Chapter 4, Oakland for All: Options for How We Stabilize and Grow

Chapter 4: Comparison of Options

Table of Contents

• 4.1 Overview
• 4.2 Development Potential
• 4.3 Transportation

Drawing from the previous chapter, Table 4-1 presents a side-by-side overview to easily compare what each Option envisions for the major potential change areas across the City.

• Section 4.2 compares differences in jobs and housing growth across the Options.
• Section 4.3 examines how each Option locates growth in areas with environmental constraints and highlights the associated considerations for future policy development.
• Section 4.4 evaluates transportation impacts, focusing on how each Option affects travel patterns, access to transit, and vehicle miles traveled.
• Section 4.5 explores equity considerations, assessing how the benefits and burdens of each Option may affect Oakland’s Environmental Justice communities.

Table 4-1: Options Comparison Summary

Topic	Included in All Options	Option A: City of Neighborhoods	Option B: Corridors and Gateways	Option C: Midtown Waterfront District
Land Use	Growth in: Downtown Major transportation corridors (MacArthur, International, San Pablo, W. Grand, Telegraph, Broadway, College, 40th St., Hegenberger) Transit station areas (including Coliseum) Existing neighborhoods as they gradually densify Preservation of: Existing neighborhood commercial centers with food retailers	Growth in: Neighborhood “centers” (multi-block mixed use hubs) located throughout the City where there are existing commercial centers and where there are identified food access gaps	Growth in: Major transportation corridors at a greater density / intensity than the assumptions shared in all options Additional corridors (Adeline, Lakeshore, Park, E. 12th St., 14th Ave., Fruitvale, High, Foothill, 73rd Ave, 98th Ave)	Growth in: New “midtown” between Foothill Blvd and the Central Estuary shoreline from 14th to High Street Clinton and San Antonio neighborhoods Fruitvale neighborhood
Employment	Port Hospitals Downtown Coliseum and Hegenberger area	West Oakland, Port Business Park, and Jack London R&D	West Oakland and Port Business Park R&D	West Oakland, Jack London, and South Estuary R&D
Transportation	Completion of AC Transit Major Corridor improvements Implementation of Bike Plan, Transit Action Strategy, Pedestrian Plan, and ADA Transition Plan East Bay Greenway, West Oakland Link, and Oakland-Alameda Bridge regional bike paths Street realignment along shoreline between Fruitvale Ave and High St to phase out Alameda Ave diagonal Street realignment between 77th Ave and 85th Ave, between San Leandro St and Rudsdale St to establish better separation between residential and industrial areas	First/last mile connectivity supporting center connections to existing transit network Increased walking and biking access and proximity to community-serving amenities designed to meet the everyday needs of residents	Higher frequency transit along corridors (improved connectivity N-S), accompanying bike street/slow street connections where right-of-way is narrow	San Antonio transit hub with BART shuttles between Fruitvale and Lake Merritt stations and dense surrounding neighborhoods (Midtown, San Antonio, Brooklyn Basin)
Parks and Open Space/Climate Resiliency	Lion Creek restoration San Leandro Creek restoration Channel Estuary Park Implementation of the 2024 Urban Forest Plan (60,000 new urban trees, planted in priority neighborhoods) Consideration of sea level rise in urban design	New and enhanced neighborhood parks within centers, sited to be a central focus point of new development	New and enhanced neighborhood parks at corridor gateways and intersections Mini parks along corridors, as well as linear parks and greenways Privately-operated public spaces	New and enhanced community parks on shoreline in Midtown area Sausal Creek greenway
Hegenberger Corridor	Implementation of Economic Workforce Development policies for small business support	New commercial area between Coliseum and Hegenberger features live/work, artist spaces, and production, design and repair (PDR) businesses	North of 880: airport-serving uses (commercial, parking) South of 880: Mixed use corridor supporting R&D at Port Business Park	Regional Commercial / Airport supporting

Back to Top

4.2 Development Potential

Buildout and Overall Growth

Buildout is a projection used to forecast the growth in population, housing, and employment likely to result from changes to land use. It serves as a foundation for State-mandated environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by forecasting future traffic volumes, pollutant emissions, and utility demand. These projections help inform policy development and assess potential environmental impacts. Buildout for each of the three Options for How We Stabilize and Grow is based on several factors, including individual site characteristics that may incentivize property owners to redevelop, density and intensity assumptions based on previously completed or pipeline projects, and assumptions about nonresidential square footage correlated with jobs projections.

