DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Making Transit Integral to East Bay Communities
A Handbook for Elected Officials, Local Staff, and
Other Community Builders
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Message from the Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII
PART ONE-- UNDERSTANDING EAST BAY TRANSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1- 1
Chapter 1: Introduction to Designing With Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 3
Why is AC Transit Publishing this Handbook? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 3
How to Use this Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 5
Why Should Communities Care About Transit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 7
Chapter 2: The Inner East Bay Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 1
An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 1
AC Transit’s Service Deployment Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 3
Service Planning and Network Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 5
Roles of BART and AC Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 11
Faster Types of Bus Service: Rapids and Bus Rapid Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 12
Evaluating and Modifying Bus Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 13
PART TWO-- DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 1
Chapter 3: Transit- Based Communities: Centering Planning on Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 3
Summary of Transit- Based Communities’ Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 5
Planning Policy 1: Develop Dense, Mixed Uses in Locations with Good Transit Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 8
Planning Policy 2: Plan Bus Corridors to Maximize Their Potential for Transit- Oriented Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 16
Planning Policy 3: Manage Parking as Part of an Overall Transportation and Land Use Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 19
Chapter 4: Safe Routes to Transit: Creating Good Ways to Walk to Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 1
Summary of Safe Routes to Transit Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 3
Context: Basic Elements of the Pedestrian Travel Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 5
Walking Policy 1: Develop Networks That Provide Pedestrian Access to All Locations in a Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 6
2004 PAGE I
MAKING TRANSIT INTEGRAL TO EAST BAY COMMUNITIES
Walking Policy 2: Create Pedestrian Access which is Safe, Understandable and Pleasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 11
Walking Policy 3: Site Buildings to Provide Easy Access to Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 14
Walking Policy 4: Assure That Pedestrian Crossings of Roadways and Driveways are Safe and Easy to Use . . . . . . . . 4- 16
Policies to Support Walking: Selected Policies of the Oakland Pedestrian Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 22
Chapter 5. Transit- Friendly Streets: Making Streets Work for Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 1
Summary of Transit Friendly Street: Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 3
Context: Multi- modal Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 5
Delay of Bus... Penalizes Passengers, Communities, and AC Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 7
SECTION 1: STREETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 8
Streets Policy 1: Identify a Network of Streets for Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 8
Streets Policy 2: Manage Transit Streets to Support Fast and Reliable Bus Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 10
Streets Policy 3: Implement Priority Treatments for Transit on Key Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 15
SECTION 2: BUS STOPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 20
Streets Policy 4: Site Bus Stops at Safe, Efficient and Convenient Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 22
Streets Policy 5: Locate Bus Stops Appropriately within the Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 24
Streets Policy 6: Create Safe, Functional and Legal Bus Stops with Needed Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 28
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 . . . Glossary of Transit and Land Use Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1- 1
Appendix 2 . . . Title Six Civil Rights Policies for Transit System Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2- 1
Appendix 3 . . . Design Practices for AC Transit Bus Transit Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 3- 1
Appendix 4 . . . Resources: Bibliography and Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 4- 1
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
PAGE II 2004
LIST OF FIGURES
MAPS
Map 1 . . . . Cities and Communities of the AC Transit District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 2
Map 2 . . . . AC Transit Trunk and Major Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 7
Map 3 . . . . Population Density in the AC Transit District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 10
Map 4 . . . . Priority Areas for Transit- Oriented Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 14
Map 5 . . . . Street Grids that Facilitate and Inhibit Walking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 8
FIGURES
Figure 1 . . . Street Treatments that Assist Transit, Passengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 7
Figure 2 . . . Preferred and Discouraged Locations for Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 17
Figure 3 . . . Treatments to Reduce Crossing Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 19
Figure 4 . . . Bus Turning Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 11
Figure 5 . . . How Transit Signal Priority Operates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 13
Figure 6 . . . Queue Jump Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 18
Figure 7 . . . Preferred Sawtooth Transit Center Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 27
Figure 8 . . . Far Side Bus Stop Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 30
Figure 9 . . . Near Side Bus Stop Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 31
TABLES
Table 1. . . . AC Transit’s Types of Bus Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 8
Table 2. . . . Population Density and Service Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 9
Table 3. . . . Level of Transit Service at Illustrative Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 7
Table 4. . . . Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses in Transit- Oriented Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 9
Table 5. . . . Summary of Bus Stop Siting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 21
2004 PAGE III
MAKING TRANSIT INTEGRAL TO EAST BAY COMMUNITIES
M e s s a g e f r o m t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s
On behalf of the Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District, I am pleased to present Designing With Transit. We
believe it is an important planning tool for AC Transit; for the cities, counties, and communities of the East
Bay; and for other transit and governmental agencies.
We see many signs that East Bay communities intend to support transit in their design and planning. Yet at
times there has not been a clear understanding of what is needed to facilitate bus transit. Designing With
Transit will help structure the dialogue between AC Transit and communities, by providing a clear statement
of AC Transit’s goals, priorities and concerns.
The AC Transit Board of Directors believes that providing a good transit system and good community envi-ronments
are inextricably linked. As a Board, we are charged with providing the best transit service possible
within the limits of our resources. We are constantly thinking about how to maintain and improve AC
Transit’s service. The effectiveness and efficiency of that service is immensely increased when communities
plan their land and their streets to make transit work.
Transit- oriented planning and design is not a new concern for AC Transit. In 1983 AC Transit published
Guide for Including Public Transit in Land Use Planning, one of the first statements of its kind. At the same
time we also published the Transit Facilities Standards manual, to provide clear guidance about what kind of
physical facilities best supported transit. In 1994, the AC Transit Board passed Policy 520: Encouraging the
Promotion of Public Transit in Land Use Developments within AC Transit’s Service Area. Designing With Transit
expands the scope of our earlier documents, and responds to current challenges. It discusses and graphically
presents a policy framework based on lessons learned and best practices identified over the past two decades.
Designing With Transit incorporates a new focus on pedestrian facilities as the system which brings people to
transit.
More importantly, transit- oriented planning and design are not new to the East Bay. The East Bay was built
around transit. The earliest forms of transit– in cities such as Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda– were steam
railroads and ferries. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, many East Bay neighborhoods grew up
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
PAGE IV 2004
around the streetcar lines of the Key System. The Key System, which ultimately stretched from Richmond to
Hayward, was one of the most extensive streetcar systems in the country. Many of AC Transit’s trunk lines
today are modified versions of Key System routes. The construction of BART ( Bay Area Rapid Transit) stim-ulated
a process of rebuilding East Bay communities that continues to this day. Unfortunately the East Bay’s
transit- oriented traditions have sometimes been forgotten in a rush to accommodate unlimited numbers of
automobiles without regard to other modes of travel. But throughout the 20th century some East Bay cities
remained among the most transit- oriented in the nation.
The East Bay can be a better place in the 21st century by renewing its transit- focused traditions. We have
every hope that the East Bay transit system will become both more extensive and more intensive. We believe
that transit can and must play an increasingly important role in the East Bay. AC Transit is planning for the
future by providing new forms of transit ( such as Rapid buses and Bus Rapid Transit) to complement our
local and transbay services East Bay communities now have a golden opportunity to shape their future in
conjunction with the transit system. There is the opportunity to design with transit.
Joe Wallace
President, Board of Directors, Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District
2004 PAGE V
MAKING TRANSIT INTEGRAL TO EAST BAY COMMUNITIES
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
2004
SUMMARY: THE THEMES OF DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Many East Bay communities are again putting transit at the center of their development. The East Bay was
founded around transit, but too much of our land and our attention have been devoted to the automobile. For
decades the transit system, especially the bus system, was neglected by public and private decision makers. The
pedestrian environment, critical for encouraging people to use transit, was often ignored and degraded.
Now there is a resurgence of interest in transit and in linking development to transit. Transit- oriented devel-opment
has occurred throughout the East Bay and across North America. Communities across the East Bay
are working to make their main streets more vital and pedestrian- friendly. East Bay cities are working with AC
Transit to make their streets work optimally for bus service.
Designing With Transit is written to foster and facilitate these positive trends. It is a tool kit, a road map for
East Bay communities that want to refocus on transit. It is not a blueprint for a community, because each
community is different and must develop its own approaches. Designing With Transit outlines key concepts for
communities to consider as they improve their transit- friendliness. It highlights key planning and engineering
steps and warns of pitfalls to avoid. It illustrates how the bus system as well as the rail system is integral to East
Bay transit ( see Chapter 2, “ The East Bay Transit System”). Designing With Transit demonstrates that East Bay
and Bay Area communities are already taking steps towards greater transit- friendliness.
Designing With Transit discusses three areas which are critical to improving the transit- friendliness of East Bay
communities-- planning, walking, and streets and sidewalks:
• Planning ( in Chapter 3, titled “ Transit- Based Communities: Centering Planning on Transit”): How can
communities plan their land use to support transit? In particular, how can communities plan their bus cor-ridors
to make them more friendly to transit- oriented development?
• Walking ( in Chapter 4, “ Safe Routes to Transit: Creating Good Ways to Walk to Transit”): How can com-munities
make it safe and pleasant for people to walk to transit? How can buildings, sidewalks, and bus
stops best be linked together to encourage transit ridership?
• Streets and Sidewalks ( in Chapter 5, “ Transit- Friendly Streets: Making Streets Work for Transit”): How can
communities’ streets and sidewalks support transit? Where does bus transit fit into “ multimodal” street
planning? How should bus stops be set- up to work best for both bus operations and bus passengers?
These three areas are critical to making communities more transit- friendly. Planning, structuring land uses so
that transit passengers can easily access them, is fundamental. The walking environment must be safe and
pleasant to get people to transit. The streets and sidewalks must allow bus operations and bus stops that serve
bus transit and its passengers.
PAGE VI
2004
Designing With Transit includes both policy concepts (“ Policies”) and implementation approaches (“ Best Practices”)
for planning, the pedestrian network, and streets and sidewalks. It also includes aids to implementation, such as
diagrams, photographs, General Plan policies and, in some instances, recommended quantitative standards.
It took decades to develop the current transportation/ land use system, overdependent on private automobiles.
Designing With Transit suggests some modest steps in the other direction.
PAGE VII
MAKING TRANSIT INTEGRAL TO EAST BAY COMMUNITIES
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
2004
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following current and former AC Transit staff have helped review or prepare Designing With Transit:
Anthony Bruzzone, Jim Cunradi, Robert del Rosario, Tony Divito, Compton Gault, Greg Hunter, Kathleen
Kelly, Jaimie Levin, Robin Little, Cesar Pujol, Joe Schlenker, Greg Shiffer; Nancy Skowbo, Tina Spencer,
and Jon Twichell.
Map Preparation: Howard Der
Layout and Design: Meg Williams
Principal Writer: Nathan Landau
Copy Editor: Lenore Weiss
Figure Preparation: VBN Architects
AC Transit would also like to thank the following people from other agencies who reviewed the draft of
Designing With Transit at one or more stages of its development. Their comments have helped us improve the
document. All responsibility for the content of Designing With Transit rests with AC Transit:
Michael Margulies, City of Alameda
Cindy Horvath, Alameda County
Paul Keener, Alameda County
Judy Lieberman, City of Albany
Peter Albert, BART
Ann Branston, BART
Susan Gallagher, BART
Marian Lee, BART
Val Menotti, BART
Jeff Ordway, BART
Janet Homrighausen, City of Berkeley
Timothy Sable, Caltrans
Wendy Silvani, Emery Go Round
PAGE VIII
Karen Hemphill, City of Emeryville
Kunle Odomate, City of Fremont
Bob Bauman, City of Hayward
Roxy Carmichael- Hart, City of Hayward
Dennis Jones, City of Newark
Natalie Fay, City of Oakland
Kathy Kleinbaum, City of Oakland
Jason Patten, Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project
Sara Syed, City of Oakland
Reh- Lin Chen, City of San Leandro
Adele Ho, City of San Pablo
Lisa Hammon, West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee ( WCCTAC)
2004 Page 1- 1
INTRODUCTION TO DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
PART 1:
UNDERSTANDING
EAST BAY TRANSIT
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 1- 2 2004
WHY IS AC TRANSIT
PUBLISHING THIS
HANDBOOK?
The broadest purpose of this handbook is to con-tribute,
however modestly, to redressing the balance of
the transportation/ land use system in the East Bay.
The handbook supports city planning that is centered
on transit access. The handbook is also intended to
encourage “ multimodal” transportation planning:
planning and engineering which supports transit,
walking, and bicycling, not just automobiles. This
handbook is particularly focused on the often over-looked
needs and potential of bus transit, the most
widely used mode of transit. Bus transit also cannot be
separated from walking, the way people get to the bus.
