4 - ACCESS
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
4 - ACCESS
Access AC-1
4. ACCESS
STRATEGIC STATEMENT
Downtown’s transportation system must serve Downtown’s three principal roles: a vibrant city center, a livable neighborhood, and a regional destination for employment, education and cul-ture. Interdependent and complementary trans-portation management strategies set forth in the DAP address the following themes.
− Emphasize and enhance Downtown as a destination.
− Give priority to transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists, while reducing automobile use, especially by commuters.
− Improve connectivity between Down-town and Berkeley neighborhoods, and between Downtown and the Bay Area.
PRIORITIZE PEDESTRIANS
Downtown’s advantages spring fi rst and foremost from having complementary uses close together and connected by pedestrian environments that are convenient, safe, and attractive for all ages and abilities. Inviting pedestrian environments are the foundation for attaining many Downtown goals. Pedestrian-oriented environments serve the needs of Downtown residents who can meet most daily needs on foot and for whom Downtown’s streets are the social space at their front door. Walkable environments also serve daytime denizens: Down-
Facing Page: Bikes, pedestrians, buses, shuttles and taxis come together at the Downtown Berkeley’s BART station, a major Bay Area transit hub. Staff photo
DowntownOakland
Mac ArthurBART Rockridge BART
BART
Gilman
San
Pabl
o
Dwight
University
MLK
Jr W
ay
Solano
Mar
in
Ashby
Alcatraz
Tele
grap
h
Col
lege
Adel
ine
Sac
ram
ento
Sha
ttuck
Spr
uce
SHATTUCK AVE.
FULTON STREET
UN
IVER
SITY
AV.
AD
DIS
ON
ST.
CEN
TER
ST.
ALL
STO
N W
AY
DU
RA
NT
AVE.
BA
NC
RO
FT W
AY
K
ITTR
EDG
E ST
.
CH
AN
NIN
G W
AY
HA
STE
ST.
BER
KEL
EY W
AY
HEA
RST
AVE
.
YERKELEYBE YYERKELEYEEBB RKERKEHIGHIGHIGCHOOLSCCCC OLOLHOHO
DW
IGH
T W
AY
MILVIA ST.Bay Trail
Figure AC-1: Major Bus Routes (2011).
Figure AC-2: Bike Paths and Routes serving Downtown (2011).
2818
2819
2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826
2827 2828
2829 2830 2831
2832 2833 2834
2835
2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846
AccessAC-2
town employees, shoppers, students, and visitors who walk around and through Downtown.
Downtown has high levels of foot traffi c already. Between BART and UC Berkeley’s campus, Cen-ter Street has more foot traffi c than any other street in the East Bay. Citywide, seventy percent of Berkeley residents say that they sometimes walk to shop or run errands (2001 City of Berkeley General Plan). 15 percent of Berkeley residents walk to work, five times the rate for Alameda County (Census 2000), and the highest walk-to-work rates are in Downtown Area census tracts.
An attractive downtown walking environment can play a critical role in economic revitalization. Re-tail patrons, cultural uses, businesses, and new development can be attracted to Downtown with especially inviting pedestrian places. For retail, Downtown’s success as a pedestrian-friendly place can distinguish it and help it compete with other regional destinations.
With residential growth, Downtown’s streets will increasingly serve as community open spaces where you can sit outside and meet neighbors. Pedestrian improvements anticipate Berkeley’s increasingly aging population, for whom Down-town offers car-free housing options. Twenty one percent of Americans aged 65 and older do not drive (STPP Aging Americans: Stranded without Options: April, 2004). Downtown Berkeley offers an ideal location for aging baby-boomers inter-ested in active lives near conveniences, transit, the University and other attractions.
While Downtown retains many strengths, many Downtown streets provide do not provide a high-quality walking environment, in spite of high pedestrian volumes and City policies focusing on pedestrian environments. Many Downtown sidewalks remain relatively narrow; one-third of Downtown sidewalks lack street trees; and street
Figure Ac-3: Travel Lane Modifi cations.
2847 2848
2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858
2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866
2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878
2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885
MILVIA ST
UN
IVER
SITY
AVE
HEA
RST
ST
DAP Boundary
CEN
TER
ST
BAN
CR
OFT
WAY
Add
Bike
Lan
e + L
ands
capi
ng
Wid
en S
idew
alks
Plaz
aPlaza or Slow Street
2-Way
OXFORD ST
SHATTUCK AVE
END OF UNIVERSITYAVE.FROM 4 TO 2 LANES (See Fig ___)
CENTER STREET PLAZACLOSED TO REGULAR TRAFFIC (See Fig ___)
UC BERKELEY CAMPUS
SHATTUCK SQUARE FROM 6 TO 4 LANES:2-WAY THROUGH TRAFFIC ON WEST SIDE;PLAZA OR SLOW STREET ON EAST SIDE.(See Fig ___)
END OF HEARST ST.FROM 4 TO 2 LANES(See Fig___)
Access AC-3
BICYCLING
For many Berkeleyans, bicycling offers an excel-lent way to get around. Six percent of Berkeley residents bike to work in Berkeley every day (2000 United States Census), four times the Alameda County average. In addition, students and staff at UC Berkeley regularly bike in Down-town to get to their destination, with 21 percent of University bike trips originating within Berke-ley (UC Berkeley Bike Plan, 2006).
While there are many bike lanes and routes in Downtown, there are also discontinuities in the bike network in Downtown. For example, Milvia, Berkeley’s fi rst “Bicycle Boulevard,” offers a pro-tected route for bicyclists traveling from the north or south, except between University Avenue and Allston. Oxford-Fulton Street carries over 1,400 peak hour bicyclists (UC Berkeley Bike Plan, 2006) but bike lanes end at Durant. Bicyclists traveling on the “Ohlone Greenway” bike path, can access the bike lanes along Hearst Avenue to Shattuck, but the bike lanes do not extend to the UC Campus.
Downtown also needs more parking for bikes. Downtown BART Bike Station has helped meet some demand since it opened in 2010, but the demand for bicycle parking exceeds the supply near major destinations like the YMCA.
TRANSIT
Downtown Berkeley is the second largest transit hub in the East Bay, and has extraordinary ac-cess by bus and BART. Thirteen AC Transit bus lines (2008) and several shuttles (for UC Berke-ley, LBNL and Summit/Alta Bates) converge in Downtown. At a local and regional scale, transit presents an alternative to using the car.
elements like street lights and furnishings have an inconsistent and sometimes unattractive ap-pearance. Blank walls and parking lots front onto some streets, making them less inviting and less safe. Unsightly utility boxes add to a cluttered sidewalk. Concrete and asphalt characterize most of Downtown and date from public improvements that emphasized the convenience of motorists over the comfort of pedestrians.