As described in Chapter 3, much of the future growth in Oakland will occur as part of previously established planning efforts (as shown in Figure 3-3 and 3-4). The remainder of development unique to Options A, B, and C change areas results in subtle changes in the geography of development, shown in Figures 3-5 through 3-12. Chart 4-1 and Chart 4-2 presents a side-by-side comparison of projected growth resulting from each Option.

Overall, Option C would result in the most housing and jobs development by 2045.

Growth by Zip Code

Chart 4-1: Total Housing by 2045

Chart 4-2: Total Jobs by 2045

Charts 4-3 and 4-4 present differences in housing and jobs across the Options by zip code. The most housing growth is projected to occur in zip code 94607 (which includes West Oakland, Jack London, and a portion of Downtown, including the Victory Court area), followed by Downtown. Growth is largely similar across most zip codes, but major differences include the following:

• Option A adds more housing than Option B or Option C in zip code 94603 (Deep East Oakland) and 94621 (Coliseum/Airport), where additional housing is added in new shopping centers near 73rd and 98th avenues.
• Option C adds more housing than Option A or Option B in zip codes 94601(Fruitvale) and 94606 (Eastlake/San Antonio) near the new San Antonio Transit hub, near the estuary, and in higher density development in the Fruitvale area.
• Option A adds more jobs than Option B or Option C in zip code 94603 (Deep East Oakland), where a new shopping center is envisioned.
• Option B adds more jobs than Option A or Option C in zip code 94621 (Coliseum/Airport), which includes more mixed-use commercial development along 73rd and 98th avenues, and more non-residential development along Hegenberger in the R&D area.
• Option C adds more jobs than Option A or Option B in zip code 94601 (Fruitvale) and 94606 (Eastlake San Antonio) in the Midtown area.

Chart 4-3: Housing Growth by Zip Code

 

Chart 4-4: Jobs Growth by Zip Code

Growth by Priority Development Area

Likewise, Chart 4-5 and 4-6 show differences in housing and jobs by Priority Development Area (PDA), as defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Jobs and housing growth by PDA would be largely similar across all Options, including within the Eastmont Town Center/International Boulevard TOD, MacArthur Boulevard Corridor, North Oakland/Golden Gate, San Antonio, and West Oakland PDAs. The most jobs growth is expected to occur in the Downtown and Jack London Square PDA. Major differences include the following:

• Option A adds more housing than Option B or Option C in the Coliseum BART Station Area, and slightly more in the North Oakland/Golden Gate PDA in the new and existing neighborhood centers.
• Option C adds more housing than Option A or Option B in the Fruitvale and Dimond Areas PDA, largely within the Midtown area.
• Option B adds more jobs than Option B or Option C in the Coliseum BART Station Area PDA, largely in the new R&D area and along Hegenberger.
• Option C adds more jobs than Option A or Option B in the Fruitvale and Dimond Areas PDA and the San Antonio PDA, consistent with new growth in the Midtown area.

Chart 4-5: Housing Growth by PDA

 

Chart 4-6: Jobs Growth by PDA

Jobs and Jobs/Employed-Residents Balance

Each of the Options would add a similar mix of job types in the City, with Options B and C resulting in more R&D growth. Most of Oakland’s job growth is anticipated to come from office growth downtown, as envisioned in the recently adopted Downtown Oakland Specific Plan (DOSP).

A jobs-to-employed-residents ratio of 1.0 indicates a balance between the number of jobs available and the number of employed residents. Oakland’s jobs-to-employed-residents ratio is currently 0.91, meaning that there are more employed residents than jobs available in Oakland. More employed residents commute to jobs outside of the City than those who work at jobs within the City. New nonresidential development for each of the Options is estimated to provide between 80,820 to 89,200 jobs. An additional 30 percent added to these job totals are anticipated to be work-from-home jobs. At buildout, the Options result in 326,800 to 338,100 jobs. Table 4-2 shows that the jobs-to-employed-residents ratio is expected to increase from 0.91 for all Options, indicating a greater balance.

