Advancing Equity in Transportation in Oakland_Final May 2016

Advancing Equity in Transportation in Oakland, California May 2016
ADVANCING EQUITY IN TRANSPORTATION
IN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
FERN UENNATORNWARANGGOON
Client Report
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF CITY PLANNING
Department of City and Regional Planning
University of California, Berkeley
May 2016
Committee:
Karen Chapple
Karen Trapenberg Frick
Matt Nichols

Disclaimer
This client report has been prepared for the Office of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, at
the direction of Matt Nichols, Policy Director for Transportation & Infrastructure. The
author conducted this study in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master in City Planning at the Department of City and Regional Planning, UC Berkeley.
The judgments and conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily
endorsed by the UC Berkeley, the sponsoring organization, or any other agency.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Professors Karen Chapple and Karen Frick for their guidance and
helpful suggestions in the completion of this report. My deepest thanks to Matt Nichols,
who gave me the opportunity to work in the uniquely wonderful City of Oakland and to
experience first-hand the opportunities and challenges of planning in a fast changing
city. My gratitude to colleagues in the City of Oakland and in the transportation justice
community for generously giving their time to share important insights and advice that
went into this work. Lastly, a big thank you to my fellow MCP students for their
comradery and support throughout our two years in the program.

1
CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
II. INTRODUCTION 5
OBJECTIVE 5
STUDY QUESTIONS 6
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OF FOCUS 7
METHODOLOGIES 7
III. LITERATURE REVIEW 8
DEFINING TRANSPORTATION EQUITY 8
REVIEW OF PRACTICE 13
IV. BACKGROUND 15
OAKLAND CITY CONTEXT 15
OAKLAND TRANSPORTATION EQUITY CHALLENGE 19
NEW MOMENTUM 21
V. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION 22
1. STREET PAVING 22
2. SAFE STREETS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS 27
3. THE GROWING SHARED MOBILITY SECTOR 33
4. ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY OF TRANSIT 37
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS 41
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY TABLE 45
VIII. REFERENCES 52
APPENDICES 55

2
List of Figures
Figure 1: Transportation equity framework
Figure 2: ‘Equity Ladder’ – a framework for equity standards
Figure 3: MTC equity analysis framework
Figure 4: Mode split for Oakland commuters
Figure 5a: Median household income by block group
Figure 5b: Percent of minority populations by block group
Figure 6a: Percent of household with zero vehicle
Figure 6b: Percent of household with fewer vehicles than household members
Figure 6: Minority populations and concentration of low-vehicle households
Figure 7: Map of Oakland Pavement Condition Index
Figure 8: Pedestrian-vehicle collisions in Oakland 1996-2000
Figure 9: Mobility Hub Suitability Map
List of Tables
Table 1: Oakland racial and ethnic composition
Table 2: Household median income
Table 3: Oakland inflow/outflow workforce
Table 4: Comparison of Disadvantaged Populations Index, Pavement Condition Index
and 5-year planned repaving
Table 5a: Example of a weighting scale based on Disadvantaged Populations Index
Table 5b: Changes in amount of repaving when applying DPI-based weighting
List of Abbreviations
ACS American Community Survey
AC Transit Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CBTP Community Based Transportation Plan
LEHD Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission

3
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The City of Oakland has a rich transportation system that provides a variety of mobility
options to residents and commuters in Oakland. However, like many cities in the U.S.,
the transportation system in Oakland is characterized by high level of disparities. Many
Oakland residents do not have adequate access to transportation services either
because they live in areas with limited transportation facilities or they cannot afford the
cost of operating personal vehicles. As transportation often serves as a critical link to
jobs, schools, housing, health care and other needed services, the lack of access to
transportation translates to the inability to meet their basic needs or isolation from
opportunities.
This report explores the linkages between transportation access and social and
economic equity. It asks how transportation policies, funding decisions and planning
practice can be made to serve the needs of all Oakland residents and improve equity
outcome in the city. The report is intended to inform the Office of the Mayor and
Oakland’s newly formed Department of Transportation as to how to embed equity
considerations into all levels of transportation planning, policy and decision-making,
and to guide capital investments.
Methodologies
This report was developed using a mixed-method approach involving participant
observation and a series of interviews and focus group with Oakland city staff and
representatives from transportation and social justice advocacy organizations working
at the local, regional and national level.
Findings
There are significant disparities in transportation outcomes for different population
groups in Oakland. This includes poorer safety outcomes for pedestrians in low-income
communities and communities of color, lower access to quality bicycle infrastructure,
and poorer transit service quality experienced by disadvantaged populations. In
addition, low-income and minority populations face a higher barrier to access when it
comes to new shared mobility services. In part, this pattern of inequality is a result of
past investment decisions. While current planning practice and decision-making may
not be explicitly discriminatory, it fails to consider the disparate impacts on different

4
populations. As such it can have an exclusionary effect and lead to inequitable
outcomes as shown in this report.
Recommendations
There is an emergent practice of integrating equity considerations into transportation
planning in Oakland, starting with equity analyses in modal plans such as the bike and
pedestrian plans, and in the new shared mobility sector. However, to achieve a systemic
change, equity principles would need to be instituted in the city’s transportation
practice at all levels from vision, policy formation, planning and funding allocation,
through to individual programs and projects. The new Department of Transportation
(DOT) presents a prime opportunity to do so and the city needs to ensure that equity
principles are codified into policies and incorporated into standard operating
procedures as the DOT becomes established.

5
II. INTRODUCTION
The City of Oakland is a major transportation hub for the San Francisco Bay Area
region; it hosts a diverse range of transportation systems including local streets,
regional road and highways, freight and passenger rail, bus systems and ferries. The
city is well served by transit with many high-capacity bus trunk lines provided by
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) and commuter rail operated by the
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Such rich transportation system provides a variety of
mobility options to residents and commuters in Oakland.
However, like many cities in the U.S., the transportation system in Oakland is
characterized by a high level of disparities. Many Oakland residents do not have
adequate access to transportation services either because they live in areas with limited
transportation facilities or they cannot afford the cost of operating personal vehicles.
As transportation often serves as a critical link to jobs, schools, housing, health care and
other needed services, the lack of access to transportation translates to an inability to
meet their basic needs and presents a barrier to other opportunities.
Transportation planning and investment decisions can bring fundamental
improvements in communities that support their development and growth, or they can
exclude them from access, isolating them from opportunities. Indeed, many
communities in Oakland have borne the brunt of infrastructure disinvestments in the
past and are still underserved today. Recognizing the history of disinvestments and the
growing social and economic inequality that many residents experience today, the issue
of transportation has become a priority for the City of Oakland.
This report explores the linkages between transportation access and social and
economic inequalities. It asks how transportation policies, funding decisions and
planning practice more generally can be made to serve the needs of all Oakland
residents and improve equity outcomes in the city.
Objective
This report is intended to inform the Office of the Mayor and Oakland’s newly formed
Department of Transportation and Department of Race and Equity as to how best to
measure and embed equity considerations in all levels of transportation planning, policy
and decision-making and to guide capital investments. It is envisioned that the report
will serve as a guide for relevant officials involved in transportation on how to
incorporate equity perspectives as a standard procedure at all levels of the city’s

6
transportation decision-making. The ultimate goal is to improve transportation access
and affordability for disadvantaged and underserved populations.
Currently, there is no formal practice in the City of Oakland to incorporate equity
considerations into transportation planning and investment. There is no formal policy
or administrative guidance, and equity analysis is neither mandated nor practiced as
part of transportation decision-making at the city level. However, the planning practice
in Oakland is evolving and this report captures insights from this emerging effort.
The following sub-sections describe the approach used in conducting the research for
this report. They lay out the study questions that guided the research, a brief
framework for considering different types of equity, and selected transportation issues
that are the focus of this report and research methodologies.
Study Questions
Current transportation equity challenges:
What are the equity concerns related to transportation infrastructure and services
in Oakland?
How accessible and affordable is transportation for low-income residents and
communities of concern in Oakland?
What are current policies and practices that attempt to address inequity in
transportation in Oakland? Do any policies worsen inequity?
What next:
What are current impediments to advancing transportation equity?
What policies and practices are needed to advance equity in transportation in
Oakland?
How can Oakland expand transportation options for low-income residents and
communities of concern?
What transportation investments should Oakland prioritize over the next 3 years to
improve accessibility and affordability?
What are potential equity indices that can track and inform transportation
maintenance activities and the way transportation investments are prioritized?
There are many ways to consider equity in transportation as outlined by Litman (2015).
This report focuses primarily on socio-economic and demographic equity, that is, on
the distribution of investment and benefits to different user groups. (Benefits include
access to economic opportunities and other services necessary for a healthy and

