Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Bicycle and Ped MP Presentation AGENDA STATEMENT DCITY OF PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION UBLIN MEETING DATE: August 18, 2014 SUBJECT: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Presentation Prepared by Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1) Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2) Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive presentation from Staff 2) Receive public comment FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: Background The Bikeways Master Plan was originally developed in 2007 to help the City implement a bikeway system that could provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile, improve safety for bicyclists and provide residents with access to open space, trails and other recreational amenities. For Fiscal Year 2012-13, the City Council approved a project to update the 2007 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan and to develop the City's first Pedestrian Master Plan. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan provides an updated bicycle and pedestrian capital improvement project list. The plan also provides guidance on the implementation of high priority bicycle and pedestrian projects citywide. The firm of Fehr & Peers was hired in July 2012 to develop the Bikeways Master Plan update and the Pedestrian Master Plan. In order to receive public input on the combined Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the City hosted two public workshops, and a community meeting. City staff also attended meetings with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce over the course of the Plan process. The two public workshops focused on citywide bicycle and pedestrian issues, and the remaining meetings focused on connectivity to and within Downtown Dublin. In October 2013, City staff presented the Downtown Connectivity project to City Council, which provided an additional opportunity for public comment. Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan The Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan combines an update of the 2007 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan with the City's first Pedestrian Plan. The Plan is a comprehensive document that provides policies, network plans, prioritized project lists, support programs, and best practice design guidelines for bicycling and walking in Dublin. In addition to enhancing conditions through site-specific improvements, this document seeks to institutionalize the accommodation of the distinct needs of bicyclists and pedestrians as roadways are upgraded and constructed in accordance with recently adopted policy COPIES TO: ITEM NO: 8.1 documents, such as the City of Dublin Complete Streets Policy (2012) and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (2010). Several noteworthy updates have been made in this Plan from the 2007 Bikeways plan, including: • Existing Walking Conditions and Proposed Pedestrian Improvements (Chapters 3, 5), with a baseline inventory and recommended projects within Downtown Dublin • Programs, Policies, and Practices Assessment (Chapter 4) • Updated Bicycle Network Classifications (Chapter 5), featuring buffered bicycle lanes, and green pavement • Updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines: Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines have been developed as a separate, stand-alone document. These are based on best practice documents such as the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities • Grant-Ready Concept Drawings and Fact Sheets (Chapter 6) for three bicycle and pedestrian priority projects • Performance Measures (Chapter 8) for monitoring investments in walking and bicycling, such as establishing and updating baseline walking and bicycling counts Key sections and recommendations of the Plan are summarized in the sections below. Goals & Policies The Plan includes six goals to guide biking and walking Dublin: 1. Support bicycling and walking as practical, healthy, and convenient alternatives to automobile use in Dublin 2. Implement a well-connected active transportation system to attract users of all ages and abilities. 3. Incorporate the needs and concerns of bicyclists and pedestrians in all transportation and development projects. 4. Support infrastructure investments with targeted bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs 5. Maximize multi-modal connections in the transportation network, and 6. Improve bicycle and pedestrian safety Citywide. Programs, Practices, and Policies Assessment The City's existing approaches to facilitating and enhancing bicycling and walking were reviewed with a benchmarking matrix that compares the City's efforts with national best practices, as well as local context highlighted in the City's Complete Streets Policy. The benchmarking analysis categorizes the City's programs, policies, and practices into three areas as follows: • Key Strengths–areas where the City of Dublin is exceeding national best practices • Enhancements—areas where the City is meeting best practices • Opportunities—areas where the City appears not to meet best practices Key strengths include the City's bicycle education and encouragement programs, newly adopted Complete Streets Policy, and inventory of bicycle infrastructure. Opportunities include expanding the scope of those programs and inventories to address walking issues, collecting data regarding bicycling and walking, and adopting citywide standard guidelines for the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Recommended Bicycling Network The recommended bicycle network includes: • Class I Bicycle Path • Class IIA Bicycle Lanes • Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes • Class IIIA Bicycle Routes with Sharrows All of these treatments are supported under the HDM, California Vehicle Code, and California Uniform Manual on Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), and detailed design guidelines are provided in Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. New segments of Class IIIA Bicycle Routes are proposed on many local streets, connecting residential areas with key destinations such as regional trails, schools, and Downtown Dublin. The minimum standard for Class III Bicycle Routes is updated to require the striping of sharrows where needed. Sharrows are shared lane marking used to alert road users of the presence of bicyclists and to designate the preferred bicyclist positioning within the travel lane. Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes are proposed on roadways with existing wide bicycle lanes to offer increased separation between bicyclist and autos and clarify expectations. In total, over 35 miles of bikeways are proposed with over 14 miles of bikeways planned to be funded and built by private developers.The developer funded projects are estimated to cost$7,865,700 while the total cost of City initiated bikeway projects is estimated at$2,765,600 for a grand total of $10,631,300. Recommended Walking Network The Pedestrian element of this Plan includes a comprehensive project list of potential improvements in Downtown Dublin that address the walkability goals that have been set forth in a variety of policy documents. The proposed projects include intersection improvements such as reduced crossing distances through median refuges and curb extensions; mid-block crosswalks, signal modifications to provide protected left-turn phasing; advanced stop bars to decrease auto encroachment on the crosswalk space; and directional ADA curb ramps to provide clear indications for the visually impaired and convenient access for all users. The total cost of proposed pedestrian projects is$5,044,500, excluding the Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway complete streets projects. Priority Pedestrian and Bicycle Proiects Three priority projects were considered in this Plan, and concept drawings and grant-ready fact sheets were developed for each. The projects meet the needs of all users and operators including commercial, emergency response, and transit. The three projects are: • Amador Plaza Road Complete Street Project(Amador Valley Boulevard to St. Patrick Way/1-580 Ramps)—Class II Bicycle Lanes, median refuges, mid-block textured crosswalks with bulb-outs, landscape enhancement, pedestrian lighting, and intersection improvements. • Village Parkway Complete Street Project(City Limit to Clark Avenue/Dublin Boulevard)— Conversion of Class 11 Bicycle Lanes to Class 1113 Buffered Bicycle Lanes, conversion of Class III Bicycle Route to Class IIA Bicycle Lanes, new Class IIA Bicycle Lanes south of Dublin Boulevard including a Class I Bicycle Path connection and bridge to the Alamo Canal Trail. • Downtown Connectivity Project (Regional Street, Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, Amador Plaza Road, St. Patrick Way, and Dublin Boulevard)—Connect Downtown and West Dublin BART with dedicated bicycle facilities on routes other than Dublin Boulevard. Projects include Class IIA Bicycle Lanes on Regional Street, Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes on Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway, Class IIA Bicycle Lanes on Village Parkway/Clark Avenue between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Class IIA Bicycle Lanes on Saint Patrick Way, Class I Path and Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge between Clark Avenue and Alamo Canal Trail, and Class IIIA Bicycle Route with Sharrows where needed, on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Alamo Canal Trail. Performance Measures In order to document the results or benefits of investment in walking and bicycling, performance goals are set in this Plan. The four performance measures are: 1. Increase total number of low-stress bicycle facilities that support users of all ages and abilities 2. Enhance walkability of Downtown Dublin 3. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety throughout Dublin, with a specific focus on higher collision rate location mitigation 4. Encourage an increase in active transportation mode share and trips Implementation The Plan identifies the following implementation measures: • Initiate for City Council consideration a Capital Improvement Project in Fiscal Year 2014-15 to implement the Downtown Multi-Modal Improvement-Project for pedestrian and bicycles, including the following: 1) Incorporate the Regional Street Class IIA bicycle lanes from Amador Valley Boulevard to southerly end of street, 2) Amador Valley Boulevard Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes from San Ramon Road to Village Parkway, 3) Installation of bicycle racks and bikeway guide signs in the Downtown area, and 4) Construct on Amador Plaza Road a mid-block crossing with enhanced crossing treatment such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon. • Incorporate Class IIA bicycle lanes on Village Parkway from Amador Valley Boulevard to Clark Avenue into the next Village Parkway pavement overlay, currently planned in FY 2014-15. • Incorporate Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes on Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and North City Limit line into the next Village Parkway slurry seal, currently planned for FY 2014-15. • Incorporate Class IIA bicycle lanes on St. Patrick Way between Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive. • Incorporate Class IIIA bicycle route with sharrows treatment, including signage and striping, on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail with One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding currently planned for FY 2015-16. • Incorporate the top priority projects included in this Plan in the update of the Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (planned for FY 2014-15) as per the nexus analysis. • Continue to fund the Bikeway Implementation Program education and encouragement efforts for 2014 using funds allocated from Measure B.- - - • Continue staff training for complete streets issues so that City staff can champion projects and apply for competitive grant funding sources, which are described in the following section. • Opportunistically implement the other projects contained in this Plan. When opportunities arise to stripe or construct a project,the City should take advantage of that, even if the project is not a top tier priority project. • While the project lists are by location for reference, look for opportunities to group projects together by type (striping projects, safe routes to transit, etc.) where funding sources and implementation efficiency allow. • Consult the bicycle and pedestrian project lists whenever making improvements to the transportation network, specifically when overlays or other routine projects are completed. • Identify and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements in private development projects as condition of development approvals. Proposed General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments The City of Dublin General Plan, Specific Plans and Zoning Ordinance will have to be amended to be consistent with the proposed Bikeways and Pedestrian Master Plan. The City of Dublin Planning Commission will consider these amendments at its August 26,2014 meeting. CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN AWa� FEHR r PEERS CITY of DUBLIN ATTACHMENT 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF DUBLIN This Plan has been developed thanks to a grant from the Alameda County Transportation Commission(Alameda CTC)Measure B funds. The following individuals provided substantial input and advice during the development of this Plan: Dublin City Council City of Dublin Staff Tim Sbranti,Mayor Chris Foss,City Manager Don Biddle,Vice Mayor Linda Smith,Assistant City Manager Abe Gupta Gary Huisingh,Public Works Director Kevin Hart Andrew Russell,City Engineer David Haubert Ferd Del Rosario,Senior Civil Engineer Obaid Khan,Senior Civil Engineer Planning Commission Marnie Delgado,Senior Planner Tara Bhuthimethee-Chairperson Rosemary Alex,Parks and Facilities Development Coordinator Lynna Do Erin Steffen,Administrative Analyst Arun Goel Rameet Kohli Project Consultant:Fehr&Peers Sean O'Keefe Rob Rees,P.E. Meghan Mitman,AICP Parks and Community Services Commission Carrie Nielson Anthony Totaro-Chairperson Mona Lisa Ballesteros Robert Boboc Alan Elias Connie Mack Vivian Sung Public Participants (See Appendix D for list) TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................°..........................................................--°......................................................3 ExistingBicycling Conditions..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 ExistingWalking Conditions...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Programs,Practices,and Policies Assessment.............................................................................................................................................................................................................5 RecommendedBicycling Network...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 RecommendedWalking Network....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 PriorityProjects........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 PerformanceMeasures.........._...__.......................__...___............................_.............._..._.__.._...._.........._.. ................ ........-....-.....7 2.INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................°.................................................................................................•............9 PlanDevelopment and Public Participation...._......__..........__.................____.........................................._----................_.---................._......____......................_................11 Relationshipsto Other Plans.......... _............_._._..._...._........._.............__..__........_............_.............._............._...................... 13 Conformancewith BTA Requirements.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................2G 3.GOALS&POLICIES.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 VisionStatement...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Goalsand Policies.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Programs, Policies,&Practices Assessment............._.__.._._.....___....._.._...__............._..................................................._.................._..............__...._.._. ....- _.........--.._.....29 4.EXISTING WALKING&BIKING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................................................40 DublinToday...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................41 Walking&Bicycling Mode Share.................. ............_._........................_...._...................................44 CollisionAnalysis...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................45 TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF DUBLIN ExistingBicycle Facilities.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................48 BicycleParking&Support Facilities.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................sr ExistingPedestrian Facilities.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................a1 Multi-Modal Connections.................................................. – .....................................................................................................................................................................................n s.PROPOSED BICYCLE&PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS....................................................................................................................................................................uo RecommendedBicycling Facilities.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................uz RecommendedWalking Facilities................................................................................................................................................................................................................................um aPRIORITY PROJECTS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................1zr TierZero............................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................zz8 TierOne.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................zzu TiersTwo&Three..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................z33 z SUPPORT PROGRAMS ---_— --- 135 ExistingPrograms..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................z/a Recommendations.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................138 u PERFORMANCE METRICS 142 PerformanceGoals...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................z43 Existing oicvaeonumuestnnoomawrce,---_–_–_-----------------_----_--------_----------------'ma 9.IMPLEMENTATION —_---'--------'----. ---'m* Implementation..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14n Costo/New Facilities.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14m TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Street and Highways Code Section 891.2 Requirements Addressed in this Plan.......................................................................................................................22 Table 3-1 Programs,Policies,and Practices Benchmarking Analysis............_......................_........_........._....................._............_..................................................................30 Table 4-1 Means of Transportation to Work in Dublin,Adjacent Communities,&County............................................................................._.__................................_.44 Table 4-2 Corridors with Highest Frequency of Bicyclist-Auto and Pedestrian-Auto Collisions In Dublin,2006-2011...................................................................45 Table 4-3 Bicyclist Auto Collisions in Dublin,2006-2011____ ................................................................................................. ........... 45 Table 4-4 Pedestrian-Auto Collisions In Downtown Dublin,2006-2011............................................................................................................................................................48 Table 4-5 Existing Bicycle Facilities in The City of Dublin.........................................................................................................................................................................................50 Table 4-6 Existing Class 1 Facilities in The City of Dublin. ___..........__ ..........................................................................................................................................51 Table4-7 Bicycle Parking Locations In Dublin...................._..........__.......___........................_........................................................................................._.......................................59 Table 4-8 Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure at Downtown Intersections..........................................................................................................................................................63 Table 4-9 Existing Mid-Block Pedestrian Facilities in Downtown..............._.........._...........................................................................................................................................68 Table5-1 Proposed Bicycle Network................................................................................................................................................................................................................................82 Table5-2 Proposed Bicycle Improvements....................................................................................................................................................................................................................86 Table 5-4 2010 California Green Building Standards Code Table A5.106.4.3................................................................................................................................................106 Table5-5 Proposed Pedestrian Improvements.........................................................................................................................................................................................................113 Table8-1 Performance Goals........................ ..............................................................................................................144 Table 9-1: Bicycle Facility Unit Cost Estimates..___......_.....__........._.................._..._.___...__......_..__._........._._............................................................................................148 Table 9-2 Conceptual Cost of Total Proposed Bicycle Network. ............................................... ......................._.............-..........._..................___.....- 149 „n TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF DUBLIN LIST OF FIGURES Figure4-1 Land Use..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................43 Figure4-2 Bicycle-Auto Collisions,2006-2011...............................................................................................................................................................................................................46 Figure 4-3 Pedestrian-Auto Collisions in Downtown Dublin,2006-2011............................................................................................................................................................47 Figure4-4 Caltrans Bikeway Classifications................................................. ............................................................................... . . . .............................................................52 Figure4-5 Existing Bicycle Network....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................53 Figure4-6 Existing Bicycle Parking......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................60 Figure 4-7 Existing Sidewalk Widths and Marked Crosswalks.................................... ...................................................................... ....................................................75 Figure4-8 Existing Accessibility Inventory and Issues.................................................................................................................................................................................................76 Figure4-9 Existing Multi-Modal Connections Service.................................................................................................................................................................................................78 Figure5-1A California Bikeway Classifications..................................................................................................................................................................................................................83 Figure5-1B California Bikeway Classifications..................................................................................................................................................................................................................84 Figure5-2 Dublin Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network.......................................................................................................................................................................................85 Figure 5-3 Primary Pedestrian Network and Proposed Pedestrian Improvements......................................................................................................................................116 Figure6-1 Amador Plaza Road Cut Sheet.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................120 Figure6-2 Amador Plaza Road Concept Drawing......................................................................................................................................................................................................121 Figure6-3 Amador Plaza Road Concept Drawing....................................................................................................................................................................... .............................122 Figure6-4 Amador Plaza Road Concept Drawing......................................................................................................................................................................................................123 Figure6-5 Village Parkway Fact Sheet............................................................................................................................................................................................................................125 Figure6-6 Village Parkway Concept Drawing................................................................. .......................................................................................................................................126 Figure6-7 Village Parkway Concept Drawing..............................................................................................................................................................................................................127 Figure6-8 Village Parkway Concept Drawing..............................................................................................................................................................................................................128 Figure6-9 Downtown Connectivity Project Cut Sheet.............................................................................................................................................................................................131 Figure6-10 Downtown Connectivity Project....................... . ..................................... ..........................................................................................................................................132 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES AppendixA:Prioritized Project List.........................................................................................................................................................................................................A-1 Appendix B:Existing Bicycle And Pedestrian Volumes............................................................................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C:Funding...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..0 1 AppendixD:Public Participant List.........................................................................................................................................................................................................D-1 RII, /j a \\ �-,t��,c / � - max. +� y�✓rr -a� i3 m y RI WIN. m r 11M 1 / � s\"ki2 %/r \ Mai - 'r r�U3 3 47' i9 e 3 �. Y \� a M' 333333��v /ice �'��� '�:� �•'� TIM /� gm j 33g rf / ....... mi NO i s GLOSSARY CITY OF DUBLIN The following terms are used in this Plan document: Pedestrian Desire Line—Pedestrian's nearest path to destination • Bicycle Support Facilities—Facilities that bicyclists use when they Sharrow—Shared lane marking used to alert road users of the reach their destinations. They can include short-and long-term presence of bicyclists and`.o designate the preferred bicyclist bicycle parking,showers,lockers,restrooms,and lighting. positioning within the travel lane. • Bikeway—All facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel • Class I Bikeway(Shared-Use Path)—Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrian with crossflow minimized • Class IIA Bikeway(Bicycle Lane)—Provides a striped lane for dedicated one-way bike travel on a roadway • Class IIB Bikeway(Buffered Bicycle Lane)—Provides a modified on-street bicycle lane with vehicle and/or parking-side striped buffer for additional comfort and safety on higher speed or volume roadways • Class IHA Bikeway(Bicycle Route with Sharrows)—Provides for shared-use travel with motor vehicle traffic. All proposed Class IIIA Bikeways would also have sharrows where needed,or "shared-lane markings",to designate bicyclist positioning within the travel lane. • Crosswalk c Controlled Crosswalk—a marked crosswalk across an intersection's approach or roadway that is controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal. CD Uncontrolled Crosswalk—a marked crosswalk across an intersection's approach or roadway that is not controlled by a stop sign or traffic signal and relies on driver yield compliance. CITY OF CLBLIN i�13 r / may / v 101, P y! /d R Y' 3 / 3 jy5 vi A- /y3Nr /ter:. RE 91 70" y / l r a T OWN �K Y v / ' bat RRO "All �, 333ysj gi \ oi It qg d y _ fry�'�"��• � '�' :� ���� -/�"� � � �� �- \mss, hr /i f � 1 3 33 '4. / � . -i,6— W - oo /ate^ v "'s' IF- f / / i x � s z 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF ' DUBLIN The Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan combines an update to the Dublin Grant-Ready Concept Drawings and Fact Sheets (Chapter 6) Bikeways Master Plan (2007) and the City's first Pedestrian Plan into a for three bicycle and pedestrian priority projects comprehensive document that provides policies, network plans, Performance Measures (Chapter 8) for monitoring investments prioritized project lists, support programs, and best practice design in walking and bicycling, such as establishing and updating guidelines for bicycling and walking in Dublin. In addition to enhancing baseline walking and bicycling counts conditions through site-specific improvements, this document seeks to p�j institutionalize the accommodation of the distinct needs of bicyclists and EXISTING BICYCLING pedestrians as roadways are upgraded and constructed in accordance ® DLII�NJ� with recently adopted policy documents, such as the City of Dublin Complete Streets Policy (2012) and the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Since 2007, the City of Dublin has worked diligently to implement the (2010). The Plan reflects comprehensive public outreach process and proposed network in the adopted Bikeways Master Plan, closing many input from Technical Advisory Committee members. gaps in the on-street and off-street network. Today, Dublin has an Several noteworthy updates have been made in this Plan from the 2007 extensive on-street arterial bicycle lane network,especially in the eastern Bikeways plan,including: portion of the City, totaling 47.84 miles. A critical gap closure in the regional path system was closed by linking the Alamo Canal Trail in • Existing Walking Conditions and Proposed Pedestrian Dublin with the Centennial Trail in Pleasanton underneath I-580. Gap Improvements (Chapters 3, 5), with a baseline inventory and closures in western Dublin were also completed through striping of recommended projects within Downtown Dublin bicycle lanes on multiple roadways to provide dedicated bicycle facilities • Programs,Policies,and Practices Assessment(Chapter 4) in both directions. The City also secured federal transportation • Updated Bicycle Network Classifications(Chapter 5),featuring enhancement funds to implement the City's first use of green pavement, buffered bicycle lanes,and green pavement providing green bicycle lanes on Golden Gate Drive south of Dublin • Updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines: Bicycle Boulevard to connect to the West Dublin BART Station. and Pedestrian Design Guidelines have been developed as a However, several gaps remain, including the gap on Dublin Boulevard separate, stand-alone document. These are based on best practice documents such as the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail. Guide and the AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities 46 CITY OF DUBLIN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF DUBLIN EXISTING WALKING CONDITIONS highlighted in the City's Complete Streets Policy. The benchmarking analysis categorizes the City's programs,policies,and practices into three This Plan documents conditions for walking in Downtown Dublin and areas as follows: provides a baseline inventory of sidewalks and marked crosswalks,and a qualitative assessment of accessibility at each intersection. Downtown Key Strengths areas where the City of Dublin is exceeding Dublin is the area defined by the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and national best practices ctices generally includes the area east of San Ramon Road, south of Amador Enhancements—areas where the City is meeting best practices Valley Boulevard, west of Village Parkway, and north of I-580. Though Opportunities—areas where the City appears not to meet best Downtown Dublin has a policy mandate for enhancing walkability and practices has many popular destinations,walking in Downtown can be improved. Key strengths include the City's bicycle education and encouragement Some intersections require wide turning radii to accommodate programs, newly adopted Complete Streets Policy, and inventory of commercial truck traffic for downtown businesses. Sidewalks are bicycle infrastructure. Opportunities include expanding the scope of provided on all roadways, and crosswalks are marked on signalized those programs and inventories to address walking issues,collecting data intersection approaches. Many blocks in Downtown are over 800 feet, regarding bicycling and walking, and adopting citywide standard which limits pedestrian connectivity. Intersections often have crossing guidelines for the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. distances over 100 feet in length due to wide roadway cross-sections. Though pedestrian connections are typically provided between buildings RECOMMENDED BICYCLING and public sidewalks, some buildings are set back as much as 300 feet �7 from the roadway. NETWORK PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND The recommended bicycle network redefines the bikeways classifications set forth in the 2007 Plan in accordance with recent best practice POLICIES ASSESSMENT guidelines. The 2007 Plan used the three basic bikeways classifications (Class I Bicycle Path, Class II Bicycle Lanes, and Class III Bicycle Routes) The City's existing approaches to facilitating and enhancing bicycling and defined in the California Highway Design Manual (HDM). This Plan walking were reviewed with a benchmarking matrix that compares the subdivides those groups to create a new classification scheme for Dublin: City's efforts with national best practices, as well as local context BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF , DUBLIN • Class I Bicycle Path RECOMMENDED WALKING • Class IIA Bicycle Lanes Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes NETWORK Class IIIA Bicycle Routes with Sharrows The Pedestrian element of this Plan includes a comprehensive project list All of these treatments are supported under the HDM, California Vehicle of potential improvements to bring Downtown Dublin in line with the Code, and California Uniform Manual on Traffic Control Devices (CA walkability goals that have been set forth in a variety of policy MUTCD), and detailed design guidelines are provided in Bicycle and documents. The proposed projects include intersection improvements Pedestrian Design Guidelines. such as reduced crossing distances through median refuges and curb extensions; mid-block crosswalks, signal modifications to provide New segments of Class IIIA Bicycle Routes are proposed on many local protected left-turn phasing; advanced stop bars to decrease auto streets, connecting residential areas with key destinations such as encroachment on the crosswalk space; and directional ADA curb ramps regional trails, schools, and Downtown Dublin. The minimum standard to provide clear indications for the visually impaired and convenient for Class III Bicycle Routes is updated to require the striping of Sharrows access for all users. The total cost of proposed pedestrian network is where needed. Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes are proposed on 55,044,500, excluding the Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway roadways with existing wide bicycle lanes to offer Increased separation complete streets projects. between bicyclist and autos and clarify expectations. In total, over 35 miles of bikeways are proposed with over 13 miles of PRIORITY PROJECTS bikeways planned to be funded and built by private developers. The Three priority projects were considered in this Plan, and concept developer funded projects are estimated to cost $7,865,700 while the drawings and grant-ready fact sheet were developed for each. All of total cost of City initiated bikeway projects is estimated at$2,765,600 for these improvements also need to meet the downtown access and a grand total of $10,631,300. A breakdown of the costs by bikeway is circulation needs of all users and operators including commercial, presented in Appendix A. emergency response,and transit circulation. The projects include: 7F77.a :l C:TYOF DUBLIN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF -- JOUBLIN • Amador Plaza Road Complete Street Project (Amador Valley where needed, on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road Boulevard to St. Patrick Way/I-S80 Ramps) — Class II Bicycle and Alamo Canal Trail. Lanes,median refuges,mid-block textured crosswalks with bulb- outs, landscape enhancement, pedestrian lighting, and PERFORMANCE MEASURES intersection improvements. • Village Parkway Complete Street Project (City Limit to Clark In order to document the results or benefits of investment in walking and Avenue/Dublin Boulevard)—Conversion of Class II Bicycle Lanes bicycling, performance goals are set in this Plan. The four performance to Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes,conversion of Class III Bicycle measures are: Route to Class HA Bicycle Lanes, new Class IIA Bicycle Lanes 1. Increase total number of low-stress bicycle facilities that support south of Dublin Boulevard including a Class I Bicycle Path users of all ages and abilities connection and bridge to the Alamo Canal Trail. If feasible, 2. Enhance walkability of Downtown Dublin remove right-turn slip lanes at the intersections with Amador 3. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety throughout Dublin,with a Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, reduce curb radii, and specific focus on higher collision rate location mitigation provide curb extensions to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. 4. Encourage an increase in active transportation mode share and Downtown Connectivity Project (Regional Street, Amador trips Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, Amador Plaza Road, St. Patrick Way, and Dublin Boulevard) — Connect Downtown and West Dublin BART with dedicated bicycle facilities on alternative routes to Dublin Boulevard. Projects include Class HA Bicycle Lanes on Regional Street, Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes on Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway,Class HA Bicycle Lanes on Village Parkway/Clark Avenue between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Class HA Bicycle Lanes on Saint Patrick Way, Class I Path and Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge between Clark Avenue and Alamo Canal Trail/Civic Plaza,and Class IIIA Bicycle Route with Sharrows BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY Of DUBLIN This page left intentionally blank s_:� _ CITY OF DUBLIN his /� "f�� / ' ���� Yd 3�3 ✓ 3 /� .r%/yi///% � � £ �T \ iz- owl-f- Iwo d 5 r / 5 KAM . i s ` ,; r � nz h / €cgs Qj H €F T As . vj r / '• 3 u� / i1 'z A War Mad two WE 01 d1 /y by �3 r $ \ - t / iv vi� , /gm "woo/ to /, 11 W— lot� Mm Eon IMF •: 'was' ' Fil �� ///�� /3 1fl1 / / 'j"Y / s / 111 a As gas y/ w In PA x t / 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OF DUBLIN Walking and bicycling are essential components of vibrant, livable, and scope. The pedestrian-related policy, programs, and practices are healthy communities, and an integral part of a complete transportation citywide in scope, while the pedestrian inventories and improvements system. In Alameda County,walking is the second most common means focus on Downtown. of transportation after driving. For trips less than 1/2 mile, walking or bicycling is typically the quickest and most efficient mode of a travel in most areas,including Dublin. In the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) and the General Plan, the City has recognized the importance of creating a walkable and bicycle- friendly city,particularly in the Downtown area,with access to businesses, dense transit-oriented housing, and the West Dublin BART Station. VISION STATPAENT Design guidelines in the DDSP support pedestrian-oriented building forms and create policy imperatives for how the City should make The purpose of the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan decisions regarding trade-offs between drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, is to provide a policy and implementation framework for and transit riders. The DDSP and General Plan relax automobile level of maintaining and improving bicycle and pedestrian service standards through Downtown Dublin to help create a more infrastructure and support programs in the City. This Plan pedestrian friendly environment and to create an urban area that envisions a network of safe,comfortable,and attractive increases economic vitality. The forward-thinking policy and action items facilities that meets the needs of users of many ages and of these documents create a foundation and motivation for implementing the projects and abilities,encourages bicycling and walking as healthful and � policies contained in this Plan. enjoyable activities,and connects users with key The Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan provides additional policy and destinations—schools,transit facilities,residential program guidance specific to walking and bicycling, as well as a neighborhoods,parks,shopping areas,and job centers— prioritized set of implementable projects to make bicycling and walking within the City and in adjacent jurisdictions. convenient, comfortable, and accessible for all users. This Plan updates the 2007 Dublin Bikeways Master Plan and serves as the City's first – � Pedestrian Master Plan. The bicycle portions of this plan are citywide in CI T Y OF DUBLIN 2. INTRODUCTION CI'T'Y OF DUBLIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC first Pedestrian Master Plan makes sense,thus the two are combined to form the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. PARTICIPATION The 2007 Bikeways Master Plan provided a citywide inventory of existing conditions and action items for expanding and connecting Dublin's bicycle network. The projects identified in that Plan included providing bicycle lanes on arterial roadways and closing gaps, particularly where a facility was only provided in one direction. In Eastern Dublin, the Plan proposed the creation of Class I paths paralleling new roadways. The City has worked diligently to implement many of these facilities and to close gaps. The current planning effort identifies new projects and updates design guidelines to reflect recent best practice documents,such as the NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide and the updated AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities. The Downtown focus of this first Pedestrian Master Plan effort stems from the policy directives created in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) to create a pedestrian-scale, walkable Downtown. This first Pedestrian Master Plan effort provides a comprehensive list of projects to The first public workshop included o wring exercise on comfort with different Types of bikeways. improve the walking environment of Downtown Dublin. These projects are the first steps to improving access to popular destinations in The Plan was developed with input from a Technical Advisory Committee Downtown and the West Dublin BART Station. (TAC), comprised of staff from the City's Public Works, Planning, and Parks and Recreation Departments. The TAC provided direction and As both bicycling and walking are essential components of the transportation system,it was decided that a planning document which feedback throughout the Plan process. The Plan development also would combine the update of the Bicycle Master Plan with the City's included significant public input as shown above. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 2. INTRODUCTION DuCBITY L QF N PLJ B L J'.7 PARTIC_1 PAT[0,,,i Golden Gate Drive/Dublin Boulevard—Provide connections between bus stops and preferred walking paths,improve The City hosted two public workshops, a community meeting, and pedestrian access to BART during construction meetings with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce over the course of the Village Parkway—Enhance crossings at signalized intersections Plan process. The two public workshops focused on citywide bicycle and pedestrian issues,and the remaining meetings focused on connectivity to and within Downtown Dublin. In October 2012 and February 2013, the City hosted two public workshops at the Dublin Library to solicit input and feedback from the community. The first workshop focused on existing conditions for walking and bicycling. The workshop featured a presentation of existing conditions for walking and bicycling and included a visual preference survey to help understand the community's interest and comfort with different kinds of bicycle facilities. Workshop attendees identified the following areas as top priorities for The second public workshop included a presentation and open-house format for the walking in Downtown Dublin: public to comment on priority drawings. • Amador Plaza Road—Address congestion and aggressive driving, The key needs identified for bicycling were: and provide the ability to park once and walk safely to adjacent commercial establishments • Close the bicycle infrastructure gap on the Dublin Boulevard • Mid-Block Access on Amador Plaza Road—Provide walking Corridor connections to connect popular land uses on both sides of the • Increased signal timing for bicyclists on side-streets roadway Accommodate bicyclists at the I-580 interchanges • Improve and maintain bicycle signal detection s CITY OF DUBL:N 2. INTRODUCTION CITY Of DUBLIN • Enhance connections to Livermore Based on feedback received at the meeting, the sidewalk riding and wayfinding alternative was replaced with an alternative that would This feedback was used to identify and develop the Tier One priority designate Dublin Boulevard as a Class MA Bicycle Route with Sharrows as projects,for which scaled conceptual design were then prepared. a short-term measure to address the bikeway connectivity along the Dublin Boulevard Corridor. Public feedback indicated that the Dublin Participants reviewed Tier One concept drawings at the second workshop(bottom). Boulevard connectivity should be revisited in the future to consider a At the second workshop, the Tier One conceptual designs were dedicated bikeway, such as the Class I Path or the Class IIB Buffered presented for Amador Plaza Road,Village Parkway,and Dublin Boulevard Bicycle Lanes proposals. Corridor. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks were also presented. Feedback was solicited from the public in an open-house The City also met with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to solicit feedback from the business community on the Dublin Boulevard and style format. For Dublin Boulevard Corridor,conceptual drawings for two alternatives were presented, and the other alternatives considered were Downtown Connectivity proposals. summarized. In October 2013,City staff presented the Downtown Connectivity project The final projects and networks included in this Plan reflect the feedback to City Council, which provided an additional opportunity for public received from the public at the second workshop. comment. From that meeting, the City Council provided direction that the Class IIIA Bicycle Route with Sharrows option should move forward, L.)oK N7Ot1 N' CONNL•t'TIVI Y 0U7'RfAc'H with the lane reduction and shared-use path alternatives revisited in future Plan updates. In July 2013, the City hosted a community meeting focused on Dublin Boulevard. At that meeting, three alternatives were presented to the RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER PLANS public for Dublin Boulevard: The Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is consistent with plans • Class I Shared-Use Path and policies at local,state,and federal levels. • Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes with Lane Reduction • Sidewalk Riding and Wayfinding BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Em 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OE• DUBLIN F.1.)F RA.I, l'L I.CI:EES �zi'Al r'r)/N,-!:?rrr1jr F_ti AC.. The United States Department of Transportation (US DOT) can issue The Americans with Disabilities Act Title/// is legislation enacted in 1990 Policy Statements to help guide actions. that provides thorough civil liberties protections to individuals with disabilities with regards to employment, state and local government services, and access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Title III of the Act requires places of public nFGt'L;4TIt)-\,'J +V;EF AFCOAIAI"'N"DATr{?!1j accommodation to be accessible and usable to all people, including those with disabilities. While the letter of the law applies to "public In 2010,the United States Department of Transportation(US DOT)issued accommodations," the spirit of the law applies not only to public a policy directive in support of walking and bicycling, encouraging agencies but to all facilities serving the public, whether publicly or transportation agencies to go beyond minimum standards in fully privately funded. integrating active transportation into projects. As part of the statement, the US DOT encouraged agencies to adopt similar policy statements in E.a j � s support of walking and bicycling considerations such as: State policies that relate to this Plan'nclude: • Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes �.ci- //'_,r I S i Z._ A 1 o _t.(,rj P i z ,r 7 l'-'- 7') ) � • Ensuring availability of transportation choices for people of all California's Complete Streets Act of 2008(Assembly bill 1358)requires all ages and abilities cities to modify the circulation element of their general plan to"plan for • Going beyond minimum design standards a balanced,multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of • Integrating bicycling and pedestrian accommodations on new, all users"when a substantive revision of the circulation element occurs. rehabilitated,and limited access bridges The law went into effect on January 1,2011. The law also directs the • Collecting data on walking and bicycling trips Governor's Office of Planning and Research to amend its guidelines for • Setting mode share for walking and bicycling and tracking them the development of circulation elements in order to aid cities and over time • Removing snow from sidewalks and shared use paths counties in meeting the requirements of the Complete Streets Act. • Improving non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects 2. INTRODUCTION ITY Of DUBLIN SENATE BILL 375,`Ai.SF,4101YBILL 32 A1F7'RC)POLITAN TRFANSPORTATION COAAIMISSIONS POLICY ON ROUTINE California Assembly Bill 32 requires greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to ACCOMMODATION S l_?�t1ALC?L?� be reduced by 28 percent by the year 2002 and by 5o percent by the year 2050 in response to climate change. Senate Bill 375 provides the The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional implementation mechanisms for AB 32. It requires metropolitan transportation planning agency for the Bay Area. In 2006,MTC adopted planning organizations and regional planning agencies to plan for these a policy on"Routine Accommodation." The policy states that pedestrian reductions with the development of Sustainable Community Strategies, and bicyclist consideration must be integrated into planning,design,and which will be a regional guide for housing,land uses,and transportation construction of transportation projects that use regional transportation and will incorporate the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). One key funds. The policy requires sponsors of a project,such as a city or county component of this is the reduction of automobile trips and vehicle miles agency,to complete a project checklist,often referred to as a Complete traveled. Planning for increases in walking, bicycling, and transit use as Street Checklist. The checklist is intended to be completed at the earliest viable alternatives are important components of these plans. stages of the projects so that considerations for bicyclist and pedestrian accommodation can be made at the inception of the project. BUC]IONA.I..., COUNTY, AND ADJACENT Cl HES POL1CILS AND CC)NNEC"PIONS TZf'C:;IC�-VAL c5'LC_'YCLT PIAA/ F0R 711 vSFiN FRA NCI SC:O IAA YARE A This Plan is consistent with regional- and county-level plans as well as neighboring cities' bicycle and pedestrian plans. Pedestrian and bicycle MTC updated the Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area in networks were reviewed from local and regional agencies, including the 2009. The purpose of the plan is to direct MTC's regional transportation funds for high priority facilities that serve regional bicycle trips and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), East update the regional bicycle network. The MTC Plan details the length Bay Regional Park District(EBRPD),and cities of San Ramon, Pleasanton, and completion cost of the regional bikeways by county. For Alameda and Livermore to promote a coordinated regional bicycle system.These County,this includes 343 miles. The plan estimates the cost to build out plans are described briefly below. the bikeway network in Alameda County at $165 million. The Plan identifies Tassajara Road,Fallon Road,Dublin Boulevard,and San Ramon BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 2. INTRODUCTION CITY Of — ! DUBLIN Road as segments of the Regional Bicycle Network. The Iron Horse and Class II lanes'on Dublin Boulevard between Tassajara and Fallon Alamo Canal Trails are also included in the Regional Bicycle Network. Roads(partially completed),with a proposed extension of Dublin Boulevard between Fallon and Doolan Roads,connecting in �`� I1.`� / �C �J' L;r './;� Ll ' S Livermore to Class II lanes on North Canyon Parkway; The BART Station Access Guidelines (2003) set design guidelines and Class II lanes on San Ramon Road from Dublin Boulevard south principles to improve last-mile multi-modal access to each of the BART over I-580,connecting to proposed Class fI lanes on Foothill stations. The Guidelines focus on the user experience as riders walk,bike, Road in Pleasanton; get dropped-off/picked-up, take another form transit, or park at BART Class II lanes on Dougherty Road from the Contra Costa County stations. The design principles focus on enhancing that experience and line south over I-580(partially completed),connecting to ensuring that access is clear,straight-forward,and intuitive for all users. proposed Class II lanes on Hopyard Road in Pleasanton; Class II lanes on Tassaiara Road between the Dublin city limit and AI R T T/z,,lN`.)/7:C_ RI-E,",7_'I) D1I'L 01'.;t,tt'NT Fallon Road; Class II lanes on Tassaiara Road between Fallon Road and North Dublin Ranch Drive and between Dublin Boulevard and south of The BART Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines(2003)outline design I-580,connecting to Class II lanes on Santa Rita Road in guidelines for transit-oriented development (TOD) and multi-modal Pleasanton; access at all BART stations. The document presents design principles to Class I path extension of the Alamo Canal Trail under I-580, enhance stations access and TOD access for all-modes. The Guidelines which is now existing; include high-level principles such as enhancing street connectivity and Class I path extension of the Tassajara Creek Trail from the limiting block size as well as orienting fare gates and the station areas County line south to 800 feet south of Shadow Hill Drive; generally to walking and biking traffic. Class II lanes on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Dublin Court,connecting to the West Dublin BART Station;and L,�1.1��D:�i (�C>�,%<�%TYI�I%I,�>� 1�1t��'i`:L� 1'LA;�,% The California Highway Design Manual defines three classes of bicycle The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) is currently facilities: Class I bicycle paths, Class II bicycle lanes, and Class III bicycle updating the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan. The 2012 Bicycle Vision routes. These are explained in additional detail in Chapter 4 Existing Network map shows the following proposed facilities relating to Dublin: Conditions. w :. �7 CITY OF DUBLIN 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OF DUBLIN • Unclassified bikeway segment on Dublin Boulevard west of San 1. Safe and continuous access to transit; Ramon Road,part of which is now existing 2. Improved safety and access within central business districts; Table X.2 of the Plan contains a list of "Major (non-bikeway) capital projects", which primarily consist of bicycle and/or pedestrian 3. Access to activity centers; improvements that bridge major infrastructure or ecological features or 4. Access to inter-jurisdictional trails;and that enhance access through interchanges. The Plan specifies four major non-bikeway capital projects connecting the cities of Dublin and 5. Access to communities of concern. Pleasanton: Active maintenance of pedestrian facilities is also considered an integral • I-580 Interchange at Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road; aspect of the vision system. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area is • Alamo Canal Trail I-580 Undercrossing(completed); defined as a central business district in the Plan. This area is also a • I-580 at Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange(underway); Priority Development Area, as defined by MTC in the Sustainable • I-580 at Hopyard Road/Dougherty Road Interchange. Communities Strategy. C'C)NTRA C-0,57A C-01 NTY11VIDE B1c-YL'LT AND FAST BAY REEK--),VA I.. PAPX L)ISTRIt:'T 11AS7TR PTDT S TR L;4;V PLAN PLA V The Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) updated the The 2007 East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan Map includes Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in 2009. The multiple trail alignments through Dublin. On the western edge of Dublin, proposed bicycle network includes the following proposed facilities the Calaveras Ridge Trail segment 4C from Pleasanton Ridge to Las relating to Dublin: Trampas is proposed along the western edge of Dublin. An extension of • Class Il lanes on Camino Tassajara(Tassajara Road in Dublin) the existing Tassajara Creek Trail from 800 feet south of Shadow Hill Drive north through San Ramon. The Iron Horse Trail gap between the A LAM EDA C C)LIVTYLI fDT PTDT_STRI;1 i�' PL �/1' Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and the Arroyo Mocho Trail is also identified. The 2012 update to the Countywide Pedestrian Plan includes five goals for the countywide pedestrian vision network: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Now 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OF -- DUBLIN PI A.!"r which starts southeast of Santa Rita Road. Hopyard Road (Dougherty Road in Dublin) has proposed Class II bicycles lanes connecting to The City of Livermore's Proposed Bikeways and Trails Network map in proposed Class II lanes on Dougherty Road. Owens Drive is classified as their General Plan shows proposed Class II lanes along Collier Canyon a proposed Class lI route, providing an on-street connection to the West Road,which is the extension of Dublin Boulevard through Livermore. The Dublin BART Station. proposed Class II lanes would connect to existing bicycle lanes on North Canyons Parkway. Lc)l_',A _ I'01.. C I FS (717-Y- C) _�A, 1 RAMON' � �(���f.R,II- zrt=r.,� L���t j�� The City of Dublin has many policies that support bicycling and walking. These include policies within larger plans such as the Dublin General Plan The City of San Ramon's Bicycle Network map in its Genera( Plan 2030 (2011) shows existing Class II lanes on San Ramon Valley Boulevard and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan,as well as Specific Plans (which becomes San Ramon Road in Dublin), Village Parkway, and and Guidelines such as the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and the Fallon Stagecoach Road. Davona Drive,Alcosta Boulevard and Kimball Avenue Village Design Guidelines.The following is a list of Dublin plans that are designated as existing Class III bicycle routes.It also shows proposed include policies related to bicycling and walking. Class II lanes on Dougherty Road(existing). j/C.,1.z;rl 1N C../t'_,''\,'t,i,A.J. (.~,TYOr N.2 4 S'1NT().',' l FDF T,1,'111,,,%,' ; 1'r� The Dublin Genera( Plan calls fora "comprehensive, integrated trail /x/1',4 S Irr"Z f L:1: ' network that permits safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access within urban areas and between urban areas and open space areas."The The Pleasanton Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan(2010)shows multiple existing and proposed connections between Dublin and Pleasanton. The General Plan also recommends an integrated multi-modal circulation system that encourages pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other non- Alamo Canal Trail .(Centennial Trail in Pleasanton) I-580 undercrossing automobile transportation alternatives. The Plan sets the Guiding Policy was completed In 2012. A new Class I connection is proposed along the of providing safe bikeways along arterials and conforming to the Tassajara Canal through Pleasanton as an extension of the existing recommendation of the Bikeways Plan. Tassajara Creek Trail that presently terminates at Dublin Boulevard. The Plan also proposes a corridor study to close the long gap between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and the Iron Horse Trail in Pleasanton, ° z CITY OF DUBLIN 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OF DUBLIN Dm3L/N PARKS A„VD Rf CRF,.`I TIOV AAA S 1ITR circulation while continuing to serve local and regional retail needs.The PLAN Specific Plan divides the Downtown area into three areas: the Transit- Oriented District,south of Dublin Boulevard;the Retail District, between The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan calls for off-street Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard;and the Village Parkway paths linking community amenities such as parks, schools, open space District,east of I-680 and centered on Village Parkway. The Plan details areas,neighborhood retail,and other destinations. distinct goals, land use mixes,and design standards for the study areas and includes provisions for public gathering spaces,such as landscaped C-1 OF 1...)U13Lh\,”IONING plazas and small parks. Section 8.76.070 of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires bicycle IlhL1N C )M!Ll7L S77EE IS IC LIG " parking in all parking lots with 20 or more spaces in non-residential zoning districts and in all multi-family residential complexes. Bicycle In December 2012,the City of Dublin adopted a Complete Streets Policy racks must be provided at the rate of one bicycle rack for each 40 auto to create a citywide priority for accommodating all users and modes in spaces and should provide storage for four bicycles on each rack. Within the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the the multi-family buildings, bicycle storage must be provided within each transportation system to support the health and mobility of those who residence or in lockable containers or spaces. The language includes live in and visit Dublin, while maintaining local context. The Policy guidance on setting the bicycle racks and providing adequate lighting. specifically references using innovative and up-to-date design standards, such as those contained in this Plan; making connections across DoK NTOw,\' DuBL PLAN jurisdictional boundaries; and coordinating with private development to The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (2011) replaces and combines the ensure implementation on new facilities. efforts of past specific plans, including the Downtown Core Specific Plan, EASTFRa'DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN Dublin Downtown Specific Plan, Village Parkway Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART Specific Plan, and the San Raman Road Specific Plan. The The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides goals and policies for a planned Plan lays out objectives to create a pedestrian-friendly Downtown; mixed-use community east of Camp Parks, including the transit village enhance streetscapes, site planning, and urban design from the current area around Dublin/Pleasanton BART. Land use patterns and intensities auto-oriented uses; accept reduced levels of service and focus on are designed to encourage the use of active modes and transit. The goal concentrating development near BART; and enhance multi-modal for pedestrian circulation is to provide a safe and convenient network to BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN - 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OF DUBLIN serve functional and recreational needs, taking advantage of natural Including the Alamo Canal Trail Undercrossing and Golden Gate Drive resources such as Tassajara Creek as well as new commercial centers to improvements(both completed) provide sidewalk and streetscape amenities. The plan calls for Class II lanes on Gleason Drive,Central Parkway,Tassajara Road,and Fallon Road o riv:L"TO V,Av DU141/N Ill"PRC)GRA14 north of Central Parkway. Bicycle parking is required at key destinations The Downtown Dublin Traffic Improvement Fee Program (2004) collects such as schools,transit stops,and commercial centers. development fees for infrastructure improvements within Downtown. Many of the proposed projects in the current program, particularly the City of Dublin Standard Plans include detailed design elements for roadway widening projects,are out of date with recently adopted policies various aspects of the public and private right of way. The Standard regarding the high priority of walking and bicycling in Downtown Dublin, Plans primarily provide guidance on parking spaces striping,curb ramps, as detailed in the Genera( Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan The and issues related to drainage. Cross-section design detail for roadway Downtown Dublin TIF is scheduled to be updated after the adoption of classifications or details for bicycle facilities are to be added. Several the Bikeways/Pedestrian Master Plan, The City should consider including driveway details show sidewalk as sloped through the driveway apron, Tier One and Two bicycle and pedestrian priority projects on the basis of which meets minimum ADA requirements but does not match best the nexus analysis. practices. Dublin also has a standard plan for crosswalks and curb ramps p outside of the public right of way. CONFORMANCE WITH BTA. REQUIREMENTS , z z t r 1 1"1 7 At the time of Plan development, the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) was the primary state funding source for bicycling improvements. Caltrans previously allocated approximately $7 million in BTA funds annually. According to the California Streets and Highways Code, The City of Dublin 2012-2017 Proposed Five-Year Capita( Improvement Sections 890 through 894.2 (known as the Bicycle Transportation Act), Program (CIP) includes several bicycle and pedestrian-related projects local agencies needed to complete a bicycle master plan to qualify for grant funds issues through the BTA. Conforming plans needed to have C17(OF DUBLIN� 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OF DUBLIN 11 key elements shown in Table 2-1 and be no more than 5 years old. This update to the Dublin Bicycle Master Plan satisfies the requirements. The California Transportation Commission(CTC)has released draft Active Transportation Program (ATP) Guidelines, which will supplant the earlier Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA)as the primary state funding source for biking and walking improvements. The ATP requires additional elements and is also inclusive of pedestrians as well as access to transit. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN r�v- 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OF DUBLIN Item Requirement Section The est`--mated numder of existng bicycle commuters In the plan area and the es.�mated increase .n the numoer of bicycle A commuters resulting from implementation of the plan. Chapter 4 B A map ana description of existing and proposed land use and seJeme,t pate—s whit nail -)dLde, but rot be limited to ! Chaoter a loc3[icrs of residers al neignberhoods,schools,shopping_ente-s,public cuildirgs 3rd rrator emoloymem centers. C A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. Cnoote.; , I D A map and description of existing and proposed end-of-trip diode parkine-ac t-acter :-acre,4 litles. I Picjre a-c A map and description of existing and proposed bicvde trar<_por and parking facilities or connections with and use of other E Chaoter�,�igure 4-5 transportation modes A map and description or exist rg and proposed facrnes for cnancirg anc storirc coches and equipmer,-.TI^,ese small irclude, bc- I Ficures s-_, Fauns rot be limited to,locker,restroom,and shower fackties near bicycle parkleg facilities. ?a anc r�h A descr�pnon of bicycle safety and education programs corducted -) the area Included within the plan, efforts by the law G enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibd N In the area to enforce provisions of the Vel-cke Code Chapter a pe taming to bicycle operation,and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists. H ( A description of the extent cf ctizer and commuo bt nvoiverreni it development of-he clan ac,ter z i f A description of how the bicycle transportaticn plan has been ccord:nated and is r rsistent voth other focal or regieral transportation,air quality,or energy conservation plans,including, but not limited ro programs that provide incentives:or bicycle chapter commuting i A description of[he or iects proposed In the plar and a listing of;,'reir onorses for implerne-)taton. Chatter�; A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future`inancial needs for orcjects--rat Improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters;n the plan area.. Chacter9 � i CITY OF DUBLIN 2. INTRODUCTION CITY OF DUBLIN This page left intentionally blank BICYCLE AND PEDESTIUAN PLAN s 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY OF DUBLIN This chapter establishes the goals and policies that will guide the City of New Policy: Develop modal street Typology as part of next substantial Dublin in implementing the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. It update of the General Plan to provide prioritized access and circulation also provides an assessment of the existing programs, policies, and for all modes along various streets in the City on the basis of local practices pertaining to bicycling and walking in the City, noting context. successful examples and making recommendations for improvements,as appropriate. Policy 1-1: Integrate the bicycle Capital Improvement Project list contained in this Plan as part of the larger five-year Capital Improvement VISION STATEMENT Project(CIP)update that the City undertakes for all projects. The purpose of the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is to Policy 1-2: Update the City's General Plan, Parks and Recreation Master provide a policy and implementation framework for maintaining and Plan, Capital Improvement Program, Downtown Dublin TIF and Eastern improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the City to provide Dublin TIF to reflect the goals, policies, and existing and proposed safe,comfortable,and attractive facilities that meet the needs of users of networks in this Plan. all ages and abilities and connect users with key destinations—schools, Policy 1-3: Update the Plan every five years to reflect best practices in residential neighborhoods, parks, shopping areas, and job centers— bicycle and pedestrian policy and design,changing community interests within the City and in adjacent jurisdictions. and needs, and remain eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA) GOALS AND POLICIES funding. Policy 1-4:Identify current regional,state,and federal funding programs The following goals and policies support the overall vision for the Plan: along with specific funding requirements and deadlines, and apply for competitive grant funding for the priority projects identified in this Plan GOAL ]:SUPPORT B ICYCL ING AND WALKING AS PRACTICAL, HEALTHY,AND CONVENIENTALT£RNATIVES Policy 1-S:To enhance access through and across key barriers, such as TO AUTOMOBILE USE IN DUBLIN freeway interchanges, pursue multi-jurisdictional funding applications with neighboring cities and other potential partners,including BART,East Bay Regional Park District, City of Pleasanton, City of Livermore, City of San Ramon,Alameda County,Contra Costa County and Caltrans. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN low 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY Or DUBLIN Policy!-7:Routinely monitor the performance of the Plan to achieve the zM � o performance measures and data collection goals detailed in Chapter 8 Performance Measures of this Plan. i= GOAL 2- A11PLEVIENT A WELL-CONNECTED ACTIVE TRANS'POR7ATION SYSTTM TO ATTRACT USERS Of ALL ,��i � •,_ �' � � � ,���� "��'I' '���' AGES AND AB/LlT7£S. Policy 2-1:Implement and maintain an integrated transportation network „ that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all r9 " users, including pedestrian and bicyclists' needs and access at key destinations,such as Downtown Dublin,transit stations,and other maior �9 destinations. Policy 2-2:Expand the existing bicycle network on the basis of access to key destinations as per Policy 2-1 above to provide low-stress, bicycle Buffered bicycle!ones are one of many emerging best practice bikeways that provide acilities if right of way allows, such as buffered bicycle lanes on arterial additional separation between autos and bicyclists. and collector roadways where appropriate and bicycle routes with sharrows on low-volume residential streets. Policy 1-6: Continue to engage and update the community on bicycle issues in Dublin through semi-annual public workshops. Integrate Policy 2-3: Require short-term and long-term bicycle parking consistent updates on pedestrian issues into these updates and consider with the latest version of the California Green Building Standards Code. coordination with local advocacy groups. Policy 2-4: Where feasible, reduce corner radii at intersections to slow turning vehicular traffic, provide protected signal phasing for left-turns, and mark crosswalks at approaches of signalized intersections. 6,2 r. :'. CITY OF DUBLIN 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY OF DUBLIN Policy 2-5: Plan and implement a citywide wayfinding program for Policy 3-4: Implement the City's Complete Streets Policy by reviewing the bicyclists and pedestrians to provide route guidance and travel time transportation network, block size, and development patterns of all estimates to key destinations, with initial focus on the Downtown area proposed projects for consistency with this Plan, the Downtown Dublin and Transit Centers. Specific Plan,and the Dublin Complete Streets Policy. GOAL 3:INCORPORATE THE NEEDS AND CONCERNS OF Policy 3-5: Coordinate with Caltrans and the City of Pleasanton to BICYCL IS TS AND PEDESTRIANS IN ALL TRANSPORTATION incorporate best practices for the accommodation of bicyclists and AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. pedestrians on future highway interchange improvement projects. Policy 3-1: As a condition of project approval, require private Policy 3-6:Coordinate planned roadway improvements projects,such as development projects to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities on repaving and overlays, with design and development of bicycle and site and in the adjacent public right-of-way included in the proposed pedestrian improvement projects, so that bicycle and pedestrian bicycle system as well as bicycle parking and amenities in accordance improvements plans are ready for construction when routine roadway with the California Green Building Standards Code. Consider requiring upgrades are implemented. large development projects to provide accessible mid-block cut throughs Policy 3-7: Continue to implement the City Bicycle and Pedestrian (or"paseos"). Guidelines on all City capital and private development projects as Policy 3-2: Consult the recommended bicycle and pedestrian network required by the City. Allow the update of the design guidelines to maps and project lists prior to implementation of traffic signals, signal incorporate the latest MUTCD standards. upgrades,and resurfacing/restriping projects. GOAL 4:SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS WITH Policy 3-3: Install pedestrian countdown signals, modify pedestrian TARGETED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EDUCATION, clearance intervals on actual walking speed observed in the field, ENCOURAGEMENT, ENFORCEMENT,AND EVALUATION implement density operations (Flash Do Not Walk timing extension for PROGRAMS slow walkers, etc.), and install, replace, and upgrade bicycle signal detectors, as necessary, per the California Manual Uniform of Traffic Policy 4-1: Develop and implement a strategy for encouraging and Control Devices (CA MUTCD) with new signal installation and signal promoting walking and bicycling to major City events, such as the St. Patrick's Day Festival,and Farmers'Market modification projects,whenever possible. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY OF ' DUBLIN Policy 4-2:Conduct bicycle and pedestrian counts and surveys whenever vehicle counts are conducted to gauge the effectiveness of various improvements and programs and to develop a count monitoring " program. Store the count data in City-maintained GiS databases. GOAL 3 MAXI_N1I7E MULTI-MODAL CONNECTIONS IN TNT X. TRANSPORTATION NMVORK Policy 5-1:Aim to ensure that the bicycle system serves transit stops and u � stations;that pedestrian crossing needs are met at transit stops;and that V1. . continuous,accessible pedestrian routes are provided. Policy 5-2: Coordinate with local and regional transit agencies to evaluate long- and short-term bicycle parking needs at BART stations _ and bus stops. Policy 5-3' Work with transit agencies to integrate the design for bus Abicychstu its for the rnValley Rapid bus stops, such as bus pull-outs, bus shelters, and secure bicycle parking, Policy 6-2. Monitor bicycle-and pedestrian-related collisions annually. when roadways with existing or proposed transit routes are improved. Policy 6-3: Work with the Alameda County Safe Routes to Schocl GOAL 6:IMPROVE B/CYCLEAND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY` Policy and local schools to identify CI7YWID£ p and pursue funding for "Safe Routes to Schools" infrastructure improvements for cyclists and Policy 6-1:Work to reduce bicycle and pedestrian crashes, injuries and pedestrians. fatalities on all roadways. 777< CRY OF DUBLIN I GOALs & POLICIE s CITY OF DUBLIN PROGRAMS, POLICIES, & , PRACTICES ASSESSMENT ' The City of Dublin has made many bicycle investments since the City's 2007 Bicycle Master Plan, and with this Plan, the City will continue to invest in safe and convenient bicycle facilities and will now provide a framework for pedestrian investments. The City's existing approaches to facilitating and enhancing bicycling and walking were reviewed with a benchmarking matrix that compares the City's programs, policies, and practices with national best practices. This assessment helped guide the Bicycle rodeos and other education-based activities help children to understand Plan's Goals and Policies outlined in the previous section. The the rules of the road and feet confident walking and bicycling in Dublin. benchmarking analysis categorizes the City's programs, policies, and practices into three areas as follows: • Key Strengths–areas where the City of Dublin is exceeding national best practices "�-- • Enhancements—areas where the City is meeting best practices • Opportunities—areas where the City should consider meeting 'r best practices The benchmarking analysis, with associated recommendations, is presented in Table 3-1. The City of Dublin organizes and participates in Bicycle to Work Day events and rides in Dublin. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Elm I GOALS & POLICIES CITY Or I UBLIN Plans,Policies,& Programs Benchmark Di l in Plans,Policies,&Programs Recommended Action Items Alameea Cocnty conducts a compre ess- e ! yoCtes to School program with educator arc i I I I encourgementoroerams:nlocal,coccls. C ,,.ee Ccnt.rue by"e rot„rS'�r<afecu�r,t�acr,c^col�te ! Safe Routes to School oy a team of consultants,ive Cucllr-niPed_ cu �crclrae.,r r -ecci-.d_ate.Routes-c Sehecl c^i:r''c oroer,^s mi-. t cicrde Sale Routes to Scnccl -)Is-ric(DUSDI schools are panicratir.0 „..eCe_t'.an 7 CPITorng,,rcgam staolisnee r,hu nlar programs enccurage are ! element ar,schocls Murray,<clb r =rg In. _ Ik nc audit a�d t.rer n: .ure el t _cc r^rre.c-vor Wt s ..ucate students and parents cohancemerY Dougrtel,70 and one high,chccl �c,.nr;. Ha,,,,c hr el❑of oriti e er..iec s anc ceat..Daccaci t t ,ov crc'_cs on now to safely walk anc high school participate n-nis pragrar^ _ ail •czolore-he ,cihny cr.�ir.,_,itvr arcing�-r r„)-cts dent r.ed,earl-e, s -"-r,S 'S bicycle to school. urlCUe,and s ar area M e,e the tv _ ,r ether grails crac'ices- ' I j ! I Complete Streets Policy Tne City of Dublin adopted a Comclete St,ee--s 1ACY it Routine Accommodations or December 2022 The Policy is consis ni w e l cordinate the Eicycle and Pedestrian Monitoring State v established in this Plan with Complete Streets Policies 4lameda Court/Transportation Commis„on f� i g- Key Strength monitor=ng equired In the Complete Streets Policy, accommodate all modes of Policy guidance and also includes Dt,otir spec z travel and travelers or all ages I considerations. and abilities Inventory of Walking and Bicycling Infrastructure ', j Th.e Cry mairtaos and.pdares a - - Concacfing an inve^ton/of i Key S`-ength ofdicjee facilities,n the--IDj cf Dulnrr_ -cnurue tCcoe..t l-P b:Cyde-e_rmcrx o�it�i-_s prr,;edc are wnsrsc.ed anc pedestrian and bic/de ac nies n (Bicycling)/ fiecommun ivs a first step-o ! Copoa,unity Lncce,rtec rat re ar v tc-y c°pecest,ar-acLtes arc oede star oa4ic-crcol Howeve Crycoes nor maintainan r,e r eences Nth update ` acoressing eencences in tha ! (Walking) i peeestry r raclives,or cecesrriar,rare_cn-t o!or,c_� network and prornizing nurse projects. CITY'OF DUBLIN 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY OF DUBLIN 4, - \:.\ e Pia i�aG« & Benthia i �PfanTc�irr�8!� k Etat►n�rd � Eu- a� The City of Dublin currently operates a variety of programs,with events typically occurring in the fall and spring Events include: Bicycle to Work Ray -Promote the use of walking,bicycling,and transit access to City events,such asthe St City of Dublin Education and Bicycle to the Farmers'Market Encouragement Programs -National Bicycle Month Patr�fk'5 day Festiva€.Examples of promotion includr�the provision of directional Education and - materials or information,and bicycle valet parking. Key Strength -Bicycle Safety Brochures.(available in multiple encouragement programs' -Explore the feasibility of Memorandums of Understanding(MC>EJs)between the City and (BicychngV languages) other agencies and organizations with which the City,has developed existing also include special events' � g Opportunity Programs are funded through Alameda County that promote active - programming, transportation,:such as Bicycle (Walking) Measure B funds and through donations from the public and private businesses tp.Work Day or bicycling skills courses_ Education and encouragement programs in Dublin have focused on bicycling,as the City did not previously have a Pedestrian Plan BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY Or ' DUBLIN Plans Policies.& Ben€hmark Dublin Plans,Policies,&Programs Recommended Action items Programs Secticn u 7C 370 Dr the Caf cr Zuel Z ,nc � Ordinarc requires bictcle in,II w^arc lots with ZO cr mere spaces r ren-residential zcrnc distncs arc in all multi-'amilp�es e,s iai;real _ r ca�ina mtLthe prrvieeg ata rat .rcr=_nlry_; Bicycle Parking Ordinance "` Safe and convenient bicvde for every^0 3�te saac_c Faro rack=hcula=v:ce space r o bicycle Mi�, a mi It. mdy c'e t parking s essential For rce ci e -m arc Icrc, m cicv!e can irg �r ssstert'n�:,h ne lags; Enhancement bwlding, icce ster g rc sz oe rc ic�c n c �o[,le - agcouragine oieyda[ravel e_en cr-he aihc a er ou lc ire_s,anctar2s Cade. cortaine s r paces cut'ce of the 'cen�_ and irc easing oicycle access •:rrplemeo;tic✓cle oar4ng per the B c,`e arc P e than-es er__ideilnes oddi;ier[o ary rie,ior"errage rn C- ,.�r'Cr�r _c'<ey destinations- I ncmv Lal resicenc)- `he groin rce presi(iesr_uicarce cr wine c -ack<s:c mnmze ercrcaoh rent nto^e penes„a �I zone and provide adegua[e IierGrg-cr L:cede^_arrrg. � - -- C,iY OF DUBLIN 3. GOALS & POLICIES T¢ CITY OF i DUBLIN Pta �Q�tEI@5r 8L"- r �y, - T ,,�,yy y ,k,., � rift The City of Dublin Genera/Plan describes the existing driving,bicycling,walking,and transit facilities within the City and establishes the goals and policies for General Plan future transportation needs. Though many of the Planning principles contained details of the Plan:elate to design and planning for in a City's General Plan can auto trips,the Plan does include a specific goal of provide an important policy balancing the needs of motorists,bicyclists,pedestrians, context for developing and transit riders, bikeable and walkable areas. Transit-oriented The General Plan encourages higher-density and development,higher mixed-use development adjacent to transit centers, densities,and mixed uses are such as the two BART stations. Mixed-use important planning tools for development is explicitly encouraged in some walking-and bicycling- With the next General Plan update,ensure the Circulation Element is consistent with this commercial planning areas. plan. oriented areas. Enhancement The City has a level of service(LOS)standard of LOS D A city's General Plan is also a that must be maintained outside of the Downtown key opportunity to establish area,which may preclude available right-of-way for the framework for walking new bicycling and walking facilities.The Downtown orientation.The Circulation Dublin Specific Plan relaxed the LOS standard with the Element of the Plan typically Downtown's signalized intersections.This approach assigns roadway typologies, should be coordinated with prioritized corridors for which can include a layered different modes to prioritize modes and access along network approach with different corridors.This is consistent with national best prioritized corridors for practices. transit,pedestrian,bicycle, and auto travel. The City is currently conducting a 2-year pilot program to eliminate parking standards.n the Village Parkway area. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY Or DUBLIN Plans,Policies',& Programs Benchmark Dublin Plans,Policies,&Programs Recommended Action items -he CC r,r ADP ransimcr,.=1ar it lace r ADA Transition Plan rccee r r -,cry t e eeu ricr,v_.merts and An Ame^car,with Di<abilroes Ac-, ADA; rs,ticn plan or',risz-Ion 3f-.hose-adities. [es a bas l e Inventory I and recess for,rinclrc f Tne CID rnud - e ?Da_ r -r^.c n,II ion a -grades m _r rual Srce valk Repirr PIAIIC'ac lihe�ntc P-caram :has '.rclucesa ,;o dnru rly nor •-pcate rnra,d'I3rs ic co clv.v peat,:"e,-e,.-1 rcc_,sodia ee..:re:Terts eci-nic farce with ADA E^hereemerr An ADA I the Irnple. e-rarer r tre vDA-ran itor?far Fe •Eaoro-e h N � _�srbifiby cr ceoare_-e_ � egulad'ons ADA c, su.;r�!ar "ry oI c.t, ner.-_❑ ccinc aDP;ss.es rcm t e ublir frans,hor PI r acaresses i n rs NDA r s ocr PI r �ebs,r nd or crtz s ccoGc 6ulciras and l 1 sidewalks,�ampc,3rd other r mcrove e t '-<ec r c^.euohc nr..t. walkng 2c II irs withrn Jre i r The C C ;cancan+Plans'or some eypes c-f r pudic richt or way_ , uro ar ' '` �- CITY OF DUBLIN 3. GOALS & POLICIES 3 _ CITY OF DUBLIN iy chmark` bu6Gr� tip . � r�ndt�d z a '.. The City of Dublin identified the following issues and opportunities: •Historically,the Crty has focused on planning,policy, and programs related to bicycling rather than both walking and bicycling Funding streams and focus of staff time have historically included specific stipulations Institutional Considerations of bicycing related programs,policies,and practices Institutional issues for •The City does not currently have citywide design •proactively seek opportunities to collaborate wrth Cakrans,BART,LAVTA,and other pedestrian and bicycle guidelines for the design of pedestrian and bicycle transit agencies to improve walking and bicycling access through Caltrans interchanges pfanning(design may refer to infrastructure and related roadway improvements,such and overpasses,in and around the BART stations,and on access routes to bus stops in adopted or informal as a minimum curb radii for a particular roadway type. accordance with the layered network(Modal Typology)for all modes of transportation, impediments This may be Enhancement •Potential coordination issues exist with Caltrans,to .Continue to implement a developer checklist for use during development review to policies,practices,funding„ improve accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians ensure consideration of walking and bicycling issues and concurrency with this and other issues or even stakeholders at interchanges and overcrossings _ City Plans. that make it challenging to =Many facilites require'coordination with Livermore to improve walking and bicycling help guide temporary and permanent east-west' in Dublin connections in Eastern Dublin Limited staff time may pose barriers to pursuing additional competitive grants for walking and bicycling I projects and programs Desire for walkablity needs to be balanced with opportunities for economic development BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN I GOALS & POLICIES CITY Of — DusLIN REM Plans.Policies& Programs Benchmark Dublin Plans,Policies,&Programs Recommended Action items Traffic Signal Warrants/ Traffic Control DeAces Sesi practices"or pecem an gralwarrantanalvsis The Cit<tof'rcoiin.se r.ffc enal 3rij .cp _r inclt,de warrant pe 'e--rent UL-CD A s,n als _ f uograceo arc new orals are it alled t_ •ir,cie -t e =s aik Des or ..e Ices ­dudec r he Birfde and' estrar carding consideration"cr j mollart wit'' r-e.t i h d r rid es,or ce lres scrcol Grildrer/uedestriars Ennarcemert l 'eeJ=one waiting speed cr as.,...e❑­ ,y v and traffic speeds held sL,dy —ie"ne^ r uidarce r hs rlar on he-se cty ee^ -ve-en,and ether B2yca rarfic control'oes[ oic'de loop dere-tcrs r r"aaaes u3.oZ ns Cr cio/ce cites as_eer,.p.o[e. radices include agofication P.descrier c:tunmowr,signal he-c. o"irrova[ive cosign einc pedestran rte. al s,L's 'rave oee „ile standards and gcicance ro at one Iccanor,anc the�:ty s coe. . s�rc he � I aporcpriate facilhies,arc use { furore as accropnate. of bicycle sigrals where sar,artec. I CLaw Enforcement Enfcrcementstrategies are Dublin Police Services has a Trafic Unit tiro h ^Ice's part or the"3 E°strategies who cat of on orcyde. Enhancereer,, i Inctudrng education and .oreinate n nl,neighbecno'urnsdl^ions for resod.e sharing cu ma enforcement ;Brr.Cling}/ encouragement, Help The Crime Prevention Unit with a,ristance from �arf;. 1 rampalgns_ enforce the rules of road Unit,coneucts bicycle-c,:!ecs roryourth-and operates i aspect as they pertain to other enforcement and educational:programs_ bicyctrstsanc pecesin"ans '3 CITY OF DUBLIN 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY OF DUBLIN V11 y1111 7 The City of Dublin does not have its own standards for marking bicycle facilities through intersections or freeway interchanges. Many of the other design Implement the design guidelines in this Plan to include the following: guidelines that do exist are contained in Specific Plans •Bicycle facilities through interchanges Design Standards or other geography-specific documents. • Design policies and Bicycle facilities through intersections development standards can •Bicycle facilities,such as buffered bicycle lanes The Downtown Dublin Spec�Bc Plan encourages the use encourage walking and •Crosswalk striping,as detailed in the Crosswalk Design Guidelines section of the Bicycle Opportunity of street trees and provides development guidelines for and Pedestrian Design Guidelines bicycling,enhance economic pedestrian-oriented buildings and pedestrian-friendly vitality,and offer funding •Crossing enhancements,including signalized devices,as detailed in the Crosswalk parking areas. The plan recommends midblock opportunities for multi-modal Design Guidelines section of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines pathways where appropriate. improvements. •Roadway geometry elements such as curb extensions,curb radii,narrower lanes, median refuges,staggered crossings,etc. The Streetscape Master Plan provides specific recommendations on street tree plantings and spacing for various roadways. Bicycling and Walking Counts Routinely and systematically •Use the monitoring framework set forth in this Plan to provide monitoring associated counting the number of Pedestrian and bicycle counts are included whenever with the City's Complete Streets Policy adopted in 2412 people who walk and bicycle the City conducts turning movement counts, This is .Consider integratrng.bicysle and pedestrian counts in GIs software. in Dublin is important for Opportunity '. now recurred under the,City's Complete Streets Policy. ,Collaborate with the advocacy community by supporting volunteer count programs, n onitonng;the effectiveness of infrastructure investments Bike counter devices were recently installed on the Iron Examples of model bicycle and pedestran count programs are included in Chapter 8 and documenting the need Horse and Alamo Canal Trails Performance Measures. for continued investments in those facilities, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN A 3. GOALS & POLICIES CITY OF DUBLIN Plans,Policies, Programs Benchmark Dublin Plans,Policies,&Programs q Recommended Action I#ems Traffic Calming Programs Due ,lin nas mclementee atf c aiming orcle, ts ^roceho t:he Crr r exam le ,re Or Traffic Calminc°roarams ran p i i cccrelratee w.th tiITC and jsed Transocrtatien provide a cystematic and ,rant me is fcnc rst'-ct _xtent rs nsi_rert 3p re ch to { -.cyde e anc a rr_,ped rte t an Bcnlir tii t,e_r - eme-t,arc calmir. :. _�-rrec„grect tl c�C_`�_2icyde and ` dr.. sirc rCcorcer^s- Oppor:urlr^/ Ele, e^ts of raffic calming oulevarn m cis r 3amcn Roan ant n C,clre p i_r recur�uieelines_ ..chit--_=r ne^.he Cate- ie rhea cbP ?cule r and tre./_ Dcciir 'rotior_ Cty-as als,.crcac:vely implemented tc address nstallec trarric c tcc,e r rew der iccments tc c re-� specificsareryneees_ { lone oloces vrhere-ie,yea°ds cer,ld orur. Crosswalk Design Guidelines Establishing a clear protocol - cr mhenand hew tosmne The Cit;c•rertlyvses FHWA's Sa7ety E''ees ss crosswalks and wnether or not to include crosvrg M,)rkedversesG'nmarTedC.ssswrks par for guidance on wnen.-e.n_iall- arK d c sss ssjks at I C osswalk Cesten Gwcehres re.ncluded'r n�Bicycle and Pedestrlar,-)es y'; ennancemert>,such as n Opportunity I', p uncontrolled locaticn5 Cresswalksat signalized pavement flashing ants or ..uldelines for the C4ty's ar'Sidera8en when rJesienire cross`valks, advanced yield markings, rntersedions are,,ct (ways str�.ped on 311 approaches, creates-a consistent typicaily roe tc traffic saperauon considerations. application of treatments { t ntywide- Scurce:Fenr d-eery 2C13. --- CITY OF DUBLIN I GOALS & POLICIES CITY of DUBLIN This page left intentionally blank BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN r 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS 1106 CITY Of DUBLIN This chapter presents the existing state of bicycling and walking Center on Village Parkway at Dublin High School,the Frank Stager Gym conditions, including existing land uses and issues and opportunities. on York Drive,three Fire Stations,Heritage Center,Public Safety Complex Bicycling considerations are discussed on a Citywide basis, and walking and Scarlett Court Maintenance Facility. considerations are focused towards Downtown Dublin. Downtown D New development in Dublin continues to occur in the form of single Dublin is the area bounded by San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Road, Village Parkway,and I-580. family housing in the eastern areas of Dublin and the Camp Parks area as well as multi-family housing adjacent to the West Dublin and DUBLIN TODAY Dublin/Pleasanton BART Stations. All of this development will create new multi-modal trips, many of which will be close to BART stations and the A city of 49,890 people(per the California Department of Finance(2013)), Downtown.Figure 4-1 shows the existing land use pattern in the City. Dublin continues to grow,with new development on the east side of the CONSTRAINTS City as well as near the city's two BART stations. Interstate 580 serves as {-�T} T�1 �� the southern boundary to Dublin,and Interstate 680 crosses the City near Dublin has a great potential to attract new bicycling and walking trips the Downtown Area. The Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area throughout the City. In addition a temperate climate and relatively flat (RFTA) occupies a large amount of land in central Dublin between terrain,the City has miles of regionally significant paved trails, many of Dougherty Road and Arnold Road,from Dublin Boulevard to the border which access residential neighborhoods and the Downtown. However, with San Ramon. Retail uses are concentrated along Dublin Boulevard on barriers such as wide roadways and limited connectivity across major both sides of I-680, as well as along San Ramon Road, Amador Valley highways are challenges. Opportunities to further enhance the walking Boulevard, and Village Parkway. Major employment centers include and bicycling environment and increase these mode shares include: office parks along Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, and Arnold Road. Light industrial uses are present along Sierra Court. Developing bicycle facilities,such as buffered bicycle lanes and Class I paths that attract a wider range of users The public school system includes six elementary schools, two middle Enhancing intersection for both pedestrians and bicyclists, schools, one regular high schools and one continuation high school. through strategies such as changes to signal timing and shorter Public facilities include the Civic Center and library on Dublin Boulevard crossings at Civic Plaza,the Shannon Community Center on San Ramon Road,the Dublin Senior Center on Amador Valley Boulevard, the Dublin Swim BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF D,UBLI N • Integrating new bicycle facilities and the paved trail network, such as the Iron Horse and Alamo Canal Trails,and the existing, largely complete arterial bikeway network , Providing first and last mile walking and bicycling connections to i BART Stations and Tri-Valley Rapid Bus Stops • Incorporating a layered network of alternate modes and vehicular traffic to prioritize the location of needed facilities for each mode However, several issues limit the number of non-motorized trips, and a` also affect the quality and relative safety of the bicycling and walking experience in Dublin: • Bicycle lanes alongthe City's high-volume and high-speed arterial roadways and correspondingly large intersections have oriented the bicycle network to experienced,traffic-tolerant cyclists rather than attracting those with a range of abilities. Existing Wide Bicycle Lanes provide an opportunity to create buffered bicycle lanes in • Reliance on developer-funded sidewalks can create sidewalk and Dublin. pedestrian infrastructure gaps in eastern Dublin Large block sizes(700 to 1,000 feet)in the Downtown limit bicycle and pedestrian access and the quality of the walking environment,creating long distances between crossings CITY Of DoBLIN r yg 3 y i.- Legend Existing Land Uses ''.Golf Couse Private Street ;u,.. Apartment Government®Residential EMIR-Very Low Income-1 unit Industrial %;School Commercial Open Space Semi-Public ®Condominium Park Storm System Figure 4-1 Dublin Existing Land Uses FEHR 'PEERS April 2013 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN WALKING & BICYCLING MODE commuters who may carpool or bicycle to work some days but drive SHARE alone other days, or for trips that include walking or bicycling and another mode (such as transit or carpooling), as only one response is A common term used in describing demand for bicycle and pedestrian allowed. As such, walking and bicycling trips tend to be facilities is"mode split." Mode split refers to the form of transportation a underrepresented in this data set. person chooses to take, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or driving. Mode split is often used in evaluating commuter alternatives ° a a such as bicycling, where the objective is to increase the percentage of g s a 0 people selecting an alternative means of transportation to the single- Means of Alameda Dublin- Dublin - Pleasanton occupant(or drive-alone)automobile. 1 Transportation County- i 2000 2009 -2009 J to Work 2009 \.,P,�71�.1,�t.:•1 t? 1+.31.1 lf7.�� f.i l �. � Y.j C.,I1 j�/11"1 Drive Alone 79 i% 76 4% 78 8% i 56:6°/ Table 4-1 presents 2009 American Community Survey estimates and the Carpcol 99% 3,9 2000 Journey to Work data for Dublin, both of which present estimates au< 0.8% of the number of Dublin residents commuting to work via a particular uderey or mode of travel. Journey to Work data is no longer collected as of the x.6% 61% 4.30/o 1 6.-°b a,ir_ad;BART) 2010 decennial Census. However, the American Community Survey is Ric/cling 0:3% � 0.4% conducted each year to provide ongoing data collection between the VaiCng L3% 246 '-8% Decennial Census and includes questions that are not asked in the " Decennial Census. The 2005-2009 summaries were used for this Plan Jt er` I i.0% La% 0.8% 1.7%- because the 2006-2010 summaries aggregate taxicab, motorcycle, and �'��`'�at Home ( 3.2 4 e"/o 5 5% zL7010 bicycle use into one category,which does not give an accurate picture of I Aggregates'he mctoroyde,taxicab,and c her reanscensus eatecones. commuting by bicycle and walking. The means of transportation to work Scurce:American Community Suniey,2005-2009;US Cersus;2000, question specifically focuses on commuting trips and does not record the school, shopping, and recreational trips that occur by various modes of transportation. The mode split information also does not account for 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN COLLISION ANALYSIS The frequency of bicyclist-auto collisions by intersection is presented on Tables 4-3. The Village Parkway/Tamarack Drive intersection had more Between 2006 and 2011, 38 bicyclist-auto and 39 pedestrian-auto collisions compared to the other intersections included in the five year collisions occurred in the City of Dublin. One third of the pedestrian- study period. This intersection is located in a residential area with related collisions occurred in the Downtown. Bicyclist-auto collisions are multiple schools nearby. Dublin BoulevardNillage Parkway had the presented on Figure 4-2, and pedestrian-auto collisions in Downtown second highest bicyclist-auto collision frequency. Located Downtown Dublin are presented on Figure 4-3. The majority of these collisions east of I-680,this is a very large intersection with multiple turn lanes on occurred on major arterial corridors.Of the City streets in Dublin,Dublin several approaches and two channelized right-turns. Boulevard had the highest incidence of bicyclist-and pedestrian-involved collisions, as shown in Table 4-2. Amador Valley and Hacienda Drive a e • both had multiple collisions along the length of the corridors. a r s!• a Village Parkway&Tamarack Drive 4 ® e1. Dublin Boulevard&Village Parkway 3 / tdesrCawa Auto Ga! ' .. y s1 � San Ramon Read&Amador Valley Boulevard 2 tv '` Dublin Boulevard&Scarlett Drive 2 ILI � ! Dublin Boulevard&Clark A Dublin Boulevard 15 Dublin Boulevard y 6 venue 2 Dublin Boulevard&Golden Gate Drive 2 Amador Valley Amador Valley Boulevard 5 Boulevard 6 Dublin Boulevard&San Ramon Road 2 Hacienda Drive 3 Amador Plaza Road 4 Amador Valley Boulevard&Amador Plaza Road 2 Village Parkway 6 Regional Sheet 4 Source:SVORS 2006 to 2011. San Ramon Road 3 Source:SWURS,2006 to 2011. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN IMM r� P9. Legend � A Number of Bic./ce Celli-cns ' 1 % m ka H x Pr a � tfNN.4MED P fi t3$.' q 0- z y.2 3 fFb ppVO%!SAS7R y :' 12TH S7 it X ,. IDM ST - UNNAMED Y 4E 4, ':J q O ° _- P� .p •" 3 �3 NTH ST -.m A BRODER BL Y # < 8TH ST ^ HtER67sP � �•.:. f •• -s. E -' ,iF o' P `� m tr7N Si 2 f F i.N ExR,cs, Z" 4TH ST t- � Ne, 4 Z age Mr.�ptg aR zND sT Wr arms m HANBE ° oy e 4 Q -m`�+ 15BD V38 6 m v v. � n �Y K. v., s A a S. Figure 4-2 Bicycle-Auto Collisions, 2006-2011 F E H R "PEERS April 2013 A V ME . '� � � � �- � � k x //� �' a ✓:fir �� / ���"' • Legend >4s Number of Pedestrian Collisions , ,?,W ' yam 40 2 �- t� ^" 5 i Z #•� Downtown Dublin � � �� 'd.H 'x� � x �� � �.�L kII KI ' € O € 5 ?e * C . r dv it e - <, Figure 4-3 Pedestrian-Auto Collisions,2006-2011 F E H R t PEERS April 2013 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN The majority of bicycle collisions were involved a 'bicyclist riding on the ; wrong side of the road (13 collisions) Many of these wrong-way riding 4,I collisions occurred on the busiest and highest speed roadways in Dublin: , Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Village Parkway, and Amador Valley Intersection Pedestrian-Auto Boulevard. Additionally, seven collisions involved bicyclists failing to Collisions yield the right-of-way to automobiles. Traffic signal and sign violations Amador Valley Boulevard&Regional j contributed to an additional five crashes. Street 3 Dublin Boulevard&Amador Plaza Road The intersections with the highest number of pedestrian-auto collisions Lours-:SWITRS,2006 to 2Ci_. were Amador Valley Boulevard/Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road. Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road The California Office of Traffic Safety ranks cities-of similar sizes based or. provides access to the West Dublin BART station from the east side of the number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions that occurred in a given Dublin and serves as a gateway to the city from the I-680 freeway off- year. The higher the ranking (larger the number),the better a given city ramp. Both of these intersection locations are considered important compares to those in the same cohort. In 2011, Dublin ranked 56 out of gateways to Downtown Dublin. Table 4-4 presents the locations with 94 California cities of a similar size (25,001-50,000 population) for the highest pedestrian-auto collisions in Downtown Dublin. It should be pedestrian-auto collisions, and 63 out of 94 cities for bicycle-auto noted that the 2006-2010 data is prior to the February 201_1 opening of collisions, indicating that over 50 percent c`cities with a similar average the West Dublin BART Station, population reported a higher frequency of bicycle and pedestrian The majority of pedestrian-involved collisions occurred in marked collisions in 2011 than Dublin. crosswalks at intersections. Of the 14 reported pedestrian-auto collisions EXISTING BICYCLE z� ��915 in the Downtown, half of the collisions occurred while a pedestrian was crossing in a marked crosswalk at the intersection, with the other half occurring midblock. Five of the reported collisions resulted from drivers violating the pedestrian riaht-of-way, and five of the collisions involved Bicycling facilities include three types of bikeways,as defined by Caltrans. pedestrian violations. The three categories of bikeways area: `l CRY OF DUBLIN 34j 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN • Class I bicycle paths and shared use paths providing access to creeks, ridges, and undeveloped areas and their • Class R bicycle lanes,including buffered bicycle lanes trailheads may be reached by bicycle. • Class III bicycle routes,which consist of signed bicycle routes and mayor may not also include sharrows and other traffic calming KEY BICYCLE COI RIDORS treatments Dublin's bicycle network primarily consists of arterial bicycle lanes and These three facility types are presented on Figure 4-4. These facility off-street Class I Paths. These arterial bicycle lanes provide north-south types are documented in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter and east-west connections in the western and eastern areas of the City. 1000 and details on their design can be found in the California MUTCD There is no continuous east-west bicycle linkage in Dublin; however, 2012. closing the bicycle facility gap in the Dublin Boulevard corridor between San Ramon Road and Dublin Court is proposed in this Plan. Tables 4-5 E ISTI Nci BICYCL.ING CONDITIONS and 4-6 present the existing bikeways and trail,respectively,in detail. An inventory of existing bikeway segments was conducted based on the WESI DUBLIN City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan (2007), additional information obtained from the City, and field visits. The City currently has Dublin has many off-street bicycle paths that extend north-south approximately 47.2 miles of bikeway facilities,consisting of: through the city,many of which are paved regional trails managed by the East Bay Regional Park District. Dublin Boulevard has east-west Class II • 23.6 miles of Class I bicycle paths bicycle lanes west of San Ramon Road and east of Dublin Court, • 23.27 miles of Class H bicycle lanes including some segments of Class I side paths in the eastern areas.The • 1/3 mile of Class III bicycle routes limited number of undercrossings of Interstate 680 and the lack of public roadways through Camp Parks RFTA present barriers to east-west The Existing Bikeway Network map on Figures 4-5 illustrates the connections, forcing bicycle traffic onto Dublin Boulevard and Amador locations of existing bikeways. Unpaved open space trails are also Valley Boulevard as the only continuous and semi-continuous east-west included on the map as a reference, although these trails do not meet connections,respectively,across the City. Figure 4-5a presents bikeways Caltrans design standards for Class I bicycle paths.They primarily serve in western Dublin. hikers and may or may not permit mountain bicycling depending on park regulations. However, open space trails are recreational destinations BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS DBLINCITY CAE U FA,s required five-foot landscaped buffer from the roadway, eight-foot path, and two-foot clear zone for a Class I path Many of these faciiities In eastern Dublin,the bicycle network consist of Class II bicycle lanes on parallel Class II bicycle lanes. Figure 4-5b presents bikeways in eastern arterial and collector streets as well as wide sidewalks that meet Caltrans Dublin. minimum standards for Class I paths. These wide sidewalks include the � Segment Direction #ofSpeed ADT Bikeway Type Bikeway Extents Lanes limit l San Ramon North- 4-6 Class II Bicycle Lanes Alccsta Boulevard to Dublin Boulevard Road South _ lanes 40 MPH 14,000-25,600 — Side cam on west side Akosta 3culevara o Dublin Boulevard No h 30-'15 1 Class II Bic,de-anes Arnador Valley 3oule,;3rd and rlorthe Ctr Bcunda-t Village Parkway South 413ne- MPH 14,OOv 17,5��0 Class III_aide Rode Amador Valley Boulevard;o Dublin Boulevard Golden Gate No th- 2 lanes 30 MPH Not available Class II Bicycle Lanes d e< I Drive ( South Dublin Bouievar to West Dubin BART i Nc h Dougherty Road 1 4 lanes I �� i 25,200 42,000 rl�ss I Path cr=asp side !ron Horse-ail.o Nob^G d Boundary South MPH 1 1 North_ I Hacienda Road euth 4lanes i 35 MPH 7,500-30,000 Class II Bic cle Lanes I-580 WB Off-Ramp-o Gleason Drve worth o Tassajara Road 4 35 MPH <5,30C-24,000 Oas:i uicide Lanes �` Cr,blin Boulevard and Corr�Dublin p.rch Dive South lanes Fallon Road North- 2-5_ 40 MPH 0,000 Partial lass E Bicycle Lanes ( Tassaiara Road to Pcs,tano Parkway South anes s Tassaiara Rcad[o-leascr :�,we j Kelly Canyon Drive to h,_portatton Drve,Sllvergaie Dnve tc j Dublin 4-5 35-4S Par[ial ..ass II Bic/c e_se East-West E,0Q0-34,000 San RamorY Road Dublin Court to L orxhar-,Stre t Boulevard ( lanes MPH _ i I-ss SIce irsir Hrrse7,ail., is aia-= sT,ail Saint Patrick Wa Y ( last West ( 2lanes 25 MPH Not available I Partial lass II Bicycle Lanes Golden Gate Drve to 530'wet,Essex Development) Amadcr Valley 25 35�, aar,iol a_s 3 Bicdc!e San Ramcr Road o east e Bne'nton Drive,westcund only j _ast-West 4!anes 000 20,Coo Boulevare 1vIPy Lanes, Briahton Drive to W7dwcod Road _ Arnold Road-c Tassajara Road,Brannican Street to cailon Gleason Drive cast West 4 lanes 40 MPH 6,000-8,000 Partial Cass it Bicycle Lares Road 5@ CITY OF DUBLIN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS Aft CITY OF DUBLIN Class I Path South side between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road Arnold Road to Tassajara Road,Branngan Street to Central Parkway East-West 2 lanes 35 MPH 2,500 Partial Class II Bicycle Lanes : Lockhart Street,eastbound only Lockhart Street to Fallon Road Source:Fehr&Peers,2013. x k 4 ant , on-Street Continuation/Class I gap lion Horse Trail City of Concord to City of Pleasanton 12' EBRPD' between Dublin-Pleasanton BART and Santa Rita Road'in Pleasanton Connection to Pleasanton Alamo Canal Trail Southern City Boundary to Iron Horse Trail 14' EBRPD Centennial Trail completed Alamo Creek Trail Iron Horse Trail to Cross Ridge Road 12-14' City Tassajara Creek Trail Dublin Boulevard to Hillbrock Place 20' EBRPD Various Roadway Segments Source:Fehr&Peers,2013. 