountability between agencies. Engaged managers set a precedent for their own staff members. We can consider it to
be an osmosis effect; city-staff will mirror engaged and empowered managers, and strive for the same goals. Research by
Zeffane and Kosgaard offers that strong leader-member relationships encourage employees to take on challenging, rather
than risk-averse tasks. This, in combination within external coordination practices, which includes meeting in-person with
stakeholders, assessing problems together, and jointly monitoring goals and strategies, cultivates high-level interagency
collaboration3132.
To determine what goals and strategies the City of Oakland should implement, methods of collaboration were applied:
I.
II.
An in-depth assessment of planning documents published by the city, transit agencies, and regional commissions.
Interviews with local transit stakeholders including transit agencies, regional commissions, and transit advocates
31
Zeffane, Rachid. "Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management style: A comparison of public and private sector employees." Human Relations 47, no. 8 (1994): 977-1010.
Korsgaard, M. Audrey, David M. Schweiger, and Harry J. Sapienza. "Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice." Academy of Management journal 38,
no. 1 (1995): 60-84.
32
VI.
PLAN ASSESSMENT:
Regional Transportation Comission
The schematic at right illustrates how plans are

similar to Matryoshka dolls, stacking into each
other. Trickled down from the federal
government and state, regional transportation
commissions are responsible for distributing
funding through a variety of grant programs.
Plans developed by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (herein, MTC) and
other regional partners are responsible for
producing long-range plans. Presently, MTC
is focused on the next rendition of Play Bay
Area, a regional strategy to accommodate the
Bay Areas impending growth while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. As the designated
purveyor of funds for the nine-county Bay Area,
it is critical that city and local plans key into the
goals that MTC seeks to accomplish.
Alameda County Transportation

Commission
City of Oakland
Neighborhoods
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Transit Agencies
AC Transit
BART
Capitol Corridor
Figure 4: Ladder of transit planning in Oakland, CA
WETA
The Alameda County Transportation

Commission (herein, ACTC) is comprised of the countys 13 cities. ACTC is responsible for distributing funds to the city and
transit agencies. Funds are apportioned by MTC and through other local funding mechanisms such as Measure BB, the
Transportation Improvement Program, and federal programs including the Lifeline Transportation Program, and the One Bay
Area Grant Program. Pipeline projects developed for Oaklands city-wide and specific/neighborhood plans are nested into

ACTCs county-wide transportation plan. 48% of available measure BB funding is allocated towards BART, bus, senior, and
youth transit. As stated in the 2014 Expenditure Plan, ACTC is more likely to fund projects and programs that increase public
transit use for youth and improve operating efficiencies.
Oaklands city-wide plans strive to take into account the policies associated with the regional commissions. Working closely
with the transit agencies, the City of Oakland can curate priorities based on state and federal funding opportunities.
Specific plans are being developed for each of Oaklands niche neighborhoods to hone in on place-based need. These
projects are then able to be added as specific line items within ACTCs county-wide transportation plan, and are
considered priority projects when competing for grants.
Transit agencies strike a unique balance of defining their own objectives while adhering to city needs and policies. Projects
identified in the plans produced by the agencies need to mirror city objectives identified in specific plans.
Agreeing on what Oaklands transit terms should be is no small feat. Hence, assessing what each stakeholder seeks to
achieve in their respective plans, will identify areas of common importance. Agreeing on goals and strategies is critical to
ensuring that Oakland is in fact a transit-first city.
20
i.
METHODS FOR PHASE I:
Reasoning:
An analysis of planning documents, including studies and outreach reports, developed and published by the City of
Oakland, partnering transit agencies, and regional transportation authorities, were synthesized to gain an understanding of
the current goals and objectives circulating within the Oakland transit network. By extracting goals and strategies found in
the documents, prominent and repeating interests were able to be identified.
Technique:
Planning documents were assessed based on descriptive goals and recommendations outlined in the plans. Goals were
cataloged into a variety of ways to identify associations and patterns. Once categorized by key themes and terms, goals
were merged to reduce redundancies. Plans and policies articulated by regional agencies, including the Metropolitan
Planning Commission (MTC) and the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), were marked as goals that the
city is required to comply with. These goals, although often more general, includes state polices: AB 32 and SB 375 which
aim to reduce greenhouse gases and attend to underserved communities. This process of analysis was cultivated with
inspiration from Salt Lake Citys State of the System Fact Book, a component of Seattles transit master plan.33
Disclaimer:
The plans that were assessed for this report do not encompass all reports published by the City of Oakland and partnering
agencies over the last ten years. These plans aim to identify and assess a cross-section from all parties-- recognizing that a
plan may have been overlooked without intention during the assessment process.
33
Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan: State of the System Fact Book
21

CITY OF OAKLAND
YEAR
TRANSIT AGENCIES
Complete Streets Policy
2013
AC TRANSIT
AC Transit Expansion Plan
Draft
AC Transit Public Outreach
Sustainable Oakland
Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown
Oakland
Oakland General Plan, Land-Use and
Transportation Element
Energy and Climate Action Plan
Transit-First Policy
2014
2015
Designing with Transit

Short-Range Transit Plan
CITY WIDE
Broadway Transit Circulation Study
SPECIFIC PLANS
Broadway Valdez
Central Estuary Plan
Central and East Oakland Community Based
Transportation Plan
Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station Access
Plan
Fruitvale Alive! Community Transportation Plan,
Final Report
Lake Merritt BART Station Area Plan
LAMMPS
Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue Community
Transportation Plan
Revive Chinatown Community Transportation
Plan
West Oakland Specific Plan
West Oakland Community-Based Transportation
Plan
YEAR
2015
2015
2004
2014
1998
2012
2013
2013
BART
Quarter Four Report
Build a Better BART
CAPITOL CORRIDOR
Capitol Corridor Vision Plan
Update
WETA
2005
Strategic Plan (2016-2026)
ACTC
ACTC County-Wide Transit
Plan
Multimodal Arterial Corridor
Plan
YEAR
2015
2015
MTC
Plan Bay Area
2013
2015
Connectivity Plan
Transportation 2035
2006
2009
2014
OTHER
CALTRANS: Complete Streets
SPUR Seamless Transit
2014
2015
SPUR Downtown For Everyone
2015
EBOTs Neighboring Cities
2014
2007
2002
REGIONAL COMMISSIONS
2016
2013
2010
2004
2013
2006
Figure 3: Regional, City, and Neighborhood Plans Reviewed
22
ii. DOCUMENT REVIEW: ASSESSING CURRENT PLANNING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS:

The following is an assessment of goals and strategies that frequently appear across the 35 plans, studies, and policies that
were reviewed for this report. Their prominence across the reports suggests that the city and its agencies are agreeable to
their importance. The following graphic highlights the distribution of plans across three categories: fostering an efficient
transit system, encouraging a more sustainable transportation system, and developing a more user-friendly, multi-modal
experience. As detailed by the graphic, plans are distributed relatively evenly across the aforementioned categories, with
slightly more emphasis on improving the systems functionality and user-experience rather than developing a more
sustainable transportation system.