7
productive life.) To a lesser extent, the report will focus on geographic equity (to the
extent that it relates to spatial distribution of different demographic groups, especially
communities of concern), modal equity (defined as access to different modes of
transportation), and ability-based equity (to the extent that a high proportion of
disabled population tend to be mobility disadvantaged, and a large proportion are low-
income).
Transportation Issues of Focus
This report highlights four transportation planning issues that Oakland staff have
identified as their current priorities. The first three issues – paving, safe streets for
pedestrians and cyclists and the growing shared mobility sector – are areas where there
is currently a strong drive toward a more equitable outcome. There are also linkages
and interdependencies between paving and safe streets which is further discussed in
Section V. In analyzing transportation equity, transit is a key issue as disadvantaged
populations – whether they are socio-economically or physically disadvantaged – are
often dependent on transit systems. Lastly, there are overarching issues, presented in
the concluding section, related to transportation planning practice more generally that
cut across all modes and are presented in Section VI.
1. Street Paving
2. Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclists
3. Rapidly Growing Shared Mobility Sector
4. Quality of Transit
Methodologies
This report was developed using a mixed-method qualitative approach involving
participant observation based on my internship with the Director of Transportation and
Infrastructure Policy in the Mayor’s Office over a 10-month period. During this time I
provided on-going planning and coordination support to the Director on a wide range of
transportation issues including the establishment of the new Department of
Transportation, helping to prepare the groundwork for Oakland’s first Transportation
Strategic Plan, supporting the planning and implementation of a potential
infrastructure bond measure, and liaising with environmental and social justice
advocacy groups.
In addition, findings and insights in this report are drawn from interviews and focus
group with relevant stakeholders including:

8
8 interviews and 1 focus group with Oakland city staff whose roles relate directly
to transportation planning and decision-making, as well as a representative of
the recently established Department of Race and Equity; and
5 interviews with representatives of transportation and social justice advocacy
organizations who work at the local, regional and national level.
The report also includes a review of the literature related to transportation equity and
emerging practices from other cities. I also draw from secondary data sources including
the U.S. Census and American Community Survey, Longitudinal Employer-Household
Dynamics, and California Household Travel Data, to provide a profile of equity
challenges in relation to transportation in Oakland.
III. LITERATURE REVIEW
The section presents a review of different ways in which transportation equity is
defined and measured, drawing on legal frameworks, academic literature, as well as
policies and plans of key transportation authorities and other organizations working on
transportation justice and social equity. It also highlights emerging practices from other
cities on how to advance equity considerations into transportation planning.
Defining Transportation Equity
Many of the equity considerations in transportation planning and decision-making at
the regional and local levels derive from laws, regulations, and policies set at the federal
level, starting with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent federal
Environmental Justice laws. Some of the key laws that are pertinent to equity
considerations in transportation include the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
which aims to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment,
state and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and
transportation; Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” of 1994 which charged
each federal agency with the mandate to achieve environmental justice by identifying
and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations; and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) which
attempts to broaden opportunities for public participation in transportation decision
making. A more comprehensive list of laws and regulations can be found in Appendix A.
At the heart of it, these laws, regulations and policies are designed to ensure that
transportation decisions meet the needs of all people by looking at the distributional

9
impacts of transportation decision-making. Multiple levels of decision-making affect
transportation outcomes – from policy formation, planning and programming, and
funding allocations – at federal, state, regional and local levels. These nested processes
of decision making can benefit, exclude, or harm different sections of the population.
Figure 1 below provides a framework for considering equity in transportation in terms
of ‘inputs’ (the various in-going decisions) which determine transportation ‘outcomes’
(impact on people’s lives).
Figure 1: Transportation Equity Framework
Outcomes
Transportation infrastructures and services can impose various burdens, or various
types of direct and indirect costs, on people. These include air pollution from motor
traffic and other environmental impacts, human health impacts such as injuries and
fatalities due to collisions, undesirable land use impacts, as well as taxes, fees and
fares.1 A large body of literature over the past few decades has shown that these
burdens are often disproportionately borne by minority and low-income populations.2
1
T. Litman, “Evaluating Transportation Equity - Methods for Incorporating Distributional Impacts into
Transportation Planning,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute, March 3, 2005,
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=753739.
2
Proceedings, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit (United Church of Christ
Commission for Racial Justice, 1992); Bill Lann Lee, “Civil Rights Remedies for Environmental Injustice.
Paper Presented at Transportation and Environmental Justice: Building Model Partnerships Conference,
Atlanta, GA.,” n.d.
INPUTS
Policies and Programs
Planning Processes
Investments / Funding
Allocations
OUTCOMES
Benefits:
mobility and access to
economic and social
opportunities
Burdens:
adverse impact on people's
lives and livelihoods

10
One common pattern is disparate highway siting in low-income communities and
communities of color that destroys the fabric of the neighborhood fabric and has
negative health impacts on residents.3 Indeed, many of the efforts to advance
transportation equity grew out of the environmental justice movement, which is
concerned with mitigating these impacts on disadvantaged populations.
The above framework also points to transportation benefits primarily in terms of
mobility and access. In the Bay Area and much of the U.S., where land uses are
dispersed in a generally low density suburban form, a lack or low quality of
transportation can directly result in a lack of opportunities for work, school, recreation,
and social networks, profoundly impacting the prospects for communities and
individuals (Ong and Blumenberg, 1998; Ihlanfeldt and Sjoquist, 1998; Taylor and Ong,
1995; Sanchez et al., 2003; Lucas, 2006). Transportation provides a crucial link to
economic and social opportunities and critical services that ultimately affect people’s
livelihoods and welfare.
Benefits and burdens of transportation are two sides of the same coin and both are
important aspects of transportation equity. The emphasis of this report, however, is on
the distribution of benefits, with the main goal being inclusive transportation which
focuses on expanding access to transportation to underserved populations. In addition,
access to transportation is defined not only as availability of transportation services but
also as access to transportation options that are affordable, reliable and efficient.
Inputs
A substantial amount of research has shown that public investments in transportation
infrastructures and services often benefit some groups of people more than others.4
Research show that large disparities exist in levels of transportation access by different
population groups. For instance, Blumenburg and Ong (1998, 2004) found that low-
income women and welfare recipients face higher travel cost burden and lower job
accessibility.5, 6, 7 This body of literature also finds that for low-income populations,
3
Robert Doyle Bullard and Glenn Steve Johnson, Just Transportation: Dismantling Race and Class Barriers
to Mobility (New Society Publishers, 1997).
4
Robert Bullard, “Addressing Urban Transportation Equity in the United States,” Fordham Urban Law
Journal 31, no. 5 (January 1, 2003): 1183.
5
Paul Ong and Evelyn Blumenberg, “Job Access, Commute and Travel Burden among Welfare
Recipients,” Urban Studies 35, no. 1 (1998): 77–93.
6
Evelyn Blumenberg, “En-Gendering Effective Planning: Spatial Mismatch, Low-Income Women, and
Transportation Policy,” Journal of the American Planning Association 70, no. 3 (2004): 269–81.

11
longer commutes (whether in travel-time or distances) result in significantly lower
earnings compared to higher-wage worker groups.
Conversely, access to effective transportation can lead to increased access to job
opportunity and allow people to access services to meet other needs. However, the
spatial distribution of jobs, services and where people live are complex, leading to vastly
differentiated travel patterns and needs across population groups. 8, 9, 10 As such,
transportation decisions need to be informed by context-specific analysis and should be
targeted for different population groups in different geographies.
A related set of research finds persistent inequities in transportation investments.
In studying the 2005 case of Darensburg et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, a case of Title VI complaint, Golub (2013) found that regional
transportation planning processes in the Bay Area disproportionately benefit a higher
income, mostly white population, while overlooking bus riders who tend to be low-
income people of color. (See Box 1 below). Assessment of existing legal frameworks
such as the TEA-21 also found deficiencies in policy implementation that results in
inequitable transportation investment decisions being made.
Box 1. Racial Inequity in Transportation Planning in the Bay Area
In 2005, a group of minority bus riders in the San Francisco Bay Area brought a
federal civil rights lawsuit against the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(Darensburg et al. v. MTC). The plaintiff highlighted the disparities both in the
subsidy per rider ($3 per trip for bus riders vs. $6-$14 for BART riders) and in service
levels over the last two decades (stagnant bus service while rail service more than
doubled) (Public Advocates, 2009). They asserted that this unequal treatment was
a direct result of MTC’s regional transportation planning and funding practices.
Ultimately, both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of
MTC, believing that there was no discriminatory intent and that the outcome was
the pragmatic result of the agency’s attempt to balance diverse demands.
7
Evelyn Blumenberg and Michael Manville, “Beyond the Spatial Mismatch: Welfare Recipients and
Transportation Policy,” Journal of Planning Literature 19, no. 2 (2004): 182–205.
8
Evelyn Blumenberg, “On the Way to Work: Welfare Participants and Barriers to Employment,” Economic
Development Quarterly 16, no. 4 (2002): 314–25.
9
Robert Cervero, Onésimo Sandoval, and John Landis, “Transportation as a Stimulus of Welfare-to-Work
Private versus Public Mobility,” Journal of Planning Education and Research 22, no. 1 (September 1, 2002):
50–63.
10
Neil Bania, Laura Leete, and Claudia Coulton, “Job Access, Employment and Earnings: Outcomes for
Welfare Leavers in a US Urban Labour Market,” Urban Studies 45, no. 11 (October 1, 2008): 2179–2202.