The American transportation system has become pro-foundly
unbalanced, excessively reliant on the auto-mobile.
For decades, the system has developed to
encourage mobility by auto, with transit an after-thought
at best. Transit systems that were built in
those decades were often themselves designed for
access primarily by car. As a result, sprawling, low den-sity
development that can only be effectively served by
automobiles has proliferated. Bus transit came to be
seen by many as “ last resort” transportation for the
transit “ dependent”, 1 an image that further discour-aged
ridership and helped stimulate a spiral of decline.
The outcome is that Americans take more of our trips
by car than citizens of any other developed country,
including Canada.
The East Bay does not escape this automobile domi-nance.
Yet there are foundations here for transit to
build on. The older communities of the East Bay were
initially developed around transit. More recently, some
BART stations have helped reinforce the importance
of East Bay downtowns and neighborhood commer-cial
districts. This history has meant that many of
these communities continue to have land use patterns
that make effective transit service possible.
This handbook outlines AC Transit’s analysis of how
the East Bay can be rebuilt in a more transit- friendly
manner. It aims to provide practical guidance about
how these can be achieved through land use plan-ning,
development of pedestrian facilities, and traffic
engineering. This handbook is designed to help
implement AC Transit Policy 520, Encouraging the
Promotion of Public Transit in Land Use Developments
Within AC Transit’s Service Area, passed by the AC
2004 Page 1- 3
INTRODUCTION TO DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
1 The term “ transit dependent” overlooks the many passengers who choose to take transit,
and overlooks the choices that all travelers have. It is also a loaded term because being
“ dependent” carries great stigma with it in the United States.
Transit Board of Directors in 1994 and amended in
1997. This handbook also updates AC Transit’s
Guide for Including Public Transit in Land Use
Planning, and our Transit Facilities Standards
Manual, both published in 1983. Designing With
Transit also forms the background for AC Transit’s
review of Environmental Impact Reports and other
planning documents.
AN EAST BAY FOCUSED HANDBOOK
Designing With Transit is based on the transportation
and land use conditions that exist in the AC Transit
district, the inner East Bay, as of 2004. In some ways,
these conditions are similar to other locations, in other
ways they are not. Because of these differences,
Designing With Transit deliberately avoids examples,
however inspiring or intriguing, from distant regions,
especially from Europe, Latin America, and Asia.
Most of the examples of best practices are drawn from
inner East Bay communities, others are from nearby
Bay Area communities. Most of the practices needed
to make the inner East Bay a model of transit- friend-liness
can already be found somewhere in the East Bay.
The East Bay is also an area where transportation facil-ities,
land use patterns, and community needs are con-stantly
changing and evolving. These changes provide
constant opportunities to guide the evolution of the
East Bay in a more transit- friendly, pedestrian- friendly
direction. Designing With Transit is intended to help
the parties involved in the East Bay land use/ trans-portation
system to seize those opportunities.
Designing With Transit is written for all 23 cities and
unincorporated communities in the AC Transit dis-trict,
which stretches from Richmond to Fremont.
These 23 communities are quite diverse in land use,
transportation networks, and population. Oakland is
not the same as Ashland. Yet there is much that
unites the inner East Bay, whether in North
Richmond or Newark.
All East Bay communities need efficient, high- quali-ty
transit. To deliver good transit service, AC Transit
needs streets and sidewalks that work for transit, in
Albany as much as in Alameda. Whether in San
Pablo or San Lorenzo, bus passengers need sidewalks
and walkways to bus stops that will allow them to
walk to bus stops safely and quickly. Most communi-ties
in the district have committed in their General
Plans to meeting the need for more housing whose
residents can use transit as a major mode of trans-portation.
Cities as divergent as Berkeley and
Hayward champion mixed use, especially the mixing
of residential and retail land uses, in their plans. How
these widely shared goals are implemented is likely to
differ in communities as different as El Cerrito and
Emeryville. But the goals are common, and
Designing With Transit is intended to help the com-munities
of the East Bay in meeting these goals.
A TOOL FOR PARTNERSHIP
Publishing this handbook is an integral part of AC
Transit’s ongoing work with our partners. It is
important to make our views known because AC
Transit provides service primarily on facilities
planned and managed by other agencies. Our bus
service operates on roads managed by cities, coun-ties,
and Caltrans. AC Transit bus stops are located
on sidewalks maintained by these agencies, and can
be sited only with their approval. AC Transit
attempts to serve the land uses approved by cities
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 1- 4 2004
and counties, whether those uses are transit support-ive
or not.
Many agencies have been excellent partners with tran-sit
in supporting transit service. But sometimes it is
unclear to our partners what issues are important to
AC Transit and why. AC Transit has not always com-municated
well. This handbook is an effort to sum-marize
and organize our knowledge and concerns to
improve these collaborative efforts.
The handbook is intended to be a reference, a starting
point for discussions between AC Transit and the com-munities
of the district. It does not replace consultation
between AC Transit and individual cities and commu-nities
about individual issues and sites. It is instead
designed to enhance the collaborative process and
ground it in general policies and principles. We hope
that Designing With Transit will give cities, counties,
and other stakeholders a clearer idea of AC Transit’s
basic concerns. It can be used as a basis around which
to focus detailed discussion of individual situations.
HOW TO USE THIS
HANDBOOK
AC Transit is publishing Designing With Transit for
anyone with an interest in making the East Bay more
transit- friendly. This handbook is intended to be
useful to people who are involved with the local
transportation/ land use system: city councilmembers,
city commissioners, planners, traffic engineers, com-munity
activists, and others.
Designing With Transit illustrates various elements of
making a community more transit- friendly. Transit-friendliness
depends on all of the elements in this
handbook: land use, the pedestrian network, and the
street/ sidewalk system. Although the topics in this
handbook are interconnected, many readers will want
to concentrate on certain chapters of this handbook.
We suggest the following:
Chapters 1 and 2 introduce the Handbook and the
AC Transit system, and are for all readers because
they provide background for later chapters.
Chapter 3: Transit- Based Communities is partic-ularly
relevant to people who are involved with city
planning decisions. City councilmembers, planning
and zoning commissioners, land use planners,
developers and citizen planning activists should
read this chapter.
Chapter 4: Safe Routes to Transit is particularly rel-evant
to people working on the pedestrian network.
Transportation commissioners, transportation plan-ners,
transportation/ traffic engineers, and pedestrian
advocates should ready this chapter.
Chapter 5: Transit- Friendly Streets is particularly
relevant to people who are involved with making
decisions about streets, roads, and sidewalks.
Transportation and public works commissioners,
transportation planners, public works engineers, and
traffic engineers should read this chapter.
Transit and land use terms that may be unfamiliar are
defined in the Glossary, Appendix One.
2004 Page 1- 5
INTRODUCTION TO DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 1- 6 2004
Chapters of Particular Interest to Particular Audiences
Audience Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5
Transit System Community Planning Pedestrians Streets
City councilmembers X X X
Transportation planners and transportation commissioners X X X X
Land Use Planners and planning commissioners X X X
Traffic/ transportation engineers X X X
TDM coordinators X
Developers X X X
Different chapters will be of greater interest if you are working on a particular type of project or document:
• For a general plan or area plan, see Chapter 3.
• For a zoning ordinance, see Chapter 3.
• For a design review ordinance or practices, see Chapters 3 ( particularly Policy 3) and 4.
• For a streetscape plan, see Chapter 5.
• For planning bus stop locations, see Chapter 5.
• For a development application, see Chapters 3 and 4.
HOW TO USE THIS HANDBOOK
WHY SHOULD COMMUNITIES
CARE ABOUT TRANSIT?
This handbook is about integrating transit into East
Bay communities. Its basic message is simple: what-ever
you do in developing your community, consider
how it will affect transit, and how it can be made to
help rather than harm transit.
But why should your community care about transit
at all? Because transit benefits communities in
many ways:
MOBILITY CHOICES
Transit provides mobility choices to residents. To
people without cars, transit is critical. For people
with cars, transit provides another option to always
driving everywhere. A recent survey of AC Transit
passengers estimates that as many as 40% could have
chosen another mode of travel.
ATTRACTS RESIDENTS
Good quality transit can help attract residents to a
community. Transit availability is a factor many peo-ple
consider in evaluating where to live.
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Transit shifts people out of their cars and onto less
polluting modes of travel. Transit trips are most like-ly
to happen during peak hours and along busy,
congested corridors, the very conditions that lead
cars to pollute the most.
REDUCED CONGESTION
Transit use may reduce congestion on streets and
highways.
MORE EFFICIENT LAND USE
When people reach their destinations by transit
rather than driving, it reduces the need for parking.
Space that otherwise would have been devoted to
parking can be used for buildings instead.
URBAN VITALITY
Transit brings people together in urban centers, mak-ing
commercial and downtown areas lively. From
Boston to Berlin to Beijing, the world’s great cities
rely on transit to bring people to their centers.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Transit passengers populate the streets of a commu-nity,
providing “ eyes on the street.”
Transit is a community service and a community
asset, much like libraries, parks, or schools. Investing
in transit is investing in the community.
2004 Page 1- 7
INTRODUCTION TO DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 1- 8 2004
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the existing and planned tran-sit
system in the inner East Bay in some detail as
background for the following chapters. This chapter
describes how AC Transit’s route network is struc-tured
and the reasons for the structure as well as
changes planned to the system.
This chapter highlights the fact that the East Bay
transit system consists of both AC Transit and BART,
as well as other services. AC Transit provides the pri-mary
service within the East Bay, while BART pro-vides
most regional connections to San Francisco and
elsewhere. 2 Bus service in the East Bay is strongly
connected to BART service.
THE INNER EAST BAY AND ITS
TRANSIT SYSTEM: AN OVERVIEW
The AC Transit District: The AC Transit district is
the legally defined area where AC Transit is the main
bus transit provider. The district includes most of
Alameda County and part of Contra Costa County.
It stretches from Richmond in the north to Fremont
in the south. The district includes 13 cities and unin-corporated
portions of Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties. The district is illustrated in Map 1.3
The AC Transit district is very long and narrow,
almost 45 miles north to south but generally less than
5 miles east to west ( excluding unpopulated areas).
The district includes long- developed urban, higher
density areas such as Oakland, Berkeley and
Alameda, along with newer, lower- density areas, par-ticularly
on the northern and southern edges of the
district. Among transit districts in California, the AC
Transit district has the third highest population den-sity,
after San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The central portion of the district focuses on mixed
use centers such as downtown Oakland and down-town
Berkeley. North and especially south of the
core, major employers and destinations are typically
more scattered. The older areas of the district such as
Oakland and Alameda were developed around a net-
2004 Page 2- 1
THE INNER EAST BAY TRANSIT SYSTEM
CHAPTER 2
THE INNER EAST BAY
TRANSIT SYSTEM
2 Levels of bus service vary with the availability of funds. However, the basic structure of
service described in this chapter is maintained despite funding changes. In years of poor fund-ing,
the system becomes more skeletal, with less service in addition to the trunk lines. In
years of good funding, the overall system grows, but the trunk lines remain the most impor-tant
elements.
3 Union City is not part of the AC Transit District, but AC Transit operates service there by
agreement with the city.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 2- 2 2004
Map 1: Cities and Communities of the AC Transit district
work of streetcar lines, but many destinations ( e. g.
shopping malls) in newer areas were developed based
on freeway and roadway rather than transit access.
Given these land use patterns, transit ridership is
generally highest in the central and northern por-tions
of the district. Constrained by the Bay to the
west and the hills to the east, trips in the inner East
Bay are primarily north- south.
The inner East Bay transit system is primarily made
up of AC Transit bus lines and BART rail lines. AC
Transit operates 78 local ( East Bay only) lines, while
BART has 21 stations in the AC Transit district, half
of its systemwide total of 43 stations. There are also
more localized transit services in the East Bay as well
as bus routes connecting the East Bay to other parts
of the region, including Union City Transit, Emery
Go Round, and University of California transit. AC
Transit also operates 27 lines with transbay service
over the bridges across the Bay, mostly to San
Francisco, but also to San Mateo and ( as part of a
consortium) to Palo Alto.
AC TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND LEVEL OF
SERVICE
Among American transit agencies, AC Transit has
relatively strong ridership. AC Transit ranks third in
total ridership among Bay Area transit agencies, after
San Francisco’s Municipal Railway ( Muni) and
BART respectively. On a per capita basis, AC Transit
has the highest ridership in California after Muni.