Efficient Transit System: System Functionality
Economic Vitality
Coordination and Partnership
High Quality Transit
Sustainable Transportation System

Sustainable Growth
Environmental Improvement
Health and Safety
Multi-Modal Transportation: User Experience

Multi-Modal
Quality of life
Opportunity for all
ACTC Countywide Transit Plan: Vision and Goals

Alameda Multi-Modal Arterial Plan

Transportation Plan
Complete Streets: Implementation Action 2.0
Complete Streets Resolution and Policy
Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station : Access Plan
Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland

Plan Bay Area
MTC: Transportation 2035
West Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan

Building a Better BART

Transportation Plan
Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART Station : Access Plan
Complete Streets: Implementation Action 2.0
MTC: Transit Connectivity Plan
MTC: Transit Coordination Implementation Plan
West Oakland Community-Based Transportation Plan
Oakland: Energy and Climate Action Plan

Oakland General Plan
Broadway Transit Circulator Study

Broadway Valdez Plan
Fruitvale Alive! Community Transportation Plan
Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue Community Transportation
Plan
Lake Merritt BART Station
LAMMPS
Revive Chinatown Community Transportation Plan
Central and East Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan
Plan Bay Area

MTC: Transit Connectivity Plan
MTC: Transit Coordination Implementation Plan
AC Transit : Public Outreach Campaign

AC Transit: Short Range Transit Plan
AC Transit: Designing with Transit
Plan Bay Area

AC Transit: Expansion Plan
Alameda Multi-Modal Arterial Plan

West Oakland Community Based Transportation Plan
Sustainable Oakland 2014-2015

Transit First Policy
Build a Better BART


Harrison/Street Oakland Avenue Community Transportation
Plan
Lake Merritt Station Area Plan
Transit First Policy
Oakland: Energy and Climate Action Plan

Sustainable Oakland 2014-2015
Broadway Transit Circulation Study

Lake Merritt BART Station Area Plan
Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue Community Transportation Plan
Figure 4: Plans categorized, ascending from regional authorities, transit agencies, city-wide Oakland Plans, and neighborhood specific plans
24
VII.
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
Achieve a state of good repair:
Coordinate to incentivize ridership:
Regional/State: 3
Transit agencies: 2
City-Wide: 2
Neighborhood/Specific Plans: 1
Total: 8
Regional/State: 5
Transit Agencies: 3
City-Wide: 2
Neighborhoods/Specific Plans: 6
Total: 16
From the regional to the local level, plans speak about

improving the state of the system, noting that there are
current policies and procedural inconsistencies
concerning maintenance. Concerns include poor road
condition and the need to balance the paving program
across all neighborhoods. The Countywide Transit Plan
states that agencies and cities need to balance
expanding fleets against a fix-it-first policy. The
Broadway Transit Circulator Study, the Oakland General
Plan, and the Transportation 2035 report, suggest
developing a more comprehensive process for prioritizing
maintenance needs. AC Transits Designing with Transit
plan and their Short-Range Transit Plan, recommends
prioritizing upkeep based on public support and crucial
assets.
Improving inter-agency coordination is an apparent need

based on the breadth of plans that recommend strategies
to work more collaboratively; recommendations pertain to
both planning and operations. MTCs Transit Connectivity
Plan recommends coordinating schedules and fares to
improve seamless riding between transit vendors. And, at
the city-level, plans endorse coordinating efforts that take
advantage of private partnerships. This would include
programs such as car and bike-share for last-mile
programming. Furthermore, Oaklands General Plan and
Transportation 2035, offers that the city and its partners
establish an interagency review procedure to vet plans
and programs before they are published to avoid
inconsistencies.
25
Encourage economic development
Enhance the dissemination of travel information:
Regional/State: 4
Transit Agencies: 1
City-Wide: 2
Total: 10
Regional/State: 1
Transit Agencies: 1
City-Wide: 2
Total: 7
The Oakland General Plan underscores economic

development as a priority goal. And more recently,
city-wide plans including the Broadway Transit Circulation
Study and Sustainable Oakland, have acknowledged this
goal with equal importance. These plans, as well as the
Broadway Valdez and West Oakland Specific Plans, and
the Lake Merritt Station Plan, encourage the
advancement of projects that will link transportation and
economic development. Discussions pertaining to this goal
include maintaining the B-Shuttle line in downtown
Oakland, and incentivizing transit-oriented development
at BART stations throughout the city. Regional stakeholders
further support the goal, stating that there should be more
emphasis on transit investments which achieve the
greatest returns on dollars spent.
The city and partnering agencies have concerns

regarding the distribution of transit information. Concerns
suggest that real-time information at stops and
way-finding signs to direct the public to transit are
minimal. This concern is supported in BART and MTC plans,
along with specific plans including the Broadway-Valdez
Specific Plan, the Central and East Oakland Community
Based Transportation Plans, the Lake Merritt Station Area
Plan, the Revive Chinatown Community Transportation
Plan, and LAMMPS. Across the agencies, there is
consensus to design a way-finding program, and to
improve real-time departure information at stations and
stops. The city and partnering agencies foresee that these
strategies will improve transit transparency between the
public and civil servants.
26
Photo 2: Local wayfinding signs credit: Teddy Forscher
Improve bus stop locations, amenities and facilities
Improve customer service and operational efficiencies
Regional/State: 2
Transit Agencies: 4
City-Wide: 0
Total: 15
Regional/State: 4
Transit Agencies: 2
City-Wide: 0
Total: 6
There is substantial agreement that bus stop locations and

amenities need to be upgraded. At present,
neighborhood specific plans request that shelters be
improved, sidewalk conditions along routes be upgraded,
and routes simplified to allow for optimum spacing
between stops. Recommendations to improve these
current conditions include adding curb extensions,
accommodating in-line stops, and locating stops on the
far-side of intersections to eliminate bus and vehicle
conflicts. Neighborhood plans stress the improvement of
stop facilities; this includes updating benches and shelters.
All parties recommend that a formalized protocol be
adopted to expedite bus-stop improvements. Similar goals
are defined across the transit sector; however, how we
define and adhere to standards and procedures is up for
debate.
Plans have remarked that without proper protocols, transit