1. EBRPD-East Bay Regional Park District BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN low CLASS I BIKEWAY (Bike Path) Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flow minimized. , f _ K = .. - . p rte. $✓ =L CLASS II II BIKEWAY (Bike Lane) Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. -ce yZ _ } < p. Ac CLASS III BIKEWAY (Signed Bike Route) \A'ith Optional Sharrow Pavement Marking Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic. ; I g f r _ 8 a .v >� _ 3 ,u - r r gz v r -� a3jjF NOi a T C.r�r of l.,,v al s 'rrcw pa , T'ent-rar fly.5!'.L-Uld '� r..wE e^tar�f,^,pT,Cr.al spar v.ca,,cmer',t from cur' vmeee ca-a ilet oarK r:g is cr se,t; —ar< rcL,c be-' M um'rcm __r-.e, ei cr erred F E H R'� PEERS Caltrans Bikeway Classifications FIGURE 4-4 y" 4 T r a x . �� �/,� s � /mt.°.^n,`�a� r s � a 9 "'*w.�z,,,: € � x •T $ Y" ' � � r r""§,,,�•� #: � _ s vy � '��wr�,,,� x ;� �/ �� }r � .sa Ha � _ �..,`"a i Aw Exiting mail l Crossings Exiting Bikeways - BgRT B Signalized Trail Crossing -Paahsl 77i City Limits Undercrossing --Class D Bicycle Lanes OExisting Unsignalized Crossing -Class m Bicycle Route Q Crossing vwth Pedestrian Beacon aN' figure 45 FEHR t PEERS Dublin Existing Bikewa s March 2014 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN \L L;A_1_I t 1 N ' € , it l r'F"4 F B I C—'i'C_'1, 1 alternatives for Dublin Boulevard and other Downtown roadways is N - included in Chapter 6 Priority Projects of this Plan. Dublin has made substantial progress in building its bikeway network (_ tiLfSJrrr`ti AAA?-T) 1AfTbRSEC TJ0 ,lPV'/SC_)I LN. over the last several years. As shown on Figures 4-5a & 4-Sb Dublin is diligently working towards a continuous bikeway system that is Bicycle lanes in Dublin follow the guidelines codified In California's accessible and comfortable for bicyclists of a wide variety of experience Highway Design Manual (HDM) and Manual of Uniform Traffic Control levels. Addressing these gaps is an important component to developing Devices (MUTCD). Prior versions of these documents provided limited a safe,accessible,and inviting bicycling environment. guidance for bicyclists and drivers at intersections, instructing cities to o° r t r -t _r drop the bicycle lane SO to 200 feet prior to the intersection, indicated L��,I3ct;l' ft?t,LF:,<�,�T) {�,�T C�z.L>>f,fiti only by a dashed line. On shorter block segments,this effectively means Dublin Boulevard currently has Class II bicycle lanes on the western and that there is no bicycle lane striping, leaving bicyclists and drivers with eastern segments of the roadway, but has a gap adjacent to Civic Plaza limited guidance on how to position themselves mid-block. and through Downtown Dublin. While a dedicated bikeway, such as bicycle lanes, would create a continuous east-west facility through Recent research on and best practices in innovative bicycle facilities have Dublin,existing right-of-way constraints would require either the removal examined the importance of intersection treatments. Some of this of a travel lane or widening of the roadway to accommodate such a Information is included in recent 2012 updates to both the HDM and facility. A Class I path could provide a shared bicycle and pedestrian California MUTCD.Even though a bicycle lane may provide a comfortable connection but would require right-of-way acquisition and substantial passage mid-block, most conflicts occur at intersections. Crossing constriction costs. Because of the complexities associated with the treatments may include providing a separate facility from street traffic, Dublin Boulevard options, other roadways in Downtown may provide extending bicycle lane lines through intersections, providing green lower volume and preferred alternatives to traveling by bicycling on pavement in conflicts zones, and creating bicycle-only cut-throughs or Dublin Boulevard. Particularly for last mile connections to West Dublin median island refuges,as examples. BART and to access destinations in Downtown, Regional Street, Amadcr Crossing treatments should also address the wide sidewalks in eastern Valley Boulevard,Saint Patrick Way,and Amador Plaza Road may provide Dublin that meet Class I pathway minimum requirements, such as the alternatives to Dublin Boulevard. Study and design of bikeway ones on Dublin Boulevard. CITY OF n 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CCiY OF DUBLIN SAFFAC'(:FS.S IO RFGION;iL T%I T1-1,5'A:VD (71 Ty guidelines established in this Plan can help guide the development of SIC)CLF LANES new roadways in the area. In the western and eastern parts of the City, residential streets provide L,1tSTFR.,\' DvBa,,\•` GAP CLOSURES the primary access through the area. In east Dublin, these residential streets lead to a large grid of arterials and collectors that provide east- Gleason Drive and Central Parkway both have existing bicycle lanes with west and north-south connectivity. In the western part of the city,these gaps between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street, where two large residential streets make up the vast majority of the street network. In vacant parcels currently have no frontage improvements. The City will these areas,developing a system of neighborhood greenways or bicycle have the opportunity to extend the bike lanes between Tassajara Road boulevards would provide new north-south bicycle routes. These could and Brannigan Street as the area gets developed. Additionally,the small access neighborhood schools as well as connect to bicycle paths,such as roadway segments around the new Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and the Iron Horse Trail and the San Ramon Road bicycle path. West of I- Transit Village on DeMarcus Boulevard do not include bicycle facilities. 680, streets such as Vomac Road, Starward Drive, and Donohue Drive The travel lanes on DeMarcus Boulevard range from 15 to 18 feet,which together provide connections through the neighborhood and access may be wide enough to stripe a bicycle lane to provide last mile Dublin Elementary School. East of I-680,Tamarack Drive/Brighton Drive connections to BART. A shared lane treatment could also be considered. and Davona Drive both provide connections to multiple Dublin schools At General Plan buildout, Dublin Boulevard is planned to be extended and neighborhoods as well as bicycle lanes on Village Parkway. easterly from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard in Livermore. Dublin Boulevard will include Class II bicycle lanes along this stretch of the INTEGRATE 6'IC'r'CL� FACILITIES I:�'TC� NEW I) F,4,S]= 7` roadway and should be coordinated with Livermore to make it 11'1'S RCS FI 61/,4 ;S continuous. Though connectivity across I-680 is limited,additional segments of east- west bikeways are needed in the residential neighborhoods north of Amador Valley Boulevard. This is also true in the eastern residential neighborhoods north of Gleason Drive. As the Camp Parks RFTA area is developed, additional east-west bikeways through this area should address gaps between Dougherty Road and Arnold Road. Design BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN MM 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN Currently, there are no designated on-street crossings of I-580 for bicyclists traveling between Dublin and Pleasanton. I-580 is the southern boundary of the City and Pleasanton. Providing adequate connections across I-580 would likely increase bicycle commuting and recreational riding between the two cities. There are similar opportunities for these connections at San Ramon Road, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road. In 2012, a shared-use path + underneath I-580 was completed to connect the Alamo Canal Trail and the Centennial Trail in Pleasanton. The Iron Horse Trail currently ends at Dublin/Pleasanton BART and does not begin again until Santa Rita Road in a , Pleasanton. A suggested route along Owens Drive provides an on-street connection between the two pathway segments. iT a' Alamo Canal TraiVI-580 Undercrossing completed in 2012. 3 = CITY OF DUBLIN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS `F CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE PARKING & SUPPORT inventory such facilities.It is likely that some employers allow employees to store bicycles in their workspace. For example,SAP and the business FACILITIES park on Hacienda Drive near Gleason Drive offer bicycle parking for employees. The Shannon Community Center, Dublin Civic Center, and Bicycle support facilities such as changing rooms, showers, lockers, and the high school and middle schools all provide showers for those who short-term and long-term bicycle parking are important end-of-trip use those spaces. The high schools and middle schools also have lockers facilities for those who commute by bicycle or who may be thinking of for students. commuting by bicycle. As such, it can be an important factor in encouraging bicycle use. In addition to providing appropriate storage space to park bicycles,support facilities such as showers and lockers are important for commuters who may travel long distances or are subject to formal dress requirements in their workplace. Short-term bicycle parking typically consists of racks,which are useful for visitors to an office or short retail trips,while long-term bicycle parking typically consists of bicycle lockers or secure areas, which are more appropriate for longer stays at work places or transit stations,for examples. Dublin has short-term bicycle parking in the Downtown area as well as at local parks and community centers. Location of existing bicycle parking is shown on Figure 4-6 and Table 4-7. Long-term bicycle parking is only known to exist at the two BART stations in Dublin, which have electronic bicycle lockers through the BikeLink system,which allows users to pay for hourly use of the lockers through a membership card. Some places of employment in Dublin may provide showers, changing space,or long-term storage for bicycle gear; however,the City does not BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN now 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN Bicycle rocks can also provide a public art function,such as this one at Tralee Center in Dublin. s t � �,-_, 4'" -= CITY OF DLBLN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN Alamo Creek Park 3 Schaefer Ranch Park 3 Bray Commons 10 Positano Will's Park 5; Devaney Square 0 Dublin Public Safe Co;, ex 1 Dolan Park 0 Fallon Gatewa (Tar e 11 Dougherty Hills Park 5 Total 306 44 Dublin Civic Center 12 1. Bicycle'spaces indicate the number of bicycles able to park at the facility. Dublin Heritage Park and Museums 12 For example,a single standard U-rack would be able to accommodate two bicycles Dublin Public Library 5 Dublin Senior Center 0 Dublin S parts Grounds 0 Dublin Swim Center 12 Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station._ 78 28 Emerald Glen Park 12 Fallon Sports Park 12 Kolb Park 4 lula e Memorial Park 5 - Piazza Sorrento 6 Safeway-Dublin Boulevard 4 Safeway-Tassa ara Road 18 Stagecoach Park 5 Stager Community Gymnasium 8 Target&EXPO Design Center-Amador 8 Plaza Road Ted Fairfield Park 0 Tr[-Valley Rapid IBus Stops on Dublin 4-8 per stop _ Boulevard {34 total] West Dublin BART Station 28 16 Shannon Community Center&Park 5 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN I t 5 x s E f 1 a��.r. _ xtilb.E 1r i A 0' ain$ ar "�E8. wO �•� � y,y ryas e ".."+ �� "' ','� 's. 4Ax _ " ors's: Existing T-s Crossings Y Proposed T-d Cross ngs Existing d keways Proposed B keways B Signalized Tail Crossing 0 Crossing Improvements _Cass 1 Shared-Use Path Class:Shared-U,e an Cass IIB Buffe-ed 3'icycle Lanes U ldercrossing 0 Unde¢rossing Class II Bicycle_arcs ––-` C uA 31cyde l anes Clan IIIA Bie,�de Roure with Shamows , O isting Unsignalized Crossing BART aW�Cass:II 3 cycle Gass ass TA B e cle Lane,(One Side) III r---- OCrossing with Pedestrian Beacon � _( _______ CI ass IIB Buffered Bicycle-anes n. (E—,rg Cass JA) Igure 4-5 Dubiin Existing Bicycle Parking F E H R'h P E E 15 Aprii 2014 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PEDESTRIAN FNViRONNIENT The following section describes the key issues and a needs assessment An initial walking audit and inventory of pedestrian conditions in the for pedestrian facilities in Downtown Dublin. Downtown area was performed in January 2013 and the following issues have been identified: PEDESTRIAN NEEDS • Sidewalks and Pathways A well-connected pedestrian network is a vital component to livable Intersection Crossing Treatments communities, which thrive on multimodal travel for all roadway users, Barriers regardless of age or ability. This is especially true in Downtown Dublin, High Speed Traffic where users converge from a variety of travel modes. Downtown Dublin ADA Accessibility will continue to draw many people by car in addition to growing Barriers numbers of people from BART; however, once visitors park their cars or Large Turning Radii get off of BART, each visitor to Downtown becomes a pedestrian. Auto Encroachment on Pedestrian Zone Because of this, streets in Downtown Dublin, though they carry large volumes of traffic,should be envisioned as complete streets. Detailed inventories for the mid-block pedestrian infrastructure are presented in Table 4-8 and by intersection in Table 4-9. A complete street should offer equal accessibility for the young and old, disabled and not, and should consider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders. Designing streets with the land use and local context for the most vulnerable users means that they are safe and accessible for everyone.For all pedestrians,the most important aspects of good design include providing a pleasant and attractive pathway system; room for pedestrians to walk side-by-side; and easy, safe crossings from one street to the next. By designing streets for the most vulnerable users, Dublin can provide an environment that will be comfortable and accessible for all. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY Of DUBLIN Recently constructed Complete Street enhancement project on Golden Gate �;;� �� ii '��''"I,�I��µy i- .� Drive near the West Dublin BART Station. t -+f 2 .a CITY OF DUBLIN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN XIttI#5laCOI>� y AN San Ramon Protected Road and N-S 12 S' O • • Left: Marked None Stamped Marked Parallel Parallel Diaconal Parallel � O O NB,SB,EB,W Dublin E-W 145' Boulevard I B Parallel, Parallel, San.Ramon Cut Cut Protected Road and N-S 125' Throughs Thraughs • • Left: Amador Marked Marked None Marked Parallel Parallel Q' E-W 150'_' with No with Na • • NB,SB,EB,W Dailey Truncated Truncated B Boulevard Domes Domes Regional Protected: Street and Diagonal, Diagonal Not e • � D EB,WB Amador Marked Marked Marked N S 97 Diagonal Diagonal Trouncate Truoncate • • C O Permitted: Marked E-W 75' Valley d Domes d Domes NB,SB Boulevard Regional Protected Street.and N-S 100' d Q A d. Left: Marked Marked Marked Marked Parallel Parallel Parallel Parallel NB,SB,EB,W Dublin E-W 70` Boulevard BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY Of DUBLIN y ' n a i 2a MOR Roadway Characteristics Accessibility signal Marked Crosswalks' Curb<Rampsz Push ButtonS3 Protected Crossing Intersection j N i E 5 W distance Nw NE SE SW S S Permuted j W E E W Turns' Golden Gate el. Parallel,l Parallel, Drive and Vc[ i Not N Vc o M r<�d Mar'<ed N-S 80' �aral� 'ot St_Pa.rick': Markec �r<�d T_nc>,ed ;scat T-urw,e ,gnaGzec way c et c'Dcmes d Domes Golden G3-e f Drive PrweCEed N S 90, • • ff • e and Marked Marked ( Mar<ed I Marked I Parallel ± Parallel °arallel Parallel Dublir 1 E-W 80" • • • ^ ( NB,SB,EB N Boulevard � t i � I Dcrarue 1 Drive and N _ O ^ C �3W MarKer. MaiKea :<_d 1a��<e� Pxalle� a;le aralle� Parallel \madcr � c-W°C I • � • • � rrrtec. valley oSd Boulevard i I � Starward Drive and Protected: N-S 100' Dlredion w A'nadcr Marken Marked Mar<ed I Marked �' Diagcral Parallel Diagcnal Valley E w 80, al C C Permitted Boulevard 1 11\18,SIB I " -"" CITY OF DUBLIN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN ibis dwayGi�aracYe�wics' A1cci�3stlttittp ;, , 5i ai MartFsssswai&s� CeurJ� psi Pux ns' Interne ttan ti W �fa 3 rz NE s w @�e tried, w Amador Plaza Road Diagonal, Protected: and Drivewa N-S 100' No • EB,WB None Marked Marked Parallel Parallel • Amador y E-W 75' Truncated • Permitted: Valley Domes NB Boulevard Amador Plaza Road Protected N-S 106' •' • d • Left: and Marked Marked Marked Marked E-W 80' Parallel Diagonal Parallel Parallel •, • NB,SB,EB,W, Dublin B Boulevard' Amador Protected: Plaza Road Parallel, Parallel, Parallel, Parallel, N-S 80' No No No No 4 C e C NB,SB and Marked Marked Marked Marked E-W 75' Truncated Truncated Truncate Truncate C e O G Permitted: St.Patrick's Domes Domes d Domes d Domes EB,WB Way BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN mom 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY Of DUBLIN § acs PA : Roadway Characteristics Accessibility Signal Marked Crosswalks' Curb Ramps' Push Buttonsr Protected i Crossing / Intersection N E S W Distance NW NE SE SAM N, N S 5 Permitted' W E E W Turns' Village Parkway f Parallel, 1 Protected S Parallel, Diagonal, Parallel, ,� and Marked Marked Mar<e Ma ked J 1 5 C t ! Cut- Cut Cu ( • O fief: A-nador t W 125' hrcughs ihroughs Tnrcughs Trrdugh O • O NB,SB,EB,`,E/ Valley B Boulevard Village I c Parkway ti ar Parallel, • • o _?cd and Marked Mar< d mar<ec Marker- Diagcral Diagonal a- Parallel 1A • Dublin C iB,So,EB,';i Boulevard ( B i Ranch r I 1 99/CVS i a-d Not Mdh Not Not ( Not Mackey V sid li Marked M-S 88' Parallef Diagonal Diagonal Amadcr ty Marked Sianallzed Valley j Boulevard l ��"�`. l:.[Tr Of DUBLIN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN Rc cleristics ::�� ' Y Mai k yr Curb l It�uttb 5 �� i '_✓ h's� �� � �xl ; � �� 7 `^ .:�'�'Y'S159ltli3, ,.' ,��g'y�����` �,rwt �y�i' � � r�{��.`��c: i > 44t D[sfae , NW N $ S 1 s � 41 W s Source:Fehr&Peers,2012. 1. All marked crosswalks have standard striping unless otherwise noted. 2. All curb ramps have truncated domes unless otherwise noted. "Cut throuahs"indidcates that a channelized nah-turn island had cut-throuahs to provide circulation through the island. 3. Two symbols=Two push buttons One symbol=One push button • Meets PROWAG Guidelines,as decsribed on page 37 i C Meets Minimum ADA Requirements:Not Best Practices O May Not Meet Draft PROWAG Guidelines 4. Protected=Left turns protected,no conflict with pedestrian traffic Permitted=Left turns permitted,potential conflict with pedestrian traffic BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN _ 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN s. ; s Roadway Characteristics Roadway Segment #of Speed Sidewalk Block Segment Direction ADT Median from To Driveways Buffer i Lanes Limit Width Length -n Ramon North- 4-6 :4,000- q roocr r i ycle aces, a0 MPH Present b Jley 9" 1-,C' Mec um _rds�aoe atr Rooe scut-1 lanes �lerarc BBC ciar� -_n VVe t Side Arnadcr Dublin Vallev 10G' High i Regional Norh- 0,300 ; Boulevard i g SteetTrees 2 fares 30 MPH 1 None ( Boulevarc i etree. South 11,000 Dublin Erd of Cul- Par<i;g,Street 6' 850' Medium j i Boulevsirc De Sac Trees �uI;r S* Pat"cK v� Park:nc � _cU� dF,,ar `ir Trees Golcen Gate Nor'r � lanes 30 MFH 1,80C None Drive Sourh L sots < _,c f Ccl- P r<ir Lcw - v-y Tree, i Amador Dublin _ Vallev ( �_t00' High Street Tees aoulevard a i Boulevar,: I i' Amador North- 2-4 I' 10;D00- t i 35 MPH None Dublin S Patr.Ck Plaza Road South canes 11,000 9' 700' Medium None I Boulevar k;Vay �_� Parkin Street St Patr!c'< i c d of Cul- g 7' J,_' Mecum Way D-Sac Trees vest side) j Village Nock 30_2s 14,000- Amador �uolin P�rk'�na Stree+ s cares r Present Valley R' 18ac Hica Parkway Soutn MP s7,S00 Boulevarc gees . Soulevar ' I S DILBLIN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN 2oatlwajc',Marar.tstrsprs .'- Rcradvua 5e nfe» 5€dewa B� 5gtnen sn � E Metlran. frctrr ;,Eo W length FJ�seway�sfrx rittr , San Ramon Starward g, 1300' High Bicycle Lanes, Road Drive Street Trees Arnado€ 25-35 7,000- Starward Amador Bicycle Lanes, Valley East-West 4lanes Present 4' 400' Low Boulevard MPH 2Q,000 Drive Plaza Road Street Trees Amador Village 8. 1215' High Bicycle Lanes Plaza Road Parkway Street Trees San Ramon Regional Sporadic Street Road Street 8 1 600' Medium Trees Regional Golden 8' 1300' Medium Sporadic Street Dublin 4-6 35-45 6,000 Street Gate Drive Trees Boulevard East-West lanes MPH 34,000 Present Golden Gate Amador 9, 650' Medium Street Trees Drive Plaza Road Amador Village 8' 1160' High Street Trees Plaza Road Parkway St,Patrick Golden Gate Amador East-West 2lanes 2S MPH - None b' 700' Medium None ' Way" Drive Plaza Road Source:Fehr&Peers,2012. 1. Driveway frequency defined as low-0-3 driveway,medium-4-8 driveway,high=8+driveways BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY Of DUBLIN l Sidewalks provide pedestrians with a separated travel path frorn vehicles on the road. Within an urban area, sidewalks should be provided everywhere,but especially around schools,transit stops,parks,and along mixed-use commercial corridors. In the case of schools, safety considerations are a primary concern when families make the decision whether children should walk(or be driven) to school. Transit stops are _ also locations of high pedestrian activity, as every transit rider is a pedestrian for some time both before and after taking a trip by transit. 3 Commercial areas should not only accommodate pedestrian travel but also serve as gathering places for pedestrians. Providing sidewalks will increase the safety and convenience of pedestrian travel for all users. Sidewalks on most streets in the Downtown are eigrt feet in width.Some sidewalk segments have street trees, many of which provide a more paths are often provided to connect uses with sidewalk. comfortable, shaded walking environment. Most tree wells are covered with level grates to increase the amount of usable sidewalk space. 70 t"j CJ"") > ( '?_ 1 p,��4'�T Sidewalk widths are show on Figure 4-7. Well-designed street crossings are vital for improving pedestrian mobility Pathway connections between public and private property are found at and connecting the different parcels within the Downtown.We!I-marked, most locations within the Downtown. Some of the commercial uses in highly visible pedestrian crossings prepare drivers for the !ikelihcod of the Downtown area nave delineated pedestrian circulation routes encountering a pedestrian. They also create an atmosphere of through surface parking lots and along pathways in front of buildings. walkability and accessibility for pedestrians. As with sidewalks, street These facilities are typically connected to the public-of-right of way crossings are particularly important near transit and between pedestrian through marked crosswalks across parking aisles. Many of the parking trip attractors, such as the many commercial and retail businesses in the lot marked crosswalks have detectable warning strips. Downtown. The addition of crossing enhancements may be most .. _- CITY of DUBL[N 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN effective where safety deficiencies exist, as demonstrated through high higher volumes of pedestrians. This condition occurs at several locations collision frequencies,and a high demand for street crossings. in Downtown, including Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive, a critical gateway to the West Dublin BART Station. Signals with permitted In California, pedestrians may legally cross any street, except at turning-movements concurrent with the pedestrian signal phase are unmarked locations between immediately adjacent signalized crossings shown on Table 4-8. or where crossing is expressly prohibited. Marked crossings reinforce the location and legitimacy of a crossing and are essential links in a &I RRIF,S'S pedestrian network. Common practice in California is to place marked crosswalks on all four legs of an intersection. If a crosswalk is not marked Linear barriers physically separate different parts of the City,and present because of a safety or operational decision, the crossing should be obstacles to walking. Two major interstates provide both an east-west closed with a barrier at the curb. Additional information is available in barrier to other areas of Dublin and a north-south barrier to the Section C of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. Marked neighboring city of Pleasanton. Connections across these barriers are crosswalks are striped at most intersection approaches of signalized extremely limited. The only two crossings of I-680 in Dublin are on intersections in the Downtown;however,the distance between signalized Amador Valley Road and Dublin Boulevard. Sidewalks are provided in intersections is typically over 500 feet, limiting connectivity. At Amador both locations and murals have been painted under the overpasses; Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road, only three crosswalks are marked, however,these areas still create mental and physical barriers to walking with the eastern crossing prohibited by a barrier and signage. One in Downtown. Related highway infrastructure,such as on-and off-ramps marked mid-block crosswalk exists in the Downtown, across Amador connecting to St. Patrick Way, near the West Dublin BART Station, Valley Boulevard between Regional Street and Starward Drive. provides additional barriers and higher-speed traffic within the Downtown. The very wide cross-sections of the roadways in the While many turning movements have protected signal phasing, several Downtown also provide barriers to pedestrian circulation. Though important intersections have permitted turning movements during the residential areas are in close proximity to Downtown to the west, San pedestrian signal phase. A protected signal phase means that a turning Ramon Road poses a large barrier to pedestrians who are crossing into movement is given its own signal phase:when the protected movement Downtown with its large cross section and consequently large has a green indication, other movements receive a red indication. intersections. Crosswalk lengths at San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard Permitted turns typically operate concurrently with the walk phase for the are 150 feet. Other barriers to walking include limited street connectivity crosswalk on the receiving leg. This can create conflicts,particularly with (e.g.with cul-de-sacs),large retail sites with high amount of parking and BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN MEW 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBL N truck access, highways and associated on- and off-ramps, and gated result, c.:rb radii at intersection corners are large. The turning radii it communities. Downtown Dublin are typically between 30 and 45 feet. While longer trucks do need to access the commercial areas of Downtown,the needs of truck traffic should be baianced with the needs or other roadway users. The following aspects of large turning radii cause challenges 'or Traffic speeding can negatively affect the pedestrian experience,and is a primary indicator for the severity of a pedestrian injury as the result of a pedestrians: collision. Arterial streets such as Dublin Boulevard, San Ramon Road, Large turning radii lengthen the crossing distances required for Dougherty Road,and Amador Valley Boulevard.were designed for higher pedestrian to negotiate the intersection,which increases vehicle speeds and often have no buffer between sidewalks and travel pedestrian exposure at intersections. lanes.In Downtown,speed limits range from 30 MPH on most streets to It has been obseried that large turning radii allow most vehicles 35MPH on Dublin Boulevard and 40 MPH on San Ramon Road. These to make turns at higher speeds,which can create conflicts with speed limits reflect the priority placed on automobile traffic circulation pedestrians as turning vehicles enter the crosswalk area. and access in the Downtown Area on these roadways. A buffer between With large turning radii,many vehicles may enter a turn as they the sidewalk and moving traffic helps protect pedestrians and maximizes come to a stop,encroaching in the crosswalk space as they wait comfort. Buffers can include landscaping or street trees, bicycle lanes, or for a break in traffic. parked cars. At these locations, no on-street parking is allowed, which can feel unsafe for pedestrians if they walk close to the curb. Some street Dec-easing the turning radii at intersections in the Downtown may trees exist on these roadways; however, many blocks in Downtown have shorten crossing distances by 1-0 to 15 feet or more. trees spaced 40 feet or more apart,which can erode the feeling of being buffered from fast-moving vehicles. At these locations, vehicle speeds A similar issue is present at some driveways In Downtown. Driveways should be controlled through design and striping measures to help vitn larger aprons have minimal cross slopes, allowing drivers to easily control speeds and enhance the ambiance of the walking environment. —ake the turn By contrast, at newer driveways, Dublin has required an approximately four-foot level area through the crosswalk. This decreases the size of the driveway apron and increases the slope of the driveway, `orcing drivers to travel slowly as they exit the driveway. To certain extent, many roadways in Dublin are designed to facilitate the movement of private automobiles,emergency vehicles,and trucks. As a - - C iTY D I; a IN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN I a " moo, Large intersections create long cross-distances in Downtown Dublin. AUTO FivCROACI-IAIEVT ON I'ED STRI.-aN ZONES Automobiles frequently encroach into the pedestrian environment,often failing to stop at the stop.bar. In general, it is not uncommon anywhere to observe vehicles to cross into the crosswalk space when stopped or turning. This encroachment tC;C'L':SSI�ILIIY TNAZ ;tt�t r3 �1;1:�'"LJAhLJ,S I3Z..%I on pedestrian space makes for unpleasant walking environments in No T BEST PRA C TIC'S which pedestrians must navigate around vehicles stopped in the with Most curb ramps in Downtown are parallel curb ramps ("Case C'), crosswalk. At the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection,the one ramp on each street corner. Parallel curb ramps slope the whole two northbound right-turn lanes have permitted right-turns on red after sidewalk down to street level on both sides,with no level sidewalk space stopping,which conflicts with the pedestrian phase for the north-south behind it. They are typically used in constrained environments, where crossings. for pedestrians, this creates an unpleasant walking additional space for diagonal or directional ramps,both of which require environment,as two lanes of vehicles try to turn across the crosswalk as a four-foot clear, level space behind the ramp may not be feasible. The they move across the street. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN use of parallel curb ramps can be inconvenient for pedestrians regardless may be difficult for pedestrians with disabilities to readily access. The of ability. Parallel ramps require those continuing on the sidewalk to elative accessibility of push buttons as well as the type and location of travel down one ramp and up the other,which may be more difficult for curb ramps is shown on Figure 4-8. people in wheelchairs or parents with children in strollers. With diagonal or directional curb ramps,the level landing area is behind the curb ramp, With the high demand of commercial uses,driveways are often wide but allowing pedestrians continuing on the sidewalk to remain at a level have varying levels of pedestrian accommodation across them. grade. _ l The placement of actuated push buttons at these curb ramps is also particularly important; if they are placed on only one side of the ramp, users must also travel down one ramp and up the other. If only one push button is provided,it should be placed at the level landing at the bottom of the ramp. The best practice is to provide perpendicular ramps, also known as directional ramps, which are aligned perpendicular to vehicular traffic and parallel to the crosswalk on either approach. These directional ; ramps minimize exposure to traffic for pedestrians Kx Some diagonal ramps also exist in the Downtown. These locations , typically have two push buttons. The locations of these push buttons vary in terms of accessibility. All push buttons are relatively up-to-date Example P f a discontinuity in the sidewalk on Dublin Boulevard,where a bus pull-out with wide,convex push buttons. Many are paired with audible devices to is located indicate cardinal direction at crosswalks. The push button should be placed between one and a half to six feet from the face of curb and should be placed so that a wheelchair user can easily actuate the device from a level landing area, without getting too close to the sloping curb ramp. Push buttons placed too close to the curb or too far from the curb - - CITY OF DUBLIN N „ jay � Legend 0411'1;11�1 Sidewalk Wdths «_+•_+=5 feet ��I P •�.,.' 6t.7 Feet 8 Feet or more ;'t I Marked Crosswalks Standard Crosswalk "` B k a m Cro s ng Proho ted Signalized Intersection `y t 4 y WNW"! x''r y � * °� mkli � ry {,. S as :. F E H R-�P E E R S SIDEWALK WIDTHS&MARKED CROSSWALK LOCATIONS FIGURE 4-7 s at w Y 'lif nv Legend $' C,,b R , a ue { ^ Pf w�° 6; � vim" Q• � s tws.:.. s s iial �� O r , Al f ryeYp '° :. � ��. ..,,, ,�.«A-�,a•..�":" lfO i S F E H R'1 PEERS PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY FIGURE 4-8 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN MULTI-MODAL CONNECTIONS The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is served by 14 bus lines, which primarily connect to the Hacienda Business Park area In addition to Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART),the regional commuter rail transit system, several route serving Dublin business parks and neighborhoods. Service provides service at the West Dublin and Dublin/Pleasanton Stations in is limited on weekends. Dublin on the Millbrae-Dublin/Pleasanton line. Bicycles are currently The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station is also served by three County allowed on BART trains during non-commute hours (4 AM to 6:30 AM, Connection express bus service routes with approximately one hour 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM,and 6:30 PM-Closing)and all day on weekends and headways. These services connect Dublin with communities in Contra holidays. During AM peak periods (6:30 AM to 9:00 AM), westbound Costa County along 1-680 to then north. bicycles are not allowed in stations between Dublin/Pleasanton and Powell Street. In the PM peak period (4:00 PM to 7:00 PM), eastbound Existing transit service is presented on Figure 4-9. bicycles are not allowed in the stations between Civic Center and San Ill p Leandro.BART allows bicycles on all trains during all hours of operation. During the peak commute hours(7:00-9:OOAM and 4:30-6:30PM)bicycles " are not allowed in the first three cars of any train. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority's (LAVTA's) Wheels buses serve the Tri-Valley area of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. The transit provider has 16 rapid, local, and express routes and 1S school focused routes. V The Tri-Valley Rapid is a new rapid bus service that serves major area destinations such as Hacienda Crossings, Downtown Dublin, and BART stations. New Rapid-branded bus stops with shelters, wayfinding information, and short-term bicycle parking are provided along Dublin Boulevard. An example of an existing bus stop on Dublin Boulevard with a bus shelter and bicycle parking. The Downtown area and the West Dublin BART Station are served by Routes 3 and 10,which connects western Dublin and western Pleasanton. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Legend T'ar, it xti�ic� �,1 rZ f `t - D z 7 4+ � x i Fiqure 4-9 Dublin Multi-Modal Connections R 'p RS January 2014 4. EXISTING WALKING & BICYCLING CONDITIONS CITY OF DUBLIN This page left intentionally blank BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN Once completed, the proposed bicycle and pedestrian networks will RECOMMENDED BICYCLING provide more comfortable,and more direct walking and bicycling routes throughout the City. The proposed bicycling and walking networks were FACILITIES developed based on the following criteria: This section describes the proposed Dublin bicycle network,which builds • Connections to Key Activity Centers:Local schools,community off of recommendations made in the 2007 Plan to expand the bicycle facilities,parks,the Dublin Library,Downtown Dublin,and BART network,including two new bikeway classifications and new segments of Stations should all be conveniently accessed via the bicycle proposed bikeways. Bicycle facilities consist of the segments of bicycle network. networks as well as bicycle parking and other support facilities, such as • Comfort and Level of Stress:New bicycle facilities should showers and lockers. provide low-stress facilities that users of all ages and abilities, including the young and old,can feel comfortable using. • Connections to Regional Trail System:Many trips in Dublin The recommended bicycle network redefines the bikeway classifications may be longer distances and/or have a recreational purpose. set forth in the 2007 Plan in accordance with recent best practice The bicycle network should provide easy access to the extensive guidelines,as defined below. regional network from residential areas,BART stations,and commercial areas. C71AY,SIFIC"ATIO/v LIP011TF.5' • Connections to Adjacent Cities:Many activity centers,including shopping and employment centers,are located nearby in the The 2007 Plan used the three basic bikeways classifications (Class I neighboring communities of Pleasanton,Livermore,and San Bicycle Path,Class II Bicycle Lanes,and Class III Bicycle Routes)as defined Ramon. in the California Highway Design Manual (HDM). This Plan subdivides those groups to create an expanded classification scheme for Dublin: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ....,�, 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN • Class I Bicycle Path Figure 5-2 Ilustrates the existing and proposed Dublin bicycle network. • Class IIA Bicycle Lanes The prciect lists presented on Table 5-2. A comprehensive project list Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes nclueinq cos; estimates and tiered pricritization for each bikeway and Class IIIA Bicycle Routes with Sharrows plarninci-level cost estimates are presented in Appendix A and dlscussec in Chapter 6 Priority Projects. Unit cost estimates for each The four bikeway classifications are presented conceptually in Figure 5-1. bikeways t/pe are presented in Table 9-2. All of these treatments are supported under the HDM, California Vehicle Code, and California Uniform Manual on Traffic Control Devices !CA MUTCD), and detailed design guidelines are provided in Bicycle and '� r ' Pedestrian Design Guidelines. Bikeway Classification , Existing Proposed Total C.as _B,cyde Path 22 78 I 9.98 32 75 New segments of Class HIA Bicycle Routes are proposed on many local streets, connecting residential areas with key destinations such as O'D nL x, regional trails, schools, and Downtown Dublin. The minimum standard - B - so-de 3.83 S.S 3 for Class III Bicycle Routes is updated to require the striping of sLarrows "n s in addition to Bicycle Route signage. Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes are i c c e 3c :e x C 147 i proposed on roadways with existing wide bicycle lanes and/or wide travel lanes to offer increased separation between bicyclists and autos. t p// ctes. PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK I,are 1i � i",oals� ci,-_�i•Fs ir._' In total, over 37 miles of bikeways are proposed. Table 5-1 presents c%_ crn is=is �_�� e existing and proposed mileage by bikeway classification. The proposed _i,srs-f-r,] _77 ar r r 7Lc bikeways include those that will be included in developer-built projects. CITYOP DuBLiN r 4 � .I Bike Wna Sign Optional `wr Rm' # ;s k ,• 1, T, �< < x. s• ���� /ate, : z r, E' u ,.11Ca Figure 5-2a. Bike way Classfications _ ___ FEHR�'PEERS Bve Route iign I I ` a ' sm!9 A w , a ax Figure 5-lb. Bikeway Classfications F E H R-P E E R S f Mfr. 7 _5 a... .r �� � er ;» e, Existing Trail Crossings Proposed Trail Crossings Existing Bikeways Proposed Bikeways B Signalized Trail Crossing Q Crossing Improvements —Class I Shared-Use Path ___.Class(Shared-Use Path Class BB Buffered Bicycle Lanes ® Undercrossing 0 Over or Undercrossing —Class B Bicycle Lanes ———• Class IIA Bicycle Lanes ———•Class IM Bicycle Route wth Sham—s O Existing Unsignalized Crossing BART —Class IB Bicycle Route — Class ILA Bicycle Lanes(One-Side) Crossing with Pedestrian Beacon C__,::'i-'i �_ Class BB Buffered Bicycle Lanes NI (Existing Class BA) Figure 5-2 Dublin Existing&Proposed Bikeways FEHR�'PEERS June 2014 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY Of DUBLIN Length Project blame Proposal(directions} Class Location � Existing;Conditions Recommendations Alamo Canal Class I cc rc Pcue ; CI Trail/Civic Plaza rte ac�uirec by City for dgt e 01 Shared-1-se Path arc Badge I Alamo ral -1 yJei.edes� an br Mass t—,—re Li v:ices, C nnectorx City Public Safe-, cc�necirc to Alarmc Coral T�ail _ -Proposec Class Iraciliy along Along Alt mraoo h Altamirano Street{om t�e BART Altamiranc Street, i Shared-Ose Path 1 li from Dube r RAPT Tndeveloped road 0.65 station to Mar�nelh Station to Marinelli Way. -Develccer-Built Facility j Am cor Pl z :. ,des-cnr e 'rn nmcosec TI HA Bio 'le Lanes r»adcr Plaza e wF n r a]C- Bicycle Lanes IIA oe cinc fur ,_-= .,le_2 St e. 0.41 Poac R ulever, arc N ,�Di�blir BA?-Station de_icr^r_-crricor III ?rc osec Class hB Buffered Amador valley Exilting 1Q Class[I bicycle Bicac e_are between San Amadcr Vallev j Bculevac from San it Buffered Blcvcie Lanes IIB ane-between San Ramor: Ramon RoaC and Viilage j 0-63 Boulevard ro^dor Ramon Road t�)'Vill e Road and Village Parkway Parkway:narrow 12'Crave.lanes f l Par<waY I =x icydr I nc Ord Amadcr valley Amaocr'✓�Iley e _ r g s S_roe rve- - r'<ng T' Bculevarc-omdcr l ° ce.3res A Boulecarc r�',,II-yr r�� �_r_; �ic�[ s-,r yirg_tanc rd G� Q_= rats,Nay c k ter'. _ic,de! e-erne Cane, i$✓ CIT,'0F CL3 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY Of DUBLIN Elmo gth Pro�act Maene '; proposal{€1►ree#onsv .,':;[lass. Location Existing Conditions Recommendations mow; (Mites)i Amador Valley Class IIA WB between Proposed Class IIA narrow 13' Amador Valle Boulevard between Valley Bicycle Lanes `IIA Stagecoach Road and travel lanes,stripe buffered 018 Boulevard Corridor Stagecoach Road and Wildwood bicycle lane Wildwood Road Existing Class II Bicycle Amador Valley Lanes drop before Amador Valley p Boulevard between Stagecoach Road(WB). Proposed Class IIIA 1 0.14 Boulevard Corridor Bicycle Route with Sharrcws IIA Wildwood Road and No bikeways between Dougherty Road Stagecoach Road and Dougherty Road Arnold Drive from Existing Class 11A from Central Parkway to end P Central Parkway to Dublin Proposed Class IIA between Arnold Drive Bicycle Lanes IIA of roadway when Boulevard. SB Class IIA Dublin Boulevard and end of 03 extended oust north of only between Dublin roadway(when extended) Boulevard and Martinelli I-580) Way Dublir Crossings EIR B Street(Camp B Street(DeMarcus proposes B Street Proposed Class IIA Parks/Dublin Bicycle Lanes IIA Boulevard)from Dublin (DeMarcus Boulevard) 0.51 Crossing) Boulevard to G Street between G Street and Developer-Built Facility Dublin Boulevard Bicycle racks exist at some Install bike racks as funding Bicycle Rack Complete the installation of public parks and civic permits at various public Bicycle Racks at Public Citywide Program businesses and buildings,parks and in the Program Facilities Citywide at TnValley Rapid bus stops Downtown area BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN S. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN Project blame' Proposal Directions Length 1 p (Directions) i Class �Location i' Existing Conditions Recommendations } (miles) i war,side cr 3ranniaan I i -`r �erral j Brannlgan St.Path , Snared—�� �no eve'cpec i_oe rkwat c,.,leas ,r - u It acllri ?5 Crive Low volume ccllecro' Brighton Drive beeveen street,provides conre..icn Bnahton Drive I Bicycle Rcute with sharrows 11a _uciana st e t and to Dublir-�gr and 1v4array Proposed Gass ass T.a Sicyde Rocre ' AmadorValley Dement,-r'»» pools; with sparrows Boulevard existing slgr liz.a cscsssng i I i s /!Rage Parkway ! Dn rcrt ide C..tral if Central Par<Avay Shared =Pate,Street Parkway r Pr ralc ss II lanes-t-ced cr I i B en a!k�ass�iara vr,tr i P=r:w j Bicycle PaiP Crosson rarcemen - z .d o n. r ican Tassaiara nc t.ee, i Central Par<wa rroin Cenral Parkway ! y � �, Proposed V`3 .ass TA from Roadway act widened. ?xdyce Lanes IA 7a�sa ara Road to Corridor � 1 Tarsajara P cad to R_rnigan 016 d x!nd Cla�s]",ER 1 Branrigan Sheet Street I C r ral Par<way °icyc'e'_are, A Lc�k'rart _t'tc <�na a ire :c rart S _ rc ea Corridor B _ as�er•, V I.mgt limit { Central Parkway I Dublin C-os rgs EiP Corridor;Cam c nt al nar'<aay I proposes B Street Bicycle_Lane, IIA 'between B Sireet and (De-rarcus Soule,:ard1 Proposed Class IIA Parks/ Developer Built:=adliU 0,37 Crossing) I A Hold Read be_neer,G Street and 7 i C blip Boulevard i C'TYOr DUBLIN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY or DUBLIN Prci ect Nam prc.+x�al €€rgctiett Class Ec►cation Ex€st€ Conditions Recnmmendat€9ns Cen9th ; Proposed Class I connection Central Parkway between Iron Horse Trail and Corridor to Iron Central Parkway,extending from Horse Path Class I connection from Central Parkway/B Street Connection(Camp I Central Parkway to Iron Undeveloped roadway intersection through Parks/Dublin Horse Trail development and proposed Dublin Crossing Park to Iron Crossing) Horse Trail-Developer-Built Facility From Fallon Road to Central Parkway Undeveloped;planned Paths Shared-Use Path 1 Croak Road,on both Fallon Village development Developer-Built Facility 0.75 sides of Central Parkway Planning study to assess existing inventory and detection type; Citywide Bicycle Multiple locations identify and prioritize Sgnal Detection intersections needing bicycle detection,and recommendation bicycle detection type. Citywide Prepare citywide way€inding plan Wayfindinig Project Citywide - and install Guide signs as funding permits Clark Avenue between Low-volume collector Clark Avenue Bicycle Lanes IIA Dublin Boulevard and street;provides connection proposed Class IIA Bicycle Lanes 0.07 Alamo Canal Trail/City to Cvic Plaza and Hall Connector Commercial Area BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN M=7 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN A� Length Project Name Proposal(Direetians) Class Location Existing Conditions Recommendations (miles) II ; C oa Road fr m Dt,cl Rcadwa under Croak Rcaa Bic�ce Lanes IIA Boul -ard�o�pcer y Proposed Eiass IIA Bicycle Lanes � , de ielcproer.t j L eo scao —{ �rcm D;-,-An to Lipper L5cp ,Ca_ r �r� rvFr _d e , Croak Roac pate era., L« Path -Dweo�er� it � *'acifit/ ct �:des c�< =ali�i ,,'IGee deg,co ent Rcad eR omcoses D Street J!on D Street(C=c D Street(iron Ho,-e I Hcr e arkway)'oemeen G Proposed Shared-Use Path Parks/Dublin Shares-Use Path 1 Far'Kway' o n, bi r C°cssrna) aouievard G Street STe and D.bin -Developer-Built actk joule arc Lavena Lry �N e 71l " i L u , - _, cc e A om -ana I Davena Crve cede 4cu e w,t'r Siarrows P _rice _� het Q26 A or S___ _ /'ila >,<Wo, �V sy- m D avona Drive'rom -ow 6,n)e co lector Propo eC C mS A,Sie de .Duce Davona Drive Bic/de Pcute with sharrows II'A AkDD to Rodevar c-C, str t �;v a s_cnrec icn 046 Saar-ovs Luuana S o sru ray Rler-entant. er�arccs er�ie�t.rn c ;ee BAr'. access Demarcus I rrcm DUDIi I 'c=c with cr ��reet zicrc':e LanesA ac _a L 3'�a,<^c, ul u Boevard �o DudlrP� -- Cea_:ocer t aollid 'Aril stat'on. -_Liar _c__, dior, I 90 COY F D!B N 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN ProjectNairer prnpnsat(Mrecfi gtrrs} Class Ecicai Exii ing Con'ditions rss Unties)' Dougherty Road from Class ILA bicycle lanes north of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard to south of Iron Horse Trail;Revise Dougherty Roar} northern City limit. May Class It between Amador Class IIA striping northbound to Bicycle Lanes IIA need to be a Class Ill Valley Blvd and Iron Horse 136 Corridor route between Dublin Trail include bicycle Zane pavement Boulevard and Sierra legends and widen or restripe Class IIA northbound to provide Lane. consistent 6'width Coordinate with Pleasanton and Dougherty Road 55'curb-to-curb cross- Caltrans on the feasibility of Dougherty Road Buffered Bicycle Lanes US g section in each direction on installing Class IlB bike lanes 0.41 Corridor between I-S80 Ramps existing overpass. through interchanges per Draft FE Recommended Practice. Existing southbound Dougherty Path becomes one way northbound near 5th St. Cyclists continuing Modify SB pork chop island to to Southbound Iron Horse facilitate bicycle/pedestrian Dougherty Road trait must.cross Dougherty traffic;Modify signal phasing to Path/Iron Horse Reconfigure bicycle lanes Dougherty Road Path at twice_ There is roam to provide Leading Pedestrian Trail Connection and signage. Grade I n/a Iron Horse.Trail continue a southbound Interval for north crosswalk; Improvements& separation study, path to connect with the Reduce crossing distance and overcressing study Iron Horse trail crosswalk skew. Consider grade- southbourd:_Study separated solution. potential for Iron Horse Trail bicycle overcrosvng above Dougherty Rd. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN _�0 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF- DUBLiN Length Project Name � Proposal(Directions? �`Gass ' Location Existing Conditions � Reeommens�ations - -- —� (miles) ubiir c- rc ouIT- Dublin 5oclevand r cr F �r n cycle R._-�wr �ha cv�s IDA ec 1 L n�idor an c� n A acc, 3laza a�a'o�L tilt o au and n'Iage arcr,ay I Dubiir ctiard n. -� �..en.exis i, � Dublin Bo�;levar.. � oet4vecn? �,ador��a a I ��u�calk to Snared _Par E,„irg 3 sic-walk w i_truct shared use arh c,r 02= Corridor - 4 ad ar Village j Para a so�ti,side Dublin Boulevard Dublir I -rc Dubiir Boulevard B,cjcle-ares A et e� adoc- =c :,A �I��raa .<t r s' r a I � Dublin BoPr csad L S ,4 wh. ule«ard �udeL-r vo^ � P Bic"de Lures 1A ,:,,elccec roadwav cadwa i� rs_ua d this is 1 3 Caryon r rkn,a; i � Y- ❑ve-r-.ore long-'errn saii-jon t Olin-Bo de,ard P_7- I c Shard �r_, � 1 iLi� _Iller r C;� r r-,w c c c Cc":c7or - I r u icy ,ryor , ac _ Lira of u_IVer^ore; c crro f Olin 3ocic ara ara�cr�� - - Ca—,ors - CITY OF DUBLIN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIA-N NETWORKS . CITY OF DUBLIN Prcye t Narn�e Prcpos�t l?trec nsj Class NLncation Exrstin4Cnnditinns Recc mmendattans ,: Dublin Boulevard Landscape improvements to 5'vegetated area from Iron Landscape'improvements could' Path eliminate puncture vine Horse Parkway to SAP be included in the development office complex of frontage;properties- Unpaved pathway and Class I bicycle path landscaped area. Dublin High along south side of Improvements needed to Preferred alignment along south School/Iron Shared-Use Path I school grounds and existing signage surfacing, side of Dublin High School Dublin Swim Center fencing and landscaping at rounds to connect to proposed 0.17 Horse Trail Path g p 9 9 P P from Iron Horse Trail to existing_connection from Class IIIA on Davona Drive Village Parkway Iron Horse Trail bridge to Dublin High property. I i From Area F East East Dublin Neighborhood Park to Proposed Class I path on Finnan Bicycle/Pedestrian Shared-Use Path I Area F West Undeveloped,planned Way between Chancery Lane Corridor Neighborhood Square, Sorrento development. and Fitzwtlllam Street' 0'3 with bridge crossing -Deve#oper=Built Facility Grafton Street Until long-term trade separation Fallon Rd.Grade From proposed Fallon project is completed,implement separation with stripe enhanced,at-grade high- Fallon Village Bridge I Village Creek Westbank Undeveloped,planned g g e Trail to Future Fallon Fallon Village development visibility trail crossing at 0.16 Creek Trail/ Sports Park appropriate location. Install trail Dublin Sports Park crossing signage.-Developer- Built Facility BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CI TY OF DUBLIN £ � Project Name �' Proposal Length (Directions} ` class i Location Existing Conditions Recommendations i (mites) j kFallon Road from soLth I Cass IIA on ore-side or Dublir)Boulevard be*weer Glea 3n and pr0po< —ass IIA Fallon Road Bicycle Lanes IIA Tassajara Roadr 1 s3Lth or rent,al Par!<Nay, Cor��dor l Developer-Built::acility as Sara Road to some bic de lane strlpine_, C,u nty Gmt ai irter,ectons � ?rc c cla a witr t ping_ 00' curb-to-�� r mss a. Ilcr°cad - r li er icr cr ex s�no - Mme ,c c =allan Road - �'e Lure Iha leverw s� Ne S_r as. Ir �Lth Corridor o arc .Dad ccordi ate wi. 0-. i_ _ t�,el pones j °Ieasanton ar � I -De.Jocer-3wk adlltt From Fallon.R cao allon Village t Fro,osed Class C eek Eastbank Shared Use Pain i Oper Spa _nort. Undeve(oced •tanned p 1.05 orcoosed Lpper L000 Fallon Villace development l -Developer-Rsilt Racil u Tsai'j Road r all r �c c. Fallon Village e C er Space n ��nrri Ic ced rlarred Pek Westban< hared 7-t- [ - rr csed Fallcr, la_ce.:cv_'ocrt�t cer-_ rt actin Trail - Rc�d tER proposes ornecticn G Ss ee:(Camp 'oe seer Arnold Rcad era ( er Dosed Cass I � Sleet i-om Lca�le Pawsi Dublin Shared-Use Path i Scarlett Drive ncludina 23 Drive to Arnold Roa Dev,ope B lit Facility C°essira ( connection_o Tror-c,e Trail :..��T... CI I' L F F)Li L:N 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN FMrojact N$r a praposal'(airertil Class_ Lacatiorr° Existing Conditions t amenenrlafieat�s (mites G Street/Iron EIR proposes connection Crossing Improvements at Horse Trail Scarlett Drive/G between Arnold Road and proposed intersection of Scarlett Crossing(Camp Trail Crossing Improvements I StreetArcn Horse Trail Scarlett Drive,including Drive/G StreetAron Horse Trai Parks/Dublin Intersection connection to Iron Horse Developer Built Facility) Crossing) Trail on south side of Class H lanes striped on Gleason Drive from Gleason Dr,west of Gleason Dr,Bicycle Shared Use Path,Street Tassajara Rd.,and striped 0.25 I Emerald Glen Path Crossing Enhancements Park/Tassajara Road to intermittently between Tassajara Rd.and Fallon Brannigan Street Rd Gleason Drive from Gleason Drive Bicycle Lanes IIA Tassajara Road to Proposed Class IIA 0.92 Corridor Brannigan Street Grafton Street from Existing roadway with Grafton Street Bicycle Route with Sharrows IIIA Gleason Drive to Central narrow cross-section Proposed Class IIIA Bicycle Route 0.3 Parkway Grafton Street from Proposed Class IIIA Bicycle Route Grafton Street Bicycle Route with Sharrows IIIA Saddlebrook Place to with Sharrows 0.07 Gleason Drive -Developer-Built Facility Grafton Street from Residential roadway with Grafton Street Bicycle Route with Sharrows IIIA Saddlebrook Place to Proposed Class IIIA 0.25 Antone Way on-street parking BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN g _ OEM Len th Project Narne Praposai(Birectians} Class Location I Existing Conditions Recommendations (miles) r a j 'oco,e ra bit-erect ca-I <s A ircm c cle tare rorr Duoiin I Hader a Drive r. e r D ve to Dablir. 2cul ,°rd o souir o 580 o,e oass Pleasan on} pe, Hacenda Drive Buffered Bicycle Lanes IIB vleasor,Drve to _sle,°,d ?� curb tc- ' 1 0,07 soutFern City lima* r.c ors �..�on on a 2 vmmerded I _�C doss Practice;r_aui-es aporoval and orairatior from C=ltrarsand a IA cet✓ — -- �r r se arc Cu.l' Hac:enc3 Drive �acenda Drve Bicycle_aces LA easor Drive r3 —C c "ex'eres tc I- cd Greer pe-orflic Pa ps 'cr`,B U r i zcre-reatr c-r - n°mps cJet are d° cs'r � PreNOrea mss TIC Duoun �� I Iron Horse ron arse Parkway o to thrc l re access I Rculerard and Var2lrelli vV y Parkway Bic/de 1.3res IIA rom Dubkr Boule,ari in-3 9aRT Ni[. on- Il ravel lanes,8'a°r rg,ar=c' to RAPT Parking!ci reef oark:n,, Class 1A Deve!ocer-built 7,rcr -or _ rkNC r, tir t r cc °.P Ent Norte Bicyce are�iBle�.ce Rcute b.-^,j rom 3-IRT? <i-c < b uts l -a-,:-r ti r c J 12 e N t -3 de -, ii �ucr_ rlic_ i P n way tii l Shar ows [ A o Duch, Pleas'-.nt� --3, 3ART ST_T on ns,la^ r :e�b�_s ocil-oc� l- e r,i -'us pr,llc, 2r-as on Sr ce ct ,�adway.=opcsed j CI 'IA SR •,,',; CITY CF Du2LIN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN �#arrre pre tisai �rechcns� Class Lncafron : Exrs r► Gnn�ftroru Recommeen aCitans P (mResl' Iron Horse Trail/ Dublin Blvd Crosswalk striped on all Install trail and wa indin Intersection improvements, P Yf 9 Intersections Iron Horse trail at Dublin signage and striping- I legs of Dublin signage,Install trail crossing 0.06 Improvements& Boulevard e Overcrossing Boulevard/Scarlett Drive si na avercrossi g study. 9 9 Study Iron Horse Trail/ North side of Dublin Signaae/gateway element,map Dublin Blvd.Rest I Boulevard,east side of Undeveloped. kiosk,benches,bicycle racks, Iron Horse Trail trash/recycling bins,drinking_ Area water fountain Lockhart Street from Developed Roadway with Proposed Class IIIA Lockhart Street Bicycle Route with Sharrows IIIA Dublin Boulevard to 0.7 narrow cross-section -Developer-Built Facility Gleason Drive Low-volume collector Lucina Street between street,provides connection Proposed Class IIIA Bicycle Route Luciano Street Bicycle Route with Sharrows IIIA Davona Drive and 0.14 o Dublin high and Murray with Sharrows Brighton Drive Elementary Schools Maple Drive between Low-volume collector Proposed Class IIIA Bicycle Route Maple Drive Bicycle Route with Sharrows IIIA York Drive and Dublin street;provides connection 0 42 with sparrows Boulevard to Wells Middle School Martinelli Way from Proposed Class IIA from Iron Martinelli Way Bicycle Lanes IIA Iron Horse Parkway to Horse Parkway to Hacienda 0.47 Hacienda Drive Drive-Developer-Built Facility BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Mom- 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS - CITY OF DUBLIN M ME s Length Project Name Proposal(Directions) Class Location Existing Conditions Recommendations (miles) Ex i From Amarillo RoaRoad { x,�ing Bath along along southern ecge of souJ,ern edge o Mage M m r;-I P ark' ✓th Mape Mer orial N elscn Dernertary.o Park Path j Shared-Use?ath i cece�riar or cite over Proposed a.ss t 025 exisiing oatn along i n Car, r,creek and Maoe Me-rcral Park to Cco,rre rlion ran Par-or San Ramon Roan Pd C, r th. sz i Ca Blu`f Ln - From e xi it g s/cle/r Jesriar Lrcavec' . Fallon Ct_ Shared-. _e°atli - J OS Ccnnecion crdge glom Acr .c cac .th to Oak !uff Penn Drive/York Drive -� Lc v ,ol:�m cllecto Dent)Drive/fork detweee Arad,r t,arey I := Dosed G ass:IIA Bicycle Route Bte cle Roa;e with Sharrows LP. eet; r,vides.enr _ticr n. Drive Bouleva da and NIaple r p ,N.h Sra,rctirs Drive N i s V ddle Schga j t e roc A 5iCC'e R=gionai Buret-cr de, r_�r a c c`s'alleY Amador /alley; - es�� S �,ro„Gh o�cie�c�:: oi5' keyio-,aUr get �ic:e tines HA r � ,. __ ,r���li a".c_r_ ocde,a c r.. s �ou� FPiF I S'VaY r, i _-- ane` `95 _ CLTY'OF DusuN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS n µ. CITY OF DUBLIN Pm��t Name `Prgp©saI(Qireccions) Class. Lncailan. 'r Ewstincj Grnd'�tigns Recommenda'tresns fT Proposed Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane where feasible, Existing ide travel lanes; green skip-striping across turn San Ramon Road Alcosta Boulevard to 9 pockets where roadways widen Buffered Bicycle Lanes IIB bicycle lane wide in some for right-turn pockets,reduce 'Corridor ' Dublin Boulevard � 15 segments right-turn pocket length remove slip lanes at Silvergate Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard, 40'curb-to-curb cross- Coordinate with Caltrans and San Ramon Road San Ramon Road from section in each direction on Pleasanton on the feasibility of Corridor Bicycle Lanes HA Dublin Blvd across I-580 existing overpass.Need to Class IIA bike lanes per Draft If 0.51 to Foothill Road coordinate with City of Recommended Practice. Pleasanton and Caltrans. Dublin Crossings EIR Scariett Dave Ba ele Lanes IIA Dougherty Road to Proposed Class IIA cy Dublin Boulevard proposes on-street _Developer'Built Facility 0.64 connection Schaefer Ranch Road Schaefer Ranch I- from Dublin Boulevard Existing Class IIA between Proposed Class IIA under I-580 580 Underpass Bicycle Lanes IIA south under I-580 at Dublin Boulevard and 50' overpass 0.07 existing underpass at north of I-580 overcrossing p Schaefer Ranch From San Ramon Shannon < Bicycle Path and future Existing steep,narrow path Community Center Shared-Use Path I bicycle lanes up to in need of widening and Proposed Class I 0.04 Path Shannon Community repaving. Center BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN -7 --- i Length Project Name i s Proposal(Directions) Class Location , Existing Conditions Recommendations (miles) i Siena_oc o<rweer Ex SG' c Ce ctir orr e_ion v �o gner� Sierra Court Bicjde Lares i ,iA e a Lane 3rd Dacl r di_ r t"lir ed 3o c e >rG C`:c -_ BCUIe`iard ar<ra rn pla � al "_,1 i Serra Lane r"ween 1 cXi irq G- to curd Cor "tin he „xr Cocahe y I l Serra Lane Bic de Lanes [[A Sierra Cour and d'u_nce wit"!r-ited Road,°lron harS_-rail and Cv c G3 C i Dougherbj Road I panang ut Fla a/A,arro r `rail f i i Prc [� �A F ce we D e r cec, �iJC�dr nc f V o tr, B e!a e c ec ve r li re �.06 S,Ive rcia Ge Dn,,e Bc,C'e-apes LA Rar o_.Roac La r I,e z-_�B arc 11"51cSde : I tx'�r -:,oro Amador 1 St.Pat c Wati`r m Reglanal Street to c < Pla 4 o Golc n Cate _ Pro-os d Class HA I dctr I Dry k, Il e ex-..,ende, dfre� ons re �o "last rile' nSS St Patrick Way I Riede Lanes EIA Deveioorrerr ana -S eClO al c�L N.tI'� -c-ine ticn, W $ ��! f f rPrec Du-rlin.Pleasanton BA T Dever tc er P,,It ciiri Golden tae Drive to Amador Plaza Road i_ I SAP-1 �eelcp er[. Stage ach R c c ac oes Park �c LI _cr hint °cce of 3r _ue 1--n-lose T,_- Shared-C e a rdy^e �- " wos� -cr_�h _ re s ce� a_r ark ai� r Co^nec-o r ra rc ror�e -ail �, _cw er 'ac lc_ Staeecoach Read Loss volume�cilec*or oetween Alcosta tr ct Y s:,rc shoulder j Stagecoach Road -+ Sayde Lares ( IIA Proposed CI s lip S: de Lanes G_So Boulevard and car be r, rr„ed as bcvde I Stagecoach Par'< lane, CITE'OF Dunl.N 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN �.� F T Length•`: Project Name Proposal{Directions} Class Location EXlsting C anditiisru Recnrnmendatigns .' En+ •°i Stagecoach Road Low-volume collector between Turquoise Proposed IIIA Bicycle Route with Stagecoach Road Bicycle Route with Sharrows liA Street and Amador street;insufficient width for Sharrows Valley Boulevard 0.2/ bicycle lanes. Class I continuation of Tassajara Greek Trail on Widen sidewalk to create Class I Tassajara Creek south side of Gleason side path;Install wa Yf indn g Trail Continuation - Drive between Tassajara Existing sidewalk does not OOS meet Class I standards si9na ge for trail crossing on Gleason Dr. Creek Trail and Gleason -Developer-Biuilt Facility Drive/Creekside Road intersection From northwest corner of Fallon Road /Tassajara Road intersection south along Tassajara Road, Induce trail crossing at Fallon Tassajara Creek connecting with Tassajara Creek Trail Road as part of Tassajara Creek Trail to Fallon � 0.4 Road Connection Shared Use Path I planned Class lanes unbuilt near Fallon Road Trail extension on Tassajara Roo ad and I Path continuing through the Developer Built Facility Wallis Ranch development, connecting to the Tassajara Creek Trail BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN , - - - - - . -- --- 1 ----- i Length Project Name Proposal(Directions} Class Location i Existing Conditions Recommendations { (miles) Tassajara wre k Special area Cr;a,o assaJara r k,rrom rail,Freeway closure ircudir5 brdge Dublir Dole �,d r o gravel F as Dili/ di`cr ade Separated overcross;ng an shared-use ' over?- 0 V ai arr road along ru r_s ,y or cve o irg i eking Sti-dy Pam r Plea tin '� -, ra ias,Tara e--< rail/ 'SSG i T ssajara Creek r[ c- 3-s o [r T aii,r ortr r - -rs_ � er�t Shares L e?at^ (or ac aj�r= _e<F_gior al'r'ar< i extens on a �iur e. ulbrco� _ce� k_u,en,-1 srk _��c 3cdt racili*% — -- — — -- � � r lute s[udy of mid oloc<traI assajara Creek I T ,n to RRFB,r c strian ra Dubli^ s aja eek T ail x-lFrs�c r c . rid Beacon or Sig-sal at Boulevard Trail xr ,rs'ort_ublin r u ✓eT �os�i.rg pl '2c Dubl r joule or v h BoWe',a a s;ara Creek =il ex«rsorr u �e. a.rtcr SSC�ar Y iir'-r' e. br ct, ss HE B f re'± ajara Road ��lir hrr, cw cr 7 iI;A re nc�ce L=rep. crridor out o ?�r �c Bic,ce r o--crr "- P I rsc r I are_ 4 L C .;rn r ss /- crc:rate h _all ans and l 3--s'.ara Hc-d from r aC cirecticr or. Pie s rcr cr re�eaQibil ty of assajara Road 3icycle__,re/Buffer-q Bicycle o�rido; IIA/Hb Cuclir 3cule,arc cuss ex st ra w o Neea ����_,� ;�, c 17B NB o'ke lane O se anes -880 j coarc raie o pe,Draf_iTt Recorrmerdec —_—� Plesoicr .ra laitrars r ac ce. 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN MUM= Prc►�ect fame PrQpasal{Direcnonsj= ..Mass Location.z existing Cnnditllons Recarnnsendattan��� East side of Fallon Road from Fallon Road/ Tassajara Road not yet Proposed Class I on east side of Tassajara Road Tassajara Road widened;existing Class I on Fallon Road Path Shared Use Path intersection north to west side of Fallon Road O.1S planned Voller Ranch south of Tassajara Road -Developer-Built Facility Trail Upper Loop Road from Class IIA on Positano Proposed Class 11A Upper Loop Road Bicycle Lanes IIA Fallon Rd to Croak; Parkway between Fallon 0.38 Road,via new park' Road and La Strada Drive -Developer-Built Facility Existing 8'Class I on Positanc Parkway between Fallon Road and Valentano From Fallon Road to Drive. 8'Class I on north side between Valentano Paths Upper Loop Road Shared-Use Path Croak Road,on both Drive and Croak Road. 8' Close Class I gap 0.12 sides of Upper Loop Road Class I on south side between Avanti Avenue and Croak Road. Install signs indicating Class I Bicycle Path. Village Parkway Existing 9'Class II lanes Village Parkway between northe between Alcosta Boulevard Proposed Class 118 Buffered 'Buffered Bicycle Lanes IIB m City and Amador Valley Bicycle Lane'between City Limit 11$ ' Corridor limit and Amador Valley Boulevard.-Bicycle lanes and Amador Valley Boulevard Boulevard drop at intersection.' BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN sir — - Length 1 Project Name Proposal(Directions) Class Location i 'Existing Conditions Recommendations 1 (miles) tillage Par<wav .c -i /lace arkway CI �c�r x rang c - et r ccr`/ IIF Ce'_ares A �u�b _ cur _ _ec- r �� ;ails, _ Ulr�; rd ara Corridor ,Marc arc Cubl eac^cireeior �olddrae��,rd Bodevara Scarce-Fehr&Peers,2Ci3- 1, w,,.`:._ CITY OF DUBLIN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN In Downtown, Class IIA Bicycle Lanes are proposed on Regional Street, } IP - i Amador Plaza Road,St.Patrick Way,and Village Parkway/Clark Avenue to provide a comprehensive network through Downtown with continuous Support facilities consist of bicycle parking as well as additional facilities access from residential areas and commercial areas to the West Dublin such as shower and lockers, which facilitate bicycling to work or school BART Station. Bicycle Lanes are also proposed in new development at by providing storage and changing areas for long-distance riders. Dublin Crossings and near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Class IIA lanes are also proposed to close gaps in the existing network along PICYCLF Dougherty Road,Fallon Road,Tassajara Road,and Gleason Drive. The City has adopted a provision regarding bicycle racks in Section Buffered bicycle lanes are proposed in both directions on three roadways 8.76.070.A.2 of the Dublin Municipal Code. The Code requires the with existing wide travel lanes and wide Class IIA Bicycle Lanes: San provision of one bicycle parking space in a bicycle rack for each 40 Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Village Parkway north of vehicular parking spaces in parking lots with 20 or more spaces in non- Amador Valley Boulevard. Though not directly controlled by the City of residential zoning districts. In multi-family residential complexes, one Dublin,buffered bicycle lanes should be considered on I-580 overpasses, bicycle storage space is required within each residence or within lockable as right-of-way allows. containers outside of the dwelling unit. Bicycle racks are required to have four spaces per rack. These are consistent with the latest version of Class IIIA Bicycle Routes with Sharrows are proposed as neighborhood the California Green Building Standards Code and should be revisited as routes to connect residential areas with destinations, such as local the Green Building Standards Code is updated. schools, parks,and commercial destinations. These are typically used in areas with constrained right-of-way,typically with a 40-foot curb-to-curb cross section where on-street parking and Class IIA Bicycle Lanes cannot both be accommodated. Class IIIA Bicycle Routes with sharrows are also proposed on Davona Drive/Brighton Drive/Penn Drive/Maple Drive/Clark Avenue, providing a north-south connection between residential neighborhoods, Murray Elementary School, Dublin High School,Wells Middle School,the Alamo Canal Trail,Dublin Library,and Dublin Sports Grounds Park. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN mum 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY Or DUBLIN CL,'�Pi 7 P.<<,�'I([Mf-2VT� The City and the California Green Building Standards Code do nct t y: currently require that shower/changing facilities at non-residential cu"idings'oe provided. R t,vlENI)AT10N5 The Gty is currently using the 2013 California Green Building Standards r Cod(CAL Green)which includes voluntary measures for shower/changing r� -4 acili-es which the City could encourage developers to implement. The a a>. y voluntary measures include the following language regarding + _ shower/changing facilities: Changing rooms. For buildings with over' ten tenant-occupants, Example of decorative bicycle rocks at Tralee Center in Dublin. provide changing/shower facilities for tenant-occupants only in accordance with Toble A5106.4.3 or document arrangements with RECOMMT!VDATIONJ nearby changing/shower facilities. Refer to the 2013 Califarma The City should continue to recuire short-term and long-term bicycle Green Building Standards Code Section A5.10E.4.3 for more details_ parking per the California Green Building Standards Code. To help guide the selection of short-term and long-term parking and its siting, he design guidance is provided in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guiaelines. 