Residents of the AC Transit district each take an aver-age
of about 50 rides per year on AC Transit, a figure
AC Transit hopes to increase over time.
Transit agencies vary sharply in how much service
they provide. The best way to measure the level of
service provided is known as “ revenue hours per capi-ta.”
Revenue hours are the hours a bus is in service on
the street, carrying passengers or available to carry
them. The higher the number of revenue hours per
capita, the more bus service is available. AC Transit
currently provides some 1.4 revenue hours of service
per capita, similar to the levels of bus service provid-ed
in Seattle or Portland, but substantially below that
provided by Muni.
AC TRANSIT’S SYSTEMWIDE
SERVICE DEPLOYMENT
POLICIES
Given that funds are inadequate to create the ideal
transit system, AC Transit must make decisions
about what services to provide at what levels. The
district must make decisions that will provide an
effective, efficient transit system. The following
Service Deployment Policies are the basis for making
those decisions. They were adopted as part of the
District’s 2003 Short Range Transit Plan ( SRTP). The
SRTP plays a role that is roughly analogous to a
municipal General Plan. It represents the agency’s
broadest statement of goals, policies, and anticipated
strategies for implementation. The policies listed
below are explained in greater detail in the SRTP,
some are also discussed further in this handbook.
2004 Page 2- 3
THE INNER EAST BAY TRANSIT SYSTEM
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 2- 4 2004
AC Transit At a Glance
• The third largest bus transit service in California after Los Angeles and San Francisco
• Over 2,500 employees working at 7 facilities
• 6,500 bus stops on 105 fixed routes
• Almost 700 buses, driven 21 million annual service miles, connecting to 10 other bus
systems, 22 BART stations, and 6 Amtrak stations
• 230,000 passengers per weekday, including 13,000 at the Transbay Terminal in San
Francisco
• Almost 69 million passengers each year
• A service area of almost 400 square miles, including 13 cities, 10 unincorporated commu-nities,
and a population of 1.5 million, including the following cities and communities:
Richmond
North Richmond ( unincorporated)
San Pablo
Rollingwood ( unincorporated)
East Richmond Heights ( unincorporated)
El Cerrito
Kensington ( unincorporated)
Albany
Berkeley
Emeryville
Piedmont
Oakland
Alameda
San Leandro
San Lorenzo ( unincorporated)
Ashland ( unincorporated)
Cherryland ( unincorporated)
Castro Valley ( unincorporated)
Fairview ( unincorporated)
Hayward
Newark
Fremont
• Service outside the district to Pinole, San Francisco, Foster City, San Mateo, Union City,
Palo Alto ( Stanford University) and Milpitas.
• Winners of the Best of the Best ( bus driving “ roadeo”) for four years running!
2004 Page 2- 5
THE INNER EAST BAY TRANSIT SYSTEM
SERVICE PLANNING AND
NETWORK DESIGN
AC Transit plans its network of routes based on its
service development policies. The first step is devel-oping
a network design that focuses resources on the
core routes that carry the most riders. The SRTP
states that, “ The district aims to allocate 70% of its
resource to demand- based services, with remaining
30% contributing to a basic level of geographic cov-erage.”
The demand- based services are the bus lines
with the highest levels of ridership. Geographic cov-erage
refers to the need to provide service to all parts
of the district even when that service has lower rider-ship
and revenue.
TRUNK ROUTES
AC Transit’s ridership is highly concentrated on trunk
lines, a longstanding pattern for the system. Lines on
just five corridors carry over 40% of the total rider-ship
on the system. As the SRTP notes, “ Not surpris-ingly,
these lines serve the most developed and dense
part of the region, with population densities
approaching 10,000- 12,000 people per square mile
on the busiest arterial streets.” The population, and
therefore the population density, of the AC Transit
district is increasing slowly. The location of major
high density areas has tended to be stable over time.
The five trunk line corridors with the highest rider-ship
are as listed below. Corridors are identified with
the lines that serve them as of July, 2004.
AC TRANSIT SERVICE DEPLOYMENT POLICIES ( SELECTED)
Service Effectiveness Criteria
• Provide fast, thorough, coordinated, reliable, and
easily accessible service on trunk routes
• Coordinate service with land use
Service Efficiency Criteria
• Maintain and enforce minimum route produc-tivity
standards
• Advocate for and/ or implement transit priority
and transit preferential measures in congested
locations
• Maintain and enforce minimum bus stop spacing
Network Design Criteria
• Adopt service allocation policies based on density
• Implement limited stop/ Rapid service based on demand
• Implement express bus service where beneficial
• Implement Transbay bus service where beneficial
• Encourage intra- East Bay ridership on transbay lines
• Investigate flexible service options
• Maintain and enhance owl service on its trunk corridors
• Maintain minimum route spacing/ coverage
• Adopt span- of- service definitions for different service types
• Provide seamless transfers ( time, location, provider)
• Reorganize branching routes in favor of better connections
• Operate only one bus line per corridor when possible
• Schedule consistent headways
• Renumber the routes so that they have a logical
numbering system
• International Blvd./ E. 14th St., Hayward- San
Leandro- Oakland ( Lines 82 & 82L)
• Foothill/ Bancroft- Telegraph/ Shattuck, San
Leandro- Berkeley ( Lines 40 & 43)
• Macarthur Blvd., San Leandro- Oakland-
Emeryville ( Lines 57 & N).
• Broadway/ College/ Alameda, Berkeley- Oakland-
Alameda ( Line 51, O in Alameda)
• San Pablo, Oakland- Albany- El Cerrito-
Richmond- San Pablo ( Lines 72, 72M, 72R)
Trunk routes provide frequent service through dense-ly
populated areas to major destinations, accounting
for their high ridership. The trunk routes serve
Downtown Oakland, Downtown Berkeley, the
University of California, and 16 BART stations.
Trunk routes also serve a number of key destinations
away from BART, such as Hilltop Mall, Alta Bates
Hospital, College of Alameda, Eastmont Town
Center, and San Leandro Hospital. Trunk routes
operate 7 days per week, from at least 6 a. m. to mid-night,
although several of these lines operate 24
hours a day on at least a portion of their route. They
generally operate for several miles along a major
street, making their route easy to understand.
Weekday frequencies on trunk corridors are general-ly
every 6- 15 minutes. Several routes have or will
have faster “ Rapid” service along with local service.
MAJOR ROUTES
In addition to trunk routes, there are other major
routes serving key corridors in the district which have
been identified in AC Transit’s Strategic Vision.
These corridors are:
• Macarthur/ Oakland Airport, East Oakland-
Oakland Airport ( Line 50)
• Hesperian Blvd., San Leandro- Hayward, Union
City ( Line 97)
• 6th St./ Hollis, Berkeley- West Oakland- Alameda
( Line 19)
• Sacramento/ Market, Berkeley- Oakland ( Line 88)
• Outer E. 14th St./ Mission, San Leandro-
Hayward- Union City ( Line 99)
Major routes are scaled down versions of trunk
routes. They operate long north- south routes and
long hours, but typically at lower frequencies than
trunk routes ( currently some major routes operate
every 20 minutes). They provide the principal service
either in lower density areas, or in areas between
other trunk routes.
GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE
Geographic coverage is the other element of AC
Transit’s service model in addition to trunk/ major
routes. The trunk and major routes provide service
within walking distance of most, but not all of the
population of the district. The trunks also generally
do not provide east- west service ( or “ crosstown” serv-ice),
although some trunk lines turn and run east-west
for a portion of their routes. Additional routes
are needed to “ cover” the remaining areas of the dis-trict,
to provide service close to more people.
AC Transit thus needs to determine where to operate
bus lines to serve these lower demand areas. The
SRTP incorporates route spacing and route structure
criteria. The criteria are based on population density.
Population density is very closely tied to transit rid-ership–
the higher the density of an area, the greater
the transit ridership.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 2- 6 2004
2004 Page 2- 7
THE INNER EAST BAY TRANSIT SYSTEM
Map 2: AC Transit Trunk and Major Routes, as designated in AC Transit’s Strategic Vision
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 2- 8 2004
COVERAGE AND POPULATION DENSITY
The District’s Network Design Criteria ( see p. 16)
call for service allocation based on population densi-ty.
Population density varies greatly within the dis-trict,
the Fruitvale section of Oakland is more than
four times as dense as the Oakland hills east of
Highway 13. AC Transit has therefore adopted a pol-icy
to provide more service where demand is greater,
in more densely populated areas. The population
density of various areas can be seen on Map 3.
In the densest areas of the district, with population
densities over 20,000 people per square mile ( or
roughly 30 people per gross acre), the service stan-dard
is a grid of routes spaced one- quarter mile apart.
This means that ideally both north- south and east-west
bus routes would be one- quarter mile apart.
AC Transit provides three basic types of service
• Trunk routes, which provide frequent service on heavily used corridors
• Crosstown routes connecting neighborhoods to trunk routes and BART
• Express/ Transbay routes, which take passengers directly ( via the freeway) to major destinations
such as Downtown San Francisco
Table 1: AC Transit’s Types of Bus Service
Type of
Service
Trunk
Crosstown
Express/
Transbay
Examples
43-- Shattuck
51-- Broadway
82-- International
9-- Berkeley
76-- Cutting
92-- Hayward State
L-- Richmond
M-- San Mateo Bridge
O-- Alameda
Purpose of Service
Type
Main line, usually north-south
service carrying
large loads to key desti-nations
and BART
Service ( generally east-west)
connecting to
trunks routes and to
BART
Take passengers from
home to San Francisco
and West Bay
Typical Terminals
BART stations, transit
centers
BART station at one
end, local destination
at other
Transbay Terminal in
San Francisco
Typical Service
Characteristics
Frequent service,
service to multiple
destinations,
evening service
Lower frequencies,
shorter operating
hours
Non- stop express
running on freeway
Typical Ridership
Characteristics
Heaviest loads, all
day demand, travel
moderate distances
( 1- 5 miles)
Lighter loads, shorter
distance travel
Highly peaked loads
in commute hours
In addition to these main service types, AC Transit runs some more specialized routes. Examples include school- oriented service
( school service is open to the general public) and evening/ night only service ( such as line 376 in Richmond/ North Richmond).
2004 Page 2- 9
THE INNER EAST BAY TRANSIT SYSTEM
This is very close spacing, to serve a very dense pop-ulation.
Substantial portions of the district have pop-ulation
densities between 10,000 and 20,000 people
per square mile ( 15- 30 people per gross acre). In
these areas, the District seeks provide a grid of routes
spaced one- quarter to one- half mile apart.
In lower density areas, with population densities
between 5,000 and 10,000 people per square mile ( or
8- 15 people per gross acre) the service model shifts.
Rather than seek to provide a grid of routes, buses
converge on a “ focal point” ( usually a BART station).
The routes are designed to be one- half mile apart at
the end of the route. This model is used in the
Hayward and Richmond/ El Sobrante areas. In
Fremont- Newark, service radiates from the BART
stations but also forms a partial grid because of the
strongly gridded pattern of the streets.
Table 2: Population Density and Service Objectives
Route Spacing
( distance between
lines)
1/ 4 mile
1/ 4- 1/ 2 mile
1/ 2 mile
1mile
Route
Structure
Grid
Grid
Focal Point
Timed Transfer
Focal Point
Timed Transfer
Weekday Base
Frequency
Trunk: 10 mins.
Crosstown: 15 minutes
Trunk: 10 mins.
Crosstown: 15 minutes
Trunk: 15 mins.
Crosstown: 30 mins.
No set standard
Weekend
Frequency
Trunk: 15 mins.
Sat. and Sun.
Crosstown: Sat-- 15 mins.
Sun.-- 30 mins.
Trunk: Sat.-- 15 mins.
Sun.-- 30 mins.
Crosstown: Sat.-- 30 mins.
Sun.-- 60 mins.
Trunk: Sat.-- 30 mins.
Sun-- 60 mins.
Crosstown: Sat.-- 30 mins.
Sun-- 60 mins.
No set standard
Density Category
and Examples
High Density:
20,000 people per square
mile and over ( such as
International Blvd.,
Telegraph Ave.)
Medium Density:
10,000- 19,999 people
per square mile ( such as
Oakland, Berkeley, and
Richmond flatlands)
Low Density:
5,000- 9,999 people per
square mile ( such as
Hayward, Castro Valley,
central Fremont)
Very Low Density:
below 5,000 people per
square mile ( such as hills
areas, parts of Fremont)
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 2- 10 2004
Map 3: Population Density in the AC Transit District
The density and service standards refer to large areas
or corridors that meet a given density. There are loca-tions
in the East Bay with small pockets of higher
density population surrounded by lower density areas.