along main corridors has the tendency to slow down due
to multiple modes competing for space. To curb this
problem, plans published by AC Transit recommend
establishing common endpoints for bus routes,
determining operator break facilities, and streamlining
road supervision to improve fleet reliability. Regional goals
set by Plan Bay Area, seek to encourage transit
performance initiativesfor example, a program that
promotes the use of low-cost technology upgrades to
improve the systems dependability. Specific responses to
this need include the implementation of bus queue
jumping and on-board payment systems.
27
Increase effectiveness for a financially stable system:
Improve frequencies and times transfers:
Regional/State: 3
Transit Agencies: 1
City-Wide: 1
Total: 9
Regional/State: 1
Transit Agencies: 3
City-Wide: 1
Total: 10
ACTCs Countywide Transit Plan wants all transit

investments to achieve the greatest return on
investmentwhat pipeline projects will have the greatest
benefit to the most amount of people? At the local level,
the Central Estuary Area Plan, the Harrison Street Oakland
Avenue Community Transportation Plan, the Lake Merritt
Station Plan, LAMMPS, and the West Oakland Specific Plan
have echoed the regional agencys sentiment, setting
goals to use resources efficiently. To be more financially
stable, AC Transit plans recommend investing in the
arterial network rather than expanding the systems
coverage.
The interest to improve frequencies is a well-accepted

recommendation across the four interest groups, and is
further accentuated across Oaklands specific plans, with
interest to expand night and weekend service and
demand response transit. Across AC Transits reports, there
are strategies to improve headways by designing simpler
routes, eliminating canceled and late assignments,
installing all-door boarding and of-board payment
systems. Those surveyed for AC Transits Public Outreach
Campaign seek 10-minute headways on trunk lines.
Photo 3: Improving effectiveness along current routes credit:

LA Street Blog
28
Ensure that transit is accessible and equitable
Modify transit service to improve connectivity
Regional/State: 4
Transit Agencies: 1
City-Wide: 3
Total: 14
Regional/State: 3
Transit Agencies: 3
City-Wide: 3
Total: 15
Ensuring that transit is accessible and equitable is a key

goal for transit stakeholders. Transportation 2035 states that
public transportation should be improved particularly for
the low-income, elderly, and disabled. This is reverberated
in the visions and goals of Alamedas Multi-Modal Arterial
Plan, which states that the transit network should provide
access for people of all ages, abilities, incomes, and
geographiesthose residing in MTCs Communities of
Concern. At the city-level, the Oakland General Plan and
Policy t4.5 of the Broadway Transit Circulation Study, offers
that transportation be made accessible for everyone.
Oaklands specific plans provide suggestions to ground
this goal with action steps. The specific plans recommend
reduced student fares for children, seniors, and the
disabled, extending AC Transit transfer windows, and
providing senior shuttle programs from BART stations.
Efforts to expand and modify transit service are led by

neighborhood specific plans. The Broadway-Valdez, the
Central Estuary, the Central and East Oakland Community
Based Transportation Plan, the Chinatown Community
Transportation Plan, the West Oakland Community Based
Transportation Plan, and the West Oakland Specific Plan,
all envision altered service to improve system connectivity.
For example, the West Oakland Specific Plan recommends
that the city coordinate with AC Transit to implement a
transit loop from Mandela Parkway to Emeryville. And in
the Central Estuary Plan, it is suggested that new east-west
bus routes be added for improved connectivity between
Chinatown and Jack London Square. AC Transit, by way
of its three plans reviewed for this report, along with the
city s Energy and Climate Action Plan, MTCs Transit
Connectivity Plan, Sustainable Oakland, and Alamedas
Multi-Modal Arterial Plan, suggest achieving the
aforementioned goal by supporting the adoption of bus
rapid transit universally throughout the city.
29
Priority treatments for transit on key corridors
Prioritize TODs and priority development areas
Regional/State: 2
Transit Agencies: 2
City-Wide: 1
Total: 8
Regional/State: 5
Transit Agencies: 3
City-Wide: 4
Total: 19
MTC and AC Transit agree that the best way to improve

regional transit is to prioritize treatment along key corridors.
Both agencies, as well as recommendations detailed in
the Harrison Street/Oakland Avenue Community
Transportation and the Lake Merritt Station Area Plan,
suggest that this goal can be achieved by improving
traffic management practices. This includes signal timing
and queue jump lanes. AC Transit further suggests that the
city prioritize transit by reducing and/or eliminating
on-street parking to relieve corridor congestion.
The majority of plans reviewed state goals that encourage

transit-oriented and priority-area development. MacArthur
and both the 12th and19th street BART stations have been
stated as sites to expand multi-use development. Across
the agencies, there is support to modify current land-use
policies to encourage said development. Furthermore,
transit agencies offer that reducing the physical
separation of transit hubs will propagate transit-oriented
and higherdensity construction.
30
Photo 1: Fruitvale Transit Village, example of a TOD
Credit: Teddy Forscher
Direct parking revenues to support transit investments
Improve health connection
Regional/State: 2
Transit Agencies: 2
City-Wide: 2
Neighborhoods: 6
Total: 10
Regional/State: 4
Transit Agencies: 1
City-Wide: 4
Neighborhoods: 4
Total: 13
Oakland neighborhoods and transit agencies want to see

changes to the current parking policies to modify on and
off street parking along specific routes. Six neighborhood
plans advise the city to adopt a parking demand
management strategy; this includes park-once-andwalk, monitoring on-street parking more aggressively
during peak demand hours. Similarly, specific plans, as well
as AC Transit, recommend establishing community benefit
districts and/or parking benefit districts to manage onstreet and off-street parking, and to reward non-auto
travel. Creative revenue streams, including bonds and
in-lieu fees could subsidize costly transit capital
investments.
The aim to improve city air-quality and ensure that the

transit system is safe for all users is disseminated from the
regional entities. MTCs Transportation 2035 report, seeks to
employ a safe routes to transit program; this interest has
been further iterated at the county and local level.
Suggestions to improve safety includes monitoring collision
rates, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and continuing
efforts to slow down traffic. A safe system must coordinate
with an equitable and accessible system, ensuring that all
people, despite their ability or age, feel safe using the
transit network.
Photo 4: Increasing deployment of cleaner AC Transit buses credit: AC Transit 31
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

Regional/State: 4
Transit Agencies: 2
City-Wide: 3
Neighborhoods/Specific: 3
Total: 12
Plan Bay Area is the most significant regional plan to

address climate change with goals to reduce non-auto
mode share by 10%. The Countywide Transit Plan and
Capitol Corridors Vision and Goals, allude to amending
land-use development towards higher density, and
prepping for sea-level rise. We see strong directives
towards this topic from the citys Energy and Climate
Action plan; the plan suggests reducing per-ride transit
delay due to aging infrastructure by 100% and reducing
vehicle operating and maintenance costs due to
pavement conditions by 100%, two lofty goals. Further
strategies noted by the regional entities include
developing special zoning to support transit, designing
pedestrian-oriented streets, and supporting policies and
mechanisms to reduce vehicle miles traveled per captia.
The City of Oakland, and supporting specific plans, note
these regional recommendations.
VII WHAT THE AGENCIES ARE SAYING