106 CIT CF F,,L :� 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS W CITY Of DUBLIN attendant do it for them,under the valet system. The claim-check system f"VFtVT B1c1-v t F PA can be used here so that attendants can make sure bicyclists are taking Several large events are held throughout the year in Dublin. The Dublin their own bicycles. Aisle widths should be five to six feet to handle St.Patrick's Day Festival is a particularly important gathering for the local circulating bicyclists. community and draws over 80,000 visitors each St. Patrick's Day Parking facilities should be located within easy access of major routes to weekend. Festivities are centered near the Civic Center area. For these Civic Center for St. Patrick's Day,such as near the Alamo Canal Trail and events,special bicycle parking arrangements should be made to provide Dublin Boulevard. At the St. Patrick's Day Festival held in March 2014, event bicycle parking. Event bicycle parking has the following benefits: the City sponsored a free Valet-style bike parking with over 50 bicyclists • Reduces auto trips associated with the event using the facility. • Encourages a positive familial and community experience associated with getting to and from the event • Reduces random lock of bicycles around the event • Reduces the number of people walking with their bicycles through crowded spaces • Raises the visibility of active modes of transportation at the event Valet-style event bicycle parking or attended (self-park) parking are recommended for events in Dublin. Valet parking uses outdoor bicycle parking in an enclosed area or designated indoor room to store bicycles. It has one access point that is monitored by a valet parking attendant. People can access their bicycle using a claim-check system. This does not require the individual user to have his or her own lock. Attended (self-park) event bicycle parking, there is similarly an enclosed area for parking that is monitored by an attendant. Bicyclists can stow and, if they chose, lock their own bicycles, rather than have an BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY ae DUBLIN RECOMMENDED WALKING Downtown and proposed improvements are idert'fied on Figure 5-3. IV Y The proposed project list is presented on Table 5-5_ Pric,rl-i--ation of FACILITIES projec`s is presented n Chapter 6 Priority Projects. Proposed The pedestrian improvements recommended in this section are intended pedestrian improvements fall under five broad categories: to enhance the walkability of Downtown Dublin in accordance with the Intersection Crossing Treatments General Plan and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). Both Plans Sidewalk Improvements support the enhancement and intensification of the Downtown Area to ADA Improvements create a more aesthetically-pleasing, pedestrian-oriented focal point for Signal Modifications the community and provide a strong connection between the City's Barriers commercial care, proposed residential development in the Downtown area and the West Dublin BART Station. The creation of a convenient, These categories are definec in the sections below. accessible pedestrian environment in Downtown is essential to implementing the community's vision for a vibrant Downtown Dublin. As such,bath Plans limit the extent to which intersections may be improved or widened in the Downtown Area to maintain or minimize impacts to The focus of many of the proposed improvements is intersection crossing transit service without sacrificing safe and comfortable bicycle and treatments. Large intersections, long block sizes, and large curb radii of pedestrian circulation. This section describes the primary pedestrian Downtown roadways do not create a comfortable pedestrian network and proposed pedestrian projects in Downtown Dublin, environment. Through treatments such as curb extersions, reduced curb including sidewalk and intersection improvements- The proposed radii, and advanced stop bars, pedestrian crossing distances and pedestrian network and proiect list were developed based on information exposure to automobiles can be reduced, which will help transform received at public workshops, input from City Staff, and field Downtown into a more walkable environment. Yield-controlled rignt- observations.As Dublin has an extensive network of sidewalks with curb turn slip-lanes exist at many intersections and may not be necessary to ramps at intersections, many of the improvements are focused on serve traffic volumes in all locations Removal of these slip lanes will help intersection improvements, such as reducing crossing distances, to reduce crossing distances and create an accessible pedestrian improving sightlines, and modifying signals to reduce conflict between environment. Where slip lanes cannot be removed due '.o high vehicle pedestrians and turning vehicles. The Primary Pedestrian Network in volumes, they should be controlled with a traffic signal. For example, at San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard, signalized right-turn slip lanes are 108, CI Ty'0F DLlB MN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE &_ PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN proposed to accommodate the large number of northbound vehicles turning east onto Dublin Boulevard while also addressing the need for a controlled pedestrian crossing on the south leg of the intersection. SIDEMAI-K IMPROVEMI:'NTS Downtown Dublin has a continuous network of sidewalks. Sidewalks on most roadways in Downtown are wide,typically eight feet,which is wide enough to accommodate increased pedestrian activity where planters and tree wells do not take up part of the pedestrian zone. Tree grates on some roadways, however, constrain the sidewalk environment and creates narrow pinch-points in many cases and reduce the usable sidewalk width. Likewise, items such as fire hydrants and other utilities 1a 14 are often located near these pinch points or generally inside the pedestrian zone, limiting the usable sidewalk width. Large overhead highway wayfincling signs straddle the sidewalk and create a cluttered pexlltmmn zmn� and unpleasant walking environment. Utilities and street furniture AM Mae CUM JMW should be located with the planter furniture zone, adjacent to the curb I tow VM11h zone. Signage should be an appropriate scale to the pedestrian environment. Sidewalk space can be divided into three distinct zones.,the frontage zone,adjacent to building frontages; the pedestrian zone, which is the usable sidewalk space, the Proposed improvements to the sidewalk realm include sidewalk widening furniture zone,which contains planting or other street furniture,and the curb zone, where feasible,replacing street trees and tree wells where trees are at the adjacent to the roadway. end of their life cycle,and sidewalk repair. Source.FHWA,Design Sidewalks for Trails and Access,2001. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Rim 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN Pedestrian facilities should be designed to accommodate pedestrians with visual and mobility impairments and should be designed to meet 7�♦ � � ,,,1�,h'ii Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). Most of the curb ramps in Downtown Dublin are parallel or diagonal ramps. In order to maximize accessibility in the Downtown,directional curb ramps should , become the standard curb ramp, as feasible. Directional curb ramps are aligned with and typically centered on each crosswalk, with two curb ramps on each corner. Directional ramps provide physical cues to the visually impaired and improve ease of use for those with mobility impairments. Parallel curb ramps take up the full width of the sidewalk and require pedestrians continuing on the sidewalk to negotiate both ramp grades, which is inconvenient for all users and may be difficult for those with mobility impairments. Parallel curb ramps are typically used where Directional curb ramps create a predictable,convenient pedestrian environment for right-of-way is constrained and a diagonal curb ramp with the full four- those with visual and ability impairments. foot level landing area behind is not able to be accommodated. On some corners, multiple parallel ramps are provided to Provide directional In a Downtown area, oirect!onal curb ramps could be used whenever access to marked crosswalks. possible and can be accommodated with curb extensions or small right- of-way acquisition, as feasible As properies reaevelep in Downtown Dublin and as curb ramps are improved, directional curb ramps should be constructed as a standard. CITYOF DUBLIN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY or DUBLIN SIGNAL.. N-1ODIFI CAT ION .4 Signal modifications are proposed at several locations to improve pedestrian safety and the walkability of Downtown. In order to comply with the walkability policy standards set forth in the General Plan and the DDSP, marked crosswalks should be provided at all intersection approaches of signalized intersections in order to increase pedestrian connectivity. At several locations in Downtown Dublin, left-turn movements are not protected. Permitted left turns occur during the pedestrian phase, creating potential conflict between pedestrians and turning vehicles. These left-turns should be protected to prevent potential conflicts. - fir Additionally,leading pedestrian intervals(LPIs)are proposed in this Plan y nx ewy, W 114, 33 to give pedestrians a head-start in crossing the street. Leading Pedestrian Intervals(LPIs)allow pedestrians to begin crossing before vehicles enter the intersection. [WU\I F RJ Barriers can consist of both linear barriers, such as highways, as well as improvements, roadway median enhancement and additional public art large block sizes, which limit pedestrian connectivity. Several linear may help to strengthen the connections across I-680. Even smaller barriers limit connectivity. I-580 provides a continuous southern barrier, roadways, such as Amador Plaza Road, can act as a linear barrier when limiting connections to Pleasanton. Two underpasses under I-680, at connectivity is limited. Mid-block crosswalks are proposed on Amador Dublin and Amador Valley Boulevards,are the only connections between Plaza Road between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard with the eastern and western parts of Downtown. While art murals have been one mid-block crosswalk recommended for initial implementation. painted on both underpasses, roadway and pedestrian lighting BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN Large block sizes can also be a barrier to walkability in Downtown. A future pedestrian payee or walk'Nay connection could enhance waikability through the large block bounded by Regional Street,Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin Boulevard, and Amador Plaza Road to provide ¢-- east-west connections. An enhanced north-south connection,to connect I ! Donohue Street and Golden Gate Drive, along the existing drive aisle fronting Target,could also enhance walkability. These pciential walkway I i connections are situated within Privately owned development and should _- r be considered only if the sites redevelop. Mid-block crosswalks with pedestrian refuges can help increase pedestrian connectivity while allow pedestrians to cross the roadway in two steps. j�„ CIIY C)F DUBLIN S. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRmN NETWORKS ' CITY OF DUBLIN .. prove"Wirli IQaaxlway LocaYedn Detter�Itnproueme»t TYI4 Provide median closure at intersection with pedestrian refuge;Reconstruct Geometry the southern commercial driveway to provide level,clear extension of Amador Valley Unsignalized Crosswalk- sidewalk(Scheduled project) 0-1 400'East of Regional Boulevard Install advanced yield markings and signage;Mark crosswalk across southern Street Signing&Striping commercial driveway (Scheduled project) Signal I Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons(RRFBs)(Scheduled project) 200'N'of Dublin Mid-Block 1 1A Mark up to B decorative crosswalks to meet pedestrian needs. Boulevard Crosswalk 750'N of Dublin Mid-Block 1-1B See above Boulevard Crosswalk 1,200'N of Dublin Mid-Block 1 1C Boulevard Crosswalk See above Geometry Install curb extensions as feasible to support proposed mid-block crosswalks Amacfor Plata Road Stripe Class II bicycle lanes:Install wayfinding signage;Stripe and sign back- 1-1D Corridor Signing&Striping in angled parking Lighting Install pedestrian scaled lighting along Amador Plaza Road Amador Plaza Crosswalk Mark crosswalk on east leg of intersection 1-1E Road/Amador Valley Widen median and add median tips as feasible to provide 6 pedestrian Boulevard Intersection Geometry refuge;Reduce curb radii on all corners 1-2A Dublin Boulevard Corridor Sidewalk Enhance sidewalks between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway and evaluate opportunities to improve walkability by reducing obstructions. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTR A_N NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN Improvement r 1D Roadway Location Detailed Improvement Type Median Enhance—eaiar and licht r c along Dublin Boulevard under 1-080 trcrc e z ce,A-.1 "r e ticr _ p er-al arc at r t2 geometry I� _as_,c yi rai Add oeret_rian-caie light rc_^der 680 Ode'pa-s I^s.al�. rrer n r, G L �B i li j ��u t g _ meC�ar n e eath in medl c ronibit pedes rar_risings tecuc -ac:i or all ccr ers; -: II cr l. u Gs_ Ooserve Amacur-laza Quad . ,e e if addit cr=-2 -,eels and yelo �e—icr t ccr (-icns c ,rt_rs Jon crai r igrage erhancerers may ce recuirec_ geometry -r�all it c oral b r mos at each rorre, (-olden Gate Drlve _2D nterse__on poi on al o c_u e- c -r _n redcs,,_an Sigral .�ur_„cw, anal c a:;c.le w3-rirc _ars Geometry e c L,ce r rae:�o, ill ccr es;Install direcacnal curb ramps at all comers ci c r.^e r-It r e 2e—iss,v S cnt a F e,1—.-A San Ramon Roac I - -2E Sigral _icr�6 .r �,. vic war r �caer Intersection P � �ralvs, C osswalk Sir;pe.rossmralk ,r s out,leg suti(e�:L:c-Late ar alysis R uc-- Vdtl-cr Sn pht-t,r rp s Pec ro-<Mcp-r. yuce r irr_i g ,1iHaQe Par�rway Geometry acii t r cve per< op I r c se ve\jP ngrt r slip!are-r c ce Irt,[se -ion ,-ro' cii -recut__ter 1cii or VE 3rd ome_ 1C] e _-C rr�IKs @ 2-IA St.Patrick Way Geometry Irsall bulb-outs a,all comers;Censt-uct directional curb ramps Golden Gate C-!ve 2_Ig rtersec_ion Slgrage call ti �rr'rdinc Sgn3ge o ,nest Dc,blir BART CITY OF DUBLIN 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRLkN NETWORKS CITY OF DUBLIN lmpravem n i6i Rnadw�� Locatr"on ' � ©etail�d impra�metrt' T7rise. , As adjacent properties redevelop,implement Complete Streets frontage Sidewalk improvements,consistent with the improvements done with the Golden 2-1C Corridor Gate Streetscape project 2-1D RaatlwaylSidewalk Saint Patrick Way New roadway with sidewalk or continuous mid-block connection between Extension Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive 2-2A Corridor Striping Narrow travel lanes to 11'(and stripe buffered bicycle lanes) 2-28 Donahue Drive Geometry Reduce curb radii on all corners;Widen medians and add median tips;Install' Intersection directional curb ramps on all corners 2-2C Geometry Reduce curb radii on NE,SE,and SW corners Regional Street 2-2D Intersection Signal Modify signal to include Leading Pedestrian Interval on EB and WB g l approaches,Consider protected left-turn phasing for NB and SB traffic 2-2E Crosswalk Consider striping crosswalk on south leg pending additional engineering Amador Valley analysis Boulevard San Ramon Road Consider removing slip lanes on NW and NE corners and add curb 2-2f Intersecion Geometry extensions on SW,NW,and.NE corners pending,additional engineering analysis'. 2-2G Signal Consider installing leading pedestrian interval on all approaches pending additional engineering analysis Village Parkway Remove slip lanes;Reduce curb radii on all corners;Install curb extensions 2-2H Geometry on the SE and SW corners of Village Parkway,Install directional curb ramps Intersection Proposed improvements pending additional engineering analysis Source.Fehr&Peers,2013. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN � Legend w, �o N# t w * Y g { hWn dross aBc { ' S 0.a > i * \ Bike Aa4h Toy, ITO �`&*,��'� � ,.,.✓ s.°m�-Px °� s_ .`-AF's .'�. .." i Y k Figure 5-3" Primary Pedestrian Network and Proposed Pedestrian Improvements _ F E H R PEERS �3 HAM MOR a 1 r � Qf y a 3�fi x n. r F l 1. x -s,- e x 3 e } 3 F° / a �z �: 6. PRIORITY PROJECTS CITY OF DUBLIN The purpose of the bicycle and pedestrian networks is to provide safe, TIER ONE convenient, direct, and comfortable access to key destinations citywide 1 However, the entire network cannot be completed at once due to Tier One Priority Projects were identified in coriunctlon with City staff funding and implementation constraints. Thus, prioritization cr,teria are and based on meetings with the Technical Acvisery Committee and the identified to rank projects that would 'nave more community benefit. public workshops. Based or, those discussions, three priority complete Relative priority is broken into four categories: streets projects were identified: • Tier Zero:Designed and planned,under-construction, 1. Amador Plaza Road oetween Amador Valley Boulevard and St. scheduled, Patrick Way/I-580 Ramps • Tier One:Highest priority projects for grant funding with initial 2. Village Parkway between Alcosta Drive and Clarke Avenue/Dublin feasibility analysis and concept development in the Plan update Boulevard • Tier Two:High priority projects for grad funding that may 1 Downtown Connectivity Projects(Regional Street,Amador Valley require additional feasibility analysis Boulevard,Village Parkway.Amacer Plaza Road,St.Patrick Way, • Tier Three:All other projects and Dublin Boulevard) Given the Downtown-focus on this first Pedestrian Plan, all projects are Grant-ready fact sheets and concept drawings were prepared for the given Tier Zero,One,or Two designations. In the City's next Plan update, three Tier One Priority Projects as presented in detail on the following the pedestrian improvement projects are expected to be ctywiae in pages. As Tier One projects, the City has started to pursue and applied scope and should include all prioritization tiers. The four prioritization for federal and state grants to implement these projects. An initial phase categories are described in detail below. of the Downtown Connectjvity Project is being proposed for ZERO in the coming fiscl year (see Section 9 — TIER L E RCS implementation). Tier Zero projects are projects that are assumed to be implemented in the near-term based on information provided by City staff. These are projects that may be under construction or under design and have secured funding- ,'Ka A CITYOY DUBLIN 6. PRIORITY PROJECTS CITY OF DUBLIN 1.1 NI.A1._ O R. PLAZA ROAD the desire to have a place to congregate other than shopping and dining such as a "pedestrian plaza" adjacent to Amador Plaza Road where Amador Plaza Road is a roadway in Downtown Dublin extending pedestrians and families can rest, eat or simply enjoy the outdoors. between Amador Valley Boulevard and the area south of St. Patrick However, existing public rights-of-way will not facilitate development of Way/I-580 Ramps. The existing cross-section is two travel lanes with a a pedestrian plaza. two-way left-turn lane between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard. Between Dublin Boulevard and St.Patrick Way,Amador Plaza To improve multi-modal access on the corridor, sidewalk and crosswalk Road is two-lanes in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane. In this improvements, bicycle lanes, pedestrian-scale lighting and a landscaped section it provides a key access to the I-680 freeway which limits changes median are proposed for the 0.5 mile segment between Amador Valley to access and circulation near the ramps.Amador Plaza provides a critical Boulevard and St. Patrick Way/I-580 Ramps. A summary of existing north-south access route to West Dublin BART from the residential and conditions and the proposed projects is presented on Figure 6-1.Scaled commercial areas to the north. It also has many Downtown commercial concept drawings of the preferred design are presented on Figures 6-2, destinations, including multiple groceries stores, restaurants, and other 6-3, and 6-4. The fact sheet and drawings may be included in future shopping areas. The Amador Plaza Road corridor appears to have the funding applications. potential to become a major shopping and dining destination if coupled with "Complete Street" enhancements that could attract more pedestrians and bicyclists, and connect the shopping districts on both sides of Amador Plaza Road via pedestrian walkways. At the public workshops, participants expressed a desire to maintain good access and parking in the downtown area and to create a "park- once" environment on Amador Plaza Road, as popular land uses are located on both sides of the roadway. However,no mid-block crosswalks are striped on the 1,700 foot-long block through Downtown. Public workshop participants indicated that aggressive driving leads to the perception of safety issues for all modes of travel. The roadway has a 30 MPH posted speed limit. In addition, some participants have expressed BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Amador Plaza Read Epicycle and Pedestrian Improvements ce r i -':ority r =_ r �_ _ - _ `t.! e1. C .._ . . _- K C Casino 0"r L r� c_ = VC Ream � a i�fi 191111 f l tAS FEHR," PEERS DUBL T N BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING TO BE INSTALLED ON BOTH SIDES OE AMADOR PLAZA ROAD BETWEEN AMADOR VALLLEY BOULEVARD & ST. PATRICK WAY/1-58C RAMPS WyM�F�''�¢��C$ r L-, ,� „+ rya/ ..� *a.:>• f vy- M s s r •� a J `= EDIAN 4PH ANT BAR LEGENDa� o aG se FEHRtPEERS coucRe uNOSCARe MEDIAN ® I'= ao' GRAPHIC SCAG WITH IRRIGATION ---•— --- AMADOR PLAZA ROAD CONCEPT DESIGN FIGURE&2 cEVERaL NcT=s" ..Fir_ur "�: -,ALE C 7''. - E t S-LL �C CE= �OAC BE NE�N AMA F i. -AJAR PAM:CS SAFEWAY [NSTA l CpOSS%ALK G£I I Efi, R'At3 l•£nDSSWAt4. ` A"CyNb Y7 P' V, LA4 1 �.s y -tCAEL R.��SET3: LFSDSLAtPFQ .� { u r canA ice. ITH Pa .r wAY� N r4.: CONV ERT LANE"T•D�T 7U,Ri ��� I��' '',`,' 3 � - 1 BANK Of "i�t,�'.EF DRf'/E,Y k ERICA TC PfG r -s. iM1J1t P,LAZti w 6 r J1 <. .�F SPIr ,i �J D 4c w ES ' LEGEND FEKR-'PEERS AMADOR PLAZA ROAD CONCEPT DESIGN FIGURE 6-3 GENERAL NOTES: i. °EDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING TO BE INSTALLED ON 30TH SIDES OF AMADOR PLAZA ROAD BETWEEN AMADCR VALLLEY BOULEVARD & ST. PATRICK WAY/1-580 RAMPS "V. 2 5'-. � ` \ � ��g 1 � ti •.``� �,.. �Z1'+ .; i1 n�"L'%-"` 'S� mac.- ��.� BANKX) ,\\�\� ���� �, s _a\ 'c :: y' 'i U ? _c :•.tiF AMEqC gm ^- a a1' � yT pJ s „y � a y - X s LEGEND CONCRETE li 4v GR80 GRAP�IC SCALE FEHR� PEERS All PLAZA ROAD CONCEPT DESIGN FIGURE 6-4 y 6. PRIORITY PROJECTS DUBLIN - - Village Parkway extends between the northern City Limit,becoming Clark Avenue south of Dublin Boulevard. North of Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway,s a four-lane divided roadway with wide travel lanes and bicycle lanes. This portion of the roadway is a residential collector street, bringing traffic from the residential neighborhoods south to Downtown and north to various schools, including Dublin High School. The cross- section is urban through Downtown Dublin, including on-street parking on both sides of the roadway, and is flanked by smaller commercial buildings, including stores and restaurants. South of Dublin Boulevard, where Village Parkway becomes Clark Avenue, light industrial and office uses have low parking utilization and lower traffic volumes. To improve multi-modal access on the corridor, a variety of complete streets improvements are proposed on the 1.8-mile segment between the north City Limit and Clarke Avenue/Dublin Boulevard, including crossing improvements, dedicated bicycle facilities, and a path connection to the Alamo Canal Trail. A summary of existing conditions and the proposed projects is presented on Figure 6-5. Scaled concept drawings of the preferred design are presented on Figures 6-6,6-7,and 6-8. The fact sheet and drawings may be included in future funding applications. 124 C!�YOFCL'BLLN 2 Village Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements !er 1 Priori Project Priority I 2 mile long scqrre-t from the rorLhern Cipy limit n he Alamo Canal T Nearby and uses include residenti-al areas,Dutlin High- 'crel,Downtown Dublin,Dublin Existing '�CE Litfaty Dubl q Gvia Plaza,Alan;o Canal Ira 1,and West DuIdlir,EAR I Sta-:.on. Conditions Ex -'ng 8 toot wide b::cycle lanes north of Am-ndor Valley SDulev-ard Long c distances at-c raped inzerseccms ri-mugh Dcr,rrc.wn,many of I-ave right-Till-in slip antes Large rning radii on many intersection corners Excen-,s lanes and lw-raffia volume,a- anproach,at Dubhr Boulevarld/vila,le Rar<wav Proximity to Alamo Canal Trail and Dublin Civic Plaza with rc----fisting connections i ii Smaller parcels with limited off—eel parking between Ainador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Sculcvardl "AR, 01,01" 1 Class UB 30:crsc Ei,-vde Lanes and---cl:'.ced travel an,w✓o t-be*Vleen northern ry urr.t and Arnador Valley Boulevard wit ri si�:a- s triced green conflict zones and bicycle lane lire extension through inte.,secticins Class HA B'cvdc Lanes with skip-stroe'd greeq conflict zones ber-wccn Amaclor Valln'Y' Boulevard and 'uhlin Bioulevard/Clark Avenue Red Lersicns wi-,n c.ec-ror'bal curb ramps and removal&40 lanes at Proposed -c�a curb r3dii/curt ext Improvements Amader incersection and Dr,blin BcrJevarr-,,Nillage Parkv int e,s ec.-Uon Class I shared-use oath crrrr-cior and oridae h een Clark Avenue Niflane Parkvay and —e AiLrno Canal Trail on C7 ry of Dublin property,al:iarifig viti)the existirg ,,ic Ptaa Parking Lot access oath Wa'yfincling cornecting the Alamo Canal Trail and Downtown Dublin Sidewalk wiconine on the cost side of Village Parkway between S`cf-ton Give and Tamarack Drive 7-7 vt P Cost `52,863,000 in cluding construction,cortincencies,design,and envlmrmertal rests Ter 1 Dcwnto vn Dublin(-o nnectvrty Projeci(Class'IA on Regional Street, ass 11B on Related Am3Cnrv'aIIev�oLlpv3rd,Class'Path on Dublin Boi levan,bet"'Jeel Amabor Plaza Road and Projects Village Parkway and Class 71A on'�airt Patrick V,,ay) Ter 2 Bright=Drive Class 111B Bicycle Gc;Aevad Ter 2 Arrador Valley 3oule%aro Class 11B Buffered Bicycle Lanes Par<ina iltilization data should be cclle,Ted betwptr,,Ar-adcrValley?GL,levarc and D,A)WI Boulevard to see r-. ade-ctfs octween on--cer Da kincl an,- icycle lane width--ould be made N�—.,icic—lk�,wide ti-wel lalw,,and wide biky�le lane adjacent to Dublin High School FEHR,f PEERS DUBLIN BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN Figure 6-5 G`VERAL NOT' S: MCcN -A CEAAI_K E' BP .h E?a-AND _F _AV A_e F' �rrs,fo mcNC z ew3'4+aE t I w : k j� 4 V J OLMat.,PARKWAY _ ' "'w JWAx VILLAGE PARKWAY CONCEPT DESIGN FIGURE 6-6 GENERAL NOTES: 1 WIDEN EAST SIDEWALK BY 3 BETWEEN BRIGHTON DRIVE AND 880 SOUTH OF TAMARACK DRIVE � Y� E� �'�' � A `� •. ¢ �' .,yi,. �, of ,• _ w _ x2 a- . max.•, .a � aH ,s M FEHR,�PEERS _ VILLAGE PARKWAY CONCEPT DESIGN FIGURE 6-7 I � r r f a C-1� ' 89 !F Yl oni _ #Ta13 T YlEtb WFkfes i s d f-" ,er+ r wmwa EC ..� � s m MAGE AA WA assn F iL —,AMMCAPE MEDIAN WITH AWIT Pbl A 7777; .0 FEHR-, PEERS VILLAGE PARKWAY-CONCEPT DESIGN -- FIGURE 6-8 6. PRIORITY PROJECTS CITY OF DUBLIN DOWNTOWN CONNECTIVITY 13 RO i F� T As such, even with bicycle accommodation, it may remain a facility that 1 primarily serves highly experienced bicyclists who feel comfortable riding The Downtown Connectivity Project consists of constructing bicycle in or adjacent to traffic. To accommodate a wider range of users of many facilities on multiple streets through Downtown Dublin to provide abilities, the scope of the project was expanded to incorporate other important last-mile connections to West Dublin BART and the businesses roadways in Downtown that either serve less traffic and/or have more of Downtown Dublin. The roadways with bikeways proposed include: opportunities for dedicated or buffered bicycle facilities. • Regional Street The Downtown Connectivity projects create a continuous network of • Amador Valley Boulevard dedicated facilities to provide last-mile connections to Downtown • Village Parkway/Clark Avenue business and transit destinations. The existing wide bicycle lanes on • Amador Plaza Road Amador Valley Boulevard would be restriped to include a buffer area to • Saint Patrick Way provide separation between bicyclists and drivers. Class IIA Bicycle Lanes • Dublin Boulevard on St. Patrick Way would provide an east-west connection connecting Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road. Class HA Bicycle Lanes on This project stems from the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan's call for a Regional Street would then provide a north-south connection through feasibility analysis to address the existing bikeway gap on Dublin Downtown, connecting to the proposed facilities on Saint Patrick Way Boulevard between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail. Class II and Amador Valley Boulevard. Amador Plaza Road would also provide Bicycle Lanes are striped on various segments of Dublin Boulevard to the north-south bicycle lanes through Downtown. The existing Village east and west of Downtown, with several smaller gaps. The most Parkway bicycle lanes north of Amador Valley Boulevard would be significant gap in the bikeway is between San Ramon Road and the extended south to Dublin Boulevard/Clark Avenue. A Class I Path would Alamo Canal Trail through Downtown Dublin. extend that route to the Alamo Canal Trail and Civic Plaza via a bicycle While Dublin Boulevard provides an important continuous connection for and pedestrian bridge. To connect the Village Parkway route to the west, motorists between Downtown and destinations to the east and west, widening of the existing sidewalk on the south side of Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard is also a high volume corridor that serves as a reliever is proposed to create a Class I Path connecting to Amador Plaza Road. route to I-580. The roadway is typically six-lanes plus turn pockets at In addition to enhancements to other routes Downtown,it is anticipated intersections. Speed limits through Downtown are posted at 35 miles per that Dublin Boulevard will be striped and signed as a Class IIIA Bicycle hour,and the road serves approximately 29,000 autos each day. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN MW 6. PRIORITY PROJECTS DCITY OF UBLIN Route with Sharrows in 2015/2016. In the next update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Dublin Boulevard could be revisited and considerations could be given to two alternatives studied for this segment,including a Class I Shared-Use Path on the south side of the roadway and Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes, which would require a lane reduction. A summary of existing conditions and the proposed projects is presented on Figure 6-9.A map of the Downtown Connectivity Project is presented on Figures 6-10. ^.. ..,, CITY OF DUBLIN 3 Downtown Dublin Connectivity Project Tier 1 Priority Project T'ncug'n some dedicated bicycle f-,cilities exist through Downtown,they do not provide s "' continuous connections throuc Downtown and to bJ st Dublin BART Existing • The I exist.'nJ 1 m le ong o ac, through L D owntown nn D ubli n B oulevard bet ween San Ramon Conditions Road and .r A.mG r.- I Trail lm�ts ao t wept connectivity to a nd BAR Class fIA Bicycle !Lanes ex s,on Dublin Boulevard to the east and west of Downtown(with cme caps) Long s ng'!istan at'Icralr e-i inr rs 'G^s f: q ert dr ver encroachment into o, ..alk c large turning radii r most in e se.t omens limit w Ikability Usable sidewalk spare is lm,ii d by large tree pits ai o bus stop fumiture Stri e and sign CIas5IIIA Bic -le Route wit"Sharrow�betneer San Ramon Road and Alamo yr � P g �! Canal Trail V Onder 1-6,80 overpass, install lighting improvements,widen the existirg s cer✓alk to create Class I Shared-Use Path on south side of Dublin Boulevard between Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway Stripe Class HA,Bicycle Lanes on Regional Street Proposer Stine Class IIA Bicycle Lanes on Sant Patr!�-k Way Improvements Stripe Class JA Bicycle Lanes on Amador Plaza'Road S,1:ioe Class IIB Bu e ec Bb^✓cle Lanes o,A:made_i-Ja ley Bo:sievar.7 between San Ramon Road and village Parkway Stripe Class HA Bicycle Lanes on Village Parkway de`ween Amador Valley Boulevard and Clark A e ue/D dln 201-clevarc Ccnstr. Clas s I Shared-Use'=ath and bndg,e betwe,r.Clark Street and.Alamo Canal Red:ce curb radii and install rb ewtensors at the Intersect o.s of Amador Plaza Read and Amador valley 301-11evard,Dublin Boulevard,and Saint?atrick Way a;r y. Path, $2 6,1t0 for Regional Street,Amador Valley Boulevard,and Dublin Boulevard Clays'. Dublin Boulevard bicycle-cute covered under schedule pav=ment maintenance funds. Cost Dublin Boulevard intersection improvements Related Village Parkway Class EB Bu Bred Bicycle Lanes between San Ramon city Limit and Amador YL Valley Boule✓a-d � Projects �Y FEHR PEERS DUBLIN BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN Figure o-9 Legend ' -ExisLng Class II A F Bicycle Lanes c # C.a P th .Ia,..Bgce_ede. aa ci a,a t 3ass MB 301— L,re, biting IA B Lane,, €€41 Jas IA Bcicz t ,``a ,y4 °�_ '�„- ♦ ✓ "+'� ' ol- t 4r 4 , - lar4k1 aR d Yr ,w`2 .${ � � r d ✓ c �t � �„„ b �-,rte" ���rt��� � �l�� ��..� 'T� �_ ,„«`•= i FEHR f' PEERS Figure 6-10 Proposed Downtown Bikeway Connectivity Project January 2014 6. PRIORITY PROJECTS CITY OF DUBLIN TIERS TWO &THREE with a score of 6 or higher were given Tier Two designation. The criteria are further described in the following section. Remaining bicycle projects were sorted into second and third tier priority groups. Each criterion is given equal weight(up to 2 points),and bicycle �f--�%�'���f—Tf�'�``f TC� /'fit-.T11�/Tj'��.�/�/T�fi:S projects are scored separately, as described in the next section. Given 'L7 f..)Ii C..)FF-.STI�EFT PI TIPS' that the pedestrian projects are focused on Downtown, all remaining Bicycle connections between residential areas, neighborhood schools, pedestrian projects are given a Tier Two designation. It is expected that BART stations, commercial areas, and bicycle paths and trails provide the next update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will include Tier Two first/last mile connections to destinations and the existing bicycle and and Tier Three pedestrian projects when the scope is expanded to a pedestrian network. Points are assigned as follows: citywide scale. 