While some of the existing environment is not attractive for the pedestrian, the opportunity to enhance that environment is also evident. By re-purposing space now used for cars, sidewalks can be expanded, landscaping enhanced and bicycle lanes added. Engineering standards of the past fi fty years have traditionally focus on ve-hicle fl ow and minimizing vehicular confl icts, and less on the needs of pedestrians and bicycles. While Downtown contains some features that protect pedestrians and cause drivers to slow (such as curb extensions at some crosswalks), many additional opportunities are available for more generous pedestrian environments. Traffi c modeling indicates that several street segments can lose traffi c lanes with no signifi cant impacts on congestion. Traffi c lanes can also be reduced in width, thereby slowing traffi c and enhancing pedestrian safety.
Programs that promote alternative modes can also benefi t pedestrians by reducing and calm-ing traffi c. Contemporary transit improvements emphasize the need for “complete streets” that enhance access to transit stops by pedestrians and bicyclists. Programs that promote alterna-tive transportation modes reduce the need for parking on and driveways to private parcels, thereby reducing potential confl icts between pedestrians and cars.
2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894
2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913
2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923
2924
2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933
2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946
2947 2948 2949 2950 2951
2952
2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959
AccessAC-4
population stayed constant from 1990 to 2000, traffi c on Berkeley streets increased and Berkeley households owned more cars.
This Plan seeks to balance a strong desire to minimize the use of autos, while also accom-modating them to the degree necessary and with the fewest negative impacts. Accommo-dation of cars must be consistent with the City’s priorities for pedestrians, bicycles and transit. To achieve this balance, multiple strategies are needed to promote alternative modes, manage parking and traffi c more effectively, and make street- and parking-related improvements that support DAP goals.
Motorists are comprised of different user groups with different needs and patterns of use. To simultaneously reduce car use while making Downtown a more attractive destination, each user group requires different transportation management strategies.
Commuters. Of all user groups, commuters present the best opportunities for encouraging alternative modes, especially for users who do not need regular access to their car during the day. Long-standing City and University policies have successfully discouraged many commut-ers from using their cars, but more needs to be done. Strategies can be employed that increase the cost of parking all-day, while decreasing the cost and inconvenience of using transit. Berke-ley has excellent transit access, which presents better transit options than most other commu-nities. Programs like “Guaranteed Ride Home” and access to car-sharing vehicles can also play an important role in that they provide the fl exibil-ity of a car when occasionally needed. A lasting strategy to reduce commuting is to build more housing near UC Berkeley and Downtown, so that more people can walk or bicycle to work.
Transit also provides an essential service to per-sons who do not or cannot drive. A 2000 survey of AC Transit riders showed that 61% of adult riders were transit-dependent (AC Transit 2002 On-Board Passenger Survey), over one-quarter of whom live in low-income households without access to a car (Transportation and Land Use Coalition 2002 Ur-ban Habitat presentation). Many disabled and el-derly individuals are unable to drive.
Transit also reduces impacts associated with the University of California and Downtown em-ployment. UC Berkeley’s 2020 Long Range De-velopment Plan requires that all new University housing be accessible to the central campus within 20 minutes (e.g., along major transit cor-ridors). To meet this goal the University provides students with free “Bear Passes.” The City of Berkeley provides each employee with transit passes. These types of transit subsidies have proved so successful that communities like Boul-der CO have avoided the need to build new ex-pensive parking garages.
The DAP encourages the City to work closely with BART and AC Transit to maintain attractive transit options with service that is frequent and reliable, such as by giving buses priority at traffi c lights and increasing the distance between stops. Other possible improvements include the use of platforms to speed boarding and real-time ar-rival/departure information. Pedestrian routes to and from transit stops also support transit use.
REDUCING AUTO USE
Berkeley has long supported policies that reduce vehicle use in order to reduce impacts on the com-munity and the environment. At the same time, au-tomobiles are likely to remain the dominant trans-portation mode in the foreseeable future (even if they are mostly electric or hybrid), and trucks will continue to deliver most goods. While Berkeley’s
2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968
2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981
2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990
2991
2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998
2999 3000 3001
3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012
3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018
3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037
Access AC-5
from generating electricity. High rates of car use also alter the character of Berkeley, includ-ing pedestrian safety, noise, and the use of lim-ited Downtown land resources for parking and streets. Reducing car use can best be achieved by increasing the numbers of people living near good public transit, and at intensities that support shops and services within walking distance.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Using a menu of strategies, TDM programs dis-courage car use (especially commuting) and en-courage transit, bicycling, ridesharing, and walk-ing. TDM programs include:
− cash equivalent to the cost of parking given to those who do not drive alone;
− pre-tax commuter benefi ts;
− free or low-cost transit passes;
− car-/van-pool coordination and free car-/ van-pool parking;
− showers for bicyclists and vouchers for bike repairs;
− car-sharing opportunities for those who do not drive; and
− a “free-ride-home” when people who do not own a car are faced with emergencies.
Generally implemented by larger employers and institutions, TDM programs typically offer incen-tives relating to cost and convenience. A UC sur-vey determined that “convenience” (at 37%) and “travel time” (at 30%) were most often cited as reasons why faculty and staff drive rather than use alternate modes. Through TDM programs, government can help “even the playing fi eld” and
Shoppers and Short-Term Visitors. People who come Downtown to shop or conduct other short-term business are less likely to use alter-native modes because they place a premium on convenience and transit can seem unreli-able and time consuming (especially at off-peak times). At the same time, shoppers and other short-term visitors are vital to Downtown’s eco-nomic health and attractiveness as a destina-tion. To maintain a thriving shopping district, Downtown must rely on people from outside of the area, and retailers must compete with other shopping options in Berkeley and surrounding communities. For retail, the availability of short-term parking – especially convenient on-street parking – plays a critical role, as does a safe and attractive pedestrian environment. Conve-nient parking is also important to persons with disabilities and families with small children. Ac-cordingly, one of the key strategies for this group is adequate management of the parking supply to ensure that short-term parking is available and convenient (as described below).
Residents. The average resident in Downtown Berkeley today is much less likely to own an au-tomobile than residents in other parts of Berke-ley or the region, but may need a vehicle oc-casionally. As more housing is built Downtown, some accommodation of cars will be needed but residents’ use of cars can be minimized by le-veraging the proximity of walk-to conveniences, ensuring excellent accessibility by transit, and providing carshare opportunities.