Reasoning:
The above document analysis assessed transit goals and strategies based on what currently exist in
publications. Based on the review, we find that across the varying levels of government and across agencies,
there is a sense of agreement about what goals should be accomplished. This assessment has set the
foundation for determining Oaklands common goals for transit. This document review illustrated that the desire
to improve Oakland transit is apparent. Without having to re-invent the wheel, transit goals and strategies have
been brain-stormed and now extracted from pre-existing plans. However, before we mark the above goals as
essential, we turn to interviews as a second assessment.
Technique:
In-depth interviews were conducted with AC Transit, BART, MTC, SPUR, Transport Oakland, and staff within
Public Works and the Office of the Mayor. During hour long sessions, the above document review was
discussed in detail, allowing for an open-ended conversation to discuss the agencies priority concerns. Do the
planning documents reflect the concerns of the transit agencies? Are they a noble assessment of the current
state of the system? Do the goals and strategies mentioned, reflect what each agency wishes to cultivate as
part of their own mission and objectives?
Disclaimer:
The following interviews are an editorialized assessment; these perspectives are views held by a few current
employees and do not necessarily reflect the agencies views.
AC TRANSIT:
When considering the placement and replacement of bus stops, the citys most significant coordinating
partner is AC Transit. Stated in the agencys expansion plan, and their report, Designing with Transit (2004),
AC Transit aims to make bus stops safe, efficient, and convenient for their customers. Similar sentiments were
reiterated by a senior transportation planner at the agency, suggesting that there needs to be a procedure
for bus stop location changes, a policy that the City of Oakland has yet to develop. At present, the agency
is forced to make changes stop by stop. This, as shared by the interviewee, can be laborious because there
is no regulation or common practice.
AC Transit has not been shy in their own reports to foster this goal across Oakland and the greater service
area. Noted in the agencys Short Range Plan, the agency wants to improve on-time performance to 72%
by improving mean miles. This goal is lofty, however, in response the interviewee did not seem intimidated by
the aim, suggesting that strategies to improve on-time performance can be as simple as developing
frequency of service maps and allowing for back-door and travel-lane boarding.
Noted within the citys specific plans and in the citys Sustainable Oakland 2014-2015 report, the City of
Oakland aspires to add local feeder lines. Yet, from the perspective of AC Transit, funding should not be
directed towards new line development. There should be fewer new routes and more focus on frequency
and maintenance. Stated by the interviewee, our riders care if the bus is reliable, not if it shows up at
8:14. From AC Transits perspective, the map is pretty good, its not so much about new routes, its about
the frequencies.
When asked if the agency was accepting of Oaklands Transit First Policy, reservations were articulated. As
the leading agency that controls and monitors bus traffic, the interviewee spoke on behalf of his fellow
34
colleagues. improvements that slow the roads, arguably take buses a longer time to complete their trips.
To improve the Transit First Policy, AC Transit asks that buses be a higher, or at least, equal priority to the city.
Improvements to the policy include removing on-street parking from 11th-20th street along Broadway in
downtown Oakland, and improving the rapid lines.
The Comprehensive Circulation Study for Downtown Oakland, the EBOTs Neighboring Cities report, and the
Lake Merritt BART Station Plan, are all examples of plans that introduce the concept of the transit
hub/intermodal facilities.. However, for AC Transit, the agency feels indifferent about a multi-modal station if
improvements to the above-mentioned Transit First Policy fail to be achieved. As shared by the interviewee,
transit hubs should only be developed in nodes where people want to connectexamples of this would be
the Eastmont Transit Center. If the street already works, a transit hub is not necessary--- especially if bus
stops have to be made shorter.
Tangential to improving the Transit First Policy, AC Transit is equally apprehensive about Complete Streets. It
is not complete if transit isnt helped. AC Transit was anxious to re-brand the term to Complete Corridor,
suggesting that not all modes need to travel on the same roadway-- as long as we improve travel for all
modes in the same direction. AC Transit calls out the main corridors: San Pablo, Telegraph, MacArthur, and
Broadway, as the corridors that are the backbone of the Oakland transit system.
Improving real-time transit information has been suggested in regional and specific neighborhood plans to
increase ridership. Stated in the MTC Connectivity Plan, real-time information should be consistent among
hubs. Despite documentation, goals for improving real-time information at bus shelters are not a high
priority for AC Transit. Smart phone use is so prevalent and we struggle with securing accurate real-time
35
information. Furthermore, the interviewee stated that before real-time information is a high-priority goal, we
need to improve sidewalks and again, remove parking. AC Transit is the first to recognize that coordination
across the system is far from perfect. coordination is spottygaps in communication have led to poor
coordination. As a recommendation, the AC Transit employee suggested looking to cities that have
embraced coordination better than we have. Seattles King County Metro, has taken a lead in multi-modal
arterial planning, a process that would be advantageous for the transit community of Oakland to learn
from
MTC:
From the perspective of MTC, transit priorities begin with land-use reform. A transportation planner at the
commission voiced that transit wont work if land-use wont respond. This recommendation is expressed in
the commissions Plan Bay Area report as a response to Senate Bill 375. From the viewpoint of MTC, cities
transit goals need to reflect the policies detailed in this plan. During the interview, it was offered that MTC is
more likely to fund capital and programmatic strategies that alleviate emissions.
Beyond GHG reductions, an equitable distribution of service really matters to regional transportation
planners. We care about rideability access. From the viewpoint of MTC, Oaklands transit system will
stagnant if the travel experience only improves for current users. According to MTC, increasing ridership can
be as simple as prioritizing way-finding and signaling improvements. From our interviewees perspective, its
the City of Oaklands responsibility to take the lead on way-finding. As the jurisdiction at large, Oakland
should be doing more to improve Oakland branding for signaling and walk signage.
36
Taking the above remarks into consideration, the interviewee suggested that the city take a step back. The
city has to decide what its going to be, a funnel for San Francisco transit, or something else? From the
regional viewpoint, when developing capital projects, the aim isnt to construct the next flashy project-- it is
the responsibility of the transit agency to service programs and capital projects that discourage
displacement. This is critical with the rise of sea-level rise eminent and the need to increase access to lowincome and senior residents.
BART:
During an interview with two accessibility coordinators at Bay Area Rapid Transit, herein BART, the
interviewees emphasized the agencys priority to reduce the citys automobile travel. From BARTs
perspective, to accomplish this, system access needs to be addressed and it begins with reducing on and
off-street parking. The city is beginning to remove parking minimums, but we need to set parking
maximums. In turn, this would free up the drop-off locations at stations, and remove bottlenecks during
commute hours. BART interviewees shared that this has been an area of dissonance for quite some time. For
example, at the Lake Merritt, Rockridge, and Coliseum stations, carpools are dropping off their passengers in
the AC Transit right-of-way due to the stops close proximity to the stations entrances. But, this has been
cause of unruly ticketingupwards of $300.000 by the county sheriff, a contract established by AC Transit.
A Band-Aid solution to improve this conflict would be improving way-finding and signage at stations.
However, the interviewees also stressed a stronger policy, the need for a curb management policy to
amend parking requirements, lengthen bus stops, and manage pick-up and drop-off locations. buses are
stopping in the center of corridors to let off their passengers, a signifier that we need coordinated efforts to
improve station access.
37
When asked about implementing transit hubs, BART was compelled but with a caveat which leaned on their
earlier concerns pertaining to curb management. ...with multiple BART entrances at each station, for a hub
to work, there would need to be a coordinated effort to pin-point one bus pick-up and drop-off location.
BART maintains the opinion that Oaklands Transit First Policy does not support transit enough. In defense of
AC Transit, the BART interviewees referenced the Telegraph Avenue Complete Streets Implementation Plan.
As shared in a memo by AC Transit General Manager, David Armijo, the aim of the policy is to prioritize
transit over the automobile, re-stating the policy, increased speed, better accessibility to, and improved
frequency of transit service encourages greater use of public transit and increases fare box revenues.
However, both transit agencies state that the Telegraph improvements were created at the expense of
transit. BART interviewees feel that the streetscape modifications will reduce transit speeds and increase their
costs. Oakland goals do not translate into our concerns. When asked what role the city can play to
improve coordination efforts, the interviewees quickly suggested that the department hire a transit
coordinator. We have never had a transit advocate at the City of Oakland; there has not been an
on-going relationship. We have come up against many missed opportunities. In their final words, the
interviewees emphasized the East Bays position within the bay. People are moving east and using the
system; this is our opportunity to make it better.
COMMUNITY ADVOCACY GROUPS:
SPUR & TRANSPORT OAKLAND
Local advocacy groups interviewed offered that the Oakland transit system needs to prioritize poor
connections. With limited financial resources, SPUR advocates for moving resources to where the most
number of riders reside, as well as encourage private partnerships with Uber and Lyft to support last-mile
coverage.
38
To make Oakland transit great, SPUR suggests bringing transit to a basic standard. To do this, and with limited
resources, a director of transportation planning at SPUR advocates for developing a priority list of Oaklands
highest need areas. If the same goal is appearing in twenty plans, then said goal should be tackled until it is
complete. In turn, this will articulate to the greater community that Oakland cares about transit. Take the
busiest route and make it great.
A member of Transport Oakland said that, as far as transit goes, Oakland is on the right track-- the city
just needs to move the right projects forward. The interviewee projected that this is likely due to not having
enough staffing. patchwork planning will no longer suffice... Implementing transit infrastructure requires
conversations with the community, compromise, and pilot programs. Furthermore, in an agreement with the
interviewees from BART and AC Transit, Transport Oakland advocates for a revised Transit First Policy that
fights for basic service we have to ask ourselves what the best ways are to provide service is to our
customers.
Listed on their website, Transport Oakland notes the importance of cross-agency coordination. Repair
relationships with AC Transit and BART and support the creation of an administrative process to
de-politicize decisions about bus stop additions, removals, and relocations. Transport Oakland advocates for
an Oakland DOT; the interviewee was candid about wanting a department that is well-resourced and
allows for staff to have explicit roles. Dedicated staff will drive better policies and projects.
39
Goals emphasized by the interviewees:
Achieve a state of good repair; maintain existing
Implement priority treatments for transit on key