Because these pockets are small they cannot generate
adequate ridership to justify more frequent bus serv-ice.
( Parts of downtown Oakland also appear to be
low density on the map because they have small resi-dent
populations, but have the district’s highest den-sity
of jobs and services, generating transit ridership.)
THE ROLES OF BART AND
AC TRANSIT
BART and AC Transit provide the bulk of transit
service in the inner East Bay. BART stations are the
principal hubs of the East Bay transit system, for
both bus and rail service. BART provides high speed
heavy rail service to 21 stations in the AC Transit dis-trict,
generally spaced some 2- 3 miles apart ( closer
together in parts of Oakland and Berkeley). AC
Transit provides extensive service to all BART sta-tions
in the AC Transit district, and virtually all AC
Transit local buses serve at least one BART station.
The systems’ contrasting characteristics show how
they are complementary to each other. Because they
largely serve different travel needs, BART and AC
Transit together provide greater mobility for transit-oriented
development than either system alone
would provide.
Types of Trips
AC Transit and BART serve different types of trips.
The average AC Transit trip is 3.1 miles, the average
BART trip 12.2 miles. Because of the wide spacing of
BART stations in most of the AC Transit district,
BART is inconvenient for many shorter trips, partic-ularly
for trips that do not begin or do not end near
a BART station. BART’s high operating speeds are
ideal for long trips.
Destinations
The majority of transit trips that are wholly within
the East Bay are taken on AC Transit. BART handles
most of the transit trips from the East Bay to San
Francisco. AC Transit’s Transbay service ( mostly to
San Francisco) is concentrated in corridors not with-in
walking distance of BART. During the years of
highest BART usage, AC Transit’s Transbay service
also served to relieve pressure on BART's capacity.
AC Transit has more than 3,000 pairs of stops ( a stop
in each direction) in the East Bay.
Getting to AC Transit and BART
Passengers reach AC Transit and BART by different
modes. Some 75% of AC Transit passengers walk to
their bus stop. By contrast, 38% of BART passengers
systemwide reach BART by driving alone, making
driving alone the plurality mode of BART access
( BART hopes to reduce this percentage). A small
percentage of AC Transit Transbay and express bus
passengers reach their bus by driving to park- and-ride
facilities in areas where on- street service is not
2004 Page 2- 11
THE INNER EAST BAY TRANSIT SYSTEM
practical. The proportion of passengers doing this is
expected to remain small.
Trip Purposes
Passengers use AC Transit and BART for different
purposes. BART ridership is dominated by weekday
commute trips, particularly to San Francisco,
Downtown Oakland and Berkeley. Over 60% of all
BART trips were to or from work, compared with
40% of AC Transit trips. School ( at 33%) and shop-ping
( 10%) were the next most important destina-tions
for AC Transit travelers, while on BART it was
school ( 9%) and visiting family and/ or friends. More
of AC Transit’s passengers than BART’s ride on week-ends,
especially on Sundays.
FASTER TYPES OF BUS
SERVICE: RAPIDS AND BUS
RAPID TRANSIT
One of the major challenges facing AC Transit is
making our service operate faster. However, average
speeds for our buses have been falling, and AC
Transit’s average speed is 5- 15% below that of com-parable
systems.
To speed up and improve trunk line service, and to
increase trunk line ridership, AC Transit is beginning
to develop “ Rapids.” Rapid- type service has been
very successful in Los Angeles and is being consid-ered
by a number of other cities.
Rapids provide fast, frequent service along trunk
route corridors. The first Rapid is operating on San
Pablo Avenue between downtown Oakland and the
city of San Pablo. Key characteristics of the Rapid
include:
• More widely spaced stops, for faster operation
• Traffic signal priority ( when needed) for faster
operation
• Far side stops whenever possible to minimize wait-ing
at signals
• Full low floor buses to ease boarding and alighting
• Shelters with information at Rapid stops
• Special Rapid signage
• “ Next bus” informational displays indicating when
the bus will arrive ( to be implemented 2004)
AC Transit plans to upgrade other trunk lines to
Rapid service when possible.
Beyond the Rapid, AC Transit is working with cities
to plan Bus Rapid Transit ( BRT) on Telegraph
Avenue and International Boulevard, operating from
downtown Berkeley to Bayfair BART in San
Leandro. This routing represents AC Transit’s most
important corridor and would serve downtown
Berkeley, the University of California, Alta Bates
Hospital, Temescal, Pill Hill, downtown Oakland,
Laney College, Fruitvale, downtown San Leandro,
and Bayfair Mall.
In addition to all the features of the Rapid– such as a
smaller number of stops and transit signal priority–
BRT is designed to have stations at stops, and lanes
on the street which are used solely by the bus ( known
as dedicated lanes). Thus, Bus Rapid Transit will
function very much like light rail, but at a very much
lower cost using buses instead of train equipment.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 2- 12 2004
Bus Rapid Transit can provide more flexible service,
because many bus routes can use portions of the ded-icated
lanes, then branch out into the community.
Bus Rapid Transit is quickly becoming an important
transit option around the country. Bus Rapid Transit
in the United States has been inspired in part by the
high- capacity bus system in Curitiba, Brazil. Los
Angeles, Cleveland, and Boston have developed or
are developing Bus Rapid Transit lines. Bus Rapid
Transit lines have been proposed for El Camino Real
between San Jose and Palo Alto in Santa Clara
County, and for various corridors in San Francisco.
EVALUATING AND
MODIFYING BUS LINES
EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF
ROUTES
AC Transit frequently reviews the performance of its
lines, especially the number of passengers they
attract. When funds are available to expand service,
the agency identifies lines that justify more frequent
service or longer hours. It also identifies locations
that need more transit service. When there is a fund
shortfall, AC Transit evaluates which lines are per-forming
poorly. These lines may have service reduced
or be eliminated.
In planning service, AC Transit focuses primarily on
ridership. The single most important measure of rid-ership
is “ passengers per revenue hour.” Passengers
per revenue hour is the number of people who board
a bus during each hour of its operation. AC Transit’s
planning is strongly influenced by the passengers per
revenue hour on a line as a whole and/ or on segments
of a line. Sometimes some segments of a line are pro-ductive
while others are not. Lines with insufficient
passengers per revenue hour may be reduced or elim-inated
Lines which have more ridership will gener-ate
more fare revenue, but fares are not the primary
consideration in service planning. 4
NEW AND MODIFIED BUS ROUTES
AC Transit is often asked why it cannot change its
route structure to accommodate a new development,
or for other reasons. AC Transit modifies its route
structure to reflect changing conditions in the district.
For example, in June, 2003, despite the serious fiscal
problems of the district, AC Transit has instituted the
new line 19 serving the growing employment centers
of West Berkeley, Emeryville, and West Oakland.
AC Transit must exercise caution in modifying bus
routes. AC Transit can and has changed existing bus
routes, but only when there are compelling reasons to
do so. Passengers have a reasonable expectation that
service they use will continue. We wish to provide
that continuity as much as possible, particularly on
trunk routes. Routes are in their current locations
because those locations serve passenger demand and
reach important destinations. Trunk route locations
in particular tend to be stable over time.
2004 Page 2- 13
THE INNER EAST BAY TRANSIT SYSTEM
4 Fares on most North American transit services cover only a fraction of the system’s oper-ating
costs. That ratio is known as the farebox recovery ratio. AC Transit’s farebox recovery
ratio is currently 21%, although it is higher for trunk lines and most Transbay lines, and lower
for most crosstown lines, especially in low- density areas
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 2- 14 2004
HIGH FREQUENCY LINES NEED MULTIPLE
DESTINATIONS
There are constraints on AC Transit’s ability to add
new lines in addition to the cost of doing so.
In most cases, a new line serving solely or principally
a single destination– even a relatively large one– will
attract few passengers. AC Transit’s trunk lines and
other major lines serve multiple destinations and
communities along a single corridor, attracting riders
making a variety of trips. To support frequent service,
population densities in a bus corridor must generally
exceed 10,000 people per square mile for two linear
miles or more.
Sometimes AC Transit is requested to operate com-munity
service type lines that meander to reach mul-tiple
scattered destinations. These lines appear attrac-tive
because they serve many destinations.
Unfortunately they rarely attract many passengers.
The direct, frequent service offered by a trunk line
also attracts more passengers than a less frequent, less
direct community service style line. With few pas-sengers,
a new single- purpose line will require an
even greater operating subsidy than usual, making it
very difficult to institute without outside funding,
particularly in times of fiscal stringency.
Example of Multiple Destinations along a Trunk Route-
- Line 57 ( Macarthur)
• Emery Bay Shopping Center
• Bay Street Shopping Center
• East Baybridge Shopping Center
• Macarthur BART
• Kaiser Hospital
• Piedmont Avenue commercial district
• Oakland High School
• Highland Hospital
• Dimond commercial district
• Mills College
• Eastmont Town Center
BUILD WHERE THE BUS ALREADY IS
For the reasons discussed above, AC Transit strongly
recommends that cities and communities site major des-tinations
in locations with strong transit service, rather
than assuming that the transit system will be able to
serve dispersed locations.
2004 Page 3- 1
PART 2:
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 2 2004
INTRODUCTION
Creating a community where destinations can be reached by transit and walking is the focus of this chapter.
This chapter outlines key planning policies and practices necessary to develop a community where travel by
walking, transit, and bicycle is practical and pleasant. Transit- supportive General Plan policies are included for
some practices.
This chapter considers three key planning questions:
• How can a community use land to support transit and be supported by transit?
• How can bus corridors be appropriately developed?
• How can parking policies support transit- oriented communities?
The chapter outlines how communities can take advantage of the rich East Bay transit system described in the
last chapter. It describes how to structure land uses– housing, retail stores, civic buildings, etc.– so that they
work with transit rather than against it.
This type of transit- focused development is natural in inner the East Bay. There are already many walkable,
densely built downtowns, main streets, and commercial corridors throughout the East Bay. BART stations have
2004 Page 3- 3
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
CHAPTER 3
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES:
CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
CHAPTER GUIDE
Topic: Planning land uses and corridors to make transit work better.
Particular Audience: City councilmembers, planning and transportation commissioners, transportation
and land use planners, developers
Subject of Recommendations: General Plans, Area Plans, Redevelopment Plans, Specific Plans, Zoning
Ordinances, facility siting, parking requirements and charges
also reinforced many of these areas. The East Bay’s historic centers have offices, stores, restaurants, apartment
buildings, government buildings, movie theatres, hotels, and more. A new generation of transit- friendly devel-opment
can reinforce the East Bay’s hubs and make them better places to live, work, and play.
Locations on trunk line bus corridors have important potential for transit- oriented development. Trunk line
bus corridors can provide access to local employment and shopping centers, BART, and in some cases direct-ly
to San Francisco. These corridors can spread the advantages of transit- oriented development to dozens of
locations. Some East Bay communities already highlight the potential of bus corridors in their planning.
The chapter also addresses the difficult issue of parking. Community planning cannot ignore the impact of
parking on transit ridership or on the physical form of the community. This chapter proposes ways a commu-nity
can control parking and integrate parking policy into transit- friendly planning, rather than finding itself
controlled by parking.
The litmus test for transit- focused community planning is this question: “ How does it feel getting around
this community by transit and walking? Are the places I need to go easily accessible, or are they diffi-cult
and unpleasant to reach?”
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 4 2004
SUMMARY OF TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES’
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
POLICY 1: DEVELOP DENSE, MIXED USES IN LOCATIONS WITH GOOD TRANSIT ACCESS
Best Practice 1.1: Cluster the community’s densest uses where there is the best transit access
Best Practice 1.2: Develop transit- supportive uses, and avoid auto- oriented uses, in locations with
good transit access
Best Practice 1.3: Build projects to planned densities in transit- friendly areas
Best Practice 1.4: Avoid high intensity uses in locations with minimal transit service
Best Practice 1.5: Locate special needs facilities in areas with good transit service
Best Practice 1.6: Designate transit- friendly areas for denser development in key planning documents
POLICY 2: PLAN BUS CORRIDORS TO MAXIMIZE THEIR POTENTIAL FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT
Best Practice 2.1: Develop the area within easy walking distance of a transit corridor with
transit- supportive uses
Best Practice 2.2: Assure that residents on bus corridors can easily walk to neighboring and nearby uses
Best Practice 2.3: On commercial strips, focus development at nodes
POLICY 3: MANAGE PARKING AS PART OF AN OVERALL TRANSPORTATION AND LAND
USE STRATEGY
Best Practice 3.1: Provide appropriate but not excessive amounts of parking
Best Practice 3.2: Reduce parking requirements in transit- friendly areas
Best Practice 3.3: Consolidate parking into joint lots and structures
Best Practice 3.4: Charge fees to cover parking costs and generate funds for other modes
2004 Page 3- 5
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
CONTEXT: ASSESSING THE AVAILABILITY
OF TRANSIT FOR TRANSIT- ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT
This chapter urges communities to focus develop-ment
on locations with good transit service. In order
to guide development to the most transit- oriented
locations, communities must assess what they are. A
location with the best transit service will have not
only a strong main line, but also have service to var-ious
major destinations, frequent service, and service
that operates long hours.