Global Climate Change. In 2005, gasoline and diesel consumption in automobiles account-ed for 47 percent of Berkeley’s total greenhouse gas emissions, almost 293,000 tons of green-house gases, and contributed to the region’s air pollution and rates of respiratory disease. While less polluting vehicles could become more avail-able, they would still generate off-site impacts
3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060
3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070
3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078
3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086
3087 3088 3089 3090 3091
3092 3093
3094
3095
3096 3097
3098 3099
3100 3101
3102 3103
3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111
AccessAC-6
Downtown can lead some commuters to seek parking in surrounding neighborhoods which must be managed through parking restrictions and enforcement.
Parking for Restaurants, Shops and Enter-tainment. The availability of readily-available on-street parking can be critical for shops and restaurants because of its convenience. Down-town’s on-street parking can be priced and en-forced to discourage long-term use and to en-courage use of lower-priced parking garages for those who are willing to walk farther. In his book, The High Price of Free Parking, Donald Shoup, a professor at UCLA observes that the price of parking is a minor factor for retail com-petition, but that its availability and convenience plays a major role. Shoup recommends parking ordinances that price on-street parking to attain a vacancy rate of about one parking space on each block face (a vacancy rate of about 15%). Since demand for parking can vary by time of day or location, prices might be adjusted accord-ingly and the technology for variable pricing is now available. Although retailers often object to increases in the price of parking, other cities have found them much more accepting of it if the increased revenue from parking is invested in things that benefi t the retail district, such as street improvements and frequent cleaning.
While enforcement of parking restrictions has traditionally ended at 6 PM in Berkeley (and most other cities), evening parking requires the same strategies to manage short term and long term demand. A 2006 study found that evening on-street parking “had an overall higher occu-pancy when compared to the midday period [and] revealed that parking on select blocks was fully occupied” close to cinemas and theaters. Shorter-term evening entertainment venues can therefore benefi t from price-based supply-and-demand strategies. On-street parking would be-
make TDM programs workable for smaller em-ployers and residents and more competitive with the cost and convenience of auto usage.
PARKING
Just as with auto use described above, parking needs can be divided into three types: long term parking generally used by commuters; long-term parking used by residents, and short term parking generally used for shopping, services, recreation and cultural activities. Each need is addressed with a different set of strategies. Fundamentally, the City’s policy has been to discourage long term parking for commuters, manage the avail-able parking supply so that it can be more readily available for short-term users, and have relatively low minimum parking standards for residential parking. While the DAP continues many of these same policies, it recommends a different set of strategies to achieve those goals.
Commuter Parking. It has been long-standing City policy to discourage long-term commuter parking in Downtown. A 2004 survey of Down-town workers led by U.C. Professor Elizabeth Deakin found that 37% of downtown Berkeley workers said they drive alone or with others and park in Downtown. Of those who arrive by car, 70% reported parking in parking garages. The remaining workers said they parked on-street and avoided citations by moving their cars and “feeding” meters. Consequently, on-street park-ing spaces are occupied every day by about 700 employees (2004 Transportation Research Board, Deakin et al). City policy can alter this behavior through careful management of the parking supply. The price of on-street parking can be increased while simultaneously making garage parking more convenient and cost-effec-tive. Parking can also be priced to become in-creasingly expensive the longer someone parks. Strategies that discourage commuter parking in
3112 3113 3114
3115
3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130
3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151
3152 3153 3154 3155
3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180
3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192
Access AC-7
hoods. Berkeley’s “Residential Permit Program” (RPP) seeks to limit parking in surrounding neigh-borhoods to residents and short-term use. Resi-dents in new downtown buildings would not be eli-gible for Residential Permit Parking Permits. Resi-dents in surrounding neighborhoods benefi t from enforcement of the RPP, along with better man-agement of transportation demand Downtown.
Parking & Transportation Demand Manage-ment Program (PTDM). Parking management and transportation demand programs are com-plementary: TDM encourages people to use alternatives to the automobile, especially com-muters, while parking management programs can ensure that parking is available for those that need it most, while discouraging it for those for whom transit and other modes are viable op-tions. Together, these programs allow the City to better utilize available parking, and minimize the need to build expensive new parking garages. A comprehensive Parking and Transportation Demand Program that coordinates these two strategies has the potential to maximize the ef-fi cient use of available parking and the use of al-ternatives to the personal vehicle, such by using transit, riding a bike, or by car sharing.
UC Berkeley Parking & TDM. The Univer-sity has its own parking management program to address demand and meet TDM goals. Ac-cording to the Long Range Development Plan, The University may add over one thousand ad-ditional parking spaces in Downtown to address its growth needs. However, as UC Parking fees do not currently cover the cost of providing struc-tured parking, the University also has a signifi -cant incentive University parking built in Down-town could be shared with non-UC users, as has been the case during evenings and weekends. In addition, the University and City are working in concert to implement a range of TDM strategies.
come more available for restaurants and shops if metered hours were extended (2006 MTC Downtown Berkeley Parking Study).
Parking Garages. While perceptions prevail that parking is not available in Downtown, surveys show that many publicly accessible parking ga-rages are only 80% full during the early afternoon when demand peaks. Parking garages would be better utilized if the price of parking was less than on-street parking, which has not been the case. The public could also be provided with informa-tion on where garage parking is available by using “real-time” signs that indicate how many parking spaces are available at each major garage.
Residential Parking. To promote Downtown’s revitalization, the Downtown’s Core Area (the blocks around the Downtown BART station) al-ready has some of the lowest parking require-ments in the Bay Area outside of San Francisco: one space for every three dwelling units if a Use Permit is obtained. Actual demand corresponds closely with this requirement, testifying to the re-duced driving rates of Downtown residents. (Wil-bur Smith Associates).
Current Zoning provisions require on-site park-ing for each project, and while it allows a fee to be paid in-lieu of on-site parking, the City does not have a consistent vehicle for collecting these fees and spending them on Downtown parking or other transportation improvements. An in-lieu fee option could help make adaptive re-use of existing buildings and new development on smaller sites more feasible. In addition, the City could promote bicycle and transit use by resi-dents by requiring that new developments pro-vide bicycle parking, carshare opportunities, and transit passes in lieu of parking.
Parking demand in the Downtown Area has the potential to “spillover” into surrounding neighbor-
3193 3194 3195
3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206
3207 3208 3209 3210 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216
3217 3218 3219 3220 3221 3222 3223 3224 3225 3226 3227 3228 3229
3230 3231
3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239
3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257
3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271
Figure AC-4: Rhino Meters. For better administration and attractive streets, “rhino meters” replaced in-dividual meters. Rhino meters track whether parking is over- or under-uti-lized, making them an important park-ing management tool. Staff photo.
AccessAC-8
b) Modify streets to slow automobile traffi c to speeds appropriate to the function and character of each street, and emphasize the needs and comfort of pedestrians, tran-sit and bicycles.
− Modifi cations should encourage traffi c to fl ow at speeds under 25 miles per hour.