corridors
transportation infrastructure
Apply parking revenues to support transit
Improve frequencies and transfers
Coordinate with partnering transportation
Increase effectiveness of a more financially stable

transit system
providers to foster and incentivize ridership
Encourage transit-oriented and priority-area
Move bus stop locations, amenities, and facilities
development
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Ensure that transit is accessible and equitable
Expand and modify transit service and improve

system connectivity
40
VIII.
DISCUSSION: A SHARED TRANSIT STRATEGY

Actionable Recommendations
The City of Oakland, transit agencies, and regional commissions are in general agreement with the goals that
have been defined across more than thirty plans published at the local, city, and regional level. After an in-depth
document synthesis, vetted with stakeholder interviews, the following goals are assumed necessary for providing
an effective transit system to the residents and visitors of Oakland.
The document analysis and the interviews articulated goals and strategies to improve the Oakland transit system.
How do we operationalize the aforementioned goals and strategies? The next phase of this report, seeks to pair
agencies to strategies to begin a conversation about next-steps and the necessary coordination efforts required
to achieve Oaklands common goals for Transit. The following matrix pairs the strategies that are notated in the
reports and interviews with leading and supporting agencies.
Disclaimer: These strategies and partnerships are malleable; as they do not fully encompass the numerous
strategies and approaches to updating the current transit system.
41
IX.
THE MATRIX:
Responsible Agencies:
Leading = Support = S
City of
Oakland
MTC
ACTC
AC
Transit
BART
Capitol
Corridor
WETA
Private
Achieve a state of good repair;

maintain existing transportation
infrastructure
Increase local road pavement
condition index (PCI) to 75 or
better
Balance fleet expansion (buses
and rail cars) against system
expansion (expanding road & rail
network) " Fix it First" Policy
Coordinate with partnering

transportation providers to foster
and incentivize ridership
Coordinate schedules and fares
across the transit agencies to
create seamless riding
Coordinate with agencies to foster

shuttle and last mile services
42
Share resources between transit

agencies
Establish interagency review
procedures to maintain
consistency between plans, and to
ensure that future development is
consistent
Hold regular action-oriented
meetings with between the city
and transit partners to coordinate
immediate and long-term
planning
Encourage economic
development
Ensure that improvement to
Broadway will not preclude the
possibility of future streetcar
service along the corridor/ trolley
service
Encourage TODs and priority

development areas (PDAs)
Support land-use patterns that

provide a mix of uses and greater
density around activity centers
Reduce the physical separation of

transit hubs
Enhance the dissemination of

transit information
Implement a way-finding program

Provide real-time transit departure
information online and at stations
and stops
Implement a printed brochures
(multilingual) to provide residents
to inform employees and visitors
about transportation alternatives
Ensure that transit is accessible

and equitable
Focus efforts in Communities of

Concern
Offer Ride Home Programs and

paratransit shuttle programs
Support and locate ADA services

in areas with good transit service
Support discounted tickets for

youth, seniors, and low-income
riders
Expand and modify transit service;

improve connectivity
Expand morning and evening

service
Simplify corridors with shorter
routes to improve reliability and
legibility
Support the adoption of bus rapid

transit lines
Work with private shuttle operators

to expand the geographic area.
Implement priority treatments for

transit on key corridors
Ensure that residents on bus

corridors can easily walk transit

Support traffic management
practices, e.g. signal timing and
queue jump lanes on priority
transit lanes
Reduce the amount of on-street
parking on transit routes to relieve
street congestion
Improve bus stop locations,

amenities, and facilities (curb
management)
Move bus stop locations to
provide optimum spacing
between spots while increasing
length of bus stops
Create curb extensions,
accommodate in-lane stops, and
locate bus stops on the far side of
intersections
Improve stop facilities e.g.