12
Recognizing historical inequity
In a comprehensive review of Civil Rights laws and associated transportation and
environmental justice directives, Golub and Martens (2014) found that a clear definition
of equity and fairness is still lacking in the interpretation and implementation of these
laws. Importantly, they found that the literal and common interpretation of these laws
and regulations fail to recognize the history of inequity in transportation policies,
planning and investments which have resulted in disparate impacts along racial, socio-
economic and socio-demographic lines. They proposed a framework for considering
different types of ‘equity’ which range from non-discriminatory interpretation based on
intentionality to a restorative approach which recognizes that some communities have
been systematically denied benefits in the past and therefore warrant a redress (Figure
2 below). This report assumes the restorative approach to equity and takes the view
that equitable planning decisions and actions need to remedy existing disparities in
transportation outcomes.
Figure 2: ‘Equity Ladder’ – a Framework for Equity Standards
Source: Adapted from Golub and Martens (2014)

13
Review of Practice
This section presents a review of how key transportation authorities and other
organizations working on transportation and social equity define transportation equity.
It also highlights emerging practices in other cities that integrate equity considerations
into transportation planning.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the transportation planning,
financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, defines
equity based on the notion of fair and just distribution of impacts, which is in line with
the framework and literature described above.11 Figure 3 shows the specific measures
of transportation impacts used by the MTC to perform equity analysis of the Plan Bay
Area. In addition to the distribution of impacts, the MTC also looks at the distribution of
financial investments across different population groups.
Figure 3: MTC Equity Analysis Framework
The Transportation Equity Caucus, a national coalition of more than 100 social and
environmental justice, transportation advocacy, and public health organizations
working across the U.S., chaired by the Leadership Conference, a leading civil and
human rights coalition, and PolicyLink, a national research and action institute, defines
equity through its four core principles: 1) create affordable transportation options for all
people; 2) ensure fair access to quality jobs, workforce development and contracting
opportunities in the transportation sector; 3) promote healthy, safe and inclusive
communities; and 4) invest equitably and focus on results. These principles reflect the
11
“MTC Equity Analysis Report” (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, February 2009),
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/equity/FinalEquityAnalysisReportWeb.pdf.
Distribution of Investment
Proportions of funding
benefiting different
population groups
Distribution of Impacts
Access to low-income jobs by
auto and transit
Access to non-work activities
by auto and transit
Vehicle emissions
Housing and transportation
affordability

14
importance of distributional effects of transportation investments, and the desire “to
ensure all people can participate and prosper”.12
Move Seattle13, the City of Seattle’s 10-year strategic plan for transportation adopted
in 2015, lays out ways in which the city will fund and deliver transportation projects to
meet its overall vision of being a safe, interconnected, vibrant, affordable, and
innovative city. With respect to equity, the plan focuses on geographic equity to ensure a
fair distribution of investment and benefits among different communities. Geographic
equity is one of six criteria used for project prioritization proposed in the plan. However,
there is no information in the report on how this qualitative measure is defined.
Another way that the report touches on equity is in its core value and measures related
to affordability. The goal for this core value is to “provide high-quality, low-cost travel
options for everyone” and proposed measures include implementing programs for low-
income and non-English speaking residents that facilitate access to transit, bike share,
car share, and other travel options. For instance, the report recommends requiring new
development to provide transit passes and other travel options to disadvantaged
residents as a condition of development approval.
In addition to transportation plans, some cities have also developed other tools to
translate equity considerations into practice. For instance, the Twin Cities,
Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN, employ an Equitable Development Scorecard 14 which
provides a flexible guide for various areas of planning including land use planning,
housing, economic development and transportation. As part of their Race & Social
Justice Initiative, the City of Seattle has developed a Racial Equity Toolkit 15 to assess
policies, initiatives, programs and budget allocation. The toolkit guides planners to
define outcomes specific to the population of concern.
12
“Statement of Principles,” Transportation Equity Caucus, accessed December 5, 2015,
http://www.equitycaucus.org/About/StatementofPrinciples.
13
Seattle Department of Transportation, “Move Seattle: 10-Year Strategic Vision for Transportation,”
Transportation Plan (Seattle: Seattle Department of Transportation, Spring 2015),
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/MoveSeatte-FinalDraft-2-25-Online.pdf.
14
“Twin Cities Equitable Development Scorecard: A Tool for Communities and Planners,” October 2014.
15
Race and Social Justice Initiative, “Racial Equity Toolkit to Assess Policies, Initiatives, Programs, and
Budget Issues,” accessed April 29, 2016,
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/RSJI/RacialEquityToolkit_FINAL_August2012.pdf.

15
IV. BACKGROUND
Oakland City Context
Oakland is an integral part of the booming Bay Area economy. As one of the major
urban centers in the region, Oakland is expected to see substantial growth in jobs and
population alongside San Francisco and San Jose over the next few decades. The Plan
Bay Area projects that nearly 40% of job growth will locate in these three cities over the
next 25 years. Oakland’s population is projected to grow by 41% or 160,000 people in
the same period. This represents almost 20% of total growth in central cities in the
region. While growth is generally considered to be positive, it is also putting enormous
pressures on Oakland’s infrastructures, particularly on housing and transportation. The
housing crisis is a daily news headline and roads and transit systems are operating at or
near maximum capacity. The most pressing challenge for Oakland and other cities in
the region is how to balance job growth, housing supply and transportation services in
such way to ensure a vibrant economy and enable the region to achieve its
sustainability goals.
In order to accommodate the projected growth, Oakland will need to invest heavily in
the coming decades to improve and expand its transportation infrastructures. Meeting
the resource needs will pose a significant challenge. However, an equally important
challenge is ensuring that new investments are driven toward equitable outcomes.
Many parts of Oakland have experienced infrastructure disinvestment historically and
are still underserved today. While Oakland prides itself as one of the most diverse cities
in the U.S., there is striking social and racial inequality with respect to income,
employment rate, exposure to and impact of violence, and health and other life
outcomes. The pattern of disparities is the result of decades of planning policies and
decisions making that have led to the hugely unequal outcomes for different sections of
the population. Transportation is but one area where inequities have played out in the
past and continues to do so today.
Inequity in transportation manifests in many ways: it can be seen in the disparity in bus
service, the high concentration of air pollution in poor communities and communities of
color, where freeways and BART stations are built through neighborhoods, and the
large differentials in levels of mobility. Transportation is a critical link to opportunity,
connecting people to jobs, schools, affordable housing, health care, grocery stores, and
more. Oakland needs to put greater emphasis on transportation equity and create
transportation options for all people that effectively connect them to opportunities.

16
Population
Oakland is a racially and economically diverse city. The city has a population of 402,339
(5-year 2010–2014 American Community Survey), of which nearly three quarters are
racial or ethnic minorities. Table 1 shows a snapshot of Oakland’s current racial and
ethnic diversity.
Race/Ethnicity Population Percentage
Black or African American (non-Hispanic) 102,933 25.6%
White (non-Hispanic) 106,736 26.5%
Hispanic 104,122 25.9%
Asian (non-Hispanic) 66,088 16.4%
Other race (non-Hispanic) 22,460 5.6%
Total 402,339 100%
Table 2: Oakland racial and ethnic composition
Source: 2010–2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
However, Oakland has been, and continues to be, undergoing dramatic demographic
shifts. During the past decade, the city has seen a 24% decline of African Americans and
a 13% increase of Latinos, 7.8% of Whites, and 7.8% of Asians. The city is also
experiencing a significant loss of families with children, resulting in a 16.7% decline in
the number of children living in Oakland. (US Census 2000 and 2010).
Oakland has major economic disparities; according to a national study, Oakland ranks
7th in the U.S. with highest rate of income inequality.16 Oakland’s median household
income is $52,962, well below the regional figure of $ 80,008 (2010-2014 ACS: Oakland
and SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA); 17% of Oakland households have annual incomes
below the federal poverty level. In addition, the city is seeing declining income levels for
residents of color, as shown in Table 2 below.
Race/Ethnicity 2000
2005-
2009
2008-
2012
2010-
2014
Percentage
change
2000-2014
Black or African
American (non-
Hispanic) $ 44312 $ 37632 $ 36140 $ 35983 -19%
16
“Some Cities Are Still More Unequal than Others—an Update,” The Brookings Institution, February 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/03/city-inequality-berube-holmes.

17
Hispanic $ 55103 $ 46819 $ 45838 $ 45731 -17%
Asian (non-Hispanic) $ 47764 $ 49686 $ 46645 $ 44418 -7%
White (non-Hispanic) $ 81563 $ 86767 $ 84509 $ 85489 5%
Table 2: Household Median Income (In 2014 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)
Sources: 2000 Census, 2005-2009, 2008-2012, 2010-2014 American Community Survey
5-year Estimates
Economy and Employment
Oakland is a major regional employment center. It hosts 198,000 jobs, the third highest
in the region after San Francisco and San Jose. The city is home to several corporate
headquarters including Clorox, Kaiser Permanente, Pandora and Sungevity. Key
employment clusters include Health Care and Social Assistance (20%), Public
Administration (8%), Transportation and Warehousing (9%), Educational Services (9%),
and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (7%). (2014 LEHD)
As one of the largest cities in the Bay Area region, Oakland plays an important role in
the region on multiple fronts: contributing to economic and job growth as well as
supporting vibrant and sustainable communities. Indeed, a significant portion of the
region’s job growth over the next few decades is projected to take place in the city. The
city had a reported 190,490 jobs in 2010, the third highest concentration in the region,
and it is expected to see a 45% job growth between 2010 and 2040, the second highest
in the region outpacing San Francisco and Silicon Valley.17 The tech industry is growing
rapidly in Oakland as typified by Uber’s plan to open a new office in the city and
bringing with it 2,000-3,000 employees by 2017.
Economic and job growth is a positive projection for any city. However, because of the
regional nature of the job market and complex jobs-housing imbalances, this may
present a host of new challenges for disadvantaged communities. With growing
housing pressure low-income residents are increasingly at risk of being displaced from
their homes in transit-rich city centers to the suburbs. Currently, 48,000 Oakland
residents work in the city, while 128,000 Oakland residents travel out of Oakland to
their jobs, and 149,000 workers travel from outside to their jobs in Oakland, as shown in
Table 3 below. Comparing types of workers by income levels, the data shows that 60 %
of the interior workforce falls in the medium-lower income bracket. This mirrors
findings by several studies which show that low-income workers tend to travel shorter
distances due to cost or time constraint, which in turn may limit their job
17
“Plan Bay Area 2013,” July 2013.