Table 3 on page 3- 7 illustrates transit service ( as of
October, 2004) in four different types of locations in
the AC Transit district. The locations were chosen
simply to illustrate different levels of transit availabil-ity
( and not to suggest anything about their appro-priateness,
or lack thereof, for development):
BART station with bus hub: El Cerrito Del Norte
BART. This station is served by two BART lines ( San
Francisco and Fremont), numerous AC Transit bus
lines, and bus lines from Northwest Contra Costa,
Marin, and Solano counties. This site is illustrative of
the 21 BART stations in the AC Transit district.
Service by Two or More Trunk Lines: Eastmont
Transit Center in East Oakland illustrates a locations
served by more than one frequent trunk bus line.
This site also has Transbay service to San Francisco.
Eastmont is unusual in being served by several trunk
lines, though a number of locations have two trunk
lines. Eastmont has direct service to downtown San
Francisco and downtown Oakland, but trips farther
into San Francisco or south of Bayfair require trans-fers
to BART or to other bus lines. Other locations
with similar types of service include Solano and San
Pablo avenues in Albany; University and San Pablo
avenues in Berkeley and Broadway and Macarthur
Blvd. in Oakland.
Service by a single trunk line: College and Ashby
avenues, in Berkeley is served by a single trunk bus
line ( Line 51) and a single crosstown line ( Line 9).
Transit passengers here can reach Berkeley and north
Oakland destinations directly, and BART, but longer
trips require connection. Other locations with simi-lar
types of service are widespread, they include
Sutter and Hopkins streets in Berkeley; 35th and
Macarthur in Oakland; and Estudillo and Bancroft
in San Leandro.
Crosstown Service: Floresta and Monterey in San
Leandro illustrates locations served only by crosstown
lines, in this case Line 55. Passengers can connect to
BART at either end of the route; to shopping and city
services in Downtown San Leandro and Bayfair Mall;
and may happen to work in the industrial area along
the route. All trips outside San Leandro require trans-fers.
Other locations with similar types of service are
very common, they include locations along Cutting
Blvd. in Richmond, along Center St. in Hayward,
and along 98th Avenue in Oakland.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 6 2004
2004 Page 3- 7
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
General Plan Policy: Increase Density for Transit Hubs, Corridors:
Transit- Oriented Development Corridors and BART Station Area Nodes are areas designated by
the City as generally suitable for higher residential densities, for intensive non- residential uses, and for
mixed use; these areas are centered along existing or planned light rail transit ( LRT) lines and/ or major
bus routes and at future Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) stations. Transit- Oriented Development
Corridor boundaries are not precisely defined but, in general, particularly during the early stage of
intensification, the corridors are intended to include sites within approximately 500 feet of the right-of-
way of the corridor’s central transportation facility or within approximately 2,000 feet of an exist-ing
or planned LRT station.
Transit- Oriented Development Corridors and BART Station Area Nodes, City of San Jose General Plan
Land Use/ Transportation Diagram.
Type of
Location
BART station
with bus hub
Service by
two or more
trunk lines
Service by
one trunk line
( with cross-town
line)
Crosstown
line only
Illustrative
Location
El Cerrito Del
Norte BART,
El Cerrito
Eastmont
Transit Center,
East Oakland
College &
Ashby aves.,
Berkeley
Floresta &
Monterey,
San Leandro
Transit Services
Two BART lines, San
Pablo Rapid Line 72R,
AC Transit lines 7, 71,
72, 72M, 76, 376, L;
Golden Gate Transit;
Vallejo Transit; Westcat
AC Transit lines NL,
other Ns, 40, 43,
50, 57
AC Transit lines 9, 51
AC Transit Line 55
Selected Destinations
with direct service
San Francisco
Downtown Oakland
UC Berkeley
Contra Costa College
Hilltop Mall
San Rafael
Downtown San Francisco
Downtown Oakland
Bayfair Mall ( BART)
Rockridge BART
UC Berkeley
Downtown Berkeley
San Leandro BART,
Bayfair BART
Frequency of Service
( weekday)
BART: 7.5 minutes
Line 72 R San Pablo Rapid: 12 minutes
Line 72 local: 15 minutes to Oakland
30 minutes to Hilltop Mall & San Rafael
All lines: 15 minutes
Line 51: 8- 10 minutes
Line 9: 20- 30 mins.
Line 55: 30 minutes
Table 3: Level of Transit Service at Illustrative Locations
TRANSIT- BASED
COMMUNITIES’ POLICIES
AND PRACTICES
PLANNING POLICY 1: DEVELOP DENSE,
MIXED USES IN LOCATIONS WITH GOOD
TRANSIT ACCESS
A “ transit- friendly” area is one where residents, work-ers,
and other users of the area can meet their daily
needs by using transit and walking. Transit- friendly
areas have three core characteristics:
• High levels of transit service, from bus and/ or
rail lines;
• A mix of uses, especially basic retail uses;
• A network of safe and pleasant routes for walk-ing
around
Mixed uses are important to allow people in the area
to conduct their activities by walking. For example,
workers can walk to lunch. Residents can walk to a
grocery store. Some locations have good transit access
but only one use. Workers in single- use areas may
resist taking transit because they feel “ trapped” at
their worksite. Residents may use transit for trips to
work but drive for all other trips. ( Walking routes are
addressed in Chapter 4.)
Planning Best Practice 1.1
Concentrate dense uses in the locations with the
best transit access.
To design with transit, a community’s most intense
uses should be in its most transit- friendly locations.
This practice is critical whether the most intense use
is a 40 story highrise or a 4 story apartment building.
In this way, the land closest to transit is efficiently
used, and the people in the biggest building can
make use of the transit. Less intense uses near transit
hubs waste this valuable land. As noted in the
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 8 2004
Denser, mixed use build-ings
are spreading to new
locations such as Fremont.
2004 Page 3- 9
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
Table 4: Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses in Transit- Oriented Areas
Inappropriate Uses:
Auto- Oriented and Lower Density Uses
Lower density housing
“ Big box” retail-- e. g. warehouse clubs
Other large scale auto- oriented retail-- e. g. furniture
stores, lumberyards
Auto- related uses: auto repair shops, car dealers and
used car lots, car washes
Drive through windows ( e. g., banks, restaurants, etc.)
Surface parking
Warehouses
Mini- storage/ Self- storage buildings
Manufacturing uses with low density of employees per
square foot.
Appropriate Uses:
Transit- Supportive and Higher Density Uses
Higher density housing
Around BART Stations – Multi- family housing at 40 units/ acre or
greater ( this threshold from BART’s Transit Oriented Development guidelines)
On trunk bus corridors – Townhouses and multi- family housing at 20
units per acre or greater
Locally- oriented retail and services: Groceries, drug stores, cleaners,
small appliance repair shops, banks
Restaurants
Civic and governmental uses-- City Hall, Civic Center
Libraries and museums
Hotels, Bed and Breakfasts
Senior/ community center
Special needs facilities for blind, deaf, developmentally or
physically disabled
Private offices
Movie theatres and live theatres
Post offices and mailing facilities
“ Context” discussion in this chapter, the location
with the best transit access may be a major BART
hub or it may be a trunk line bus hub, depending on
the community.
Planning Best Practice 1.2
Develop transit- supportive uses ( and avoid
auto- oriented uses) in locations with good
transit access
Encouraging transit- supportive uses in transit-served
locations key to creating transit- friendly
areas. Table 4 ( page 3- 9) outlines appropriate and
inappropriate uses for transit- oriented areas. The
appropriate uses are high density uses and uses
which can easily be accessed by transit or walking.
The inappropriate uses are lower density uses and
those where access by car is usually dominant ( not
all types of land use are shown on the table).
Some uses are particularly suited to transit hubs.
Locating civic buildings, such as city halls and civic
centers near transit hubs makes them accessible to all
parts of the population. It also makes a statement
that the community values transit access to its insti-tutions.
The City of Hayward took this approach
when it built its new City Hall one block from
Hayward BART. Major private office buildings have
large numbers of employees who can commute by
transit when it is nearby. Transit hubs are also a good
location for multi- family housing– apartments, and
condominiums– as well as for restaurants, and con-venience-
oriented retail uses. At convenience- orient-ed
retail stores shoppers can buy items easily carried
on foot and on transit. Appropriate types of retail or
service uses could include banks, cleaners, drug
stores, and grocery stores.
Mixed Use
Bringing a mix of uses together can make an area a
destination, which in turn makes it more effective to
bring bus service to it. Downtown Berkeley is a good
East Bay example. The area contains a BART station
and is adjacent to the University of California.
Downtown Berkeley also includes the city’s offices,
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 10 2004
This big box retailer
preempts a large site
within walking distance
of a BART station.
2004 Page 3- 11
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
county courts, Vista College, the main public library,
the main post office, the recently expanded YMCA,
a historical museum, movie theatres and live theatres.
These uses are within a few blocks of each other,
making it possible to focus transit on them.
Mixed use need not be limited to urban core envi-ronments
but also can found in other types of areas.
Downtown Walnut Creek is an area where numerous
uses are close together and where a strong pedestrian
network makes walking between them possible and
enjoyable. San Jose’s Santana Row project puts hous-ing
and a hotel inside an upscale shopping center,
allowing for walking trips. Dublin, California, has
built a community- scale shopping center with basic
retail uses on the same property as, and immediately
adjacent to, an apartment building.
It is also important to avoid placing low intensity and
transit- unfriendly uses on valuable sites near transit
hubs. An important and all too frequent example is
“ big box” retail. Big box retailers usually present a
huge, pedestrian- hostile face to the community.
Their huge size may block streets that formerly went
through a site, impeding pedestrian and bicycle
access. Shoppers, often intending to buy large quan-tities
at the big box, almost always arrive by automo-bile.
Auto dealers also need large spaces and con-tribute
little to transit- oriented streets. Low density
industrial and warehouse uses also underutilize land
near transit hubs, though there are some higher den-sity
manufacturing activities. Large lot single family
housing near transit hubs is also inappropriate.
Planning Best Practice 1.3
Build projects to the planned densities in transit-friendly
areas
It is important to develop land around transit hubs
to the actual densities permitted in a community’s
General Plan. Often a General Plan will allow a cer-tain
density, but actual projects are developed at far
lower densities. In some cases, developers may not
immediately see the market for higher- density
housing and wish to build a quick project. It is
important that communities consider their long-term
benefit and maintain available land for denser
housing. Some communities, such as Fremont and
Milpitas, specify minimum as well as maximum
densities in key areas to limit this process of thin-ning
out projects.
This discussion is not intended to suggest that zon-ing
a location for higher density development is suf-ficient
to have that development occur, only that
such zoning is necessary for development. Local gov-
General Plan Policy: Limit Transit Served Locations for Public Facilities and Services
Wherever possible, locate public and private institutional uses and community service centers that
serve city residents or have a regional- service orientation on transit corridors so that they are accessible
to public transportation and will not disrupt adjacent residential areas.
Policy LU- 15, Land Use Element , City of Berkeley General Plan
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 12 2004
General Plan Policy: Encourage Dense Development Near Transit
Encourage transit- oriented development; where appropriate, encourage intensive new residential and
commercial development within one half- mile of transit stations or one quarter- mile of major bus routes.
City of Hayward General Plan Transportation Element, Policy 10.1
General Plan Policy: Limit Low Intensity Uses Near Transit
Development inconsistent with the objectives of the Transit- Oriented Development Corridors and
Station Area Nodes, for instance low intensity uses ( e. g., one and two story office buildings), low den-sity
residential, and auto related uses ( e. g. surface parking lots, automobile sales lots, stand alone big
box retail, etc.) should be avoided particularly within 2,000 feet of an existing or planned Light Rail
Transit Station.
Development Parameters, Transit- Oriented Development Corridors, City of San Jose General Plan Land
Use/ Transportation Diagram).