Chart 4-7: Jobs Growth by Type

Table 4-2: Jobs-to-Employed-Residents Ratio

	Existing	Option A at Buildout (2045)	Option B at Buildout (2045)	Option C at Buildout (2045)
Jobs	217,680	326,790	333,070	338,100
Employed Residents*	240, 370	332,890	331,350	336,890
Jobs Employed Residents Ratio	0.91	0.98	1.01	1.00

Note: Future growth assumes employed residents remain 57 percent of total population and applies factor to account for population aging.

Back to Top

4.3 Transportation

Oakland’s compact neighborhoods, dense street grid, mild climate, and mixed land use make it well-suited for shorter trips via walking, biking, and transit. Oakland continues to expand its active transportation infrastructure, with over 200 miles of bikeways and has implemented trail and separated bikeway projects along key corridors such as Telegraph Avenue, the Lake Merritt Loop, and the San Francisco Bay Trail to promote active transportation. Oakland is also served by AC Transit, which offers robust local and Transbay bus service including the Tempo BRT line.

Oakland’s extensive transportation connections and location at the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area make it a hub for regional mobility of both people and goods. The City serves as a key hub for BART, with stations at 12th Street, 19th Street, MacArthur, Rockridge, West Oakland, Lake Merritt, Fruitvale and Coliseum linking the City to the broader region, including via major transfer stations. InterCity rail connections are available through Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor at Jack London Square and Coliseum stations, providing access to the City from Sacramento, Silicon Valley, the Central Valley, and Southern California. Ferry service to San Francisco, Alameda, and South San Francisco is provided by the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA).

Oakland International Airport (OAK) functions as the East Bay’s primary air travel hub with access to BART via the Oakland Airporter Connector, and the Port of Oakland, the ninth busiest container port in the United States, is a critical transportation hub to move goods throughout the region.

Oakland’s transportation network also includes several major freeways that support regional mobility. I-880, I-580, I-80, and State Route 24 connect Oakland to nearby cities and economic centers across the Bay Area such as San Francisco, Berkeley, San Jose, and Walnut Creek. While these freeways play an important role in goods movement and commuting, they also present challenges related to equity, air quality, and neighborhood connectivity—issues that many current planning efforts aim to address.

As Oakland grows and evolves, there is broad recognition that its transportation system must better serve all residents—no matter how they travel. Regional planning efforts like Plan Bay Area 2050+, Link21, the I-580 Truck Access Study, and the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan are working to improve system integration, promote sustainability, and support a more equitable, people-centered future for Oakland and the wider Bay Area.

Transportation Needs

Oakland benefits from direct access to rail, air, sea, freeway, and transit, providing a strong foundation for goods movement and regional connectivity. However, as a regional hub with overlapping and often competing transportation needs, this access can also come at a cost—benefiting some while disadvantaging others. For residents living near Port of Oakland and OAK airport, crossing freeways to reach schools, or walking long detours to cross rail lines, the system can create barriers rather than connections. The City faces an ongoing challenge in balancing regional throughput with maintaining neighborhoods as livable homes and welcoming destinations.

Other key challenges for Oakland’s transportation system include: a high number of traffic fatalities; a culture of dangerous driving behaviors; infrastructure gaps, particularly for walking, biking, and transit; and an imbalanced allocation of street space across travel modes.

Safety

Oakland experiences over 30 traffic-related deaths each year, with more than half involving people walking or biking. The leading causes of severe and fatal crashes include speeding, failure to yield, unsafe turns, red light violations, and impaired driving. These crashes disproportionately impact Equity Priority Neighborhoods, with 68% of the High Injury Network located in areas identified as High or Highest Priority.

Multi-Modal Infrastructure

While the City continues to promote transit-oriented development (TOD) and invest in active transportation, significant infrastructure gaps remain. According to Oakland Walks: The Pedestrian Plan (2017), there are over 31 miles of sidewalk gaps Citywide, with the majority concentrated in West Oakland and scattered throughout East Oakland. These gaps, along with physical obstructions and poor crossings, limit walkability and adversely affect pedestrian safety.