18
opportunities.18 It is also worth noting that a substantial proportion of the outflow and
inflow workforce, 50% and 42% respectively, are also in the medium-low income band.
These workers may be paying higher travel costs as a percentage of their income for
their commute.
Type of worker Total workers Medium-Lower
Income ($3,333
per month or
less)
Higher Income
(More than
$3,333 per
month)
Interior (live and
employed in Oakland)
48,000 29,000 (60%) 19,000 (40%)
Outflow (live in Oakland,
employed elsewhere)
128,000 64,000 (50%) 64,000 (50%)
Inflow (employed in
Oakland, live elsewhere)
150,000 63,000 (42%) 87,000 (58%)
Table 3: Oakland Inflow/Outflow Workforce
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics 2014
Regional Context
As a jurisdiction within the San Francisco Bay Area region, Oakland’s development and
investment are guided by Plan Bay Area (PBA), the regional transportation plan and
Sustainable Communities Strategy 2013-2040. Plan Bay Area was developed in part to
comply with California Senate Bill 375, which requires each of the state’s 18
metropolitan planning areas plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and
trucks. 19
In addition to the overarching goal of greenhouse gas emission reductions, PBA puts a
strong focus on equity concerns with regards to housing and transportation
affordability, access to jobs, and equitable mobility, among others. Indeed, PBA
includes a performance target specifically around equitable access: the plan aims to
reduce by 10% (to 56%, from 66% baseline in 2005) the share of low-income and lower-
middle income residents’ household income spent on transportation and housing.20 By
making transportation more accessible and affordable for its residents, Oakland would
also be contributing positively to the regional goal.
18
Lorien Rice, “Transportation Spending by Low-Income California Households: Lessons for the San
Francisco Bay Area (PPIC Publication),” July 2004, http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=428.
19
The Bay Area’s emissions reduction target is 7% per capita reduction by 2020 and 15% by 2035.
20
“Plan Bay Area 2013” (ABAG and MTC, July 2013).

19
Oakland Transportation Equity Challenge
Oakland has a relatively dense transit network compared with the rest of the region and
19% of workers take transit to work. However, the majority of residents still rely on
private motor vehicles as their primary mode of commute as shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Mode Split for Oakland Commuters
Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Oakland residents spend on
average 41% of their income on combined housing and transportation costs (26% on
housing and 14% on transportation). However, the ratio is higher for the disadvantaged
populations. According to MTC estimates, low-income households (earning $35,000 or
below) spend between 16%-27% of their income on transportation costs alone. (MTC
2010, Snapshot Analysis for MTC Communities of Concern)
Poverty results in limited access to personal automobiles for many Oaklanders. Of the
City’s 154,786 households, almost 18% do not own a vehicle. According to the Center
for Neighborhood Technology, average annual auto ownership cost is $7,120, a level
that is out of reach for many low-income residents. Unsurprisingly, there is a high
correlation between neighborhoods with low automobile ownership and those with a
high concentration of low-income and minority populations as shown in Figures 5a, 5b,
6a and 6b below.
Drive alone
54%
Carpool
11%
Public transit
(exclude taxi)
19%
Walk
4%
Bicycle
3%
Other means
2%
Worked at
home
7%

20
Figure 5: Household median income and concentration of zero-car households
Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
Figure 5a (left): Median Household Income by Block Group
Figure 5b (right): Percent of Minority Populations by Block Group
Figure 6a (left): Percent of Household with Zero Vehicle
Figure 6b (right): Percent of Household with Fewer Vehicles than Adult Household
Members

21
According to the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Oakland has a relatively high
employment access index with 69,200 jobs per square mile and a transit access shed of
110 km2. However, transit connectivity is fairly low; Oakland rates 17 out of 100 on the
Transit Connectivity Index. The index is a measure of transit service levels and is based
on the number of bus routes and train stations within walking distance for households
in a given block group scaled by the frequency of service. This means that poor
residents may live near a bus stop and near jobs but the bus comes too infrequently and
multiple transfers are required to get to their jobs.
As the city grows and opportunities expand, residents in transit-disadvantaged
neighborhoods are increasingly access-disadvantaged through the lack of safe, reliable
transportation options and changes in housing and transportation costs. Because of the
housing pressures, many residents are forced to move farther and farther from
economic opportunities in order to afford their rent. As noted earlier, more than 70% of
Oakland workers are employed outside of Oakland. Of those working outside the city,
almost 25% are employed in low-wage jobs. For those without access to autos, the
increasing spatial separation from jobs, schools and other facilities means that they
cannot meet their basic needs.
New Momentum
Despite these challenges, Oakland has the potential to make significant headway in
improving transportation equity. Mayor Schaaf has placed a strong emphasis on
improving transportation and has led the effort to establish a new Department of
Transportation (DOT) which was approved in 2015. The vision of the DOT is to improve
the city’s transportation infrastructure, as well as reconfigure transportation funding
and operations in a way that will expand mobility options to all residents, especially for
the most disadvantaged populations. Oakland already has a strong base of social
justice and transportation advocacy groups such as Transport Oakland, TransForm,
Bike East Bay, Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, and Urban Habitat. The city also
established a Department of Race and Equity in 2015 with the aim of improving equity
and social justice in policy making. These recent developments have opened up space
for a new set of mandates and provides an opportunity to shape the city’s
transportation vision and strategy explicitly to measure and improve transportation
equity.

22
V. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
Currently, there is no formal practice in the City of Oakland to incorporate equity
considerations into transportation planning and investment. There is no formal policy
or administrative guidance, and equity analysis is neither mandated nor practiced as
part of transportation decision-making at the city level. But planning practice is
evolving and some work units are beginning to tackle the difficult task of conducting
equity analyses to better understand who benefits and who may lose out from various
transportation plans and investments. This effort is at a very nascent stage. However,
there is a growing appetite within the transportation planning staff to expand and
codify this practice into standard business processes.
1. Street Paving
Crumbling streets
Oakland has 2,293 lane miles of local streets and roads, and they are one of the city
government’s biggest and most valuable assets. Road infrastructure not only serves
Oakland residents but regional travelers and freight movement. However, with the
decline in federal and state funding support over the past several decades much of the
city’s pavement has fallen into disrepair. The city’s average pavement condition index
(PCI) is 59 out of 100. PCI is the industry standard for measuring the general condition
of a pavement. Oakland’s PCI score is considered a level “at risk” by the MTC, a
threshold at which deterioration accelerates rapidly and major rehabilitation is required.
Correspondingly, potholes are the third most frequently reported issue on Oakland’s
SeeClickFix, a web platform that allows citizens to report non-emergency
neighborhood issues. More than 5,800 incidents of potholes have been reported on
SeeClickFix over the last three years.
The struggle to keep the city’s pavement in a state of good repair is not new. The city
faces a substantial backlog of street rehabilitation (at $443 million) with limited budget
to close this gap. (FY2015-2017 Adopted Budget) However, paving is increasingly a
priority issue as the city is proposing to put forward a General Obligation bond measure
in November 2016 that could potentially raise a significant amount of resource to
improve Oakland’s streets and sidewalks. How this new source of funding can be
deployed toward equitable outcomes will be an important question for the city to
address.

23
Pavement maintenance investment and equity
While Oakland’s poor pavement condition is a citywide problem, low-income
communities and communities of color, who live in parts of the city that have
experienced disinvestment and neglect historically, have voiced concerns that funding
for repairs and improvements are not distributed equitably. Recently, East Oakland
residents mobilized residents in their “flatland” community to rally in protest of the
badly damaged streets in their neighborhoods.21 Residents have demanded a
commitment from the city to investigate whether paving efforts are done equitably and
to explore potential changes to paving and sidewalk repair policy to add specific social
and racial equity considerations to the conventional capital investment criteria
currently in use.
Oakland’s paving prioritization plan is guided by two policies: 1) the use of StreetSaver,
and 2) an “80-20 policy” which was adopted by the City Council in 2007. The 80-20
policy dictates that 80% of paving funds be allocated to StreetSaver-designated streets,
which put a priority on cost-effectiveness and preventive treatments which prolong the
useful life of roads, while 20% of the City’s paving funds are distributed equally to each
City Council district, for reconstruction of streets in the worst condition, which is much
more expensive. Since the policy was implemented, the city has improved its average
PCI from 57 in 2011 to 59 currently. However, the policy also results in most of the worst
streets being left untouched.
Over the past six months, the Mayor’s Office and the Office of Public Works have
conducted analyses to better understand the correlation between social and racial
equity and the current street condition, as well as equity implications of the 5-year
paving plan. In addition, the city also looked at the relationship between social and
racial equity and historical street investments.
The analyses found no statistically significant correlation between demographic
characteristics of an area (based on income, race and ethnicity and disabilities) and the
pavement conditions, the percentage of roads scheduled for paving, or the historical
paving pattern. Table 4 below shows a comparison between the Disadvantaged
Populations Index (DPI), the current pavement conditions and the 5-year planned
repaving. In the top three districts with the highest DPI (D5, D6 and D7), the PCI ranges
from 60 to 70, which is higher than some districts with lower DPI such as D1 and D2
21
Tulio Ospina, “East Oakland Residents Take Mayor Schaaf on Tour of Neglected Flatland Streets,” Post
News Group, September 18, 2015, http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2015/09/18/east-oakland-residents-
take-mayor-schaaf-tour-neglected-flatland-streets/.