2 points for first/last mile connection to a BART station OR direct The prioritized comprehensive list of bikeways projects is presented in access to a PDA or two or more key destinations Table A-1 of Appendix A Prioritized Project Lists, with each project 1 point for direct access to one key destination given a label of Tier Zero,Tier One,Tier Two,or Tier Three. The bikeways 0 points for no access to key destinations table includes planning-level cost estimates for each project. The prioritized comprehensive list of pedestrian projects is also presented in Table A-2,with each project given a label of Tier Zero,Tier One,or Tier Collision data obtained from SWITRS was analyzed between 2006 and Two. 2011 and were coded to the nearest intersection to identify high BIKEWAYS S PK_IO ITj Z:AT{ON CRITERIA frequency collision locations. This data set was the latest available from SWITRS at the time of writing. Data on volume and speed was also Five criteria were used to sort the remaining bicycle projects into second examined for each roadway, since higher traffic speed increases the and third tier priority groupings. The project list and prioritization criteria severity of a collision,should one occur. Points are assigned as follows: were developed to include input received at the City-hosted public workshop and meetings with City staff. Each criterion is given equal weight(up to 2 points each). Total score is out of 10 points,and projects BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN low 6. PRIORITY PROJECTS CITY Of: DUBLIN • 2 points for corridor or intersection location with two or more 2 points for projects that are feasible,have political support,AND bicycle collisions and high speed/high volume streets' are strong-contenders for grant funding 1 point for corridor or intersection location with one bicycle 1 point for projects that are feasible,have political support,OR collision OR high speed/high volume streets' are strong-contenders for grant funding • 0 points for location where no documented bicycle collisions 0 points for projects with limited feasibility,without political have occurred and traffic speed/volume do not meet thresholds support,and no identified potential funding source L.L d)%49 Fd_ t Tc. ' :' _i s- Points are assigned to projects that close a gap in the existing bikeway Bicycle infrastructure should provide safe and equitable access for people network, including new segments of bikeway; improved access through of all levels of experience, including children and older people,to get to interchanges, at trail crossings, or through other physical barriers; and activity centers and regional trails. This criterion awards more points for gaps in access to Class I paths. Points are assigned as follows: facilities that provide a level of enhancement over standard bicycle 2 points for gap closure or facility/network completion facilities to accommodate less experienced cyclists. Points are assigned • as follows: 1 point for improving access and reducing the impact of a gap 0 points for no gap closure 2 points are assigned for a Class I path,or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lanesl point is assigned for Class IIA Bicycle Lanes • 0 points are assigned for Class MA Bicycle Routes Projects that do not require easements, property acquisition, or additional pavement are prioritized to focus on lower-cost improvements. Political support is defined here as expressed interest by City officials and/or members of the public. Points are assigned as follows: 2 High-speed/high volume streets are defined here as roadways with speed limits of 30 MPH or more and with an ADT of 10,000 or more. 1 7 CITY OF DUBLIN nT r 33 o Xi ✓ k kh . imm I ✓ "0Iffi uP /'- g y ah Sm ;3 (3 �f a� k / t✓ T't�3 ir r fTl Sx / Al /fw " 3 s t�3 7. SUPPORT PROGRAMS CITY OF DUBLI N EXISTING PROGP AA–S an excellent example to other Jurisdictions for targeting bicycling and walking outreach to students beyond elementary school. The City of Dublin has a number of verb strong support programs for bicycling and walking already in place. These fall into two broad Dublin's Safe Routes program also stands out for the level of categories: pa^icipation. In 2013, two-thirds of the City's elementary schools had Safe Routes to School programs Education and encouragement programs • Enforcement programs At Dublin High School, students, parents, and leaders participate in walk audits. The audits focus on connections between the Iron Horse Trail, i I T Stagecoach Park and the high school, as well as to BrightonNillage � ( Parkway Education and encouragement programs focus on boosting bicycling and The City has encouraged wide participation In these programs with walking with strategic introduction, training and incentives. These events like Walk and Roll to School Day,and the Golden Sneaker Contest. targeted programs are informative and increase the enthusiasm and The Safe Routes to School program provides additional benefits and confidence in walking and bicycling among locals, incentives to participating schools by including a monitoring component, a mode chart,and a walking audit. - r LDL Safe Routes to School programs encourage and educate students and _ ,; ° J''r' c -ii� ''7 T'PC tili-'::11_) parents on how to safely walk and "roll" to school. The Dublin Unified School District has a particularly strong local Safe Routes to School Other Citywide education and encouragement programs include special Programs that reach students of all ages. The Alameda County Safe events that promote active transportation,such as Bicycle to Work Day or Routes to School Partnership operates in five Dublin Unified School bicycling skills courses. These include: District(DUSD)schools—four elementary schools(Murray, Kolb,Green, Bicycle Month/Bicycle to Work Day and Dougherty) and one high school (Dublin). High school participation Bicycle to the Farmers'Market is unique,and this level of education exceeds best practices and provides National Bicycle Month Y��'r� - CtTYOF DUBL!N 7. SUPPORT PROGRAMS CITY Of DUBLIN • Bicycle Safety Brochures(available in multiple languages) Last year DUSD elementary schools encouraged students to bicycle to school every day during National Bicycle Month,. Dublin High School These programs are funded through Measure B funds and through hosted a Bicycle to School Day for students and teachers,who received donations from the public and private businesses. Grant funding also refreshments,giveaways,and helmets on an as-needed basis. partially supports a Bicycle Programs coordinator to organize and lead At the Flat Tire Repair Clinic, bicyclists receive free bicycle safety checks these events. and helmet fittings. The City of Dublin,Cycles of Change,and REI Dublin General education materials such as bicycle safety brochures are hosted a Bicycle Donation Drive: individuals made a tax-deductible available in Mandarin,Spanish,and English. donation of gently used bicycles and bicycle parts and received a coupon to REI Dublin,a Chipotle coupon,and refreshments. BICYCLE MONTH/BICYCLE TO WORK DAY During the Bicycle to the Dublin Farmers'Market Night,cyclists who visit Dublin promotes National Bicycle Month through a City proclamation, the City booth with some evidence of bicycling received a $5 the public service announcements, a guide to Bicycle Month events, and a Cash"voucher,to be used at one of the booths. commuter challenge. The Family Bicycle Workshop, community-wide celebration of International Walk and Roll to School Week,the regional Participation is monitored at each event with a head count or with "Ride Into Life!" campaign, promotion of Bicycle to Work Day and the registration in a "Bicycle Month Raffle;"over S00 entries were registered Cinderella Classic Challenge,an all-women/girls recreational bicycle ride, in the prize drawing in May 2013. The City has also hosted multiple all increase enthusiasm for bicycling and walking. "Bicycle Mobile" events,wherein a mobile bicycle repair shop funded by ACTC conducts onsite bicycle maintenance and minor repairs. The City currently hosts various events as part of National Bicycle Month. Some of the key events include: TRAFFIC SKILLS • Bicycle to School Day The City educates motorists and bicyclists on sharing the road safely • Flat Tire Repair Clinic through public service announcements, community newsletters and a • Bicycle to Work Day dedicated bicycle page on the community website. Cycling skills classes • Bicycle to the[Farmers']Market. are offered regularly in the community,including: • Adult Bicycle Safety Classes BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 7. SUPPORT PROGRAMS CITY Or L�►UBLIv • Traffic Skills 101 - "Learn to Ride"Cycling Skills • Family Bicycle Workshop All three classes are offered by League of American Bicyclists-certified Dublin Police Services (DPS) has a Traffic Unit and the City of Dublin nstructors. Traffic Skills 101 is a one-time classroom course for adults contracts its law enforcement services to the Alameda County Sheriff's that covers the basics of bicycle maintenance, safety in and around Office. The Crime Prevention Unit, with assistance from Traffic Unit, traffic, and equipment. Family Bicycle Workshop is a one-day"on road" conducts bicycle rodeos for youth and operates other enforcement and program that teaches families the basics of maintaining their bicycles, educational programs. practices necessary bicycle skills for young cyclists with the use of obstacle courses,and rehearses cycling on road as a family unit in a safe The Traffic Safety Unit officers have received specific training on the residential area. relationship between bicycling and law enforcement. PROFFSSIONAL TRALNINGA[VD IIVFRASTRUCTURF Dublin Police Services also operates a traffic diversion program for bicyclists under 18. When a young person is observed violating traffic City staff attends bicycle-related conferences and training sponsored by laws as a bicyclist,the officer requires the young personto write an essay ACTC. Recent training topics have included: complete streets design, on bicycle safety, focusing on the violation in question. If the essay policy and practice; crosswalk policies, tools and treatments; bicycle shows an understanding of the issues, the officer issues a one-time parking;and roadway separated bikeways. warning, If the violation is for not wearing a helmet,the student is given the opportunity to do community service at the school to earn a free As part of the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM), the helmet. City's Employee Commute Alternative Program is designed to encourage alternative modes of transportation among City employees. The City (� .{ i}--.�� ���V�LL�l1 V J.JATIOiV provides a $2.00 per day incentive to employees who use public transportation, bicycling, walking or carpooling to commute, and As outlined above, Dublin has already established many strong bicycling participates in the Alameda County Guaranteed Ride Home Program. and walking support programs. The following recommendations are Employees may elect to receive pre-tax transit benefits directly through structured around these programs and strategies for expansion and the Clipper Card Program. continued momentum. Many of these recommendations are also tm ,W,..;, CITY OF DUBLIN 7. SUPPORT PROGRAMS Gt'rY OF DUBLIN summarized in the Programs, Policies, and Practices Benchmarking identify champions and members of the public as leaders at each school Analysis in Chapter 3 of this Plan (fable 3-1)and are presented here in and throughout the community. additional detail. lit F DUB 7 r EDUCA 7-7 O A e ND EMC.,ATION AND FNC'01.1RAC i:;11.11.N-I- PROGRAIVIS` P ROG R.AM S COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT I~;ouTE5' TO S(.,N()OL The following enhancements are recommended for community education and enforcement programs: To date,efforts have focused on education and encouragement,with less focus on infrastructure improvements near schools. Recommendations Work with City departments and LAVTA to promote the use of for enhancement include: walking,bicycling,and transit access to City events,such as the St.Patrick's Day Celebration.Events such as these present • Continue to identify"champions"for safe routes at each school opportunities to introduce residents to fun walking and bicycling site opportunities,while simultaneously reducing vehicle traffic • Coordinate with SR2S monitoring programs with the bicycle and associated with the events.The City can promote walking and pedestrian monitoring program established in this Plan bicycling with event-specific route information,temporary • Integrate walking audit and other infrastructure-related wayfinding,and services such as bicycle valet parking.Major recommendations with this Plan to help prioritize projects and events like the St.Patrick's Day festival also present create packages of grant-ready projects opportunities for public outreach campaigns to promote the • Explore the feasibility of competitive funding for projects "share the road"message. identified,either through SR2S or other grants Many strong programs are in place and the precedent has been set to continue building on past successes and coordination with schools at all grade levels.In order for this to continue,the City of Dublin will need to continue to support the establishment of volunteer programs and help to BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 7. SUPPORT PROGRAMS CITY Or DUBLIN Collaborate with volunteer groups to organize and execute programs,identify local needs,and inform the priorities of local education and encouragement programs through a direct connection to the community.Volunteers will reduce the burden on City staff.Continue to look for public volunteers to serve as project champions for organizing events and programs. Wayfinding Signage w People are more likely to consider walking when they know that a trip is I IlH short and convenient The City should consider developing wayfinding I�dfW signage so that pedestrians and motorists are familiar with different sign types. Typically, these wayfinding programs are most effective in areas with multiple destinations within a reasonable walking distance, such as around transit stations and downtown commercial districts. A citywide wayfinding program for bicyclists and pedestrians is a proposed project in this Plan. The City of Portland,OR has established a pedestrian-focused wayfinding program. Examples of the signs and design standards can be found online: This example focuses on bicycle wayfinding,but the information about distances and http://,M,tnu t;ortiandoreaon goy/transcor'ation/dOcCO connections between key destinations is also very helpful for pedestrians. More details about bicycle- and pedestrian-specific wayfinding are PROFESSIONAL TRAINING included in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. The City may consider revising staff hours for bicycle program coordination and use other City staff/resources to pursue grants. Specifically this could include: ;14 __ CITY OF DUBLIN 7. SUPPORT PROGRAMS CITY OF DUBLIN • Seeking grant funding to expand staff time for bicycle education Provide information to the public on traffic laws regarding programs and to provide time for other staff to pursue driving,bicycling,and walking,and always continue to look for competitive grants opportunities to encourage bicycling and walking.Police officers • Revise the scope of staff time for bicycle program coordination are community role models and can lend authority to messages to include time for pedestrian-oriented programs and activities and programs that support walking and bicycling. • Consider membership to the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals(APBP)for staff for the resources and training opportunities available to members • Continuing staff training on Complete Streets implementation POLICE ENFORCEMENT Recommendations for enhancement to police enforcement programs include: • Expand the scope of current police enforcement programs to include participation in bicycle and pedestrian-related education and classes,and enforcement programs as well as officer training in pedestrian safety enforcement. • Ask police to use targeted information and enforcement to encourage motorists and cyclists to share the road.Targeted traffic enforcement may also be used in high pedestrian priority areas to call drivers'attention to important locations and common infractions that affect pedestrian safety. • Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to resource share during enforcement campaigns. This will increase consistency and reinforce the importance of pedestrian and bicycle safety. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN MEASURES 8• PERFORMANCE G7TY OF DUBLIN The City of Dublin intends to monitor progress over time on EXISTING BICYCLE AND implementing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This chapter presents four PEDESTRIAN DATA SOURCES key performance goals for the Plan's implementation, summarizes existing data sources related to walking and bicycling, and provides Appendix B - Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes presents additional information on types of data collection methods and available bicycle and pedestrian count information to establish a technologies currently available. baseline. In future Plan updates,these volumes can be used to measure increases in walking and biking. As bicycle and pedestrian volumes are PERFORMANCE GOALS collected, they should be consolidated to help document the performance of the Plan. Table 8-1 summarizes the four Performance Measure and Goals and Plan. r ail includes information on the key stakeholders and associated metrics and toward meeting goals. These goals include:1) policies to make progress Construct all the low-stress bicycle fac ilities that support all ages es and abilities by 2035,and build out remainder of the bicycle network by 2050; 2)Increase the walkability of Downtown Dublin; 3) Enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety throughout Dublin, and 4) Encourage and facilitate a significant increase in active transportation mode share and trips. These goals provide consistency with the citywide policies established in Chapter 3 Goals and Policies, and should be followed and monitored per Policy 1-7 of this Plan. In order to begin monitoring consider creating a performance baseline condition and a schedule of follow-on data collection, as addressed in this Chapter. Example of an automated bicycle/pedestrian counter installed next to Alamo Canal Trail north of the 1-580 undercrossing. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 8. PERFORMANCE MEASURES CITY OF DUBLIN WMMUMMMMM" Goat Metrics Key Actions 1.Construct all the I low-stress bicycle facilities that support Esablisn a Jpdate the Fiue 1earCa r _; ���r,° er„p q�amarc Dcwrtov.n Dublin iF-c prioritize lc w,Tess bicycle faclities forfunding ,-d mplemertatien Continue to seek comcertve^tart funding sources to users of all ages and ccn�truaion pace implement low-stress bicycle=aalires and ctre-Tier Ore and T,vo cro abilities by 2035,and cf 0.5 miles of - build out the bicycle facilities Cors der b�cyde aria pece an"ac l �r all o_vwrg prcnec t and'nte sec:ier -°prov menu remainder of the per year_ Review environmental dcc r- s an E�rccosed ceveloomem play "or ccr stercy with`his Plan and for bicycle network by proposed facility's ability to accerrmoca the needs of users of all ages and aoilites 2050. i Establish a cpnstruct on pace Update the Fiue ear CapitaE l prcvemenr Program and Dovdrtown Dublin F to include pedestrian of ore capitol 2. Increase the improvement projects walkabilityof pedes71anproject per year in Proritize Tier One and Two cederriar projects for funding and mplemertation Downtown Dublin Downtown to . Review environmental documents and proposed development plans for cons srency w&the Bicycle and complete all Pedestrian Plan and to accommodate the reeds of users of all ages and abili;es projects by 2040 jReduce ro[al 3. Enhance pedestrian numbero`arnual Address collision locations °r,fee r k r'ar including cj ac--fr-j-d-C jre, Boulevard.Amador and bicycle safety bicycle and Valley Boulevard Hacienda ve V,it c- areway,Dcuohe d Roac one San x=mor Read. throughout Dublin nedes-,riar,related Consider needs of acycists and�ece � ors at r,ese loco ons nreF t ode cry witr ve^ide ccerations are collision rate by egr,irPd in conjunction with-he Cr/-Cs ci2 Street Pcl cyand is,I context_ half by 2030 � 4 Encourage and Ei, ease • Require'bicycle and pedestrian counts to be routinely collected with all intersection turning movement facilitate a significant ent counts,such as for all environmental documerts and traffic studies increase in active cle a Moni for bib de and pedestrian activity at Key locations within the Ctt usinra automated counting �. `,....•'' CITY OF DUBLIN 8. PERFORMANCE MEASURES CITY OF �UBLIN a a Y ' a .�. n lCe�t Actirrkt5 „, a transportation mode pedestrian technologies,where feasible. share and trips. commute'trips by . Evaluate creating a GiS database of bicycle and pedestrian counts by location,including peak hour, next Plan update. weekday and weekend ADT,date,and source of data,as available • update the GIS database as traffic studies and environmental documents are viewed by,City staff and once data is available from ACTC and MTC's annual monitoring Review and monitor bicycle and pedestrian commute mode share from American Community Survey(ACS) data Source:Fehr&Peers,2013. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN mom 9. IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF DUBLIN This chapter presents implementation guidance and funding sources and Incorporate Class UB buffered bicycle lanes on Village Parkway strategies available for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects and between Amador Valley Boulevard and North City Limit line into programs. It also includes unit costs per mile for each bikeway the next Village Parkway slurry seal,currently planned for FY classification used in this Plan. Unit costs for pedestrian facilities along 2014-15. with design guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian facilities are presented Incorporate Class IIA bicycle lanes on St.Patrick Way between in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. Appendix C Amador Plaza Road and Golden Gate Drive,. Funding,provides information on funding sources. Incorporate Class IRA bicycle route with sharrows treatment, including signage and striping,on Dublin Boulevard between San IMPLEMENTATION Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail with One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)funding currently planned for FY 2015-16. Subject to City Council approval,City staff has identified major next steps Incorporate the top priority projects included in this Plan in the for the implementation of this Plan: update of the Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee(planned for FY 2014-15)as per the nexus analysis. • Initiate for City Council consideration a Capital Improvement Continue to fund the Bikeway Implementation Program Project in Fiscal Year 2014-15 to implement the Downtown education and encouragement efforts for 2014 using funds Multi-Modal Improvement-Project for pedestrian and bicycles, allocated from Measure B. including the following:1)Incorporate the Regional Street Class Continue staff training for complete streets issues so that City IIA bicycle lanes from Amador Valley Boulevard to southerly end staff can champion projects and apply for competitive grant of street,2)Amador Valley Boulevard Class IIB buffered bicycle funding sources,which are described in the following section. lanes from San Ramon Road to Village Parkway,3)Installation of . Opportunistically implement the other projects contained in this bicycle racks and bikeway guide signs in the Downtown area,and Plan. When opportunities arise to stripe or construct a project, 4)Construct on Amador Plaza Road a mid-block crossing with the City should take advantage of that,even if the project is not enhanced crossing treatment such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing a top tier priority project. Beacon. While the project lists are by location for reference,look for • Incorporate Class RA bicycle lanes on Village Parkway from opportunities to group projects together by type(striping Amador Valley Boulevard to Clark Avenue into the next Village projects,safe routes to transit,etc.)where funding sources and Parkway pavement overlay,currently planned in FY 2014-15. implementation efficiency allow. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN - 9. IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF OUBLI:N • Consult the bicycle and pedestrian project lists whenever making These costs include Table 9-2 presents the total cost of the plan by improvements to the transportation network,specifically when bikeway classification, and Table 9-3A and 9-36 divide out capital overlays or other routine projects are completed. projects and developer built facilities. These costs include unit costs for • Identify and incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements in standard treatments for each facility type with basic assumptions listed. private development projects as condition of development The total cost per mile represents the total construction for a typical approvals. bikeway of that type, including engineering, design, construction management, mobilization, traffic control, and contingency. These COST OF NEW FACILITIES numbers do not include right of way and environmental costs. Excluding the facilities anticipated to be funded and built by private developers,the Table 9-1 presents costs per mile for bikeways identified in this Plan. estimated cost of the bicycle facilities proposed in this Plan is Item Assumptions ,.. Cost/Unit Bicycle Rack Cost of typical U shaped bicycle rac<,including irs.allation cons. $1.000 each Way finding Destination Sion s J / I Customized sign with Dublin logo and�ircercoar�destinations sans with me to desinaCon on oew steel post $ 00 each Class I Mult-Use Path Design and construction if on a level surface with no major stnuctu-es/retaining walls ! required;does not Include right-of-way $1000,30©,`mile Class HA Scycle Lanes;Both Roadway Includes$250 L. _`iermoplast c stn ci ; $1 a a'oemert marklres pe,mile;2 pe cicce, S Ces-) with approx�r-,ately 10 blocks per mile),arc s C(';Gr_per mile(i per olcc'<,wit aoprcximately 1C blocks oer mile) 1! $23,2C0/miie Class 1B Bic/de Lanes(Botn,Roadway I idudes$650 LF striping(includes tner`ncolasY c�bicyde lane stripe and chevron stripe of Sides) j $2,50/1-F),$150 marking(8 per mile),3760 sign(R per mile) $a4 300/mile Class sIIA-Signed Bicycle Reuter wth I includes 35$150 pavement mar'Cnes(1;er 1r0 linear feet)and one$700 slay it each Snarrow; direction per block(approximately"�C blocks oe ile` $142x0/miie � Scuree.ren�&Peers,20_s. l 77:77, CITY OF DUBLIN 9. IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF DUBLIN $2,765,600. The estimated cost of the developer built facilities is r• s :i a e a L PROPOSED $7,865,700.The total cost of proposed pedestrian network is$5,044,500. C, •` The estimated cost for each proposed bikeway and pedestrian Cost of Bikeway Existing Proposed Total Unit Cost proposed improvement is presented in Appendix A. Design guidance are Classification (miles) (miles) Miles per mile presented in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. Bikeways Class I Bicycle 23.62 9.98 33.03 $1,000,000' $9,980,000 Path-Total Class IIA Bicycle 25 27 17.09 41.85 $23,200 $385,000 Lane'-Total Class UB $170,000 Buffered Bicycle 3.83 3.83 $44,300 Lanes-Total: Class IIIA Bicycle Routes 2 0.3 4.42 4.72 $19,250 $85,000 with Sharrows -Total Total 4919 35.32 83,42 $10,631,300 Total Cost of Proposed Bikeway (35.32 miles) BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 9. IMPLEMENTATION CITY OF DUBLIN Cost of Bikeway Existing Proposed Total Unit Cost Cost of Bikeway Existing Proposed Total Unit Cost Proposed Classification miles Proposed Classification (miles) (miles) Miles per mile (miles) j (miles) Miles I per mile Bikeways l Bikeways Class I Bicycle 26 31,000,000 52,260,000 Class I Bicycle I 7 72 2 Path $1,000,000 $7,720,000 Path-Total Class'IIA Bicycle i Ca s to nis✓c'e Lane' $23,200 $133,600 �3 5 74,50 $52 CO S.i6 Lane ctal Class IIIA Bicycle Routes 0 63 $19,250 S12,000 Class IIB W111-S ar ows' $169,700 Buffered Bicycle 3,83 5 44,300 j $7,865,700 Lanes-Total Total Cost-Developer Built Facilities (14.11 miles)Class IIIA ��— Sicycle Routes Notes_ 3 7o a 19,50 573 COC vi.h Sha-rOWs i The_altrans HDM labels 'he-se faclities as"Class I 31C/Cle'L.res' 2. The C21trans HDM has a ass III Biccle.Reuse dasc;ficatlor,which is demarcate) Total ny sicnage crly phis Plan proposes that-he minimum starcard for the Caltrars Total a 1.5 HDM Mass III eesignation aiso include sharrcw paveme-t legends every 150 feet. $2,765,600 Pce,s,2014 Total Cost of Proposed Bikeway (21 21 miles) '` = CITY OF DUBLIN 9. IMPLEMENTATION Sa9� CITY OF L7UBLIN This page left intentionally blank BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN CITE' OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GuIDELINES PIP, pit Y ° . i' ,k. •,�`, '$tea 3�_ ' 1 �� t 4 1 FEHR 'PEERS CITY OF _ DUBLIN ATTACHMENT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS DUBLIN INTRODUCTION................................................................................................I-,,,,,*,,,*,,*,,,--,,*,,,*"'*........... ....... ...... PEDESTRIANDESIGN GUIDELINES..............................................................................................................................................................................3 ThePedestrian Realm.............................................................................................................. ....... CompleteStreets........................................................................................ ........ ...... Streetsand Sidewalks.................................................................................................. ............ ...... ......... SidewalkZones......................................................................................................................... CrosswalkDesign............................................................................................. ............................36 CrosswalkFundamentals...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................36 UncontrolledCrossing Enhancements..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 ControlledCrosswalk Treatments..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................41 ResourceDocuments................................................................................***...**...*,,**........... ...... *'****'***'*******43 BICYCLEDESIGN GUIDELINES.............................................................................................................**....... ......*,******"* 44 ClassI Shared Use Path.......................................................................................*****,*--*******-'*"*...*...*......*....,......**...... ........................................49 SharedUse Path Features.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................50 Bollards..................................................................................................................................—........*.................. 50 SplitTrailway........................................................................................................................... ***................ 50 GradeSeparation.........................................................................................................* * ........... ...........*.......... ..........................*.......... so Fencing.............................................................................................................................. 51 Curbramps........................................................................................................................... 51 CrossingTreatments............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................51 TABLE OF CONTENTS arr DJB"N i ar BicycleSignal Heads............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................S3 UnsignalizedIntersections.................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................54 Shared-Use Path Amenities..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 StagingAreas..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 Pedestrian-Scale Lighting..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 RestAreas.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 Seating.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 Waste.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................55 ClassHA Bicycle Lanes................................................................................................................................................................................................................56 BicycleLane Markings.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57 BicycleLanes Adjacent to Parallel Parking..................................................................................................................................................................................................................58 BicycleLanes without Parking..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................59 ClimbingLanes.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................60 ClassIIB Buffered Bicycle Lanes.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................61 BicycleLanes at Intersections...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................63 ColoredBicycle Lanes..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................66 Skip-Striping through Intersections and Conflict Zones..................................................................................................................................................... ..........................68 Treatmentsat Highway Interchanges..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 BicycleDetection...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................71 ClassMA Bicycle Routes with Sharrows..................................................................................................................................................................................74 SharedLane Markings.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................74 BMUFLSignage......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................75 Sharethe Road Signage.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................75 &ABtE OF CONTENTS -------------'--_-'rr oaoomo��n������o� Wovnnmne and Destination sgnaee - BicycleParking............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ -------'------'-------'_cw u�S�e�/ou�m/kpaoono----_-_--------_--- 88 Bicycle Enclosed Facilities —.. Bicycle Facility Maintenance Standards �.... � ' - TABLE OF CONTENTS S ilY Jt Dtistlu LIST OF TABLES Table1:Sidewalk Zones and Corners.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Table2:Pedestrian Wayfinding.................-......................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Table3:Pedestrian-Scale Lighting.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Table4:High-Quality Street Furniture..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................12 Table5:Standard Crosswalk Striping............................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Table6:High Visibility Crosswalk Striping..................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Table7:Special Paving Treatments...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Table8:Median Island/Pedestrian Refuge...............................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Table9:In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs.............................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Table10:Reduced Radii.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Table11:Curb Extensions..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Table12:Curb Ramps.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 Table13:Right-Turn Slip Lane Design.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Table14:Advanced Yield Markings...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Table15:Advanced Warning Signs...._..................................._................._....__._...._.....-..........._............._.....-..............................._.._..........._........__........._........._.................25 Table16:Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon...........................................................................................................................................................................................................26 Table17:Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Table18:Grade Separated Crossing.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................28 Table19:Leading Pedestrian Interval...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................29 Table 20:Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing and Countdown.............................................................................................................................................................................30 Table21:Pedestrian Friendly Signal Phasing........................................................................................................... ...................................................................................32 Kl� ��l� ���� �]-�'� ��-�� -` /�z�u�u~u~ ��� CONTENTS ^^~~~~ Tablezz:Bus Stop Accessibility.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................34 Tablez3: Dublin Bikeways Classifications.................................................................................................................................................................................................................4o Table a4: Standards m,cLaozpacoms---_--'--------_------__----------_-------'---------'-_--'4m Table 25: Recommended au/ueune,for Class MA Facilities r* Table26: Bicycle Parking Facilities...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................«3 UST OFFIGURES Figurela. Types of Bicycle Facilities.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................4r Figure 1b. Types of Bicycle Facilities . *» Figurez Typical Class I Shared Use Path..................................................................................................................................................................................................................sn Figure 3. Placement«r In-Pavement Bicycle Detectors m Intersections........................................................................................................................................................rs INTRODUCTION CI fY t)F DUBLIN This Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines document will guide the design and installation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities Citywide and should be used along with the guidelines specified in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan. This document is intended to be a living document that will be updated regularly by the City of Dublin's Public Works Department to make it consistent with best practices in bicycle and pedestrian planning and design. This document is divided into two basic chapters: • Pedestrian Design Guidelines • Bicycle Design Guidelines The Pedestrian Design Guidelines chapter also includes a detailed section on the design and installation of crosswalks. The Crosswalk Design section includes key considerations for the installation, enhancement, and/or removal of marked crosswalks in Dublin. The Crosswalk Design Guidelines are intended to apply Citywide. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines should be consulted by City staff,developers,and transportation engineers working in Dublin. For example, new development site designs should refer to this document to inform project development and recommendations. This Policy should also be consulted anytime new public infrastructure development, redevelopment,or upgrades occur. Final application of the Guidelines will require engineering judgment at all times. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN '�I:; „r INTRODUCTION DUBLTiJ This page left intentionally blank ff CITY OF DUBLIN y M / w a; \ 76% n J M � "M r ".,� �, . j 1 / Vk ?v M"Nei / H / 4 k a � H V a F y • on % A i "M-W W t Iw- a , y b ✓ :, • r MW a b 0 MUM"a Al PIZ M s Mm �: MIZE IT WA Ono J1114— v r + � 9e A him: p i ' \: " IMP All s/ y'r DuB'L'I PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES This section outlines guidelines for the design of walking facilities in the City of Dublin.Safe,walkable streets are a vital aspect of City life and enhance the health of our communities.Well-designed walking spaces should be comfortable for all residents—young and old—to enjoy. THE 'EDEST IAN REALM The pedestrian realm consists of walkways, pedestrian crossings, and open spaces. Walkways are "prepared exterior routes, designed to provide walking accessibility.Walkways are general walking routes,including plazas and courts,and sidewalks are walkways that parallel a vehicular roadway."'Additionally, pedestrian crossings,where pedestrians traverse a roadway,are considered part of the pedestrian realm. Plazas and courts are locations,either publicly or privately-owned,accessible to pedestrians.The quality of the pedestrian realm has two components:accessibility and comfort.The City of Dublin seeks to maximize both elements for all users. A well-connected pedestrian network is a vital component of livable communities,which thrive on multimodal travel for all roadway users, regardless of age or ability. Multimodal travel incorporates the needs of not just motor vehicles in roadway design, but the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists,and transit users as well.The primary goal of the Pedestrian Design Guidelines is to assist the City of Dublin in creating streets that accommodate pedestrians through a set of recommended practices that enhance the walkability of all streets within the City.These guidelines will help the City make decisions about the preferred application of pedestrian treatments in the following areas: • Streets and Sidewalks • Uncontrolled Intersections/Mid-block Crossing Treatments • Controlled Intersections and Crossings The pedestrian enhancements described throughout these guidelines provide street design best practice guidance, which can enhance the safety, convenience, and mobility for pedestrians. In particular, they provide guidance on appropriate treatments for the various "areas of focus" throughout Dublin, including downtown districts, access to transit stations, school zones, and barrier crossings. Potential treatment types for each of these areas include different design options for streets/sidewalks,pedestrian crossings,multimodal connections and community vitality. 