This highrise office
building is isolated
from transit and other
uses, forcing people to
drive there.
ernments are aware that in many cases they will need
to become actively involved to assure that desired
development takes place. Additional regulatory
changes may be needed, as may investments in infra-structure
and/ or public subsidies. These topics are
beyond the scope of this handbook. Appropriate land
use planning is necessary for transit- oriented devel-opment,
but often it is not sufficient.
Planning Best Practice 1.4
Avoid high intensity uses in areas with minimal
transit service
Just as low intensity uses are inappropriate at transit
hubs, high- intensity uses are inappropriate away
from transit hubs and corridors. A high density
apartment complex or major office building with lit-tle
or no access to transit is inevitably a large genera-tor
of auto traffic. At the same time, such a location
virtually forecloses the option of taking transit for its
tenants or residents.
Planning Best Practice 1.5
Locate special needs facilities in areas with good
transit service
Some facilities provide services that generate a partic-ularly
high need for good transit. Examples include
rehabilitation services for the disabled, or a training
site for the developmentally disabled. Good locations
for this type of facility are close to frequent transit
service. For example, the Albany Center for the Blind
is served by trunk bus Line 72 and is within walking
distance of the El Cerrito Plaza BART station.
2004 Page 3- 13
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
General Plan Policy: Limit Development Intensities Away from Transit
Preserve the low- density character of San Leandro’s predominantly single family neighborhoods.
Concentrate new multi- family development in the areas near the BART Stations and along major tran-sit
corridors such as East 14th Street.
Policy 2.05, Land Use Element, City of San Leandro General Plan
General Plan Policy: Require Minimum Density at Transit Hubs
To achieve a variety of housing types, the City has designated locations where moderate and higher den-sity
development is appropriate. Criteria for the location of higher density housing include access to tran-sit,
proximity to commercial areas, proximity to a collector or arterial street, and as a transition use where
maximum flexibility in site design is required. For those areas where higher densities are indicated on the
General Plan Diagram, construction of housing at significantly lower densities than planned would not
meet the City's goals. The City therefore establishes a minimum required density of development for all
medium and high density uses …
City of Fremont General Plan Land Use Element, Policy LU 1.9
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 14 2004
Map 4: Priority Areas for Transit- Oriented Development: Trunk and Major Bus Corridors, BART Stations
2004 Page 3- 15
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
Unfortunately, some communities have relocated
special needs facilities away from central locations
with good transit service to remote locations that are
almost impossible to serve effectively with transit.
Sometimes it is assumed that AC Transit can simply
create a new line to serve these facilities, but for the
reasons discussed in the last chapter, this is usually
not possible or cost effective. This type of relocation
should be avoided and communities should consult
with AC Transit before siting these facilities.
Planning Best Practice 1.6
Designate transit- friendly areas for denser
development in key planning documents
It is important legally, politically, and economically
that a community’s intent to develop higher density
housing in transit- friendly areas be reflected in key
documents. These include the community’s General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Area Plan or Specific Plan
( if applicable), and Redevelopment Plan ( if applica-ble).
5 Legally, showing a similar intended use for an
area in these documents makes challenges more diffi-cult.
Politically, the community becomes aware that
this is the intended use, making it harder for oppo-nents
to make credible claims that they were unaware
of intensification plans. Economically, the docu-ments
send a signal to developers that this is what the
community wants for an area and can help attract
developers of appropriate housing types.
5 A new type of land use regulation known as a “ form based code” or “ Smartcode” is
emerging. Form based codes focus are based on the intensity of use of land at a given loca-tion.
This includes how many square feet of building there may be for each square foot of
land-- the Floor Area Ratio ( FAR), as well as height regulation. By contrast, traditional Zoning
Ordinances-- while regulating building intensity-- are based on land uses-- what uses are per-mitted
and prohibited at a given location. The City of Petaluma has recently adopted a form-based
code for its central area. Form- based codes allow the possibility of matching permitted
intensity of use to the level of available transit service. They also tend to include prescriptive
design standards, e. g. buildings shall be built up to the edge of the sidewalk.
These homes are on a local residential street only a block from a bus corridor.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 16 2004
PLANNING POLICY 2
PLAN BUS CORRIDORS TO MAXIMIZE
THEIR POTENTIAL FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT
The value and importance of rail stations as focal
points for intensified development has become
increasingly recognized in the East Bay. What is so
far less widely recognized is the potential for devel-opment,
especially housing development, along and
near major bus transit corridors. Trunk bus corri-dors
include more land in the East Bay than do
BART station areas. So they are stable transit loca-tions,
these corridors have been trunk routes for
decades and will remain.
One of the most important messages of this hand-book
is that bus corridors, approximately one quar-ter-
mile around bus lines, can and should become
foci for transit- oriented development.
Trunk bus corridors provide access to important
employment, shopping, and recreational destina-tions.
Trunk bus corridors connect to numerous
BART stations for longer distance trips. Most trunk
bus corridors already have substantial segments with
higher density housing such as apartment buildings,
facilitating additional development. Most trunk bus
corridors also have vacant and underutilized parcels
that can be used for housing development.
The land use and urban design characteristics that
make a location transit- friendly apply to bus corri-dors
as well as rail stations ( see pages 3- 8 to 3- 15 for
more discussion). The most transit- friendly areas
provide good transit service and basic “ local serving”
stores such as supermarkets and drug stores in a
“ pedestrian- friendly” environment. 6 Many of the
East Bay’s principal commercial corridors are also
principal transit corridors including San Pablo
Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, and
International Boulevard/ East 14th Street. In these
locations, the availability of transit would probably
not be the only reason that a household moved there,
but it would be one reason for doing so.
Examples of market- rate housing development along
bus corridors include buildings at 40th & San Pablo
in Emeryville and near Solano & San Pablo in
Albany. The city of Fremont is in the process of
rezoning numerous sites along its bus corridors to
permit higher density development, San Leandro has
begun to do so. A number of bus corridors have
affordable housing development, which often serves
as the catalyst for future mixed income development.
AC Transit’s primary role in fostering such develop-ment
is to provide the best transit service our fund-ing
allows. 7 We plan to improve our trunk lines to
Rapid and Bus Rapid Transit levels of service ( see
Chapter 2 for explanations of these service types). As
service on these corridors improves, they will become
all the more attractive and viable as locations for
transit- oriented development.
6 Cities with a strong commitment to transit- oriented development have generated transit-oriented
development along bus corridors. Portland and Vancouver-– cities with densities
comparable to the East Bay over much of their area– have highly successful examples of bus-oriented
development.
7 AC Transit can work with communities and developers that can generate additional fund-ing
to increase service above basic levels.
2004 Page 3- 17
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
Planning Best Practice 2.1
Develop the whole within easy walking distance
of a transit corridor with transit- friendly uses
To achieve the full potential of a transit corridor, it is
important to develop both the main street and other
streets. In many cities commercial streets and streets
with bus lines are zoned for higher densities.
Enacting zoning that will allow development on the
major street is an important step. However, the trunk
line corridor is not just the street the bus operates on,
but also the areas within one quarter- mile of that
street. This is the area that is an easy walk, generally
estimated to be about five minutes, from the transit
line. These one quarter- mile wide corridors are
schematically illustrated by Map 5 ( Page 4- 8). Side
streets in transit corridors can provide opportunities
for residential development in quiet, attractive set-tings
within easy walking distance of the bus. These
corridors incorporate surprisingly large amounts of
land. Exclusive of areas around BART stations, the
trunk and major bus line corridors in the AC Transit
district encompass almost 25,000 acres, or almost 39
square miles.
General Plan Policy: Encourage Mixed Use on Transit Corridors
Encourage mixed use projects containing ground floor retail and upper floor residential uses along major
transit corridors. Such development should be pedestrian- oriented, respect the scale and character of the
surrounding neighborhood, and incorporate architectural themes that enhance the identity of adjacent
commercial districts.
Policy 3.05, Land Use Element, City of San Leandro General Plan
Residents cannot easi-ly
access these stores
because of the wall
between them and
long block lengths.
Planning Best Practice 2.2
Assure that residents on bus corridors can easily
walk to neighboring and nearby uses
Placing residential and commercial uses close to each
other is necessary, but not sufficient for easy walking
between them. In many cases it is impossible, dan-gerous,
or undesirable to walk from one to the other.
While many communities have upgraded pedestrian
paths to rail stations, the walking environment on
many major bus corridors ranges from unpleasant to
dangerous.
Walking is particularly problematic when develop-ment
patterns incorporate long, unbroken walls
around subdivisions, shopping centers, or other uses.
A resident might be able to walk around the wall on
the nearest street. However, overly long block lengths
may mean that the nearest street is a discouraging
800 or 1,000 feet away. Some housing developments
situated next to a shopping center have pedestrian
gates ( often key- accessed) allowing people to walk
from housing to shopping.
Planning Best Practice 2.3
On commercial strips, focus development
at nodes
Many American communities, including East Bay
communities have long, low- density commercial
strips along their main highways. This type of com-mercial
development is difficult to serve well with
transit, and difficult for transit passengers to use. Its
low- density, scattered character means that shoppers
must stop a number of widely separated locations,
which is a difficult pattern for transit passengers. The
walking environment is often poor, sidewalks may be
narrow or absent, interrupted by frequent driveways
and parking lots which extend to the edge of the
street. This situation discourages people from walk-ing
to the bus. It also often creates a low quality,
unfriendly bus stop environment.
Many of these strips already have focal points where
development is more intense, buildings may be taller
or closer together, there may be more pedestrians on
that section of the street. Often these occur where
two major streets intersect, especially around inter-sections
that are or were once important transit junc-tions.
Some streets do not have these locations, but
have the opportunity to develop them. Planners call
these focal points “ nodes.” Some plans identify
nodes and detail specific policies for them. For exam-ple,
the El Cerrito General Plan identifies three
nodes along San Pablo Avenue, and San Leandro is
developing a nodal concept for East 14th St.
It is usually better for transit operations and transit
passengers to concentrate commercial development,
particularly local serving stores, at major nodes.
Nodes at major cross streets are particularly helpful,
as they allow crossing transit service. These nodes
provide a good opportunity to introduce pedestrian-oriented
design ( described in Chapter 4) to otherwise
unfriendly streets.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 18 2004
2004 Page 3- 19
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
PLANNING POLICY 3
MANAGE PARKING AS PART OF AN
OVERALL TRANSPORTATION AND LAND
USE STRATEGY
Why does a transit- oriented handbook concern itself
with automobile parking? Because parking, especial-ly
non- residential parking, acts as an alternative to
and ultimately an impediment to transit. A plentiful
supply of parking, especially free or extremely cheap
parking, is a factor encouraging people to drive to
their destinations. When parking is free or very
cheap, but use of transit requires payment of a fare,
the “ playing field” is tilted towards parking. 8 Parking
availability is not the only reason travelers choose to
drive, but it is unquestionably one factor. It is diffi-cult
to increase transit ridership in situations where
parking is abundant and cheap, even when good
transit is provided. A community that wishes to
encourage transit ridership and use of alternative
modes will have to determine how it wishes to man-age
parking.
Communities need to manage parking as part of an
overall transportation and land use strategy, rather than
allow their transportation and land use to be managed
by parking. Yet all too often parking dominates plan-ning
rather than planning goals shaping parking
management. The result is a landscape where parking
becomes the dominant user of land, the dominant
shaper of the streetscape, and where automobiles are
the dominant mode of travel.
In addition to improving transit, transit- friendly
communities can implement a variety of strategies to
moderate parking demand and reduce the negative
impacts of parking facilities. Communities can
8 There are other costs of operating a motor vehicle besides parking. These costs can be
calculated on a per mile basis. However, many of a car's operating costs- such as insurance,
maintenance, and registration - are paid separately from individual trips. Therefore these costs
tend to be experienced by drivers as “ sunk” costs-- already paid with apparent operating costs
being limited to gas, tolls, and parking charges.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 20 2004
reduce excessive parking requirements, and recog-nize
that high levels of transit service allow reduced
parking requirements. Communities can configure
parking into consolidated lots and structures to
reduce its negative impact on community form.
Communities can avoid subsidizing the capital and
operating costs of parking, by charging parking fees
to cover costs and to generate funds for transit and
other alternative modes.
Planning Best Practice 3.1
Provide appropriate, but not excessive, amounts
of parking
Most communities ( although not all) set minimum
required levels of parking that must be provided with
new buildings or uses. Such parking requirements are
often discussed as if they are universal and unchang-ing.
However, actual demand for parking varies from
location to location, varies over time, and changes
with the impact of public policies and traveler deci-sions.