24
whose PCI are 58 and 61 respectively. This illustrates that there is no correlation
between higher proportions of disadvantaged populations in a given area and worse
pavement condition. Similarly, there is no correlation between how much future
repaving is being planned in a district and the proportion of disadvantaged population
in that district. (For more details see full reports in Appendix B)
Table 4: Comparison of Disadvantaged Populations Index (DPI)*, Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) and 5-year Planned Repaving
Source: Equity Analysis of Oakland Pavement Conditions and 5-year Paving Plan, 218
Consultants
* Disadvantaged Populations Index is a combined index based on income, the proportion of households
with limited English fluency, the proportion of racial and ethnic minority individuals, and the percent of
the population with at least one disability.
Paving patterns and plans can also be seen on an interactive map provided by the city.
While there are concentrated areas of poor-condition streets in the more impoverished
flatland, similar patterns can be observed in the more affluent North Oakland and the
hills, as shown in Figure 7 below.

25
Figure 7: Map of Oakland Pavement Condition Index (MTC considers PCI scores 0-24
Failed, 25-49 Poor, 50-59 At Risk, 60-69 Fair, and 70-100 Good to Excellent)
Source: City of Oakland, Paving Dashboard
Ameliorating historical inequality
The lack of social equity or geographic correlation in pavement investment is not
intended to deny patterns of inequitable infrastructure investment, both in the past and
those that continue today. In fact, the map above could be seen as demonstrating an
“equal” treatment (whereby street conditions are equally poor across the city, or at
least vary due to factors other than income and race), rather than an “equitable”
treatment.
Moving toward an equitable outcome would entail directing disproportionately higher
level of investments into disadvantaged communities because they have been
disproportionately burdened by historical disinvestments, with streets being only one
Pavement
Condition Index

26
dimension. For instance, the city might add socio-demographic characteristics as
additional criteria for determining future funding allocation for street repair and give a
higher weighting to areas with high concentrations of poverty and/or high proportion of
minorities. As an example, District 7 with a relatively high DPI of 0.70 might receive 40%
more paving funds, raising its planned repaving from 46 miles (as currently determined
by StreetSaver) to 60 miles. Conversely, no additional weighting would be applied to a
more affluent district like District 4 with a relatively low DPI of 0.33. Its planned
repaving would remain 26 miles as determined by StreetSaver alone. Table 5a shows a
potential weighting scale based on DPI and Table 5b shows the changes in amount of
planned repaving if this weighting were to be applied across the city.
Disadvantaged
Populations Index DPI based weighting
0 - 0.20 0.80
0.21 - 0.40 0.95
0.41 - 0.60 1.10
0.61 - 0.80 1.25
0.81 - 1.00 1.40
Table 5a: Example of a weighting scale based on Disadvantaged Populations Index
City Council
District
Weighted
Disadvantaged
Populations
Index
Planned
repaving
(lane-miles)
based on
StreetSaver
and 80-20 rule
Planned
repaving
(lane-miles),
applying DPI-
based
weighting*
Percent
change
1 0.23 51 48 -5%
2 0.54 30 33 +10%
3 0.54 73 80 +10%
4 0.33 26 25 -5%
5 0.65 15 19 +25%
6 0.68 47 59 +25%
7 0.70 46 58 +25%
Table 5b: Changes in amount of repaving when applying DPI-based weighting
* Assume there is an increase in the paving budget
The experience of developing the equity analyses like these discussed here on
pavement condition highlights the need for ongoing, rigorous analysis that unpacks the
distribution of resources and the associated benefits and burdens borne by different
communities. It should also be noted that findings from quantitative analyses do not

27
substitute for or should not be used to discount people’s lived experiences; however,
such analyses can improve accountability and transparency of the city. The analytical
approach developed so far can also be modified and applied to other types of
infrastructures beyond pavement. Such analyses will be important as the city develops
a bond measure that includes significant infrastructure improvements in addition to
streets and sidewalks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Explore an adoption of a 5-year Paving Plan Policy that explicitly adjusts
investments toward equity. One potential mechanism is to use a weighting
system based on socio-economic and race variables.
Include results from paving equity analysis as part of the bi-annual paving
progress report to the City Council Finance and Management Committee.
Publish results of paving equity analysis publicly and/or integrate the findings
into the city’s existing Paving Dashboard.
Ensure that an equity analysis is built into the infrastructure bond measure and
that it informs the bond expenditure plan. The analytical methodology should
be further developed and refined for the purposes of assessing different types of
infrastructures considered in the bond. The language for the bond measure
should include an explicit requirement for equity analysis.
2. Safe Streets for Pedestrians and Cyclists
Safety of pedestrians and cyclists is a key transportation concern in Oakland.
Pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable road users in the city and collisions
with motor vehicles often result in serious injury or death. According to the California
Office of Traffic Safety, 263 pedestrians and 220 cyclists were killed or injured in
Oakland in 2013. In fact, neighborhoods around the Coliseum Stadium and Oakland
International Airport make the list of the nation's deadliest places for pedestrians with
some of the highest fatality rates as ranked against other cities, based on an analysis of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (2008-2012). 22
Disparities in safety outcomes
22
“Neighborhoods with the Highest Pedestrian Death Rates,” accessed March 21, 2016,
http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-deadly-neighborhoods-pedestrian-deaths-
maps.html.

28
Importantly, unsafe road conditions have disparate impact across race and income
levels. Most of Oakland’s traffic fatalities occur in the flats (Figure 8), an area with a
higher proportion of people of color and low-income communities than the relatively
more affluent hills. This pattern mirrors research which shows the rate of traffic-related
injuries or deaths to be higher among racial and ethnic minorities compared to
whites.23, 24
Figure 8: Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions in Oakland 1996-2000
Source: Oakland Pedestrian Masterplan 2002
In an attempt to improve safety conditions for pedestrians Oakland is in the process of
updating the Pedestrian Master Plan. In addition, transportation planning staff are
working to integrate equity considerations into both master pedestrian and bicycle
plans. While this is a great step forward, staff reported several challenges.
Spatially concentrated investments
23
John Pucher and John L. Renne, “Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS,”
Transportation Quarterly 57, no. 3 (2003): 49–77.
24
“Motor Vehicle Traffic-Related Pedestrian Deaths — United States, 2001–2010,” accessed March 21,
2016, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6215a1.htm.

29
With respect to bicycle planning, staff acknowledged that while Oakland has a high
level of bicycle usage on average compared to other cities in the region, there are
marked differences between neighborhoods. Staff recognized that bike infrastructure
investments have often followed a demand trend that started in more affluent North
Oakland and downtown, with a comparatively lower level of investments going in
lower-income areas in East and West Oakland. The current planning and
implementation practice is generally reactive; the default mode is to respond to
complaints, so that those who are most organized or have the loudest voice tend to get
attention and action by the city. The current disparity in bike infrastructure is also
driven by locations of BART stations, as cyclists tend to use bikes for the first and last
mile to connect to trunk transit. Since BART users tend to be in the higher income
group, the concentration of bike infrastructures around BART system may have an
exclusionary effect.
“People who are switching to bike modes are often white affluent men. We need more
education and encouragement in East Oakland for there to be demand especially as riding
bikes in those communities is historically a sign of poverty and not being able to afford a
car.” Oakland City Staff
While the above is generally true, some projects, including the Mandela Parkway in
West Oakland and the Bay Trail, have made provided large investments towards multi-
use pathways in low-income neighborhoods. Nevertheless, these projects are unusual -
Mandela Parkway is a replacement for the freeway destroyed by the 1989 earthquake,
and the Bay Trail is part of a regional project - and the more local bicycle improvements
of bike racks and on-street bikeways, are provided on a more reactive basis.
Observations made above mirror recent research by Stehlin (2014 and 2015) who
attributes the racial gap in bike usage to the way planning processes for bike
infrastructures have been conducted and the development of cycling practice and
cycling culture. These processes have unintentional exclusionary effect and play a role
in reinforcing the racialized patterns of spatial investment.25 Stehlin also highlighted
the gap between bicycle advocacy community, which tend to represent white, middle-
class interest, and groups focused on the issues affecting people of color. This gap
needs to be bridged in order to make infrastructure investments related to bike and
25
John Stehlin, “Regulating Inclusion: Spatial Form, Social Process, and the Normalization of Cycling
Practice in the USA,” Mobilities 9, no. 1 (January 2, 2014): 21–41, doi:10.1080/17450101.2013.784527.