benches and shelters
10
Improve customer service and

operational efficiencies
Establish common endpoints for
bus routes in order to access
common operator break facilities,
streamline road supervision
10
11
Support the Transit Performance

Initiative (TPI) that aim to use lowcost technology upgrades to
dramatically improve the speed
and reliability of roadways and
transit service.
Improve frequencies and timed

transfers
Improve on-time performance of

transit service
Eliminate canceled assignments

and reduce late assignments
Design simple routes to improve

headway reliability
Install all-door boarding and offboard payment systems

Ensure 15 minute frequency on
Major Corridors, 10 minutes on
Trunk Lines
12
Improve air quality and safety of

the transit system
12
Promote a Safe Routes to Transit

Program
Monitor Collison Rates
Continue efforts to slow down

traffic
13
Increase effectiveness for a more

financially stable transits system
Have supply match demand;
ensure that transit investments
achieve the greatest returns on
dollars spent
investment in the arterial network
will make efficient and effective
use of resources including
effective use of operating costs
14

and strengthen community
resilience
Fleet electrification and reduce

diesel emissions
15
16
Develop
special zoning to support transit
and pedestrian orientation
on these streets
Monitor GHGs -- Increase nonauto mode share by 10
percentage points
(to 26 percent of trips)
Decrease automobile vehicle
miles traveled per capita by 10
percent
Use parking revenues to support

transit
Parking Demand Management

Strategy "park-once-and-walk"
Establish a community Benefit
District or Parking Benefit District to
manage on-street and off-street
parking for revenue
Require development in lieu fees

go towards transit improvements
i.
THEMES:
Beyond the sixteen aforementioned goals, themes are apparent that should be considered when the City of
Oakland and partnering agencies develop policies and action plans. The following considerations are central to
the success of implementing all goals and strategies. Those considerations are:
Improving coordination efforts
Defining administrative policies.
i) COORDINATION:
During interviews with both AC Transit and BART, the interviewees addressed the need for improve coordination.
Gaps in communication and the lack of transit advocacy within public works, has led the agencies feeling
unsupported in a city which claims to be a transit-first city. Referring back to the planning documents, the desire to
improve coordination is apparentwith more than fifteen reports remarking on the need to improve
collaboration. This further nods to the academic research noted earlier in this report, which remarks on the need
to address planning more creatively through partnerships. At the regional level we read from MTC to coordinate
last-mile connecting services and to improve scheduled coordination. City-wide plans address this need, as well.
In the Complete Streets: Integrating the transportation system report, Utilize leadership and strategic partnerships
to develop an integrated transportation system. Neighborhood/Specific plans emphasis the need to coordinate
across public partners, but also with private shuttle services to fulfill last mile connections.
50
From the perspective of the transit operators and senior transportation planners at the city, there is a gap in
administrative policies, which delays quick and effective change. As shared, without set policies and instructions,
an improvement, arguably as simple as replacing or moving a bus-stop, is prolonged. When speaking to BART
employees on the matter, they noted that despite attempts, there continues to be little direction about who at
the city is effectively responsible for certain transit matters. Establishing defined roles and setting policies within The
City of Oakland should curb these concerns.
(1) ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:
The plans reviewed for this report illustrate that the elements for the following administrative polices exist; the city
and partnering agencies have noted their importance and are pursuing them at a certain scale. This is an
opportunity to solidify these-- improving on their granularity for the betterment of the transit-system.
A Transit-First Policy: we have the elements of a transit-first
Unanimously, interviewees reflected that Oaklands Transit First Policy, a policy enacted in 1996 to promote public
transit, has not been mirrored with changes on the ground. As communicated by members of Transport Oakland,
a policy is only as strong as the tools provided. Furthermore, in a 2006 resolution to introduce a car-free day in
Oakland, the following was stated, bring Bay Area residents to the premier transit-friendly hub of the East
Bay Yet, transit employees question the citys dedication to becoming a more transit-oriented city, despite twodecades of policy.
Parking Policy:
Based on the opinions of the agencies, Oakland cannot be a transit-oriented city without amending current
parking policies, a policy that should be paired with Transit-First. Interviewees from AC Transit and BART,
recommend setting parking maximums to remove bottlenecks at congested stations, and incentivizing public
transit ridership and carpool drop-offs. Furthermore, the agencies would like to see parking removals along
51
corridors, like Broadway, which can afford to have less parking. As suggested, a policy to remove parking from
11th-20th street along Broadway would improve the speed of bus rapid lines, a significant need for passengers who
request improved on-time arrivals.
A Curb Management Policy:
The need for a curb management policy is clear and plays into similar frustrations that the transit agencies share
about off-loading their passengers. At present, there is a general consensus from transit partners that a curb
management policy is required to set street standards. This includes policies for removing or extending curbs,
modifying on-street parking, and changing bus-stop locations. Furthermore, for transit hubs to be installed at key
locations throughout Oakland, it is critical that a curb management policy be accepted to pin-point central dropoff locations and street designations.
A Way-Finding Policy:
At present, way-finding and signage deployment is ad-hoc. Yet, MTC notes that signage is an inexpensive way to
increase ridership; its the City of Oaklands responsibility to take the lead on way-finding. Oakland can do more
to improve Oakland branding for signaling and walk-signage. MTCs perspective of way-finding is further detailed
by the agencies. In the interviews, AC Transit and BART interviewees, advocated for a city initiated way-finding
program to avoid conflicts at stations where multiple modes of traffic need to be directed.
52
X.
NEXT STEPS:
Should Oakland move forward with a transit action plan, the first step that the City of Oakland needs to pursue is
to develop a protocol for prioritizing pipeline projects, based on the aforementioned common goals and
strategies. Defining top-priorities, a recommendation from SPUR and Transport Oakland, will direct resources and
staffing to the most critical projects. This process can begin by re-instating monthly action meetings with
stakeholders to determine which projects are the most viable.
Furthermore, action steps need to be taken to amend and develop administrative policies; this includes revising
the Transit First Policy, modifying the parking program, and creating a curb management program that emulates
AC Transits road standards. This process deserves up-front dedicated resources and staffing to determine
Oaklands priority corridors and priority hubs.
Based on concerns derived from the interviews, it would be advantageous for the City of Oakland to hire a transit
coordinator to advocate for system-wide improvements. At present, a dedicated transit coordinator does not
exist; if this arrangement persists, it will gridlock the goals and strategies that all transit partners wish to achieve. This
empowered employee would have a strong understanding of this complex transit system-- able to maneuver and
advocate across the agencies, able to bring service up to a basic level of need, and creatively approach
inter-agency collaboration.
Above all, the city and its partners have an opportunity, the knowledge, and tools to strengthen Oakland transit to
improve access for current and future riders.
53
XI.
APPENDIX:
Way-Finding Policies:
In 2010, the City of Alexandria, Virginia, assembled a way-finding stakeholder advisory group to unify the citys
design identity, streamline signage protocols, and improve walking and transit direction information. A working
group formed allowing for a creative and collaborative process to lead the effort. Community meetings and
multiple work sessions with the Boards of Architectural Review, the Planning Commission, and City Council,
endorsed the process.
Link: Alexandra, Virginia Way Finding Program
Progressive Parking Policies:
Places including Pittsburg, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco have led the effort to set caps on parking. In
nearby San Francisco, the city has eliminated minimum residential parking requirements in neighborhoods served
well by transit. In the downtown, developers are only able to allot .75 parking spaces for each new housing unit.
Resources that can offer guidelines for altering parking policies and zoning include: Parking Spaces / Community
Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions and the High Cost of Parking, Donald Shoup.
Curb-Management Policies:
In 2010, The Institute of Transportation and Development published U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of
Management Strategies, to highlight alternative methods for curb management. As shared in the report, San
Francisco, Portland, Boulder, Chicago, New York City, and Cambridge have led the way in curb space
reinvention.
54
Coordinate schedules and fares across