− Monitor traffi c volumes and speeds on residential streets in and near Down-town using established standards, and improve traffi c calming and enforcement until General Plan targets are attained.
c) Implement street improvements that benefi t pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. Reallo-cate parts of public rights-of-way that give unneeded capacity to motor vehicles and can be repurposed to yield pedestrian, bicy-cle, and/or ecological benefi ts. Travel lanes should not be eliminated until analysis has determined that safety, transit, and traffi c operations can be adequately addressed, however the DAP EIR has indicated that traffi c lane reductions appear to be feasible in the following locations:
− Shattuck Avenue and Shattuck Square between University Avenue and Allston;
− University Avenue between Shattuck Square and Oxford;
− Hearst Avenue between Shattuck and Oxford; and
− closing Center Street to regular traffi c between Shattuck and Oxford.
d) Adopt a Downtown Streets & Open Space Improvement Plan that establishes policies
Carsharing. Carsharing programs have recently been established in many higher density urban areas, and allow for affordable short-term car rentals to members. Car sharing eliminates the need to own a car for occasional trips by making low-cost and convenient short-term car rentals easily available. Car-sharing also allows commut-ers who regularly bike or use transit to use a car to meet infrequent or unexpected needs.
GOALS, POLICIES & ACTIONS
Note: Policies under Goal AC-1 focus on inte-grated multimodal strategies to strengthening Downtown as a place for people to enjoy). Poli-cies relating specifi cally to walking, transit, and bicycling are found in Goals AC-2, AC-4 and AC-5, respectively.
GOAL AC-1: IMPROVE OPTIONS THAT IN-CREASE ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN ON FOOT, BY BICYCLE, AND VIA TRANSIT. MAKE LIV-ING, WORKING, AND VISITING DOWNTOWN AS CAR-FREE AS POSSIBLE.
Policy AC-1.1: Street Modifi cations. Modify Downtown’s streets and street network to better serve the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit (see policies under Goal OS-1). While recognizing that automobiles will be an important transportation mode for the foreseeable future, reduce and avoid negative impacts from the pri-vate automobile upon pedestrians, transit, and bicycles (see policies under Goals AC-2, AC-4 & AC-5). Development projects that are adjacent to designed street improvements should fi nance a fair-share of these improvements as part of their project.
a) Encourage potential motorists to access Downtown using other modes (as described in multiple policies below).
3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280
3281
3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287
3288 3289 3290 3291 3292
3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305
3306 3307 3308
3309 3310 3311 3312 3313
3314 3315
3316 3317 3318 3319 3320
3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 3330 3331 3332
3333 3334
3335 3336
3337 3338
3339 3340
3341 3342
Access AC-9
agencies to evaluate the impact of proposed street and street network changes on transit vehicle operations, and to identify suitable bus stop and layover locations (such as to re-place those displaced by a new Center Street Plaza). Bus stops and layover locations should not degrade transit service, and should not negatively impact pedestrian environments.
Policy AC-1.2: Single-Occupant Vehicles. Discourage the use of single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) by commuters to Downtown and en-courage commuting with transit, ridesharing, bicycles, and on foot.
a) Require larger development projects to pro-vide ridesharing parking and support its on-going operations. Strive to serve subareas where ridesharing locations are not conve-nient by identifying potential ridesharing loca-tions and working with ridesharing providers.
b) Promote ridesharing to and from Downtown by employers and institutions. In public park-ing garages, continue to discount parking prices for organized ridesharing, and pro-vide preferential parking locations. Encour-age private parking garages to make similar accommodations.
c) Strengthen parking policies that discourage all-day SOV parking while encouraging alter-native modes (see policies under Goal AC-3).
d) Consistent with the Urban Environmental Accords endorsed by Berkeley, strive to reduce single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to be no more than 40% of all commute trips by 2020. Monitor peak period trips to the extent feasible, and adjust measures to meet these targets.
and actions relating to street improvements that can occur throughout the Downtown Area (such as sidewalk bulb-outs, suitable travel lane widths, bicycle parking, street trees, street lighting, furnishings, etc.), as well as major projects (including Center Street Plaza, Center Street Greenway and Civic Center Park, Shattuck Square, Univer-sity Avenue Gateway, Shattuck Avenue, and Hearst Street). See Policy OS-1.1.
e) Evaluate street network changes from the perspective of the needs, safety and com-fort of bicyclists and pedestrians, including changes to lanes and turning movements. Where accommodations for private automo-biles and accommodations for pedestrians are in confl ict, decisions should refl ect the priority of the pedestrian. Accept that im-provements may result in slowing down ve-hicular traffi c. Reconfi gure automobile traffi c on Shattuck Square, so that the west side of Shattuck Square accommodates two-way through traffi c, and the east side of Shattuck Square can become a slow street or plaza with a high level of pedestrian amenity.
f) Once the design of improvements is concep-tually approved, private and public develop-ers adjacent to designed improvements should implement them as part of the de-velopment project, whenever feasible and as described in Policies (see policies under Goals LU-2 and OS-3).
g) Encourage potential private motorists to ac-cess Downtown using other modes, as de-scribed in policies below.
h) Engage merchants, property owners, transit agencies, the University and other stakehold-ers to emphasize Downtown as a shared des-tination. Work with AC Transit and other transit
3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 3352
3353 3354 3355 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367
3368 3369 3370 3371 3372 3373 3374
3375 3376 3377
3378 3379 3380 3381
3382 3383 3384 3385 3386 3387 3388 3389
3390 3391 3392 3393 3394
3395 3396 3397 3398 3399 3400
3401 3402 3403 3404 3405 3406 3407
3408 3409 3410
3411 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417
AccessAC-10
Policy LU-2.1c. The City should help small businesses and smaller development proj-ects qualify for discounted transit passes, such as by working directly with AC Transit or by encouraging the formation of an as-sociation assigned with this mission.
e) Develop a TDM “toolbox” for new development that explains TDM requirements, and encour-ages other TDM features such as: showers bike commuters, bicycle sharing kiosks, and plug-in facilities for electric vehicles.
f) Encourage all Downtown businesses to re-ward customers and employees who arrive by transit, by bicycle, or on foot, or who use off-street garages instead of on-street park-ing, such as with merchant validation pro-grams and other incentives.
GOAL AC-2: GIVE PEDESTRIANS PRIOR-ITY IN DOWNTOWN, AND MAKE WALKING DOWNTOWN SAFE, ATTRACTIVE, EASY AND CONVENIENT FOR PEOPLE OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES.
