Does Oakland need a new approach to transportation?

There has been a lot of talk lately about the perceived need for a Transportation Commission in Oakland, particularly after the City Council was forced to admit that they had no other use for over $100m in transportation funds that would be available if the Oakland Airport Connector were cancelled. Oakland is a city almost wholly dependent on transportation connections, yet there is little or no long-term transportation planning. This blog is an attempt to start a conversation about a Transportation Commission, and solicit comments on what the purpose and nature of such a commission would be.

To those paying attention to transportation issues, there is a growing consensus that the status quo is unacceptable. There are many recent examples of the city’s failure to adequately plan for transportation improvements. While the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans enjoy staff members dedicated to ensuring their mandates are carried out, there is no other example of city plans with follow-through. The aborted Uptown parking lot is a great example of this problem: despite an Uptown transportation plan calling for diverting most car traffic off Telegraph at 20th St, the Redevelopment Agency proposed a major car infrastructure project on Telegraph below 20th. Only Chinatown organizations appear to have any contact with the City of Alameda regarding its huge proposed development on the former Naval Air Base. And beyond a single Bus Rapid Transit line, there is no major transit infrastructure improvement planned for Oakland.

These are issues of planning and follow-through. But there are also ongoing issues affecting transportation that are unaddressed or poorly addressed. The best example is the new Kaiser Hospital project at Broadway and MacArthur. Despite pleas from members of Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, the Planning Commission never held a separate hearing on the transportation aspects of this major project, and as a result, Building Services recommended sealing off a well-used pedestrian and bike route from Shafter Avenue to Mosswood Park. Only after a coordinated effort by bicycle and pedestrian advocates, and a great deal of goodwill from Kaiser Hospital, is the problem due to be fixed (the median will be cut through, and a pedestrian signal installed, early next year, and bike access is planned after all hospital construction is finished). All of this grief could have been avoided had there been a discussion of the transportation impacts of the project when it was moving through planning.

There are other examples of ongoing failures to address transportation issues. AC Transit finds it very difficult to work with Oakland to change bus stop locations, and so mostly doesn’t bother. BART and Oakland don’t talk to each other about issues like taxi stands and loading zones around or in stations. The Port doesn’t coordinate with the city on the ferry service that it has signaled it will stop subsidizing. There is only one inter-agency working group that I know of, which is the Policy Steering Committee for the Bus Rapid Transit project, and one of Oakland’s representatives, Larry Reid, hasn’t shown up for a single meeting despite being scolded publicly by Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates. Taxi stands go in and out on the whim of the City Administrator. Unlike most cities, Oakland doesn’t provide any city transportation services, ambulances are unregulated, and there’s no city agency with authority over transportation issues – even the Transportation Services Division of CEDA is hobbled by scant mandates over some important aspects of transportation policy, like Building Services’ authority over driveways and medians, and Planning’s jealous monopoly over the citywide rezoning.

The lack of coordination on transportation extends to the City Council level. Transportation issues are split up among different Council Committees, making it harder to have a coordinated policy: parking fees are at Finance, investments and most policies go to Development, most right-of-way issues go to Public Works, and taxi regulation goes to Public Safety. Meanwhile, Oakland’s representatives on major transit agencies are scattershot: Rebecca Kaplan is our representative to ACTIA (the County’s main funding agency for transportation), Jane Brunner is our representative to the MTC-ABAG Joint Policy Committee, and CM Reid is Oakland’s voice on the Congestion Management Agency, which is the County’s transportation planning authority. A casual observer of transit issues will know that these three Councilmembers don’t see eye-to-eye on transit issues.

Though Oakland’s economy and cityscape is defined by transportation more than any other factor, the city has ignored transportation planning and has no coordinated or formalized means of addressing a whole host of transportation issues, from parking ratios for new buildings to bus stop locations. There is absolutely no planning whatsoever for transit improvements, and, frankly, CM Reid seems to be intent on preventing Oakland from making any transit investments now that he has approval for the Airport Connector, using his positions on the Congestion Management Agency and the Bus Rapid Transit Steering Committee to undermine BRT without doing anything that his bus-dependent constituents would even notice. In 2006, the Mayor’s Transportation Task Force recommended (PDF) creating a Transportation Commission “to develop. implement, and prioritize transportation strategies,” yet this idea was only half-formed and didn’t address many of the problems outlined above.

Can these problems be addressed with a Transportation Commission? Does the City Council have to restructure its own appointments and committee system in order to address transportation issues? Do City agencies need to be reorganized in order to create a Transportation Department, or can the Task Force’s suggestion of a “go-to person” and a working group be sufficient? Do you agree that the issues outlined above are real problems, or is Oakland doing just fine transportation-wise? Like almost everything else that came out of the Mayor’s Task Forces, the Transportation Commission idea has gone nowhere, but if the idea is worthwhile, there may be an opportunity to revive it. But that begins with identifying the problem. In this case, the problem may be bigger than the proposed solution.

UPDATE: I added a link to the Transportation Task Force report (PDF).

Sharing your opinion during the holiday

The holidays are the season of sharing. And there is nothing more precious to bloggers and commenters than one’s opinion. On Thanksgiving Eve, what could be more in tune with the holiday spirit than sharing one’s opinions?* There are several opportunities to comment on important plans and projects affecting Oakland, and thanks to email, your opinion can be shared even in the glow of tryptophan, with an unbuckled belt. Below are short summaries of major decisions seeking your input, with links and deadlines for comment.