The City’s bicycle network is underdeveloped. As documented in Let’s Bike Oakland (2019), many bikeways are disconnected and do not separate bicyclists from motor vehicles. These issues make the system less accessible to a broad range of bicyclists, particularly those seeking low-stress routes. Additionally, access to neighborhood destinations and major transit hubs remains limited in several parts of the City.

Transit service is currently constrained, highlighting the need for expanded, frequent, and reliable transit options to support existing residents’ mobility needs in areas such as San Antonio, Glenview, and Eastmont and to serve new development in PDAs and other areas.

Inefficient Use of Roadway Space

The legacy of highway construction and prioritization of vehicle movement continues to impact Oakland’s urban fabric and street network. In Downtown, the construction of I-980 created a barrier between West Oakland and Downtown; in response, the City of Oakland and Caltrans are evaluating the potential to replace the I-980 corridor with a multi-way boulevard, to cap the freeway, or at least to improve pedestrian connections to better integrate surrounding neighborhoods and restore community cohesion. Similarly, I-880 and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks create a barrier between East Oakland neighborhoods and the waterfront.

Throughout the City, many streets were designed for the throughput of vehicles, which has resulted in adverse safety and environmental impacts, in addition to insufficient space for walking, biking, and transit circulation. Since new roadway space cannot be created in most instances, addressing these challenges will require the City to make strategic trade-offs, including prioritizing safety for the most vulnerable users and prioritizing the overall livability and quality of life in Oakland’s neighborhoods over vehicle movement.

Comparison

Each of the three Options for How We Stabilize and Grow is intended to achieve the Vision and Guiding Principles and community priorities stated earlier in Section 1.2, in particular, more convenient, safe, accessible and multi-modal transportation options. This section evaluates the three Options across four transportation topics: equity, multi-modal access, mode share and vehicle miles traveled. Results are presented at the Citywide level and by PDA. The evaluation metrics and evaluation results in those topic areas are presented in the following sections. A brief methodology is provided in Appendix B.

Table 4-3 summarizes the transportation differences across the three Options and what is shared in all of the options. These are shown on Figure 4-1: Transportation Improvements(PDF, 2MB).

Table 4-3: Transportation Features that are Shared and Different Across Option

Included in All Options	Option A: City of Neighborhoods	Option B: Connected Corridors and Gateways	Option C: Midtown on the Bay
Completion of AC Transit Major Corridor service and infrastructure improvements along MacArthur, International, San Pablo, W. Grand, Telegraph, Broadway, College, 40th St., and Hegenberger Implementation of Bike Plan, Transit Action Strategy, Pedestrian Plan, and ADA Transition Plan San Francisco Bay Trail, East Bay Greenway, West Oakland Link, and Oakland-Alameda Bridge regional bike paths Street realignment along shoreline between Fruitvale Ave and High St to phase out Alameda Ave diagonal Street realignment between 77th Ave and 85th Ave, between San Leandro St and Rudsdale St to establish better separation between residential and industrial areas	First/last mile connectivity supporting center connections to existing transit network Increased walking and biking access and proximity to community-serving amenities designed to meet the everyday needs of residents	Higher frequency transit along additional north-south corridors (Adeline, Lakeshore, Park, E. 12th St., 14th Ave., Fruitvale, High, Foothill, 73rd Ave, 98th Ave) Accompanying north-south bike street/ slow street connections where ROW is narrow Expansion of pedestrian realm along key corridors and focus on Bicycle network enhancements along or adjacent to corridors	San Antonio transit hub with BART shuttles between Fruitvale and Lake Merritt stations and dense surrounding neighborhoods (Midtown, San Antonio, Brooklyn Basin) Improved bike and pedestrian connections between Midtown and the waterfront, with focus on expansion of public access along the waterfront

 

Equity Focus Areas

The City of Oakland recognizes that some communities of color have historically borne a disproportionate share of negative racial, social, and economic outcomes caused by racially discriminatory land use and transportation policies and projects. The City acknowledges its role in righting past wrongs, and is prioritizing investments in these communities through its Geographic Equity Toolbox; a mapping tool by which helps staff prioritize projects and programs by “High Priority” neighborhoods.