Policy AC-2.1: Pedestrian Safety and Ame-nities. Improve the safety, attractiveness and convenience of pedestrian routes within Down-town – and to and from surrounding areas. En-courage a wide range of pedestrian amenities to meet the needs and interests of those who live and work in and near Downtown (see policies under Goals HD-4 and in the Streets and Open Space chapter).
a) Adopt a Streets & Open Space Improvement Plan for policies and implementing actions, including provisions for adequate sidewalk width, shortening pedestrian crossing dis-tances at intersections, and new mid-block pedestrian crosswalks where justified by
Policy AC-1.3: Alternative Modes & Trans-portation Demand Management (TDM). New development and on-going programs should reduce Downtown car use, support alternative travel modes, and consolidate publicly-accessi-ble parking facilities and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs (see require-ments under Policy LU-2.1).
a) A Street, Open Space and Transportation (SOSAT) Fund should be established to sup-port alternative modes (i.e. transit, walking & bicycling) and Transportation Demand Man-agement programs. Parking requirements for new development may be reduced by paying an in lieu fee into a fund to enhance transit service, which might be contained within the Street, Open Space and Trans-portation (SOSAT) Fund; in lieu payments for parking should be encouraged.
b) A significant portion of new transporta-tion- and parking-related revenues from the Downtown Area should be used to reduce Downtown car use, while simultaneously supporting the parking needs of local mer-chants and cultural/entertainment uses. Consider raising on-going TDM revenues through the creation of a Downtown Trans-portation Benefi ts District.
c) Develop a fi nance strategy to evaluate po-tential transportation-related revenues and compare their financial capacity with the costs of potential Downtown improvements, maintenance and services. The finance strategy should set near-term priorities for improvements – based on public input and other considerations.
d) Require that new buildings, substantial ren-ovations and substantial additions support alternative transportation as identified in
3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 3424 3425
3426 3427 3428 3429 3430 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436
3437 3438 3439 3440 3441 3442 3443 3444 3445
3446 3447 3448 3449 3450 3451 3452 3453
3454 3455 3456
3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 3462
3463 3464 3465 3466 3467
3468 3469 3470 3471 3472 3473
3474 3475 3476 3477 3478
3479 3480 3481 3482 3483 3484 3485 3486 3487
3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3493
Access AC-11
aging all-day parking. Parking standards should support the continued health of Downtown’s re-tail and cultural uses.
a) Effective parking management should be encouraged by developing a consolidated Parking/Transportation Demand Manage-ment (PTDM) program. Employ pay-and-display meters and/or other technology to increase the City’s ability to manage the de-mand for on-street parking spaces.
b) Promote effi cient use of parking by using technologies that: communicate the location of available parking, such as dynamic and static signage that directs motorists to where garage parking is available. Consider tech-nologies that provide real-time information on parking space availability and location.
c) Use pricing strategies that increase the avail-ability of on-street and short-term parking for retail and cultural uses – while simultane-ously discouraging all-day parking by com-muters. Increase pricing at on-street meters throughout Downtown until an acceptable vacancy rate is attained (such as a 15% va-cancy rate). Authorize the Transportation Di-vision to adjust parking rates whenever nec-essary to reach and maintain the established vacancy-rate target. Price public garages and encourage private parking vendors to make off-street parking more affordable and convenient relative to on-street parking, and favor short-term (less than 4 hours) over all-day use. Phase out monthly parking permits in City-owned Downtown parking facilities.
d) Encourage employers who provide free parking as an employee benefi t to promote a cash allowance instead. (State law requires employers who subsidize employee parking
high volumes of pedestrians and a long dis-tance between intersections.
b) To reduce pedestrian-vehicle confl icts, mini-mize driveway curb cuts to the extent feasi-ble, and where they must occur: avoid mak-ing driveways too wide or creating uneven surfaces where driveways cross sidewalks.
c) Maintain sidewalks, crosswalks, plazas, and other pedestrian environments so that they are safe, clean and in good repair.
d) Regularly evaluate indicators of pedestrian safety, and adjust implementation priorities to improve pedestrian safety.
Policy AC-2.2: Universal Access. Provide safe access to all Downtown streets and path-ways for people of all abilities.
a) Use regulation and incentives to require and/or encourage universal accessibility up-grades for private businesses when signifi -cant modifi cations to structures are made.
b) Consider grants, low-cost loans, technical assistance and/or other incentives for busi-nesses to correct unacceptable conditions, where signifi cant modifi cations to existing buildings are not expected.
GOAL AC-3: PROVIDE PARKING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF DOWNTOWN, WHILE DIS-COURAGING COMMUTER PARKING AND ENCOURAGING MOTORISTS TO PARK THEIR CARS AND EXPERIENCE DOWN-TOWN AS A PEDESTRIAN.
Policy AC-3.1: Effective Parking. Manage parking more effectively to promote Downtown economic vitality while simultaneously discour-
3494 3495
3496 3497 3498 3499 3500
3501 3502 3503
3504 3505 3506
3507 3508 3509
3510 3511 3512 3513
3514 3515 3516 3517 3518
3519 3520 3521 3522 3523 3524
3525 3526 3527
3528 3529 3530
3531 3532 3533 3534 3535 3536 3537
3538 3539 3540 3541 3542 3543 3544
3545 3546 3547 3548 3549 3550 3551 3552 3553 3554 3555 3556 3557 3558 3559 3560 3561
3562 3563 3564 3565
AccessAC-12
University of California,Berkeley
ExtendOhlone Greenway
to UC Campus
Hea
rst A
v.
Uni
vers
ity A
v.
MLK Jr Way
Oxford Street
BerkeleyAlbany
El Cerrito
CentralRichmond
BART Right of Way
DA
P B
ound
ary
N
8' 11' 11' 11' 11' 8'60' CTC 8'12'80' ROW
P B PB
8' 5' 10' 10' 5' 8'5'6'
44' CTC
5' 6' 12'
12' 24'80' ROW
PBP B EXISTING CURB+16’
EX
ISTI
NG
CU
RB
EX
ISTI
NG
CU
RB
Existing: 4 Travel Lane Segment of Hearst
Design Concept: Travel Lanes with New Bike Lane + Landscaping
NORTHSIDERESIDENTIAL
SOUTHSIDE(UC HELIOSPROJECT)
NORTHSIDERESIDENTIAL
SOUTHSIDE(UC HELIOSPROJECT)
Ohlone Greenway
The Ohlone Greenway stretches more than three miles from the intersection of Hearst and MLK to central Richmond. The eastern portion of the Greenway runs through land that was acquired for the construction of BART, and then runs along a former rail line right-of-way through Albany, El Cerrito and Richmond. The path is named for the Ohlone Indians, the pre-European inhabitants of the area.