the transit agencies to create seamless
riding


agencies
procedures to maintain consistency
between plans, and to ensure that
future development is consistent
Hold regular action-oriented meetings
with between the city and transit
partners to coordinate immediate and
long-term planning
3 Encourage economic development

Ensure that improvement to Broadway
will not preclude the possibility of future
streetcar service along the corridor/
trolley service
4 development areas (PDAs)

Support land-use patterns that provide
a mix of uses and greater density
around activity centers

transit hubs
Enhance the dissemination of transit
5 information

information online and at stations and
stops
ak
lan
d
rea
sp
ort
O
Tra
n
SP
UR
MT
C
BA
RT
n
Pla
ay
A
Pla
nB
Ge
ne
ral
Oa
kla
nd
MT
C
Co
nn
ec
tivi
ty
Pla
n
utr
e
ub
lic
O
Re
vi
Pla ve C
hin
n
ato
wn
Co
Su
mm
sta
un
ina
ity
ble
Tra
Oa
ns
kla
po
rta
nd
tio
Tra
n
ns
po
rta
tio
n2
03
5
We
s
Tra t Oa
ns klan
po
rta d Co
tio
n P mmu
We
lan nity
st
Oa
Ba
se
kla
d
nd
Sp
ec
i
fic
Int
Pla
erv
iew
n
s
AC
Tra
ns
it
na
nd
Ala
ac
me
h
Ca
Vis da
mp
ion Mu
aig
, G ltinf
oa Mo
or
ls,
da
Sh
an l A
d P rte
ort
ria
-R
e
r
an
for l Pl
ge
ma an
Tra
nc : Ap
eM p
ns
it P
ea rove
su
lan
res d
:A
CT
ran
Bro
sit
ad
wa
yT
ran
sit
Cir
cu
lat
or
Bro
Stu
ad
dy
wa
yV
ald
ez
Sp
ec
ific
Bu
Pla
ild
n
aB
ett
er
BA
RT
Ca
pit
ol
Co
rrid
or
Vis
ion
Ce
Pla
ntr
n
Tra al a
n
ns
po d Ea
rta
st
tio
O
n P akl
Ce
lan and
ntr
al
Co
Es
mm
tua
un
ry
ity
Are
Ba
aP
se
Co
d
l
an
lise
Ac um
ce
/
O
ss
a
Pla klan
dA
n,
irp
Co
ort
mp
BA
let
eS
RT
tre
Sta
ets
tio
n:
Po
licy
Co
mp
l
Pla ete
n 2 St
ree
.0
ts:
Im
De
ple
sig
me
nin
nta
gw
tio
nA
ith
Tra
ctio
n
n
sit
En
:
AC
erg
ya
Tra
nd
ns
it
Cli
ma
te
Ac
Fru
tio
it
nP
Pla vale
lan
Ali
n
ve
!C
om
mu
Ha
nit
rr
yT
Tra ison
ran
ns Stre
sp
po
e
ort
rta t/O
ati
tio
ak
on
n
l
an
La
P
d
lan
ke
A
ve
Me
nu
rrit
eC
tS
om
tat
ion
mu
nit
Ar
LA
ea
y
MM
Pla
PS
n
Vis
io
lan
:
sit
P
Tra
n

transportation providers to foster and
2 incentivize ridership
AC
t
SE rans
it P
P
wid
e

condition index (PCI) to 75 or better
Balance fleet expansion (buses and rail
cars) against system expansion
(expanding road & rail network) " Fix it
First" Policy
AC
T
Go C Co
als un
ty
Go
als

1 infrastructure

(multilingual) to provide residents to
inform employees and visitors about
ransportation alternatives
Ensure that transit is accessible and
6 equitable

Concern

Support and locate ADA services in

areas with good transit service
Siupport discounted tickets for youth,

seniors, and low-income riders
Expand and modifty transit service;
7 improve connectivity
Expand morning and evening service
Simplify cooridors with shorter routes

to improve reliablity and legibility

transit lines
Work with private shuttle operators to

expand the geographic area.
Implement priority treatments for transit
8 on key corridors
Ensure that residents on bus corridors

can easily walk transit
Support traffic management practices,
e.g. signal timing and queue jump
lanes on priority transit lanes
street congestion
Improve bus stop locations, amenities,
9 and facilities (curb management)

Move bus stop locations to provide
optimum spacing between spots while
increasing length of bus stops
Create curb extensions, accommodate
in-lane stops, and locate bus stops on
the far side of intersections
Improve stop facilities e.g. benches

and shelters
10 operational efficiencies
Establish common endpoints for bus
routes,operator break facilities, and

Initiative (TPI) that aim to use low-cost
technology upgrades to dramatically
improve the speed and reliability of
roadways and transit service.
11 transfers

transit service
Eliminate canceled assignments and

reduce late assignments

headway reliability
Install all-door boarding and off-board

payment systems
Develop frequency service maps
Ensure 15 minute frequency on Major

Corridors, 10 minutes on Trunk Lines
12 Improve health connection

Program
Continue efforts to slow down traffic
13 financially stable transits system