Transportation equity analysis measures whether communities with the greatest need will have equal access to transportation options that are safe, efficient, affordable, convenient, and reliable. For this analysis, transportation equity is highlighted by presenting results separately for Oakland’s most vulnerable Environmental Justice (‘EJ’) Communities (i.e., those ranked in the top 10th percentile) that fall within PDAs. For more information about EJ Communities, please see Section 4.5. Those PDAs are as follows:

• Coliseum BART PDA
• Eastmont Town Center/International Boulevard PDA
• Fruitvale and Dimond PDA
• San Antonio PDA
• West Oakland PDA

High-Frequency Transit Access

Chart 4-8 shows the percentage of existing housing units and jobs within transit areas, defined by half-mile buffer around rail (BART and Amtrak) stations and quarter-mile buffer along high-frequency bus and shuttle lines (defined as 20 or more buses per hour). The chart also shows new development (including pipeline and proposed development) resulting under the Options within high-frequency transit areas. The future transit networks under the Options assume existing transit service along with some improvements already planned that are shared in all Options (such as the AC Transit Major Corridor Service and implementation of other major transportation plans) as well as some improvements specific to each option (for example, more north-south bus corridors under Option B: Corridors and a new BART station and/or mobility hub at San Antonio under Option C).

Chart 4-8 shows that presently 48 percent of housing units in the City are within high-frequency transit areas. All Options would result in significantly higher proportion of housing units within transit areas – ranging from 86 percent in under Option A: Neighborhood Centers to 92 percent in Option C: Midtown. The housing units under the Options reflects all new projected housing development in the City, including pipeline as well as Accessory Dwelling Units and smaller developments on existing lots permitted under State law.

Chart 4-8 also shows new jobs located within transit areas. Presently (in 2020), 69 percent of jobs in the City are in high-frequency transit areas, partly reflecting the dominance of Downtown jobs well-served by BART. As the General Plan seeks to expand job growth potential of the City to beyond Downtown and through revitalization of older industrial areas and development of more R&D jobs, sites for many of these are located outside of transit-dense areas. Nonetheless, the Options show that the proportion of new jobs resulting from Options in high-frequency transit areas will be just a bit lower than existing, ranging from 63 percent to 66 percent.

As a Preferred Plan is developed, resulting from a combination of features of the three Options, further exploration of the future transit system will be done to maximize community access to high-frequency transit.

Chart 4-8: Jobs and Housing Growth in High Frequency Transit Areas

Mode share data represents the percentage distribution of trips made by different transportation modes, such as walking, bicycling, driving, and public transit. Mode share is a key metric for understanding travel behavior and assessing the performance of a City’s transportation system. A higher share of non-automobile modes typically indicates greater and more equitable levels of access to, and mobility between destinations for a City’s residents.

Table 4-4 summarizes the transit mode share and the biking and walking mode share for the Options, respectively. All Options result in higher share of transit and walking and biking trips compared to baseline; however, there are only small differences in mode shares across the Options.

For the City overall, Options A and B provide a slightly higher transit mode share than Option C, while Option C provides a higher biking and walking mode share than the other two Options. This is because Option C concentrates more housing and jobs growth in a new Midtown that would allow for shorter trip lengths to access jobs and services. The shorter trip lengths would be more conducive to biking and walking.

West Oakland PDA has the highest transit mode share presently and would remain consistently so across all Options, while San Antonio and West Oakland have the highest walking and biking mode shares presently and also across the Options. For the Fruitvale/Dimond equity focus area, Option C results in higher transit and biking/walking mode shares than the other Options (16.4 percent higher compared to Option A). This is due to the increased land use intensity associated with the new Midtown.

Presently and across all Options, the Coliseum, Eastmont/International, and Fruitvale/Dimond PDAs have lower shares of transit, biking, and walking trips compared to the City as a whole. This is due to a combination of factors, including a less connected street network, fewer transit corridors, and lower density levels compared to other areas of the City. To address these issues, area-specific transportation improvements and policies will be developed as part of subsequent phases of the LUTE.