Access AC-13
pecially commercial projects that bring large numbers of new commuters Downtown.
c) Consider revisions to parking standards and programs to better accomplish policies of the DAP. Analyze such revisions as part of a con-solidated Parking/TDM program and as a way to reduce impediments to the preservation and the adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
d) Prohibit new driveways on Shattuck and Uni-versity Avenues in Downtown except when it can be demonstrated that no other site-access options exist or where other alterna-tives would have greater negative impacts.
e) Monitor the amount of on-site parking that new development includes and, if excessive, develop standards for maximum allowable on-site parking.
f) Expand electric car and hybrid plug-in loca-tion through standards and guidelines, and encourage their connection to local renew-able energy sources.
g) New development should provide effective parking and TDM measures (see Policy LU-2.1 and AC-1.3).
Policy AC-3.3: Pedestrian Impacts. Locate and design new parking in ways that minimize negative impacts upon the pedestrian quality of Downtown (see Policy HD-4.1).
a) With new development, discourage park-ing on-site to increase space available for street-level retail and activity.
b) Minimize driveway curb cuts to make Down-town more safe and attractive for pedestri-ans. Locate, design, and size entrances and
to offer a cash allowance to each employee in lieu of an assigned parking space.)
e) Off-street parking spaces for new housing units shall be leased or sold separately from the residence.
f) Encourage the City Manager to phase out parking assigned to City staff for their pri-vately-owned vehicles, and to park vehicles needed for City business in locations out-side of the Downtown Area or on the upper fl oors of off-street facilities.
g) Continue and expand fl at prepaid rates (i.e., paid upon entrance) to prevent long queues upon exiting public and private parking ga-rages after evening performances.
Policy AC-3.2: New Parking. Provide suffi cient parking for expected growth by evaluating future parking needs, funding parking facilities, and pro-moting alternatives to the car. In addition, replace on-street parking lost to street and other improve-ments within off-street garages. Consolidate park-ing in shared facilities to the extent possible.
a) Parking facilities should be planned as part of a Parking/TDM program to address future parking needs, replace on-street parking lost to improvements, and evaluate locations for potential parking garages, and encourage visitors to park once and experience Down-town on foot and/or via low-cost shuttles/transit (see Policy AC-4.5).
b) Allow fees to be paid in lieu of on-site park-ing, and apply revenues toward off-site consolidated parking, TDM programs, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastruc-ture improvements. Encourage developers to pay fees in lieu of on-site parking , es-
3566 3567
3568 3569 3570
3571 3572 3573 3574 3575 3576
3577 3578 3579 3580
3581 3582 3583 3584 3585 3586 3587
3588 3589 3590 3591 3592 3593 3594 3595
3596 3597 3598 3599 3600 3601
3602 3603
3604 3605 3606 3607 3608 3609
3610 3611 3612 3613 3614
3615 3616 3617 3618
3619 3620 3621 3622
3623 3624 3625
3626 3627 3628 3629
3630 3631 3632
3633 3634 3635
Figure AC-5: First Curb Cut. The fi rst curb cut in the United States was pioneered by the disability rights leader Ed Roberts in 1970, and is situated on the street corner adjacent to the Wells Fargo Bank.
Curb cuts allow someone in a wheel-chair to move onto or off a sidewalk without diffi culty. The Berkeley com-munity continues to play a pivotal role in advocating for universal access by people of all abilities. Staff photo.
AccessAC-14
can be shared, but not in excess of what is called for under UC Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan.
Policy AC-3.5: Equitable Access. Mitigate impacts of transportation measures that make access to Downtown more diffi cult for low-in-come Berkeleyans.
a) Consider provisions for transit passes, bi-cycles, and subsidized carsharing to low-in-come residents as an affordable alternative to driving to Downtown.
b) To accommodate low income Berkeley households and individuals accessing so-cial and health services, consider transit or parking vouchers for off-street public park-ing facilities.
Policy AC-3.6: Residential Parking. In resi-dential neighborhoods near Downtown where parking demand by non-residents is high, main-tain an adequate supply of on-street parking for use by residents and reduce impacts of parking by non-residents.
a) Establish measures for managing parking demand by non-residents more effectively, such as: installation of metered parking, the use of residential parking permits or placing residential permit parking on one side of the street with parking meters on the other side.
b) Consider earmarking a portion of new rev-enues from parking meters and/or park-ing permits for improvements in residential neighborhoods.
GOAL AC-4: PROMOTE TRANSIT AS AN EF-FICIENT AND ATTRACTIVE CHOICE – AND AS A PRIMARY MODE OF MOTOR-VEHICLE TRAVEL.
exits to parking to minimize impact on the pe-destrian realm, such as through traffi c man-agement, exit mirrors, and warning lights.
c) Consolidate parking to minimize visual and other negative impacts from parking. Enlarge the capacity of existing parking garages as feasible, through management practices and/or physical improvements.
d) Discourage use of more than 25% of a build-ing’s street-level area for parking. Place park-ing below grade when feasible. When below-grade parking is deemed infeasible, above-grade parking structures should face streets and public open spaces in ways that support pedestrian safety and activity. Surface park-ing should be prohibited along streets.
Policy AC-3.4: University Cooperation. En-courage the University to review existing parking programs, and work with the University in de-veloping comprehensive parking strategies for: planning parking facilities, managing parking more effectively, and making more UC parking available to the public (see Policies AC-3.1).
a) Work with the University to coordinate opti-mum parking rates and locations, and pos-sible development of shared facilities at: the DHS site, the Berkeley Art Museum and Pa-cifi c Film Archive site, the Tang site, Univer-sity property west of University Hall, and the site at the corner of Oxford and University.
b) Encourage underground parking in all loca-tions considered by UC, to maximize use of above-ground space for other uses.
c) Encourage the University to locate replace-ment parking for parking eliminated on campus to a Downtown site where parking
3636 3637 3638
3639 3640 3641 3642 3643
3644 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651
3652 3653 3654 3655 3656 3657 3658
3659 3660 3661 3662 3663 3664 3665
3666 3667 3668
3669 3670 3671
3672 3673 3674
3675 3676 3677 3678
3679 3680 3681 3682
3683 3684 3685 3686 3687
3688 3689 3690 3691 3692 3693
3694 3695 3696 3697 3698 3699
3700 3701 3702 3703
3704 3705 3706 3707
Access AC-15
and other transit providers to increase eve-ning service to Downtown. Work with these providers to improve nighttime conditions near transit stops that affect safety, such as lighting and visual access.