30
pedestrians more inclusive.26
New impetus in Oakland: emerging planning practice and challenges
Staff are currently developing new analytical methodologies to better understand
existing inequities with respect to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures. These
methodologies should help to identify the extent to which different areas and different
populations are underserved. Better analytics would also allow staff to disentangle the
needs from the demand driven by those groups with greater resources and political
organization, so that planning efforts can be directed toward the underserved areas.
Challenge: ambiguity of a new approach
However, staff identified the lack of standardized practice for carrying out equity
analysis as a key challenge. While the analysis for the bike plan takes a zonal or
geographic approach and is being developed in-house, the pedestrian plan is employing
external consultants to develop a methodology that parallels the MTC’s Communities
of Concern, which is based on socio-demographic variables. As such, there is a concern
that these different methodologies could be working at cross-purposes with each other.
It is worth noting that this challenge is not unique to Oakland. As the literature shows,
there are many ways to define equity in transportation, and transport equity can be
extremely difficult to evaluate because of the various types, impacts, measurements
and categories of people to consider. It is also important to note that there is no single
way to evaluate transportation equity and planners and decision makers should
consider what perspectives and impacts are relevant to the issue at hand. This requires
a shift in practice that must start with a broader discussion about equity issues among
those involved in the planning practice and decision-making process. In the short-term,
looking at innovative practices from other cities could provide useful insights. For
instance, researchers at Portland State University and University of Washington carried
out equity analyses of the Bicycle Master Plan of Portland and Seattle respectively.Dill
and Haggerty (2015) found that while the Portland plan will generate a dense bikeway
network in the city there are service gaps where network coverage is sparse and some
of these overlap with areas of higher concentration of disadvantaged populations.27
26
John Stehlin, “Cycles of Investment: Bicycle Infrastructure, Gentrification, and the Restructuring of the
San Francisco Bay Area,” Environment and Planning A 47, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): 121–37,
doi:10.1068/a130098p.
27
Jennifer Dill and Brendon Haggerty, “Equity Analysis of Portland’s Draft Bicycle Master Plan - Findings”
(Report to Ellen Vanderslice, City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2009),

31
Similarly, Ulmer (2015) found that there are higher overall levels of bike access for
census block groups with relatively high equity scores (based on proportions of minority,
youth and elderly populations) in Seattle. However, some areas with high equity scores
in the northern and southern parts of the city have relatively low bicycle access.28
Challenge: lack of data
Staff also identified the lack of data as an associated hurdle to conducting robust equity
analysis. For instance, current data on bike users is based on journey-to-work data. This
data fails to capture bike usage for non-work trips, which is the majority of trips taken
by disadvantaged population who are without jobs, including youths. In addition,
collision data (for both pedestrians and cyclists) are not broken down by race or
income-level which makes it difficult to implement improvements that target these
populations. Several concrete solutions have been identified including the need for
primary data collection through comprehensive surveys to plug existing data gaps;
expanding the annual exposure counts which the city already carries out; and obtaining
support from experts on equity and social science to work with staff to design
appropriate analytical tools. In addition, while Oakland has a citywide Equal Access
Program, there are limited resources for it to be implemented within the Bike and
Pedestrian Facilities Program.
Challenge: lack of coordination
Staff noted that much of the bike and pedestrian program implementation will be
driven by the paving plan, as bike and pedestrian infrastructure improvements
commonly follow paving work schedule due to the overlap in engineering and
construction efforts. As such, the paving plan can significantly affect the
implementation of the bike and pedestrian plans and influences changes to the latter
unless there is effective coordination between paving and other plans upfront. As
mentioned above, the paving plan is currently driven by the cost-effectiveness principle
and equity analysis is not yet built into the plan. There is a concern that without aligning
the paving and the bike and pedestrian plans, the equity analyses that have been
carried out for the latter will be moot. As such, the question of equity in the future is
therefore not so much one of network coverage or lack of coverage, but of project
http://www.bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/bikeleague/bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyameric
a/communities/pdfs/portland_bicycle_master_plan_equity_report_final.pdf.
28
Michael Ulmer, “An Equity Analysis of the 2014 Seattle Bicycle Master Plan” (University of Washington,
2015),
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/34195/Ullmer_washington_0250
O_14613.pdf?sequence=1.

32
priority and timing of implementation which is driven by factors other than the bike and
pedestrian plans.
Challenge: need for more robust community participation
Lastly, staff recognize that desk-based equity analysis is only the starting point and
there needs to be a range of consultations with communities to carefully assess their
needs and desire for the planned improvements. This is particularly important in a city
like Oakland where neighborhoods are changing rapidly and certain infrastructural
investments, such as bike infrastructures, are associated with the process of
gentrification. While there are many benefits to bicycling (low-cost mobility option,
promoting physical health, easing congestion) planners should propose rather than
impose bike infrastructures.
RECCOMMENDATIONS:
Develop a policy mandate to expand and deepen the practice of incorporating
equity considerations into planning. [Policy]
Provide a forum for internal peer learning to share best practices on how to
integrate equity into planning and implementation. [Organizational Capacity]
Allocate resources to plug data gaps in order to better understand
disadvantaged people’s travel needs and demands [Data]
Obtain technical assistance on integrating race/ethnicity dimensions in technical
transportation plans. [Organizational Capacity]
Align paving prioritization plan with bicycle and pedestrian implementation
plans. This may require a change in institutional relationship between
Engineering & Construction Management Division and Transportation Planning
& Funding Division. [Processes, Organizational Capacity]
Allocate resources for carrying out robust community engagement efforts as
part of the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian master plans, in order to
ensure that planned improvements genuinely respond to the needs of the
community. [Funding, Processes]

33
3. The Growing Shared Mobility Sector
Oakland is the next frontier for a fast growing market
Shared mobility services are set to expand rapidly in Oakland in 2016. In 2015, Oakland
received a grant from MTC to expand the Bay Area Bike Share program, providing 850
bikes to Oakland through a public-private partnership with Motivate, the nation’s
largest bike share operator. The point-to-point car share provider Car2go is planning to
launch operations in 2016, joining ZipCar, City CarShare and others, which already
operate over 100 carshare vehicles in the city. So-called Transportation Network
Companies or TNCs, such as Lyft and Uber, also have a large and growing presence in
Oakland. Live discussions are also taking place with other ride sharing providers
including Scoot, an electric scooter-sharing firm, and Mahindra GenZe, the
manufacturer of electric bicycles which is eager to launch a program test fleet services
with shared, two-wheeled electric vehicles in the city.
Question of inclusivity
The emergence of these new transportation modes has the potential to supplement
existing road and transit networks by helping to bridge the first- and last-mile access
from many disconnected areas of the city. However, because of the relatively high cost
to users and limited physical or logistical access, these options are not necessarily
available to everyone, especially those in the lower income groups, seniors, and
disabled travelers. A recent review of the shared mobility sector reveals that access to
these services is generally poorer in areas with high proportion of low-income and racial
or ethnic minority populations.29 Similarly, a study prepared for the City of Oakland
found that many lower-income residents, people of color and immigrants are still
disfranchised from public bicycle sharing systems, and there is a need for more targeted
outreach to these groups who could benefit from this additional mobility option.30
Equity criteria in new service planning
In Oakland, efforts are being made to increase accessibility of shared mobility services
in communities that are usually underrepresented. Equity analyses have been
conducted as part of the planning and contracting process for the bike share and car
29
Michael Kodransky and Gabriel Lewenstein, “Connecting Low-Income People to Opportunity with
Shared Mobility” (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, December 2014),
https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Shared-Mobility_Full-Report.pdf.
30
Sharon Robinson, “Oakland Bike Share: Pedaling Inclusions” (Master Degree Report, Mills College
Public Policy Program, May 2015).

34
share program as required by the MTC grant agreement. The analyses involved
integrating socio-economic and demographic data into the suitability analysis for
potential bike share and car share locations. In the case of the bike share program, the
analysis informed the contract agreement between the city and the operator.
Importantly, the agreement specified that 20% of bike share stations would be placed
in communities of concern as defined by MTC, putting equity at the core of the
program’s design as it expands throughout the region. This led the other cities within
the expansion program to follow suit and adopt the same distribution requirement. This
experience has in turn influenced the planning and permitting process for the car share
sector in Oakland, with the same 20% threshold being applied to designated parking
zones for the Car2Go service.
Mobility Hubs
With other new transportation modes on the verge of launching, the city has also begun
to explore the potential of mobility hubs. In August 2015, the city worked with a
research team at UC Berkeley to conduct a mobility hub suitability analysis to identify
potential sites that can optimally accommodate the various new modes. The project
put a strong emphasis on maximizing mobility needs of disadvantaged populations in
addition to service viability and network connectivity.
Using the interactive map developed by the team, the researchers identified areas
suitable for mobility hubs under different scenarios. Under a planning scenario that
places higher weighting on disadvantaged populations and populations with low auto
mobility, while still emphasizing new service viability (profitability), the study indicated
a high suitability rating for areas in West and deep East Oakland, suggesting both the
need and an opportunity to expand bike share options to the traditionally
underrepresented populations (Figure 9). For further details on the mobility hub project,
see www.218consultants.com

35
Figure 9: Mobility Hub Suitability Map, scenario weighted towards disadvantaged
populations, those with low automobility and new service viability
Source: 218 Consultants
It is also worth noting the interdependencies between the planning of various
transportation modes. The bike share program is dependent on traditional city bike
plan implementation to the extent that bike share demand and services tend to follow
bike infrastructure that supports it. Vendors are also more likely to provide bikes in
areas with good pavement condition and are reluctant to locate facilities on or near
crumbling streets, or streets that feel particularly unsafe to users. Thus, paving efforts
and bikeway improvements will have significant impacts on bike share implementation
by steering bike share facilities toward certain parts of the city that receive more paving
treatment, and/or have better bicycle facilities.
Affordability still a challenge
While the above efforts help to lower the physical barriers to these shared mobility
systems by ensuring that services are located in low-income and minority communities,
other barriers still exist. The high user costs of these services pose a huge limitation for
low-income populations in accessing the systems. Potential low-income users are often
priced out of using shared mobility systems by a range of both recurring and onetime
costs that include application fees, membership and user fees, and overuse fines. In
addition, low-income and minority populations are often excluded from the systems
because they lack access to debit or credit cards which are required by the systems.