Table 4-4: Transit, Biking and Walking Mode Share Comparison (Percent)

	Citywide	Equity Focus Area
		Coliseum PDA	Downtown/ JLS PDA	Eastmont/ International PDA	Fruitvale/ Dimond PDA	Macarthur Corridor PDA	Macarthur Transit PDA	N. Oakland/ Golden Gate PDA	San Antonio PDA	West Oakland PDA
Transit Mode Share
Year 2020 Baseline	10.2	3.0	12.0	6.1	8.1	4.9	18.6	16.1	15.7	20.6
Option A: City of Neighborhoods	13.5	8.1	16.2	8.4	11.4	6.6	20.0	18.3	17.6	27.5
Option B: Connected Corridors and Gateways	13.5	8.0	16.0	8.4	11.3	6.6	19.8	18.1	17.5	27.6
Option C: Midtown	13.4	7.5	16.2	8.4	11.8	6.5	19.9	18.1	17.2	27.5
Biking and Walking Mode Share
Year 2020 Baseline	11.0	3.5	20.3	7.0	8.5	4.3	15.4	14.1	17.1	17.9
Option A: City of Neighborhoods	14.4	8.9	26.1	9.3	11.0	5.6	16.8	14.6	20.0	20.1
Option B: Connected Corridors and Gateways	14.4	8.7	26.2	9.3	11.2	5.7	16.9	14.6	20.1	20.2
Option C: Midtown	14.5	8.4	26.0	9.5	12.8	5.6	16.8	14.5	20.0	20.1

Equity focus areas are highlighted in green.           

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

VMT quantifies the amount and distance people travel in vehicles. Projections for VMT are based on expectations about land use or transportation decisions and projects, such as those envisioned in the Options. Developments located in isolated areas with limited access to walking, biking, and transit typically generate higher VMT. In contrast, infill or mixed-use developments in areas with robust multimodal infrastructure tend to produce lower VMT. VMT can be quantified on a “per capita” (per resident) basis for residential projects, and on a “per employee” for office development. For the Oakland General Plan update, VMT is calculated on “per capita” basis.

Table 4-5 summarizes the daily average of VMT and VMT per capita for the three Options Citywide; the table also summarizes VMT per capita for the PDAs. All Options result in significantly lower VMT per capita than baseline due to the increased biking, walking, and transit mode shares and land use patterns that allow for shorter trip distances. However, the Citywide VMT in absolute numbers (i.e., not per capita) is expected to increase compared to existing conditions due to the increase in residents and employees. Among the Options, Option C results in the lowest VMT per capita Citywide and for most of the equity focus areas. However, the overall difference between the Options is relatively small (less than two percent) because a majority of housing and jobs growth is shared in all three Options. For all of the Options, the equity focus areas would have a VMT per capita that is lower than the Citywide average and lower than other PDAs except for Downtown/Jack London Square. A policy framework for meeting growing transportation demand through transit, walking, and biking could be explored as part of the LUTE development process.

Table 4-5: Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita Per Day Comparison

	Citywide VMT Per Day (millions)	VMT Per Capita Per Day
		Citywide	Coliseum PDA	Downtown/ JLS PDA	Eastmont/ International PDA	Fruitvale/ Dimond PDA	Macarthur Corridor PDA	Macarthur Transit PDA	N. Oakland/ Golden Gate PDA	San Antonio PDA	West Oakland PDA
Year 2020 Baseline	13.29	9.75	8.24	4.94	9.26	7.47	10.51	8.12	8.23	7.23	6.22
Option A: City of Neighborhoods	18.73	7.73	6.96	3.92	7.37	6.07	9.02	7.24	7.57	6.76	5.22
Option B: Corridors and Gateways	18.72	7.67	6.82	3.90	7.32	6.02	8.94	7.23	7.60	6.65	5.17
Option C: Midtown	18.94	7.62	6.81	3.92	7.21	6.00	8.90	7.24	7.60	6.65	5.23

Equity focus areas are highlighted in green.           