This has recently been legally recognized in a
California Court of Appeals decision. Therefore,
communities should assure that parking provision is
appropriate but not excessive.
Excessive parking increases the impacts discussed
above– e. g., induced driving and excessive land con-sumption.
Moderate parking supply can help sup-port
a positive feedback loop of more travel by tran-sit
and other modes allowing a lowered parking
requirement and so on. Excessive parking helps drive
a negative feedback loop where driving dominates
and reinforces an auto- oriented environment, lead-ing
to more demand for parking leading to more
driving, etc.
In some instances the appropriate amount of parking
is none. The city of Berkeley, for example, allowed
both its main library and YMCA in downtown
Berkeley to expand based on analysis that there was
adequate parking to satisfy the net increase in park-ing
demand they could be expected to generate.
Communities should carefully consider their own
planning goals, experience, and transit network in
setting parking requirements. Many “ standard” park-ing
requirements are based on suburban areas with
minimal or no transit, and the assumption that vir-tually
all users will drive alone to a facility. Parking
requirements are also based on the idea that each use
must have its own dedicated supply of parking.
However, there are often opportunities for uses with
different parking demands to share parking. In west
Berkeley, for example, a school whose parking
demand is during the week will be sharing parking
General Plan Policy: Reduced Parking in Transit- Oriented Areas
Reduce parking demand through limiting the absolute amount of spaces and prioritizing the spaces
for short- term and ride- share uses.
Policy 16.5, Transportation Element, City of San Francisco General Plan
2004 Page 3- 21
TRANSIT- BASED COMMUNITIES: CENTERING PLANNING ON TRANSIT
with a synagogue that has evening and weekend
parking demand. In some cases, cities have set max-imum
parking allowances for projects, so that devel-opers
do not overbuild parking and undermine city
policy goals.
Planning Best Practice 3.2
Reduce parking requirements in transit- served
areas
Research by the Center for Transit Oriented
Development and others has shown that people who
live and/ or work in transit- friendly areas own and use
cars less than people away from transit. Communities
can recognize and encourage this relationship by
establishing lower parking requirements in locations
with strong transit service. A number of cities in the
Bay Area and nationally already provide for such
reductions, including Oakland. The most straight-forward
method is to establish lower parking require-ments
in the basic zoning for transit- served areas.
Another approach is to allow parking requirements
to be lowered on a case by case basis through a
Conditional Use Permit procedure. 9
Planning Best Practice 3.3
Consolidate parking into joint lots and structures
Many commercial corridors and districts have
numerous adjacent or closely spaced parking lots,
each of which serves only one or a few businesses.
The lots together may provide more parking than the
businesses require, or one lot can be jammed while
the other lot is empty. Such parking lots take up most
of the land in many of the district’s newer commer-cial
areas. They can also make walking along the
9 Despite these well- documented findings, there is sometimes concern about residents’
willingness to reduce their car ownership even in transit- oriented areas. Carsharing, repre-sented
in the Bay Area by City Carshare, is a new program that supports residents owning
fewer cars. Under the program, participating households that need a car ( or a second car)
occasionally can borrow one from City Carshare when they need it. Thus they can have access
to a car without incurring the expenses of ownership or the requirement for a parking space.
Hayward is one of many
Bay Area cities with con-solidated
parking lots in
its Downtown area.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 3- 22 2004
street between businesses difficult and unpleasant.
This condition can be improved by consolidating
several lots into a single lot that serves multiple users
and takes up less space, freeing up land area for side-walks,
landscaping, or additional development.
These lots can have fewer driveways, reducing the
potential for pedestrian conflicts. In cases where
parking demand is high enough, lots can be consoli-dated
into parking structures. Including active uses,
such as retail stores, on the ground floor frontage of
parking structures, allows that structure to contribute
to the commercial corridor or district rather than
interrupting it.
Planning Best Practice 3.4
Charge fees for parking to cover costs and
generate funds for other modes
It is important that there be appropriate charges for
automobile parking. Parking is not free to create or
maintain, so the costs of doing so should be borne by
the users of the parking. 10 If this is not done, the
costs of parking are paid by all of the facility’s users,
whether they park there or get there by other means.
People who take transit to the facility must pay a fare
to get there as well as subsidizing drivers– a double
burden. In some cases, parking fees can also be used
to support alternative modes of transportation. The
city of San Francisco is using public parking revenues
in this way.
Charging for parking can also help establish the real
demand for parking. People will use more of a
“ good,” like parking, when it is free. Charging can
thus help communities determine what is a reason-able
rather than excessive level of parking.
Parking charges can also be used to influence travel
patterns in a community. The city of Berkeley targets
its public parking to shoppers rather than people
commuting to work. Berkeley’s view is that people
commuting to work have a greater opportunity to
use transit than shoppers. Therefore their charges for
short term parking, for less than two hours, are low
but rise steeply for longer term and all day parking.
10 Environmental and health advocates note the environmental, health, public safety, and
other costs created by automobile driving. These are important considerations that illustrate
the cost of driving to society, but are beyond the scope of this document.
INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter described key community planning policies to create a community that transit can serve
effectively. This chapter looks at how transit riders can get to transit. AC Transit passengers overwhelmingly
reach the bus by walking to it. Our recent survey of AC Transit passengers found that they were almost eight
times more likely to reach their first transit stop by walking than by all other methods ( driving, being a car pas-senger,
bicycling) combined.
This chapter addresses the following questions:
• How can pedestrian access throughout East Bay communities be improved?
• How can good walking access to transit be created?
• How should buildings be designed to facilitate walking?
• How best can pedestrian safety at roadways and driveways be achieved?
Some East Bay communities and neighborhoods are pleasant places to walk in, but many are not. There may
not be a sidewalk or it may be so narrow that it does not feel protective, and may be effectively impassible to
the disabled. Adjacent traffic may pass at a frighteningly high speed. These environments do not encourage
people to walk to transit or to other destinations.
2004 Page 4- 1
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT: CREATING GOOD WAYS TO WALK TO TRANSIT
CHAPTER 4
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT:
CREATING GOOD WAYS TO
WALK TO TRANSIT
CHAPTER GUIDE
Topic: Developing pedestrian facilities that allow passengers to easily walk to transit
Particular Audience: Transportation Commissioners, transportation planners, planners involved in
development review, Traffic/ Transportation Engineers
Subject of Recommendations: General Plan Transportation Elements, subdivision requirements, site plans,
sidewalk and roadway plans and standards, traffic signal timing
There are many ways to make walking a pleasant and effective method of travel. This chapter recommends
policies and approaches for creating a good pedestrian environment, including some key dimensions. However,
it is not intended to be a manual of technical specifications for sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities.
Readers should not assume that any dimensions or configurations of roadway, sidewalk, or bus stop fea-tures
shown on or implicit in figures, photographs, or text are recommended by AC Transit, unless such a
recommendation is specifically stated.
AC Transit’s recommendations for walkways and pedestrian facilities are strongly linked to the community
planning recommendations in Chapter 3. It is much easier to reach destinations by walking in a compact,
mixed- use community. A pleasant place environment for walking is also a pleasant environment for living
and working.
These recommendations are physically connected to the recommendations about streets and sidewalks in
Chapter 5. Our recommendations also fit into a multimodal transportation planning approach, which is dis-cussed
more fully in Chapter 5. The multimodal approach seeks to accommodate all modes of travel. In par-ticular,
AC Transit seeks to improve pedestrian conditions without compromising appropriate bus operations.
Conversely, there are many potential changes to streets that would improve bus operations but not degrade
pedestrian safety discussed in the next chapter. Our goal is streets that are safe for pedestrians and function-al
for buses and other vehicle traffic. Such streets needs to operate at an adequate and predictable speed, but
not necessarily the highest possible speeds. A pedestrian should be comfortable walking along any public
right- of- way.
The question that frames the issues discussed in this chapter is “ How would I feel walking to the bus stop?
Would I feel safe? Would I enjoy the walk? Would I do it again?”
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 4- 2 2004
SUMMARY OF SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
POLICY 1: DEVELOP NETWORKS THAT PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO ALL
LOCATIONS IN A COMMUNITY
Best Practice 1.1: Provide sidewalks on all blocks and assure that they are wide enough
Best Practice 1.2: To maximize pedestrian access, make blocks part of a grid pattern connected to other streets
Best Practice 1.3: Where blocks are long or end in cul de sacs develop alternative pedestrian access
POLICY 2: CREATE ACCESS TO TRANSIT WHICH IS DIRECT, SAFE, UNDERSTANDABLE
AND PLEASANT
Best Practice 2.1: Integrate transit stops into activity centers, usually on the street close to key buildings
Best Practice 2.2: Provide direct pedestrian access from activity centers to transit lines
Best Practice 2.3: Provide adequate lighting and clear sight lines on sidewalks and pedestrian paths
Best Practice 2.4: Make sidewalks and paths visually interesting and active
POLICY 3: SITE BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE EASY ACCESS TO TRANSIT
Best Practice 3.1: Site buildings next to sidewalks, minimize setbacks
Best Practice 3.2: Assure that buildings have entrances from the sidewalk
Best Practice 3.3: Retrofit pedestrian- hostile sites with liner buildings to improve sidewalk vitality and
site efficiency
POLICY 4: ASSURE THAT PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS OF ROADWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS
ARE SAFE AND EASY TO USE
Best Practice 4.1: Provide pedestrians with safe crossings of major streets, installing traffic signals where
necessary for pedestrian safety
Best Practice 4.2: Minimize roadway crossing distances without compromising transit operations
Best Practice 4.3: Limit vehicle turning movements across active sidewalks and walkways
Best Practice 4.4: Locate parking to minimize interference with pedestrian movements into buildings
2004 Page 4- 3
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT: CREATING GOOD WAYS TO WALK TO TRANSIT
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 4- 4 2004
1. The pedestrian environment should be safe.
Sidewalks, pathways and crossings should be
designed and built to be free of hazards to minimize
conflicts with external factors such as noise, vehicu-lar
traffic, and protruding architectural elements.
2. The pedestrian network should be accessible to all.
Sidewalks, pathways, and crossings should ensure
the mobility of all users by accommodating the
needs of people regardless of age or ability.
3. The pedestrian network should connect to places people
want to go.
The pedestrian network should provide continuous
direct routes and convenient connections between
destinations, including homes, schools, shopping
areas, public services, recreational opportunities,
and transit.
4. The pedestrian environment should be easy to use.
Sidewalks, pathways, and crossings should be
designed so people can easily find a direct route to
a destination and delays are minimized.
5. The pedestrian environment should provide good places.
Good design should enhance the look and feel of
the pedestrian environment. The pedestrian envi-ronment
includes open spaces such as plazas, court-yards,
and squares, as well as the building facades
that give shape to the space of the street. Amenities
such as street furniture, banners, art, plantings, and
special paving, along with historical elements and
cultural references, should promote a sense of place.
6. The pedestrian environment should be used for many things.
The pedestrian environment should be a place
where public activities are encouraged. Commercial
activities such as dining, vending, and advertising
may be permitted when they do not interfere with
safety and accessibility.
7. Pedestrian improvements should be economical.
Pedestrian improvements should be designed to
achieve the maximum benefit for their cost, includ-ing
initial cost and maintenance cost as well as
reduced reliance on more expensive modes of trans-portation.
Where possible, improvements in the
right- of- way should stimulate, reinforce, and con-nect
with adjacent private improvements.
PRINCIPLES FOR PEDESTRIAN DESIGN
City of Portland ( Oregon), Pedestrian Master Plan
This set of pedestrian principles from Portland's Pedestrian Master Plan provide a valuable framework for
considering how to improve conditions for pedestrians overall. The following design principles represent a
set of ideals which should be incorporated to some degree into every pedestrian environment. They are
ordered roughly in terms of relative importance.
CONTEXT: BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE
PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL NETWORK
The Pedestrian Travel Network to Transit
It is important to understand how the pedestrian net-work
functions as a network for travel. Certain ele-ments
of the pedestrian travel network are particular-ly
important for people walking to transit. Pedestrian
routes within one quarter- mile of a bus route are
especially significant, since most passengers prefer to
walk one quarter- mile or less to their stops. However,
pedestrian routes up to one half- mile from the bus
route/ transit hub should be considered, since some
people may walk this distance. When planning
around a major transit hub, such as a BART station,
a one half- mile radius is appropriate.