Safeway on Claremont Environmental Impact Report

At a contentious meeting last week, the Planning Commission listened to public input on what should be studied as part of Safeway’s Environmental Impact Report for expanding their store at Claremont and College. Dozens of neighbors lined up to say that they don’t want outsiders coming to their neighborhood to do grocery shopping, and that somehow Rockridge’s small-shop character is best enhanced by a gigantic surface parking lot at a prominent intersection.

You can write a letter to Planning Staff and the Commission outlining what you think should be studied. If you support the new store, you could emphasize that the pedestrian impacts of the no-build option are important to study, and that study of land-use issues or impacts on all of North Oakland (as requested by some neighbors) is unnecessary. If you oppose the project, feel free to think of the craziest thing you can imagine, and ask that it be studied. You can find contact info for comment on the Planning Commission’s November 18 agenda (PDF).

Toll increase on Bay Area bridges

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission burns through billions like it’s monopoly money, and though constantly short-changing public transportation, can’t even manage its pet highway projects well. Thus, the MTC is facing a severe deficit for the seismic strengthening of many bridges, including the Bay Bridge. True to form, rather than look for more efficient solutions, the MTC just wants more money. Currently the Bay Area Toll Authority, which is more or less the same as the MTC, is seeking public comment on a toll rise for state-run bridges (eg, not the Golden Gate Bridge or Fruitvale Bridge). This would be the first toll increase in almost twenty years that would not be endorsed by voters and would not include funds for improving public transit. On the other hand, the MTC is considering congestion pricing, which is very efficient. Comments can be addressed to the Bay Area Toll Authority before Dec 21. And if you’d like to know more about why these toll increases are needed, consider donating to McSweeney’s Bay Bridge seismic retrofit investigation, pitched on Spot.us.

AC Transit Service Changes

V Smoothe has been covering AC Transit’s service changes extensively for several months, and today writes that the final adjustment plan, released last week, is a triumph for careful consideration of public input, providing a model for other agencies. By contrast, BART slashed off-peak service 25% without even a ridership survey, and the Oakland City Council tries their darnedest not to implement inevitable service cuts. Be that as it may, the final service adjustment plan is out, and it’s open for comment. Highlights include improving service along the 51 corridor by splitting the line in two at Rockridge (which I do not like at all), and expanding service to educational destinations in the East Hills, including new service to Skyline High School, the Oakland Zoo, and the Chabot Space and Science Center. You can provide comment online, or in person at a meeting on December 1.

Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way Feasibility Study

Union Pacific Railroad is in negotiations to sell its “Oakland Subdivision” right-of-way to Alameda County, which would use a portion of it to recreate passenger rail connections on the Dumbarton Bridge, in South County. Union Pacific would like to sell the entire subdivision, though, and so the County is looking at possible changes to the use of part of the subdivision, which in Oakland mostly runs below the BART tracks along San Leandro St. The main thrust of the study is to make bicycle and pedestrian paths, though I don’t find the underside of BART tracks to be very scenic. In any event, it’s an interesting idea, and planners are looking for public comment. They are particularly interested in whether bicyclists would prefer Class I (grade-separated) or Class II (on-street) bike lanes as part of the project. Check out the study and leave your comments, at Alameda County Public Works (it’s the first item under Community Updates).

---

* Sharing your time or food tomorrow is perhaps even a better way to celebrate the holidays. I’m having a hard time finding information about volunteer opportunities in Oakland tomorrow – if a reader knows of a volunteer opportunity, please leave it in the comments.

 

Discussing citywide rezoning

Tomorrow the City of Oakland will hold a “community meeting” on the citywide zoning update, which recently passed its Council-approved deadline to complete its work (it is nowhere near done). At North Oakland’s Peralta Elementary School (460 63rd St, entrance is on Alcatraz Ave) from 10a to noon, city planners will present their work and solicit input. Urbanists for a Livable Temescal – Rockridge Area (ULTRA) are asking supporters of Smart Growth to attend the meeting, support urban-scale building heights, and ask for mixed-use development of the Pleasant Valley Safeway. If you can’t attend tomorrow’s meeting, there’s another on Thursday Nov 12 at the Fruitvale Senior Center, in the Fruitvale Transit Village (3301 E. 12th St, Ste 201 on the 2nd Floor), from 6p to 8p.

City staff are presenting this important, and hopefully long-term, planning policy during an uncertain climate. Though many development projects are on hold, others are in progress, and downtown is seeing an uptick in retail businesses. Inclusionary Zoning, a controversial policy that has been a touchstone in Oakland’s development politics for a decade, is in legal limbo after a Los Angeles developer successfully challenged an affordability mandate as a violation of Costa-Hawkins, the state law that banned vacancy control and restricted rent control to pre-1980 buildings. With the State Supreme Court declining to hear an appeal of what is being called the Palmer decision, it seems like a major potential barrier to new development is no longer an option.

On Monday, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board will be discussing the citywide rezoning as well, but within their subject area. If you’re interested in how rezoning may impact historic preservation, check out the agenda and the staff report. There are three opportunities to attend meetings about rezoning, so a student of Oakland’s future has no excuse but to attend!