Have supply match demand; ensure
that transit investments achieve the
greatest returns on dollars spent
investment in the arterial network will
make efficient and effective use of
resources including effective use of
operating costs

and strengthen community resilience
Enhanced fleet monitorization and

reduce diesel emissions
Focus on capital investments that

alleviate emissions
Develop
special zoning to support transit and
pedestrian orientation
on these streets
mode share by 10 percentage points
Decrease automobile vehicle miles
traveled per capita by 10 percent
16 transit

Establish a community Benefit District
or Parking Benefit District to manage
on-street and off-street parking for
revenue
Educate and motivate all members of
the Oakland community to join in the
effort to reduce energy use and GHG
emissions
Require development in lieu fees go

towards transit improvements


agencies
procedures to maintain consistency
between plans, and to ensure that
future development is consistent
Hold regular action-oriented meetings
with between the city and transit
partners to coordinate immediate and
long-term planning
3 Encourage economic development

Ensure that improvement to Broadway
will not preclude the possibility of future
streetcar service along the corridor/
trolley service
4 development areas (PDAs)

Support land-use patterns that provide
a mix of uses and greater density
around activity centers

transit hubs
Enhance the dissemination of transit
5 information

information online and at stations and
stops
n
ort
ati
o
lan
ort
Oa
k
Tra
ns
p
SP
UR
MT
C
BA
RT
ort
ati
o
lan
d
Tra
ns
p
ab
le
Oa
k
tai
n
n2
03
5
We
st
Tra Oa
k
ns
l
po and
r t a Co
tio
n P mmu
We
lan nity
st
Oa
Ba
se
kla
d
nd
Sp
ec
ific
Int
Pla
erv
n
iew
s
AC
Tra
ns
it
sp
Tra
n
mu
nit
y
nC
om
tow
Su
s
Re
vi
Pla ve C
hin
n
a
Ba
yA
rea
Pla
n
nd
Ge
ne
ral
Pla
n
tivi
ty
Pla
n
Oa
kla
nn
ec
Co
MT
C
pit
ol
Be
tte
r
Co
rrid
o
BA
RT
rV
isio
Ce
nP
ntr
lan
Tra al a
ns nd
po
Ea
r ta
s
tio t Oa
n P kl
Ce
lan and
ntr
Co
al
Es
mm
tu a
un
ry
ity
Ar
Ba
ea
se
Co
Pla
d
lise
n
Ac um
ce
ss /Oak
Pla lan
dA
n,
irp
Co
ort
mp
BA
let
RT
eS
tre
Sta
ets
tio
n:
Po
licy
Co
mp
l
Pla ete
n 2 St
ree
.0
ts:
Im
De
ple
sig
me
nin
n ta
gw
tio
nA
ith
cti
Tra
on
ns
En
it:
AC
erg
ya
Tra
nd
ns
it
Cli
ma
te
Ac
Fru
tio
it
nP
Pla vale
lan
Ali
n
ve
!C
om
mu
Ha
nit
rr
yT
Tra ison
r an
ns Stre
sp
po
e
ort
rta t/O
ati
tio
a
on
k
n P lan
La
lan d A
ke
ve
Me
n
rrit
ue
tS
Co
ta t
mm
ion
un
Ar
LA
ity
e
aP
MM
lan
PS
Pla
n
ific
Sp
ec
Bu
ild
a
ay
Va
lde
z
dw
Br
oa
Ca
Vis
ion
an
utr
d
Ala
ea
ch
me
Ca
Vis da
mp
ion Mu
aig
, G ltinf
oa Mo
or
ls,
d
an al A
Sh
r
d P te
ort
r
-R
erf ial
an
o
rm Plan
ge
an
Tra
ce : App
ns
Me ro
it P
a s ve d
lan
ur e
:A
s
C
Tra
Br
ns
oa
it
dw
ay
Tra
ns
it C
irc
ula
to r
Stu
dy
Pla
n:
Coordinate schedules and fares across

the transit agencies to create seamless
riding
lic
O
sit
ide
Tra
n

transportation providers to foster and
2 incentivize ridership
AC
t
SE rans
it P
P
ub
tyw

condition index (PCI) to 75 or better
Balance fleet expansion (buses and
rail cars) against system expansion
(expanding road & rail network) " Fix it
First" Policy
AC
T
G o C Co
als un
Go
als

1 infrastructure

(multilingual) to provide residents to
inform employees and visitors about
ransportation alternatives
Ensure that transit is accessible and
6 equitable

Concern

Support and locate ADA services in

areas with good transit service
Siupport discounted tickets for youth,

seniors, and low-income riders
Expand and modifty transit service;
7 improve connectivity
Expand morning and evening service
Simplify cooridors with shorter routes

to improve reliablity and legibility

transit lines
Work with private shuttle operators to

expand the geographic area.
Implement priority treatments for transit
8 on key corridors
Ensure that residents on bus corridors

can easily walk transit
Support traffic management practices,
e.g. signal timing and queue jump
lanes on priority transit lanes
street congestion
Improve bus stop locations, amenities,
9 and facilities (curb management)

Move bus stop locations to provide
optimum spacing between spots while
increasing length of bus stops
Create curb extensions, accommodate
in-lane stops, and locate bus stops on
the far side of intersections
Improve stop facilities e.g. benches

and shelters
10 operational efficiencies
Establish common endpoints for bus
routes,operator break facilities, and

Initiative (TPI) that aim to use low-cost
technology upgrades to dramatically
improve the speed and reliability of
roadways and transit service.
11 transfers

transit service
Eliminate canceled assignments and

reduce late assignments

headway reliability
Install all-door boarding and off-board

payment systems
Develop frequency service maps
Ensure 15 minute frequency on Major

Corridors, 10 minutes on Trunk Lines
12 Improve health connection

Program
Continue efforts to slow down traffic
13 financially stable transits system

Have supply match demand; ensure
that transit investments achieve the
greatest returns on dollars spent
investment in the arterial network will
make efficient and effective use of
resources including effective use of
operating costs

and strengthen community resilience
Enhanced fleet monitorization and

reduce diesel emissions
Focus on capital investments that

alleviate emissions
Develop
special zoning to support transit and
pedestrian orientation
on these streets
mode share by 10 percentage points
Decrease automobile vehicle miles
traveled per capita by 10 percent
16 transit

Establish a community Benefit District
or Parking Benefit District to manage
on-street and off-street parking for
revenue
Educate and motivate all members of
the Oakland community to join in the
effort to reduce energy use and GHG
emissions
Require development in lieu fees go

towards transit improvements

Common Goals and Strategies For Oakland Transit

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Common Goals and Strategies For Oakland Transit

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

COMMON GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR OAKLAND TRANSIT