Policy AC-4.2: Attractive Transit. Make tran-sit an effi cient and attractive choice by improving speed, reliability, pedestrian safety, and comfort. Improve transit options and give transit priority over personal vehicles.
a) Give consideration to transit-support-ive street and facility improvements in the Downtown Area, in collaboration with AC Transit, other transit providers and com-munity stakeholders. Implement “complete streets” concepts that enhance pedestrian and bicycle routes to transit. Other benefi -cial improvements might include: transit sig-nal priority, queue jump lanes, left turn phas-ing, improvements to bus shelters, bus curb extensions, bus stop amenities, pre-pay fare vending machines, superior bus stop locations, concrete bus pads, and raised platforms. Address daytime and nighttime conditions that may discourage transit use.
b) Consult with AC Transit about Downtown cir-culation proposals that could degrade transit service, so that potential impacts can be eval-uated and addressed. Street improvements should be designed to avoid an appreciable decline in bus travel times and reliability.
c) Work with AC Transit and shuttle providers to identify suitable bus stops and layover loca-tions. Consider the integration of bus facilities within City, University, and/or private projects.
d) Avoid bus stop and layover locations that in-terrupt pedestrian movement or block clear
Policy AC-4.1: Transit Priority. Promote tran-sit as the primary mode for commuting to and from Downtown, and give transit priority over personal vehicles. Encourage use of transit by area businesses, institutions, and residents. The City strongly supports improved local and regional transit service to and from Downtown.
a) Require that new development provides bus passes and promotes use of alternative modes (see Policies LU-2.1 and AC-1.3).
b) Work collaboratively with Downtown employ-ers, institutions, and organizations (including major employers such as the City of Berke-ley, UC Berkeley, Berkeley Unifi ed School District, Berkeley City College, Berkeley Unifi ed School District, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Alta Bates Medical Center) to adopt aggressive TDM programs and facilities that reduce automobile use by staff, faculty and students.
c) Require that Downtown businesses provide bus passes to employees and pre-tax com-mute-by-transit vouchers. Work with busi-nesses and institutions to expand guaran-teed-ride-home programs for employees who use transit. Encourage Downtown employers to provide other subsidies for bicycling, walk-ing and public transit use. Encourage Berke-ley Unifi ed School District and Peralta Com-munity College to participate in such pro-grams or to establish their own programs to reduce automobile use by faculty and staff.
d) Encourage retail, restaurant, theater, cin-ema, and cultural uses to promote tran-sit, possibly by providing transit refunds or vouchers. Examine examples of transit validation programs for these uses, and con-sider implementation of similar programs Downtown. Encourage AC Transit, BART,
3708 3709 3710 3711 3712 3713 3714
3715 3716 3717
3718 3719 3720 3721 3722 3723 3724 3725 3726 3727
3728 3729 3730 3731 3732 3733 3734 3735 3736 3737 3738 3739
3740 3741 3742 3743 3744 3745 3746
3747 3748 3749 3750 3751
3752 3753 3754 3755 3756
3757 3758 3759 3760 3761 3762 3763 3764 3765 3766 3767 3768 3769 3770 3771
3772 3773 3774 3775 3776 3777
3778 3779 3780 3781
3782 3783
AccessAC-16
enue, and avoiding improvements that might preclude such options.
− Work with transit providers to improve access to Downtown from eastern Al-ameda and Contra Costa Counties, and other locations where large numbers of Downtown-bound trips originate. For example, AC Transit might consider park-and-ride facilities in locations that will encourage people who start their trip by car to transfer to transit before reaching Downtown.
− Support AC Transit and BART service their efforts to receive increased federal and state funding.
− Encourage AC Transit and BART to make transit as affordable as possible.
Policy AC-4.3: Transit Center. Improve access to BART and enhance the Downtown BART Sta-tion as a transportation hub for AC Transit and other transit providers.
a) Explore alternatives for creating a Down-town Transit Center to link AC Transit to other modes, including shuttles, taxis, bicycles and bike rentals, arrival by car, and walking. Con-sider how bus turn-around, boarding plat-forms, and visitor information facilities might be incorporated. The transit center should speed boarding and transfers, but should not be used for bus layovers. Transit center im-provements should result in an inviting, pe-destrian-friendly place with negative impacts from buses mitigated to the extent possible.
b) Enhance access to BART on foot and by bike (see Policies AC-4.2). Improve the BART Plaza’s function as a transit hub by imple-
views of sidewalks, plazas or storefronts. Give careful consideration to trade-offs between fa-cilitating bus turning movements and other op-erations versus reductions in on-street parking supply, landscaping, and sidewalks.
e) Engage community stakeholders, especially those representing Downtown interests.
f) Work with AC Transit and shuttle providers to maintain safe, attractive and weather-pro-tected bus stops. Encourage frequent main-tenance, graffi ti abatement, and the elimina-tion of unsafe conditions. Alert responsible agencies when bus stops may be unsafe or are in poor repair.
g) Support citywide and regional efforts to im-prove transit service:
− Encourage AC Transit, BART, and other transit providers to improve transit reliabil-ity and shorten travel times and headways (i.e., the wait time for buses and trains).
− Encourage BART to improve the frequen-cy of weekend service to and from Down-town, and to consider late night service.
− Encourage AC Transit to implement a pre-pay fare system and other improve-ments that will shorten boarding times.
− Consider the possibility of a transit fare-free zone in Downtown or a larger area, potentially funded through a local tax measure.
− Consider how enhanced bus service might be extended west on University Avenue and/or north on Shattuck Av-
3784 3785 3786 3787 3788
3789 3790
3791 3792 3793 3794 3795 3796 3797
3798 3799
3800 3801 3802 3803
3804 3805 3806
3807 3808 3809
3810 3811 3812 3813
3814 3815 3816
3817 3818
3819 3820 3821 3822 3823 3824 3825 3826 3827 3828
3829 3830 3831
3832 3833
3834 3835 3836 3837
3838 3839 3840 3841 3842 3843 3844 3845 3846 3847 3848 3849
3850 3851 3852
Access AC-17
menting improvements that make it more pe-destrian-friendly (see Policy OS-1.1).
Policy AC-4.4: Transit and Bikes. Encour-age bicycle access to Downtown for local and regional transit trips.
a) Increase high-capacity bicycle parking near BART and other major transit stops.
b) Support the expansion of the Downtown Berkeley bicycle station and high-quality bi-cycle storage facilities in other transit-acces-sible locations.
c) Encourage transit providers to expand bi-cycle access on transit vehicles, including increased storage on trains and buses.