First are the sidewalks on streets with transit
routes. These sidewalks allow passengers to come to
or leave the bus stop. Since transit streets are often
commercial streets as well, these sidewalks allow pas-sengers
to go to stores and other destinations on their
way to and from transit. Sidewalks on streets with
trunk routes, almost all of which are commercial
streets, are particularly important. Some communi-ties
describe these as “ Main Street” sidewalks.
Whenever possible, these sidewalks should be wider
than legally required minimums.
2004 Page 4- 5
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT: CREATING GOOD WAYS TO WALK TO TRANSIT
This wide sidewalk in Hayward provides space for a bus shelter and outdoor restaurant seating.
While some trips begin or end on the transit street
itself, most do not. Thus a pedestrian route to the
transit street is required, usually a sidewalk on a
street intersecting the transit street. Each of these
routes are likely to carry a lower volume of pedestri-ans
than the transit streets themselves, but taken as a
whole they can carry many passengers. These side-walks
are sometimes considered “ neighborhood”
level pedestrian paths.
Many communities have off- street paths to transit.
A network of pedestrian paths was built in the
Berkeley and Oakland hills for the specific purpose
allowing residents to reach transit lines. Some areas of
Fremont have a network of neighborhood “ trails” that
allow residents to walk to transit streets and other des-tinations.
Pedestrian paths through large properties,
such as college campuses, hospitals and business parks
also deliver passengers to transit. When large sites are
developed or redeveloped, the pedestrian paths to
transit should be considered. Existing paths should be
retained; the need and opportunity for new pedestri-an
paths should be considered.
Other features of the urban landscape may also serve
as pedestrian routes. There may be important path-ways
through parks, especially smaller scale parks.
Cities may have pedestrian plazas, particularly in
their downtown areas. For example, Oakland City
Center has a pedestrian plaza that connects Clay St.
with the BART station and bus lines on Broadway.
In some instances there are publicly accessible paths
through a building.
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
WALKING POLICY 1: DEVELOP NETWORKS
THAT PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO
ALL LOCATIONS IN A COMMUNITY
The roadway network reaches all of the places in the
East Bay where people live or work. Pedestrian net-works
need to be just as extensive and comprehen-sive.
This will allow pedestrians, wherever they start
their trip, to walk to transit, shopping, or other des-tinations.
In East Bay communities, sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways generally provide access to most
of the community. However, areas on the fringe of
the community, particularly industrial areas and hill-sides,
often lack a sidewalk. Sidewalks may be absent
in areas developed during certain decades. These
areas should be connected to the community’s pedes-trian
network.
Walking Best Practice 1.1
Provide sidewalks on all blocks in a community
and assure that they are wide enough
Sidewalks are the fundamental building block for
pedestrian travel. To allow pedestrians to safely reach
all parts of a community, there should be sidewalks of
adequate width on every block.
Sidewalks are needed at bus stops. Under disabled
access guidelines, AC Transit usually cannot add a
bus stop which is not connected to a sidewalk. It is
also not possible to put a bus shelter or other bus stop
amenities in a location without a sidewalk.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 4- 6 2004
2004 Page 4- 7
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT: CREATING GOOD WAYS TO WALK TO TRANSIT
Figure 1: Street Treatments That Assist Transit and Transit Passengers
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 4- 8 2004
Map 5: Street Grids that Facilitate and Inhibit Walking to Transit
2004 Page 4- 9
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT: CREATING GOOD WAYS TO WALK TO TRANSIT
The wide sidewalk in Hayward shown on page 4- 5
provides space for a bus shelter and outdoor restau-rant
seating.
The appropriate width of a sidewalk will depend on
circumstances, especially the number of people using
it, whether there are other uses on the sidewalk ( e. g.,
newsracks, sidewalk cafes), and the space available.
Four feet is the minimum sidewalk width most com-munities
require to allow disabled access. Six feet
provides a more comfortable sidewalk where two
people can easily walk side by side. Bus shelter instal-lation
requires at least ten feet: four feet for the side-walk
“ path of travel” and approximately six feet for
the shelter itself ( see Figures 8 and 9, pages 5- 30 and
5- 31). Generous sidewalks in locations with substan-tial
pedestrian traffic can be as wide as 20 feet, allow-ing
both walking space and space for sidewalk tables.
Recommended sidewalk width:
Minimum: 4 feet
Recommended: 6 feet
Minimum to allow bus shelter: 10 feet
Sidewalk with outdoor seating: 15- 20 feet
Walking Best Practice 1.2
To maximize pedestrian access, make blocks
part of a grid pattern connected to other streets
For sidewalks to effectively reach all parts of the
community, the pattern of blocks must facilitate easy
pedestrian access. This requires relatively short
blocks, of no more than 500 feet, so pedestrians do
not have to travel too far out of their way. It is impor-tant
to minimize the walking distance to the street
with transit, because the bus stop may be as much as
an additional 500 feet along the street with transit.
The sidewalk of this cul- de- sac in Newark is connected to the major street.
Map 5 ( page 4- 8) illustrates the difference that a grid
pattern with appropriate block lengths can make.
The maps show two areas in the AC Transit district.
Residents of streets on the upper map can easily walk
to the streets with bus service ( darker lines) and to
the BART station near the upper right corner of the
map. They do not have to walk substantial distances
out of their way to make these connections. Some
midblock pedestrian connections not shown on the
map provide additional walking options. Residents
on the lower map, frequently have only one way in
and one way out. There is transit service on the major
streets in this area also, but many residents cannot
access it easily. There are no midblock pedestrian
connectors to provide supplemental access routes.
Redevelopment of shopping centers and other large
sites can be an opportunity to create new streets.
Often streets “ T” or end at the back of shopping cen-ters
and do not provide access across the center. It
may be possible to extend these streets when the site
is redeveloped.
Older urban areas tend to have shorter blocks than
newer suburban ones. Unfortunately, urban renewal
projects have sometimes created oversized
“ superblocks” by combining one or more existing
blocks. The distance between streets thus becomes
very long. 11 Superblocks are difficult and sometimes
dangerous for pedestrians to cross, as they can create
large empty areas. They also often unnecessarily
interfere with traffic flow, in some cases including
bus flow.
Walking Best Practice 1.3
Where blocks are long or end in cul de sacs
develop alternative pedestrian access
Sidewalks along streets are generally the most effec-tive
and best used walkways for pedestrians.
However, in some instances, communities have poor
layouts of blocks that do not provide sidewalks in all
locations where they are needed. Blocks may be
excessively long, in some cases exceeding 1,000 feet.
Streets may end in cul- de- sacs.
Where these conditions exist there are ways to create
access besides building a new road through to reach
the site. Midblock pedestrian connectors ( walkways)
can be developed. These are particularly useful for
pedestrian- friendly commercial areas and as connec-tors
to transit. The hillside paths in Oakland and
Berkeley were initially developed to connect riders to
the streetcar lines. The recently adopted Midtown
Milpitas Specific Plan calls for the addition of both
new streets and new off- street pedestrian paths to cre-ate
connections to new transit stations.
Sidewalks can also be extended from cul- de- sacs to
nearby streets, allowing pedestrians and bicyclists to
pass through while still shielding the street from auto
traffic. This is illustrated on page 4- 9.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 4- 10 2004
11 Perhaps the country's most famous superblock project is the former World Trade Center
site in New York City, which combined numerous formerly active retail blocks into a cold and
forbidding superblock. The site will probably be redivided into a number of blocks.
2004 Page 4- 11
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT: CREATING GOOD WAYS TO WALK TO TRANSIT
WALKING POLICY 2: CREATE PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS TO TRANSIT WHICH IS DIRECT,
SAFE, UNDERSTANDABLE AND PLEASANT
Walking Best Practice 2.1
Provide direct pedestrian access from activity
centers to transit lines
Pedestrian access from activity centers to transit stops
should be easy and direct. This type of pedestrian
routing will make it easier for people to walk from a
store or office to a bus stop. Routes that are not easy
and direct can discourage people from walking to a
bus stop. Meandering routes, circuitous crossings, or
unnecessary changes of grade should be avoided. 12
Such impediments can also cause a pedestrian to
walk in a dangerous manner: e. g., they may cross a
street illegally when the only legal route is excessive-ly
circuitous. An example is when pedestrians wish-ing
to cross a street are directed around across the
intersecting street, then across the first street, then
back across the intersecting street in a “ C” shape to
get to their destination. Many pedestrians will simply
assess the risk and cross the street directly.
Pedestrian distances and routes must be evaluated
from the pedestrian’s perspective. What seems like a
short or insignificant detour to a driver or even a
bicyclist can be onerous for pedestrians.
For these reasons, it is important to create direct
paths for pedestrians to and from activity centers.
Directional signs for pedestrians may also be useful,
particularly between major transit hubs, activity
centers, and public buildings. These need to be
placed and sized for pedestrians, not for automobile
drivers. Separate auto- oriented wayfinding signs
may also be appropriate.
Walking Best Practice 2.2
Integrate transit stops into activity centers, usu-ally
on the street close to key buildings
Transit access at new developments needs to be safe,
easy, and attractive. Bus stops should be sited in or
near active, central areas of complexes of buildings,
such as shopping centers and complexes. Bus stops
should not be isolated in remote locations. To effec-tively
serve passengers, transit stops at major activity
centers need to be close to the buildings they serve.
Depending on the size of the complex, more than
one bus stop may be necessary. Bus stops which are
far down an arterial street, behind a building or in a
little used part of the site are difficult for riders to use
and may seem ( or be) dangerous.
Bus stops that are hidden in obscure locations also
communicate a message to transit riders that they are
unimportant; that the facility is not concerned about
their ability to travel.
In general, it is best that the bus remain on the
street that serves an activity center. Routing the bus
off the street into a building complex will generally
delay the bus more than can be justified. On- street
bus stops are usually most appropriate. They can
serve an activity center well if facilities are sited to
be easily accessible to the street and if good pedes-trian
pathways connecting buildings to bus stops
are developed.
12 Routes that require pedestrians to change levels ( i. e. pedestrian bridges and under-passes)
should not be created. Pedestrians tend to avoid these routes in favor of quicker sur-face
level routes. Because they are isolated from street level activity and surveillance, bridges
and tunnels may become locations for crime.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 4- 12 2004
This blank
wall deadens a
downtown area
that is lively
around the
corner.
Pedestrian- oriented
lighting in Albany,
with roadway- orient-ed
lighting in the
background.
2004 Page 4- 13
SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT: CREATING GOOD WAYS TO WALK TO TRANSIT
Walking Best Practice 2.3
Provide adequate lighting and clear sight lines
on sidewalks and pedestrian paths
A clear view of the path ahead is a pedestrian’s best
defense against both crime and vehicle hazards.
Protecting this view requires clear sight lines along
major sidewalks, which will also benefit disabled
people using wheelchairs. It is important that light
for pedestrians be provided from a relatively low
height ( 12- 14 feet), not only from high level
“ Cobra” lights designed to illuminate roadways.
Such high level lights do not provide adequate light-ing
on the sidewalk. Concerning the spacing of
lampposts, the Oakland Pedestrian Master Plan rec-ommends
lampposts every 50 feet along streets,
every 30 feet along walkways and trails because they
receive other lighting.
Walking Best Practice 2.4
Make sidewalks and paths visually interesting
and active
Since pedestrians are traveling at 2- 3 miles per hour
( compared to cars traveling 20- 30 mph on urban
arterials), pedestrians are very aware of and responsi-ble
to their surroundings. Sidewalks adjacent to
blank walls, large surface parking lots, or other visu-ally
boring features are unpleasant to walk along. To
the extent that lack of interest discourages pedestri-ans
from using sidewalks, they can become danger-ous.
Visually interesting sidewalks and walkways are
more pleasant and likely to attract more users.
Depending on the context, there are a number of
ways to make sidewalks more interesting, through
the design of building facades, landscaping, public
art, and other treatments.
This busy sidewalk is enlivened by store windows, trees, street furniture, and signs.
DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT
Page 4- 14 2004
WALKING POLICY 3: SITE BUILDINGS TO
PROVIDE EASY ACCESS TO TRANSIT
Walking Best Practice 3.1
Site buildings next to sidewalks,
minimize setbacks
One of the easiest ways to make buildings more
pedestrian and transit- friendly is to build the build-ing
as close as possible to the sidewalk. Walking dis-tance
for bus passengers will be reduced by reducing
or eliminating setbacks. The older commercial sec-tions
of many East Bay cities, including B Street in
Hayward, E. 14th St. in San Leandro, and
Macdonald Avenue in Richmond, have buildings
built to the sidewalk.
Setbacks in front of retail and commercial buildings
are often considered detrimental to retail businesses
in the building. Buildings close to