36
Some subsidy programs exist to support low-income users. For instance, the MTC
initiated the Low Income Flexible Transportation (LIFT) Program in 2001. Through this
program, City CarShare, a non-profit car share operator working primarily in San
Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, partnered with CalWorks, a program of the California
Department of Social Services, to make certain types of car sharing memberships
available to welfare-assisted working families.31 Another example is Buffalo CarShare,
a non-profit service provider in New York. Dubbed as the Zipcar that low-income
people can afford, Buffalo CarShare offers lower priced services and allows users of the
system to pay by money order.32
However, shared mobility subsidy programs often rely on grant funding that are limited
in scope and are time bound. Many programs no longer exist: the LIFT program
received three cycles of funding, ending in 2004 with no replacement program. As new
services continue to arrive in Oakland, the city will need to develop sustainable discount
or subsidy programs in order to better connect disadvantaged population to shared
mobility services. Shared mobility has the potential to expand transportation options
for low-income population but only if they are made affordable.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Ensure new systems such as bikeshare, carshare and other incoming services are
provided equitably to serve Oakland residents of all income levels, by requiring
operators to conduct an equity analysis that includes underrepresented
communities as part of the operating agreement. [Policy]
Use the Mobility Hub Suitability Analysis tool to identify potential mobility hub
locations that promote access by low-income and minority users. [Process,
Organizational Capacity]
Develop and implement discount and/or subsidy programs to decrease financial
barriers for disadvantaged populations. Work with agencies such as the MTC
and ACTC to make funding available for such programs. [Program]
Strengthen community participation by partnering with community-based
organizations that have strong, established relationships with underrepresented
communities and communities of concern. [Process, Organizational Capacity]
31
Juan Ortega, “Car Sharing in the United States: Helping People Transition From Welfare to Work and
Improving the Quality of Life of Low-Income Families,” 2005,
http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/carsharing_report_final.pdf.
32
Ryan McCarthy, “How Buffalo Car Share Fights Poverty” (Partnership for the Public Good, April 2012),
http://archives.ppgbuffalo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/How-Buffalo-Car-Share-Fights-Poverty.pdf.

37
Develop and implement a public communication and engagement strategy for
shared mobility programs that are currently underway in order to sustain
pressure on private operators and the city to ensure equitable service provision.
The Mobility Hub mapping tool can serve as an engagement platform. [Process,
Organizational Capacity]
Conduct on-going monitoring and evaluation of program effectiveness. Data
collection should include disaggregation by race, ethnicity and other variables
related to disadvantaged populations. [Process and Data]
4. Access and Affordability of Transit
Rich transit networks but poor service quality
Oakland is served primarily by two main transit systems: the urban rail service operated
by the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART), with eight of BART’s 44 stations located
in the city, and surface bus services operated by AC Transit, with 26 of 60 the system’s
local lines serving Oakland, and more than half of the Transbay routes to San Francisco
going through Oakland. AC Transit is also currently building the East Bay Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) line between Oakland and San Leandro. In addition, the city is served by
Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor, the Alameda/Oakland Ferry, and several intercity bus
services.
Oakland has a large number of low-income residents and residents of color (17% or over
70,000 people live below the federal poverty line and minorities make up over 70% of
the population), many of whom do not have access to autos and are dependent on
transit. Other transit-dependent groups include people with disabilities (8.3% of
population), and children, youths and senior residents who make up 32% of the
population. (2010-14 ACS)
While Oakland has a relatively dense transit network compared to many other cities in
the Bay Area, connectivity is low due poor service levels in some areas. There are also
significant transportation gaps in low-income communities and communities of color as
identified by the West Oakland and Central-East Oakland Community Based
Transportation Plans (CBTP). The Central-East Oakland CBTP compared the findings
from the MTC’s Lifeline Transportation Network Report, which identified spatial and
temporal gaps in transit service provision in the Bay Area, with the lived experience of
the community through surveys and community meetings, and found significant
discrepancies. The Lifeline Report found no low-income neighborhoods in the Central

38
;
however, community groups identified several areas in Central and East Oakland that
are outside the specified catchment area.33 The CBTP also found that most of the AC
Transit routes in the area did not meet MTC’s frequency of service objectives. Only
three of the 19 AC Transit routes in the Lifeline Network met their target frequencies.
During weekday commute hours, only 9 routes meet the frequency target on
average.34 Similar gaps were identified in the West Oakland CBTP, which surveyed over
600 area residents. The top four transportation needs identified were better pedestrian
facilities around transit stations; BART and bus tickets/passes at reduced fares; more
bus service on weekends, at night and early morning; and more frequent daytime bus
service.35
“It goes beyond access. Just because you live near a bus stop that comes every hour, that’s
not really access. It’s not efficient and is actually inaccessible when you need to get
somewhere in a hurry and in a dignified way.” Transportation Advocate
The CBTPs were developed roughly ten years ago, and have not been updated, nor
implemented, and the city does not act as the lead agency tracking CBTP
implementation. As these plans provide valuable analysis, Oakland should take a more
proactive role in updating, implementing and tracking progress on its CBTPs.
Another potential approach to addressing disparity in service quality is to pursue a
more fine-grained analysis. One example is the San Francisco MUNI Service Equity
Policy36, which was created in response to concerns that new investments in MUNI
would not necessarily serve communities of concern. The policy requires that SFMTA
staff carry out a comparative assessment of MUNI performance in targeted
disadvantaged neighborhoods against citywide average of peer routes. The
performance matrixes used include on-time service, travel time to destinations,
frequency of bus bunching and crowding. Where they are found to be underperforming,
improvement measures are identified and funding allocated to bridge the gap.
Transit-dependent populations underserved
33
“Central and East Oakland Community-Based Transportation Plan” (Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency, December 2007).
34
Ibid.
35
“West Oakland Community-Based Transportation Plan” (Alameda County Congestion Management
Agency, May 2006).
36
More information on the MUNI Service Equity Policy can be found at
http://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/content/Executive/Meetings/board/2016/Feb/Revised/20160223_
EquityStrategyPresentation_SFCTABoard_FINAL%20%281%29.pdf

39
A key concern repeatedly raised by interviewees is that transportation investments
have largely gone to benefit white and more affluent communities historically, and
decisions made by policy makers today perpetuate this trend. This concern mirrors the
academic literature, which document transit policy’s bias toward the expansion of
suburban bus, express bus and fixed rail systems which are used by higher income
“choice riders”, while putting fewer resources toward transit services in low-income
communities and communities of color who are more likely to be “transit dependent”.37
As demonstrated in Box 1 above (page 17), the spending of transportation dollars on
different transit systems can be extremely inequitable, regressive and even illegal.
While both AC Transit and BART systems are beyond the jurisdictive control of Oakland,
the city must critically assess how it currently engages with these agencies that are
responsible for providing vital services for the city’s most disadvantaged populations.
Investments that work for people who need it most
Transportation investments can advance equitable outcomes if directed toward those
systems that serve those with high needs. Interviewees identified the current Bus Rapid
Transit project on International Boulevard as an important investment that could
significantly address transportation inequity in Oakland. This corridor currently serves
25,000 bus riders, 75% of whom are low-income people or people of color. The project
will benefit this population by improving their mobility, providing a competitive
alternative choice over auto, and making transit much more accessible, reliable and
comfortable.
However, with the on-going process of rapid displacement and gentrification due to
escalating real-estate prices in Oakland, there are concerns that current low-income
residents in this area will be pushed out. The question for the city is how to ensure that
other policies related to housing and land development are in place to protect those at
risk of displacement. The need to create equitable transit-oriented development (TOD)
is an extremely important and complex issue, and is beyond the scope of this report.
However, other efforts are abound, chiefly the recently released Oakland Housing
37
Mark Garrett and Brian Taylor, “Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transit,” Berkeley Planning
Journal 13, no. 1 (January 1, 1999), http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1mc9t108; Robert D. Bullard,
“Addressing Urban Transportation Equity in the United States,” Fordham Urban Law Journal 31 (2004
2003): 1183; Aaron Golub, Richard A. Marcantonio, and Thomas W. Sanchez, “Race, Space, and Struggles
for Mobility: Transportation Impacts on African Americans in Oakland and the East Bay,” Urban
Geography 34, no. 5 (August 1, 2013): 699–728, doi:10.1080/02723638.2013.778598.