Policy AC-4.5: Local Transit & Shuttle Con-nections. Improve transit and shuttle connec-tions between Downtown, University destina-tions, and Berkeley neighborhoods, especially connections to: neighborhood commercial ar-eas, facilities for transit-dependent residents, concentrations of potential but poorly-served riders, and concentrations of single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips.
a) Work with AC Transit, UC Berkeley, LBNL, Alta Bates, and lifeline service to improve shuttle service and consider ways that it can:
− attract users now driving regularly to the UC campus and/or Downtown thereby reducing parking demand;
− connect multiple points Downtown with each other and with other local destina-tions, including Telegraph retail, north Shat-tuck retail, and University destinations;
− build upon existing shuttle systems to expand shuttle service sooner;
− undertake an effective public informa-tion campaign to advertise new service as it is made available; and
− schedule shuttles on regular routes and/or make them demand-responsive, de-pending on the needs of users.
b) Consider how Rapid Bus and other service en-hancements can be extended west on Univer-sity Avenue and/or north on Shattuck Avenue.
c) Consider the possibility of a transit fare-free zone in Downtown or a larger area (such as Telegraph Avenue), potentially funded through a local tax measure.
d) Collaborate with AC Transit and shuttle providers to identify and obtain funds to im-prove service to areas with high-concentra-tions of transit-dependent residents, as well as underserved areas where large numbers of commuters drive regularly to the UC cam-pus and/or Downtown.
e) Develop a shuttle funding and operations strategy with the University. Funding sourc-es might include:
− replacement or reassignment of some existing services;
− mitigation funds from new development;
− assessments in lieu of new parking;
− a surcharge on fees for off-street park-ing; a charge for multiple car ownership;
3853 3854
3855 3856 3857
3858 3859
3860 3861 3862 3863
3864 3865 3866
3867 3868 3869 3870 3871 3872 3873 3874 3875
3876 3877 3878
3879 3880 3881
3882 3883 3884 3885
3886 3887
3888 3889 3890
3891 3892 3893
3894 3895 3896
3897 3898 3899 3900
3901 3902 3903 3904 3905 3906 3907
3908 3909 3910
3911 3912
3913
3914
3915 3916
AccessAC-18
− capital grants for carbon neutral vehicles;
− jobs or work/study program funding for drivers’ salaries;
− fares prepaid by institutions/employers; and/or
− a parking benefi ts district.
f) To the extent feasible, use low-carbon fuels and promote shuttles as a way for people to reduce their carbon footprint and meet Cli-mate Action Plan goals.
Policy AC-4.6: Paratransit. Accommodate taxi service and on-demand transport service providers.
a) Incorporate a location for taxis when making improvements near BART.
b) Consult with on-demand transport service providers- such as public transit agencies, community groups, hospitals, and busi-nesses, especially those serving Berkeley’s disabled community- to see how their needs can be better met.
Policy AC-4.7: Events. Give priority to transit dur-ing major events so as to reduce traffi c congestion, such as during Cal football games, Berkeley High School morning drop-off, cultural events, etc.
a) Work with AC Transit and other transit op-erators to consider how transit operations, measures, and programs might be refi ned to reduce acute short-term traffi c congestion.
b) Pursue joint marketing campaigns with transit agencies and event sponsors pro-moting alternative ways to get to city events in Downtown.
Policy AC-4.8: Transit-Supportive Uses. Con-centrate housing, jobs, and cultural destinations within Downtown, so to be near transit, shops and amenities, while simultaneously enhancing Downtown’s character and livability (see policies under Goal LU-1 and ED-1).
GOAL AC-5: MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE SAFE, ATTRACTIVE AND CONVENIENT BI-CYCLE CIRCULATION WITHIN DOWNTOWN, AND TO AND FROM SURROUNDING AREAS, FOR PEOPLE OF ALL AGES AND ABILITIES. PROMOTE BICYCLING DOWNTOWN.
Policy AC-5.1: Bike Network Improvements. Give bicycles priority over personal vehicles on many streets Downtown. Make bicycling safer and more convenient in and through Downtown by making improvements to Berkeley’s and Downtown’s bicycle network. Provide bikeways on low-speed low-traffi c streets and bike lanes where appropriate. Address the needs of bicy-clists of all ages and abilities.
a) Adopt a Downtown Streets & Open Space Im-provement Plan with specifi c policies and ac-tions relating to bike network improvements.
b) Consider locations in Downtown where bike-activated traffi c lights would improve safety and convenience along streets with higher levels of bicycle use.
Policy AC-5.2: Bicycle Parking. Increase the availability of convenient, secure and at-tractive short- and long-term bicycle parking throughout Downtown.
a) Increase the availability of secured bicycle parking throughout Downtown, particularly in areas of high use, including bicycle parking options that are sheltered and/or attended.
3917
3918 3919
3920 3921
3922
3923 3924 3925 3926
3927 3928 3929
3930 3931
3932 3933 3934 3935 3936 3937
3938 3939 3940 3941
3942 3943 3944 3945
3946 3947 3948 3949
3950 3951 3952 3953 3954 3955
3956 3957 3958 3959 3960 3961
3962 3963 3964 3965 3966 3967 3968 3969 3970
3971 3972 3973
3974 3975 3976 3977
3978 3979 3980 3981
3982 3983 3984 3985
Access AC-19
b) Increase availability of bicycle racks through-out Downtown, especially where parking meter poles are removed.
c) Provide sufficient bicycle parking near transit centers and major destinations (see Policy AC-4.4).
d) Promote the creation of an at-grade attended or automated bicycle-parking service. Work with BART to consider replacing the exist-ing bicycle station with a joint City/BART aboveground facility, perhaps in a storefront on Shattuck Avenue.
e) Require the provision of secure bicycle park-ing facilities by new development projects (and major renovations), both public and private.
Policy AC-5.3: Bike Sharing. Promote conve-nient “bike sharing” options (i.e., short-term bike rentals) and their use by employees, residents, and visitors – especially near BART.
a) Publicize available bike rentals in Downtown, such as at the Berkeley Bike Station.
b) Identify criteria for the design, program and location of new bike sharing facilities. Solicit proposals from bike share providers for facili-ties consistent with these criteria. Give spe-cial consideration to locations near BART.
Policy AC-5.4: Business & Institutional Sup-port. Make it easier for Downtown employees to commute by bike, especially employees of the City, University, and BUSD.
a) Require new office and retail construc-tion and substantial renovations to provide showers and lockers for employees, so that bicyclists can change into work clothes at their destinations.
b) Study the feasibility of subsidizing the cost of bicycles for Downtown employees. Work with Downtown employers and bicycle mer-chants to explore the potential for discounts for the purchase of bicycles.
c) If bike sharing is established, consider re-ducing the cost of bike sharing for Down-town employees and others.
d) Enhance the City’s own bicycle program for City employees.
3986 3987 3988
3989 3990 3991
3992 3993 3994 3995 3996 3997
3998 3999 4000
4001 4002 4003 4004
4005 4006
4007 4008 4009 4010 4011
4012 4013 4014 4015
4016 4017 4018 4019 4020
4021 4022 4023 4024 4025
4026 4027 4028
4029 4030
Related Documents