Summary

All Options result in improved non-auto mobility compared to baseline, with enhanced transit and walking and biking mode shares. All Options result in a reduction in VMT per capita due to the higher mode shares for transit, biking, and walking trips and land use patterns that allow for shorter trip distances. Differences between the Options are relatively small, since all Options focus on infill growth around transit nodes and corridors. The notable difference between Options is the higher share of biking/walking trips in the Fruitvale/Dimond PDA for Option C: Midtown; this is due to the increased land use intensity associated with the new proposed Midtown area.

Option A

Of the three Options, Option A results in the highest VMT per capita, although the difference between Options is small (less than two percent). As noted earlier, all three Options reduce VMT per capita compared to the baseline.

Option B

Option B results in a slightly lower VMT per capita than Option A, both Citywide and across the equity focus areas. Since Option A and Option B have similar transit and biking/walking mode shares, the difference in VMT per capita is likely due to shorter trip lengths – in other words, the mixed-use corridors of Option B place residents closer to services and destinations.

Option C

Like Options A and B, Option C results in improved multi-modal connectivity through increased transit, biking, and walking trips and a reduction in VMT per capita compared to the 2020 baseline. Option C results in the lowest VMT per capita Citywide and for most of the equity focus areas. Since Option C results in transit and biking/walking mode shares that are comparable to Options A and B, the difference in VMT per capita is likely due to shorter trip lengths. 

Other Transportation Considerations

Link 21

Link21 is a partnership between BART and Capitol Corridor to plan for an integrated passenger rail network in Northern California. One of the key components of Link21 is a new transbay passenger rail crossing between Oakland and San Francisco. The final alignment and location for this crossing have not been defined, although six concept Options have been developed, as follows: 

• Concept A: Regional Rail Salesforce Transit Center via Alameda
• Concept B: Regional Rail Salesforce Transit Center via Port of Oakland
• Concept C: BART 1^st and Howard via Alameda
• Concept D: BART 3rd and Mission via Mission Bay and Alameda
• Concept E: Regional Rail Salesforce Transit Center to MacArthur via Alameda
• Concept F: Regional Rail Salesforce Transit Center to Oakland via Alameda

Any of the Link 21 concepts would result in additional transit connectivity between Oakland and San Francisco. In particular, the addition of rail stations at Jack London Square and/or San Antonio could result in changes to local and Citywide transportation patterns. Similarly, the addition of a rail station on Alameda Island would change transit and vehicular travel patterns between Alameda and Oakland. With its proposed transit hub in San Antonio, Option C would lay the groundwork for a new permanent BART station. The transportation impacts of Link21 as they relate to the GPU will be evaluated as part of subsequent analysis to be completed for the Preferred Plan.

I-980 Potential Conversion to Boulevard

I-980 currently extends from I-580/SR 24 to I-880 and is situated in a trench that divides West Oakland from Downtown. Efforts are underway to evaluate improvements to I-980 in a way that reconnects the two communities. One option being considered is freeway removal and replacement with an at-grade boulevard, accommodating new green space and allowing for infill development near Downtown. A second option is a cap over a portion of the freeway trench to provide space for a park that serves and connects West Oakland and Downtown. Either option would result in a reduction in the vehicular capacity and changes in access to and from adjacent local streets.

The transportation impacts of an I-980 freeway conversion as they relate to the GPU will be evaluated as part of subsequent analysis to be completed for the Preferred Plan.

I-580 Truck Access Study

I-580 currently has a truck weight restriction from Grand Avenue in Oakland east to Foothill Boulevard in San Leandro. This weight restriction prohibits trucks weighing more than 4.5 tons and effectively serves as a ban on heavy trucks. As a result, heavy trucks must use I-880 or other local—primarily residential—streets that have been designated as truck routes in East Oakland. There is community interest in reassessing and/or removing the truck ban to address adverse public health and equity impacts to communities near the I-880 corridor and the wide swath of East Oakland neighborhoods that are impacted by the displaced truck traffic. Caltrans District 4 is conducting the I-580 Truck Access Study to reevaluate the purpose of the truck ban and identify actions to alleviate disproportionate community impacts.

The transportation impacts of an I-580 truck ban repeal as they relate to the GPU will be evaluated as part of subsequent analysis to be completed for the Preferred Plan.

Back to Top

Continue Reading Chapter 4