40
Action Plan: Oakland At Home38, the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities grant program, the Urban Displacement Project by UC Berkeley
(www.urbandisplacement.org), and on-going work by the Great Communities
Collaborative (www.greatcommunities.org) which has helped to shape a number of
Oakland’s TOD plans with robust community engagement.
Gap in coordination with transit agencies
Until recently, Oakland has had no staff assigned as a point person to transit agencies.
All of the transportation advocates interviewed and a number of city staff highlighted
this as a significant gap and a barrier to achieving more equitable outcomes for the
city’s transit-dependent community.
“I want the city to invest in a team of planners and engineers that work on transit and
make transit a part of complete streets.” Oakland City Staff
“There needs to be a tighter working relationship between Oakland City and AC Transit
and BART.” Local Transportation Advocate
The lack of coordination could mean that Oakland loses out when transit agencies
make decisions about resource allocation. For instance, in early 2015 AC Transit
announced a proposal for a radical rerouting and redesignation of many lines
throughout their service area due to extra funds made available by the passage of
Measure BB. The planned rerouting affected 17 lines that directly serve Oakland
residents, yet there was limited engagement between the city and the AC Transit to
assess the potential impact of the plan on communities. Similarly, the Alameda County
Transportation Commission is leading the planning for an Affordable Student Transit
Pass, a $15 million pilot program. Modeled after San Francisco’s Free MUNI for Youth
Program, the Alameda County program aims to provide free passes to low and
moderate-income youth. Due to lack of staff, Oakland has had very limited
participation during the program design process where local stakeholders were
consulted on program parameters and site selection, which would influence the
distribution of program resources. As one interviewee noted, “Policies and decisions
may not be overtly discriminatory, but they often don’t benefit low-income
communities because they’re not appropriately targeted.”
RECOMMENDATIONS:
38
“Oakland At Home: Recommendations for Implementing A Roadmap Toward Equity From the Oakland
Housing Cabinet,” March 2016, www2.oaklandnet.com/w/OAK057411.

41
Designate staff to strengthen and formalize the working relationship with
transit agencies, particularly with AC Transit, BART and MTC, to ensure that
transit plans and programs benefit low-income communities and communities
of color. [Organizational Capacity]
Assess service level of bus system in communities of concern, building on the
Service Equity approach used by SFMTA, and work with AC Transit to explore
development of a similar program. [Program]
Work with AC Transit to prioritize future BRT projects and jointly seek more
funding for such projects. [Program]
Develop a transit strategy that prioritizes transit-dependent communities,
including policies regarding fares and passes. [Policy]
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
There is an emergent practice of integrating equity considerations into transportation
planning in Oakland, starting with equity analyses in modal plans such as the bike and
pedestrian plans, and in the new shared mobility sector. However, to achieve a systemic
change, equity principles would need to be instituted in the city’s transportation
practice at all levels from vision, policy formation, planning and funding allocation, and
down to individual programs and projects. The new Department of Transportation
presents a prime opportunity to do so and the city needs to ensure that equity
principles are codified into policies and incorporated into standard operation
procedures as the DOT becomes established. The following recommendations outline
potential strategies for mainstreaming equity into the DOT.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Vision, Goals and Policy Framework
At the highest level, the DOT needs to embed equity principles into its vision
and policy goals. Drawing from the literature review and research findings, the
following lays out potential vision and goals that could be adopted by the DOT.
As the first step, equity prinicples should be embedded in the Transportation
Strategic Plan which is currently being developed.

42
Vision
Oakland’s transportation policies, plans, programs and projects are
socially equitable and responsive to the needs and priorities of Oakland’s
diverse neighborhoods and communities. Oakland’s transportation
system allows everyone to participate fully in society regardless of their
age, ability, race/ethnicity, or income status.
Policy Goals
To deliver a transportation system that enables all people to gain
access to good jobs, education and training, and needed services.
To reduce existing disparities between communities and redress
the disparate impacts of past decisions.
To ensure that transportation decision-making is transparent and
includes mechanisms for everyone to contribute effectively.
Create and adopt a policy framework that translates these vision and goals into
implementation. The framework should address transportation decision-making
at all levels with the view to promote equitable transportation investments
across Oakland communities. This may include policy reforms that direct more
investments into communities of color and low-income communties.
Amend the DOT ordinance to make social equity a foundational value of its
mission and to commit to incorporating equity in all aspects of transportation
planning and decision making.
Planning Process and Organizational Capacity
Adopt equity analysis as a standard planning practice within the DOT.
Provide a forum for internal peer learning to share best practices on how to
integrate equity into transportation planning and implementation.
Create performance matrices and outcome indicators that specifically relate
to social and racial equity. Because of the complex nature of transportation
systems, the distributional impacts on different population groups are not
easily discernible. Matrices must reflect the specific population groups that
policies and programs are targeting.
Improve transport data to better understand disadvantaged people’s travel
needs and demands. This means disaggregating data by different
population groups to better understand the disparities in transportation

43
outcomes and get a true picture of who is benefiting from transportation
dollars and who is not.
Create a process for continuous community engagement to understand
mobility needs of disadvantaged communities that extends beyond a specific
project. The identified needs should inform the development future policies,
programs and projects.
As the findings in the previous section show, community engagement and public
participation is still a challenging area for Oakland. The following strategies are
recommended:
Create mechanisms or access points to ensure the full and fair participation by
potentially affected communities in transportation decision-making processes.
One strategy is to establish a transportation equity advisory committee as a
way to improve institutional capacity for equity. Such committees can play
many roles including to identifying and promoting the needs and priorities of
disadvantaged communities and providing greater public oversight of
transportation funding to ensure equitable outcomes. Examples include the
Equity Advisory Council established by the Minneapolis Metropolitan
Transportation Committee and the Social Equity Advisory Committee in Seattle.
The committee may also serve as an access point for underrepresented
residents and community organizations to get transportation projects funded.
Incorporate existing community-based transportation plans (CBTPs) into the
city’s Area Development Plans for the corresponding areas. Create a
mechanism for development and funding of future community based
transportation plans.
Provide open access to in-depth information on city transportation funding,
programs and projects.
Cultivate intermediaries who serve as a connector to disadvantaged
communities. Intermediaries have the ability to carry out targeted outreach
and can play a more active role in community engagement. Develop a
mechanism to allow community intermediaries to become on-call consultants
in the same way as engineering and planning firms.
Programs and Initiative
Expand existing programs and develop new programs that provide reliable,
low-cost mobility options to disadvantaged populations. This includes

44
programs that expand access to transit, shared mobility services and other
modes, and ensure affordability. More details on mode-specific
recommendations are provided in the preceding Section IV and in the summary
table below.
As this report has demonstrated, transportation decisions often have significant impact
on equity outcomes and equity concerns are high on the City if Oakland’s agenda. In
order to create a transportation system that is socially just and responsive to the needs
of Oakland’s diverse communities, the city needs to incorporate equity principles into
its decision making at all levels. The recommendations in this report provide strategies
and specific action steps that the city can take to create a more inclusive and equitable
transportation system

45
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY TABLE
The table below summarizes recommendations from previous sections. These include system-level recommendations from Section
VI and recommendations specific to transportation issues covered in Section V. Recommendations are categorized into five main
types of actions: Policy or Legislation; Funding; Process or Organizational Capacity (includes plan and project development,
community engagement process, coordination both internal and external, human resources, expertise and skills, etc); Program or
Initiative; and Data and Tools
Recommendations Type of action Timeframe Actors
System Level
Embed equity principles into the vision and policy goals of the
DOT. This can be integrated into the Transportation Strategic
Plan.
Create and adopt a policy framework that translates these
visions and goals into implementation. The framework should
address transportation decision-making at all levels.
Amend the DOT ordinance to make social equity a
foundational value of its mission and to commit to
incorporating equity in all aspects of transportation planning
and decision making.
Policy Immediate Lead: DOT Director
Support: Mayor’s Office
and Department of Race
and Equity.

46
Adopt equity analysis as a standard planning practice
within the DOT.
Create a process for continuous community engagement to
understand mobility needs of disadvantaged communities
that extends beyond a specific project.
Process and
Organizational
Capacity
(Internal)
Medium
term
Lead: DOT Director
Support: Department of
Race and Equity
Create mechanisms or access points to ensure full and fair
participation by potentially affected communities in
transportation decision-making processes, e.g. establish a
transportation equity advisory committee as a way to
improve institutional capacity for equity.
Incorporate existing community-based transportation plans
(CBTPs) into the city’s Area Development Plans for the
corresponding areas. Create a mechanism for development
and funding of future community based transportation plans.
Provide open access to in-depth information on city
transportation funding, programs and projects.
Cultivate intermediaries who serve as a connector to
disadvantaged communities.
Planning
Process and
Organizational
Capacity
(External)
Medium
term
Lead: DOT Director
Race and Equity
Expand existing programs and develop new programs that
provide relible, low-cost mobility options to disadvantaged
populations.
Program and
Initiative
Immediate Lead: DOT
Support: Regional Transit
Agencies; Transportation
Advocacy Groups

47
Create performance matrices and outcome indicators that
specifically relate to social and racial equity. Matrices must
reflect the specific population groups that policies and
programs are targeting.
Improve transport data to better understand
disadvantaged people’s travel needs and demands. This
means disaggregating data by different population groups.
Data and
Tools
Immediate Lead: DOT Director
Race and Equity
Street Paving
Explore ways to integrate social and racial equity criteria into
paving prioritization policy and funding allocation. One
potential mechanism is to use a weighting system based on
socio-economic and race variables. Bring policy reform
through City Council review process.
Policy Immediate Lead: Department of
Transportation
Supporting: Mayor’s
Office, Department of
Race and Equity,
community groups such
as Alliance of Californians
for Community
Empowerment (ACCE)
and others.
Include results from paving equity analyses as part of the bi-
annual paving progress report to the City Council Finance and
Management Committee.
Process and
Data
Immediate Lead: Department of
Transportation
(Interim: Bureau of
Infrastructure &
Operations, Office of
Public Works)

Advancing Equity in Transportation in Oakland_Final May 2016

Advancing Equity in Transportation in Oakland_Final May 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Advancing Equity in Transportation in Oakland_Final May 2016

Similar to Advancing Equity in Transportation in Oakland_Final May 2016 (20)

Advancing Equity in Transportation in Oakland_Final May 2016