'U.S.Department of Transportation "' CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DustN COMPLETE STREETS Complete streets practices improve the pedestrian realm when properly integrated with the adjacent land use context,because they encourage the design of streets with well-connected and comfortable sidewalks,traffic calming measures to manage vehicle speeds and enhanced pedestrian crossings.Though the level of accommodation of all modes will vary in different land use contexts,incomplete streets—those designed primarily for automobile access—can be a barrier in any neighborhood,particularly for people with disabilities,older adults,and children. STREETS AND SIDEWALKS Streets and sidewalks should support the activities and pedestrian levels along the street.Streets should be well-connected to ensure that destinations are within walking distance.Sidewalks should be wide enough to support the expected pedestrian volumes.This Plan recommends a minimum width of six feet for the pedestrian pathway section of a sidewalk,which is wide enough for two people to walk side by side, can be navigated by persons with mobility impairments,and meets current ADA requirements. Sidewalks in existing residential developments may remain at current widths(City approved minimum of 48 inches,or four feet)unless a substantial new development of multi-family dwelling units is planned.ADA sidewalk regulations specify that routes with less than 60 inches, or five feet of clear width must provide passing spaces at least 60 inches wide at reasonable intervals not exceeding 200 feet, and a five feet by five feet turning space should be provided where turning or maneuvering is necessary.This section provides guidelines on the design of sidewalk widths that meet walking demand,and provide buffer space between motor vehicle lanes and sidewalks and space for walking,sitting,and lingering. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN CI,,r: PEDESTRLkN DESIGN GUIDELINES YY Vf' DUBLIN Table 1:Sidewalk Zones and Corners s The sidewalk zone is the portion of the street right-of-way between the curb and building front.Within this zone,four distinct areas serve different organizational purposes(see below for more detail about how these apply to different settings). s Edge Furnishings Throughway Frontage a i These designs are recommended minimums, and ideally sidewalks with high pedestrian volumes should be 16 to 18 feet wide, and could include wider landscaped buffers,a seven and a half to 11 foot wide pedestrian pathway,and/or vegetative strips along the building face. �, GTY of DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Dusiiv Minimum Recommended On commercial streets, especially in Downtown Dublin, eight feet is the minimum desired Land Use Context Sidewalk width sidewalk width.This includes a two to three foot comfort zone on either side of the pedestrian walkway,as pedestrians generally keep about 1.5 feet clear of planters,street furniture and other Residential 5' obstructions near the curb. This should not prevent the City from installing wider sidewalks in commercial districts and other locations with outdoor seating and amenities.Sidewalks on local Commercial 8' streets should be a minimum of five feet wide. School Areas 8' Landscaping separating the street from the sidewalk should be five feet wide. In addition to Industrial 6' separating pedestrians from vehicle traffic, landscape buffers provide space for driveway curb cuts and reduce cross-slopes on sidewalks. Elements such as street furniture, newspaper racks, bicycle parking racks, and trash bins should be kept in the furniture zone and should not impede a straight travel path along the sidewalk. Additionally, "meandering" sidewalks are discouraged. They may prove challenging for visually-impaired pedestrians and lengthen travel distance. • Edge/Curb Zone-At a minimum,such as in areas with lower pedestrian activity,there should be a 6-inch wide curb.Other areas,such as downtowns, should have at least an extra foot to accommodate car doors to not conflict with the sidewalk. • Furnishing/Landscape Zone -This area acts as a buffer between the curb and throughway zone.This is the areas where trees should be planted and benches should be located.Any sidewalk amenities should be located within this area and should not interfere with the throughway zone.Streets with higher speeds should have larger furnishing zones. • Throughway zone -The minimum width of this zone is typically six feet. See sidewalk width discussion above for exceptions and details about ADA compliance. • Fronta eg Zone-This area borders the building fa4ade or fence.The primary purpose of this zone is to create a buffer between pedestrians walking in the throughway zone from people entering and exiting buildings.It provides opportunities for shops to place signs, planters, or chairs that do not encroach into the throughway zone. Some zones are more important in specific settings; for example, most residential streets will not include a frontage zone and will only include a furnishing/landscape zone on streets with higher speeds.Only the curb and throughway zone have minimum widths specified. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN „y PEDESTRtAN DESIGN G[JIDELINES DUBLIN Pedestrian Area at Corners Corners must be functional and must accommodate those waiting to cross the street, those traveling along the sidewalk, and those who stop to congregate on the corner. The greater the number of expected pedestrians,the larger the pedestrian area should be. Other considerations sometimes erode the amount of usable space and hence the functionality of corners. Several strategies exist for expanding the pedestrian area at corners. Small corner radii generally provide the most usable space and the shortest crossing distances for pedestrians. Designers may also consider curb extensions, right-of-way acquisition,public easements across private property to expand the pedestrian area. The pedestrian area should be clear of obstructions,especially in the triangle created by extending the property lines to the face of curb. Where existing obstructions such as utility poles or newspaper racks are removed,they should not be relocated such that they obstruct a pedestrian's line of travel. The general rule for choosing a corner radius should be to choose the smallest possible,acknowledging that each location has a unique set of factors that determines the appropriate radius. Small corner radii improve comfort, and create a more enjoyable walking environment because they create more usable space for pedestrians at the corner. They improve safety because they slow vehicle speeds and shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians and improve sightlines. Smaller corner radii are also beneficial for street sweeping operations. Street Type Recommended Curb Radius While corner radii may be as small as 1'6 locations with any amount of turning traffic cannot accommodate a radius this tight. At locations with curbside parking, a 10' radius Is Residential 15 It recommended. At locations with no parking lane,a typical 20'radius is recommended. Locations Local/Collector 20-30 t with heavy truck or transit traffic may require a wider turning radius. Arterial 30 ft Industrial Up to 50 ft Image Sources:Valley Transportation Authority Peaestrion Technical Guidelines;Chula Vista Pedestrian,Master Pfan;Fenr&Peers 8-” CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DuiN Table 2:Pedestrian Wayfinding Discussion A pedestrian wayfinding system provides consistent and user-friendly information about distances and routes to and from major transit centers and popular destinations,making these places easier to connect to,and encouraging people to make short trips on foot.Signs that explain pedestrian directions and summarize route distances make for a more enjoyable and comfortable walking experience.Wayfinding is an essential aspect of street infrastructure which makes pedestrians a priority within the streetscape and enhances the character of the street. Design Transit Wayfinding(WCCTAC examples) RMF77M 1 , J Pe bsMnsn WeyRwa«sy L9pYi n.A R..kN UWffiayMi+RW^B TPwpes R O wNwaeyi_0* BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES 1l'ilP DUBLIN F-L " t a 8- Wayfinding signage should cater to both vehicles and pedestrians,particularly in districts with high levels of walking activity.Signs and routes that direct pedestrians to specific destinations are key to providing adequate wayfinding for pedestrians. Image Source:WCCTAC Wayfinding,htYc.;,/www.wcaccesstransit com,',vavBndina/ !10 I CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRCAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DU • BLIN Table 3:Pedestrian-Scale Lighting Discussion Pedestrian-scale lighting improves pedestrian visibility and the perception of safety and comfort while walking.Well-lit pedestrian facilities are more inviting,and function well for pedestrians after sunset. Design Pedestrian-scale Lighting(South San Francisco and Seattle) ,y y Design Summary Pedestrian-scale lighting provides a better-lit environment for pedestrians while improving visibility for motorists.Sidewalks with frequent nighttime pedestrian activity particularly in the Downtown area should have pedestrian lighting.All crosswalks should have pedestrian-scale lighting. Pedestrians tend to observe more details of the street environment since they travel at a slower pace than vehicles,and thus pedestrian-scale lighting should have shorter light poles and shorter spacing between posts.A height of 12-20 feet is common for pedestrian lighting.The level of lighting should reflect the location and level of pedestrian activity. Image Source:Fehr&Peers and Seattle.gov BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN " is PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBi_I-, Table 4:High-Quality Street Furniture • High quality street furniture provides pedestrians with inviting places to rest,and clearly defines the furnishings zone of a sidewalk.Street furniture enhances the streetscape with consistent design character,can protect landscape features,and formalizes waiting areas such as bus stops and street corners. c • Street furniture is normally placed on a sidewalk in the Frontage Zone,as described in Table 1,to provide additional comfort for pedestrians and enhance place making within the pedestrian realm.Street furniture makes pedestrians feel welcome,but should not conflict with the pedestrian travel path.Street furniture can include benches,specially designed newspaper racks,fountains,special garbage/recycling containers,etc.and shall be consistent with the City's Streetscape Master Plan. Costs for street furniture vary widely depending on what is included and how it is integrated with other landscaping elements. Image Source:Fehr&Peers 12 -...:, CITY Or DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DvBtitiv Table 5:Standard Crosswalk Striping Discussion Crosswalks should be marked on all approaches of an intersection where feasible to delineate space for pedestrians to cross.While heavy vehicle volumes may present an exception,this should only be considered when all other options to accommodate motor vehicle demand have been dismissed. At intersections,crosswalks are essentially an extension of the sidewalk;if the sidewalk extends to the intersection,crosswalk striping directs the pedestrian to the other side of the intersection in a direct path. Design Example Standard Crosswalk at Signalized Intersection Design Summary • Standard dual white lane stripes are recommended for pedestrian crossings at signalized or stop-controlled intersections.These bars should be one foot wide and extend from curb ramp to curb ramp. • Particularly in the Downtown area,an advance stop bar is recommended five to seven feet in advance of the crosswalk. • Image Source.Fehr&Peers BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN Table 6:High Visibility Crosswalk Striping High visibility striping is a tool that brings attention to pedestrians. This striping should be reserved for uncontrolled or mid-block locations and helps to direct pedestrian traffic to specific locations.As detailed in the crosswalk policy included in this Plan,high visibility markings should be used in combination with other design treatments,like refuge islands,bulb-outs,and other active device enhancements for roadways with more than four lanes or speeds over 40 mph. Example Crosswalk Types Approved by FHWA Continental Crosswalk Hi h Visibili Ladder Crosswalk(school zone) s w • The use of high visibility striping is recommended at uncontrolled crossing locations. • Communities should choose a preferred style of high visibility striping so it is consistently applied.Costs to install crosswalks vary depending on the width and number of high visibility stripes used. Image Source:FHWA,Fehr&Peers _J4 '-` CITY OF DLBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN Table 7:Special Paving Treatments Special paving treatments include adding texture to surfaces or coloring pavement to distinguish the sidewalk or crosswalk.This treatment enhances the character of the overall pedestrian environment.The rougher roadway surface may also slow vehicles and draw more attention to the pedestrian realm. Design Example Brick Pattern Streetprint Design Brick,Pavers and Concrete Decorative Streetprint +dt } Em- Design Types of special paving treatments typically include: • Colored concrete • Stamped asphalt or concrete painted to resemble bricks. • Pavement stencils Designers must be careful to not confuse the visually impaired and cause problems for people with disabilities. Surfaces should be adapted to accommodate people using wheelchairs.A standard white stripe must be provided on either side of the crosswalk even when special paving treatments are used to enhance the contrast between the crossing and the roadway(and legally establish the crosswalk at midblock locations). Image Source:Fehr&Peers(top left and top right),http://www.visualtexture.net/page/2/(bottom) BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN =17 PEDESTRLAN DESIGN GuIDELINES IY UN' Table 8:Median Island/Pedestrian Refuge IN Refuge islands are raised islands in the center of a roadway that separate opposing lanes of traffic with a cutout or ramp for an accessible pedestrian path. They reduce pedestrian exposure to motor vehicles,and allow a pedestrian to cross a roadway in two stages.Their application is most pertinent in higher traffic volume areas that have four-lane or wider streets or when crossing distances exceed 60 feet. s Pedestrian Refuge Island Split Pedestrian Cross-Over Staggered Crosswalk AFL r r, I r CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTR A,N DESIGN GUIDELINES DciBiiiv Pedestrian refuge islands should extend through the crosswalk,with a curb cut for Recommended Refu a Island Widths wheelchair accessibility. Refuge islands should be clear of obstructions and have Speed Minimum Width* adequate drainage. They should be at least 12 feet long or the width of the 25-30 mph 5 feet crosswalk(whichever is greater)and 60 feet square.At actuated pedestrian signals, 30-35 mph 6 feet an accessible pedestrian push button should also be located in the median. 35-45 mph 8 feet *Where bikes are expected to use the crosswalk, medians Refuges can be a low cost way to reduce the crossing distance at wide intersections should be at least six feet wide,the length of an average bike. because often no curb(drainage)modifications are required. Image Source:www.tthrc.gov,www.Rickr.com/0hotos,Raton BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ,' ��, .,! PEDESTRLAN DEsIGN GuIDELINES W1316'N' Table 9:In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs This tool involves placing regulatory pedestrian signage in the middle of the roadway centerline,either in front or behind the crosswalk.It is MUTCD- approved and assists to remind road users of laws regarding to the right of way at unsignalized pedestrian crossings. .: STATE ..@ LAW I, TO WITHIN CROSSWALK Signs may be placed on the roadway centerline directly,as in the picture above.Careful placement is necessary to avoid maintenance issues with vehicles knocking down the sign.One option is to temporarily place the sign during specific time periods,such as when school is in session.Another option Is to put the sign within a raised median or place in-pavement raised markers around the sign.They can be placed either at mid-block crosswalk locations or intersections with significant pedestrian activity,such as near transit stations or schools. Image Source:FHWA,Fehr&Peers 18 CITY Or DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES B Cl'1'T(}i DUBLIN Table 10:Reduced Radii Reduced turning radii can create a more compact intersection design and improve sight distance.Dimensions of the curb at the intersection directly affect the speed of the approaching vehicle, especially for turning vehicles. Compact intersection design with low corner radii can also improve pedestrian visibility by removing barriers to sight distance.Improving sight distances gives motorists a clear view of pedestrians, while allowing the pedestrian to observe and read to any hazards. Ensuring proper sight distances between pedestrians and vehicles can decrease the rate and severity of turning related pedestrian-vehicle collisions. Design f :r Design Compact intersections are more comfortable for pedestrians and improve visibility between motorists and pedestrians.A large turning radius(generally 30 feet or greater) allows vehicles to turn at high speeds. Reducing the radius forces approaching vehicles to slow down while still accommodating larger vehicles,thus reducing the frequency and severity of pedestrian collisions at intersections.On-street parking and bicycle lanes can also allow for smaller curb radii while maintaining the same effective curb radius.Note that on-street parking should be restricted in advance of crosswalks,to improve visibility for pedestrians.Cost of curb radius adjustments will depend on the site-specific drainage conditions and existing and desired dimensions,and may include costs associated with concrete sidewalk removal and new curb and gutter. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLL. Table 11:Curb Extensions n Also known as pedestrian bulb-outs,curb extensions increase driver awareness of pedestrians and help slow traffic.They provide a larger space for pedestrians to wait before crossing and prevent cars from parking near the crosswalk.Curb extensions are highly beneficial in downtown or transit station areas,which generate significant pedestrian activity.They may also be beneficial in school zones or neighborhood districts,which have vulnerable pedestrians,such as children or older adults that would benefit from an enhanced treatment that reduces crossing distances. Generally,curb extensions should extend a minimum of six feet into the street adjacent to parallel parking,or 12 feet adjacent to diagonal parking,and no farther than the edge of the travel lane or bicycle lane.The leading edge of all curb extensions should be treated with reflective material for higher visibility,unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.Designers should exercise special care not to create conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians and not to design the curb extension such that cyclists are forced to"take the lane"at intersections where it is not appropriate. Curb extensions can also improve the visibility of stop signs at stop-controlled locations. Curb extensions involve extending the curb space into the street to create a shorter pedestrian crossing.They should not extend into the bicyclist line of travel to avoid impeding bicyclists and motorists.This can be achieved by designing the bulb-out width to be the same as the adjacent on-street parking(7-8'for parallel parking,or wider as necessary at locations with angled parking).They may also require removal of on street,parking. Low-height landscaping within bulb-outs can further enhance the character and comfort of the pedestrian realm.Bulb-outs may also create space for pedestrian amenities or bicycle parking. Image Source:Dan Burden(top left),Fehr&Peers(top right)and Oty of Sacramento(bottom) -20 CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DU'BILYINI Table 12:Curb Ramps Discussion Pedestrians with mobility impairments,such as people using wheelchairs or canes,need curb ramps to safely access a sidewalk and crosswalk. Design M�I� Y A'jI"wl Recommelded Nit Rx:om:Wended for Ml llljl 111 li I IV—CcrsFrodi., frxiving constmined sin,atrons only) 9 i s Preferred radix M S' Pmtermd to o1iOr l-d—ped,area Preterrad for r.dh>15';. Design The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the U.S.Access Board have developed Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way to ensure that sidewalks, pedestrian street crossings, pedestrian signals,and other facilities for pedestrian circulation and use constructed or altered in the public right-of-way by state and local governments are readily accessible to and usable by edestrians with BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN y PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN disabilities. Public Rights-of Way(PROWAG) Notice of Proposed Rule Making was last updated in 2011,and Is subject to updates.The most recent version can be found online: htto//www.accesq-board.gov/prowacinprm.htm Directional(dual)ramps should be standard;these ramps point the pedestrian toward the crosswalk.In some cases this design may be cost prohibitive due to utility relocation or curb reconstruction. Dual curb ramps are especially desirable at locations with narrow sidewalks and a wide corner radius. At locations with narrow sidewalks and a tight corner radius, a single curb ramp may be appropriate. Ramps and dropped landings that end directly in the roadway should have a truncated dome tactile surface. All new curb ramps in Dublin must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and the State of California Code of Regulations Title 24.The California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (CaIDAG) synthesizes the recommendations from both sources. As depicted in the illustration,directional ramps are preferred over diagonal ramps as they provide direct access to each crosswalk.Curb ramps should be ADA compliant to accommodate mobility and visually impaired pedestrians.Detectable warnings are required by the ADA Accessibility Guidelines with any new curb ramp or reconstruction. These guidelines call for raised truncated domes of 23 mm diameter and 5mm height. Curb ramps should align in the direction of the crosswalk and have enough clear space beyond the curb line so the pedestrian is not drawn right Into the line of traffic. Image Source:Valley Transportation Authority Technical Pedestrian Guidelines,Fehr&Peers W CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRJ[AN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN Table 13:Right-Turn Slip Lane Design Free right turns often create conflicts with crossing pedestrians and should be restricted whenever possible as they encourage fast turning.When they are necessary,design strategies can enhance the pedestrian crossing and improve visibility of bicyclists on intersecting streets(illustrated below). Design Right-Turn Slip Lane SUP4 ANE Preferred Design _wITH IGH ENTRY ANGLE_ cm Thrq n^nr PeGestr ara ......... .......... ..._.... r..0 - ;3C 1 Radw. tllus , ra Miry,_. y � i y I51:v4 M9ie of 54°m o:S / I � 91_6.1275 1 Radus Design Summary I I I /r A slip lane with a high entry angle provides improved sight distance in an area where traffic speeds are slower than farther downstream.In an urban interchange that has a right-turn merge onto the arterial, the acute angle of the merging approach can create visibility problems, especially as motor vehicles are hyper-focused on merging into traffic. The configuration may also discourage drivers from reducing their speeds to the level safe enough for merging as well as pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the ramp lane. Research findings call for designing a right merge lane at an interchange using a right turn slip lane with an entry angle greater than 70 degrees. Where the angle cannot be reduced,the slip lane can be improved for pedestrians by adding a raised crosswalk or signalizing the pedestrian crossing. image Source:Fehr&Peers BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN WIWI. DUBL1tV I UN r PEDESTRLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Table 14:Advanced Yield Markings Advanced yield markings designate the yielding location for vehicles yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians at an uncontrolled location. They should be installed with every uncontroiled crosswalk on multi-lane roads, and are an option for single lane crossings where enhanced visibility of the crosswalk is desired. Advanced Stop Bars Advanced Yield Markings AI► Wit., y'i 'Itii"II it �,Ilw III I4VI I - Advance yield markings are a row of white triangles,with the points facing drivers and the flat edges facing the crosswalk.They should be placed seven feet in advance of a single lane crosswalk and 20-50 feet(ideally 30 feet)in advance of a multi-lane crosswalk.The"yield here to pedestrians"sign(FHWA MUTCD sign R1-5a,or CA MUTCD R1-2)should accompany the striping installation. Image Source:Fehr&Peers 24 CITY OF Dun,. PEDESTR LA,N DESIGN GUIDELINES Dus I N Table 15:Advanced Warning Signs Discussion Advanced warning signs alert drivers to upcoming stops and pedestrian crossings.Warning signs inform unfamiliar drivers of unexpected crossings and possible pedestrian conflicts at midblock or poor visibility locations.They may also be used at high-volume pedestrian crossing locations to add emphasis to the crosswalk,school crossings,and school bus stop locations. Design nAs '! rHE�o SGN60t. Bt l' Design Advanced warning signs for pedestrian crossings should not be mounted with other warning signs,except for supplemental distance signs indicating the proximity of the crossing,to avoid visual clutter and information overload.The CA MUTCD specifies a 36in x 36in x 36in sign size.The CA MUTCD specifies a number of examples that may be used for advanced warning(including FHWA MUTCD sign R1-5a,or CA MUTCD R1-2). Image Source:FHWA BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRLkN DESIGN GUIDELINES DU i3ILi I}N U4 Table 16:Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon The Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) is considered an important new device for improving pedestrian safety at uncontrolled, multi-lane crosswalks.The RRFB device is a pedestrian-activated beacon system located at the roadside below side-mounted pedestrian crosswalk signs. n . Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon i I.hil u VI i � III r-- 1 I? The RRFB enhances the flashing beacon by replacing the slow flashing incandescent lamps with rapid flashing LED lamps.The lights can be activated either by a push-button or with remote pedestrian detection. They can be solar-powered. This treatment has received interim, blanket approval for use in California(Caltrans must be notified of any installation). Image Source:Fehr&Peers 2'6 - CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Du I u Table 17:Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon The Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon,also known as the High-intensity Activated Crosswalks(HAWK),provide protected pedestrian crossing at locations via a red signal indication.This treatment is not widely used,but is included in the Federal and CA MUTCD,with a warrant for use. Design Example 3 � � y� „Y a - jIIVJrlljl�ll rr Design HAWKS are used in circumstances with high vehicle speeds as well as a high demand for pedestrian crossings.The device combines the beacon flasher with a traffic signal to generate a higher driver yield rate.They are pedestrian activated and will display a yellow indication to warn vehicles,then a solid red light.While pedestrians are crossing,the driver sees a flashing red light in a"wig wag"pattern until the pedestrian clearance phase has ended,then returns to a dark signal. lmoge Source:Fehr&Peers BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ° ' PEDESTRLkN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN Table 18:Grade Separated Crossing :ndpaths.-separated pedestrian crossing provides a complete separation of pedestrians from vehicles through a pedestrian-only overpass or underpass ly bicycles are permitted as well).Grade separations are a tool to help overcome barriers and help pedestrians connect to sidewalks,off road trails They should be used where topography is supportive and no other pedestrian facility is available. l Ili a . Grade separated crossings should be constructed within the most direct path of a pedestrian.They should have visual appeal and entrances that are visible so pedestrians feel safe and not isolated from others. Because they can be costly, grade separated crossings should only be used in instances with unsafe vehicle speeds and volumes or no convenient substitute for the pedestrian. Image Source:Fehr&Peers,httu:,%wwv✓.walkrnainfo.orc,!l ibrary/details.r-fm?id-2882 h,tp:(/v✓ww_onccenaineers.comifeotures/8e rke(evPCC 28 _ _ CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES D fN Table 19:Leading Pedestrian Interval 7Leading destrian int erval(LPI)treatments enhance the visibility and convenience of pedestrian crossings at traffic signals by beginning the pedestrian phase before the n phase in the same direction.This allows the pedestrian to enter the crosswalk before vehicles advance,and to be in a highly visible position before vehicles begin right or permissive left turns. is tii' E Design Example c, r Design Summary FLeading pedestrian intervals are an enhanced pedestrian treatment that gives pedestrians a walk indication while other approaches are red to prevent ng.Crossing with this"head start"allows pedestrians to be more visible to motorists approaching an intersection.The following best practices be used: all a t locations with heavy right turn vehicle volumes as well as frequent pedestrian crossings. • Ensure vehicles are stopped for two to four seconds while pedestrians are allowed to begin crossing. image Source:http://www.waikinginfo.org,Fehr&Peers BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTR-LAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN Table 20:Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing and Countdown a Signal timing typically favors vehicle travel. However, in areas with high pedestrian activity, signal timing can be enhanced to meet the needs of pedestrians.The walk interval of a pedestrian phase is,at a minimum,four to seven seconds,followed by a pedestrian clearance interval, called the "flash don't walk"(FDW) phase.The FDW phase uses a standard rate to determine the amount of time provided for the pedestrian to clear an intersection.It is determined by dividing the width of an intersection by the pedestrian walking speed.The solid "Don't Walk"sign typically coincides with the yellow vehicle signal. The pedestrian timing is an important element to traffic signals since the green time for cars might not be sufficient for pedestrians to cross an intersection. Pedestrian heads include "Walk" and "Don't Walk" displays, which are figures of a walking person and a hand. When the "Don't Walk" display(hand) is flashing pedestrians should not start to cross,and those who are already crossing should continue.A steady"Don't Walk"display indicates thatjust a few seconds remain before opposing vehicles are given a green signal.The'count down' pedestrian head supplements the typical display with a countdown timer that shows the number of seconds left before the steady hand is displayed,giving both pedestrians and drivers notice about how much time remains. These are considered a best practice for pedestrian safety. Pedestrian push buttons are used to activate pedestrian recall at actuated signals.When the pedestrian recall is enabled,both the vehicular and pedestrian timing for phase are active.At busy pedestrian intersections,the signal timing may be set to always include the pedestrian timing for the active phase. suarcauuxtt` wtCtt;� mxrsan �aa aossars usrxeia!� o Haan. i3o 77, CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN Design Summary The standard for walking speeds at signalized intersections has changed from 4 feet per second to 3.5 feet per second to more accurately reflect the average pedestrian walking speed and aging population. A slower walking rate of 2.8 feet per second (MUTCD 4E.10(CA)) is recommended in areas with a high number of children, older adults, or disabled pedestrians crossing.Pre-timed signals may warrant a longer walk phase in order to accommodate pedestrians.This should ultimately be at the discretion of the City's traffic engineer. Image Source:Dan Burden BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRLkN DESIGN GuIDELINES DuBi'ty Table 21:Pedestrian Friendly Signal Phasing 3 Left-and right-turning vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk on permissive phases.The following signal phasing sequences can enhance pedestrian accommodation and safety: • Protected left turns allow vehicles turning left an exclusive phase,ultimately eliminating conflicts between pedestrians in the crosswalk. • Split phasing allows opposing intersection approaches to receive a dedicated phase.Pedestrian phases for parallel crosswalks will be activated with each adjacent vehicle phase.This phasing plan can reduce intersection capacity,since cycle lengths are typically long,but eliminates conflicts with pedestrians and opposing left-turns. 3 e Example of a Pedestrian Signal Head Mounted on a Signal Pole 3 At intersections with heavy vehicle traffic volumes,providing convenient and comfortable pedestrian crossings must be balanced with the need to maintain intersection capacity and operations for automobiles. In these instances, it is important to Incorporate additional treatments to enhance pedestrian visibility,such asspecial striping or si na e.If a permitted left turn phase is used,the traffic and pedestrian signal should be located next to each other on 32 CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUB IN =always s depicted in the picture)to attract driver's attention.A flashing yellow arrow may be considered. Where possible,protected left turns ble for pedestrian safety. Image Source:Fehr&Peers BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN DUBLIN PEDESTRLAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Table 22:Bus Stop Accessibility s The specific location and design of a bus stop within the right-of-way and pedestrian facilities are important for bus operations and accessibility.The best bus stops are operationally safe and efficient for both buses and passengers. The stop should be located to cause the minimum interference with pedestrian, bicycle and other vehicle movements.Bus stops should be located adjacent to the street curb in most cases,or at a bus bulb along busy transit routes or at transit centers and hubs. Minimum sidewalk and clearance is required for ADA accessibility.Ideally, bus stops also include a bus shelter for protection from sun or rain,and other amenities;at minimum they should include a bus stop pole and ADA compliant bench. Bus shelter with bench at back of k 6 sidewalk, leaving adequate ADA r�,J �JI �iil I rl compliant clearance at curb. m E- Image Source:vv, nsL �'. v✓wwvia.org t _ ) H ( � a Avoid bus turnouts/pullouts where possible because this slows operations when buses must pull out of and back into traffic. 34 CITY OF DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES - DUBLIN Bus stops must be long enough for the buses that use them so the buses do not hang into the travel lane when pulling in to the bus stop.Buses must stop flush with the curb to provide ADA compliant access to passengers with disabilities. Bus stop dimensions should be coordinated with Wheels or appropriate transit agencies. For a far side stop,this length addresses: • Bus clearance from the crosswalk:Minimum 5 feet for pedestrian safety • Stopping space for bus:60 feet(length of articulated bus) • "Take off"space for bus to leave stop:15 feet • Total Length-Far Side Stop for one bus:80 feet Near side stops require slightly more space.The recommended length is 90 feet,divided up as follows: • Approach space for the bus:15 feet • Stopping space for the bus:65 feet • Bus clearance from crosswalk 10 feet • Total length-Near Side Stop for one bus:90 feet Sidewalks at bus stops must be free of clutter,and curbs must be painted red. ADA Accessibility Guidelines(ADAAG)specifies that the paved boarding/alighting area must be at least eight feet deep from the curb and five feet along the curb.ADAAG also requires a minimum path of travel(sidewalk)clear of obstructions to and from this boarding area at least three feet wide.Many cities use four feet or even six feet as their standard. In most cases bus shelters should be placed at the back of the sidewalk in order to maintain pedestrian travel and meet ADA path of travel requirements. Exceptions are made and placement must consider security and line of sight at intersections and driveways. Concrete bus pads are recommended at bus stop locations,to prevent and minimize pavement wear and maintain level grade at locations with heavy bus traffic. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 21IM51, „r PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN CROSSWALK DESIGN 1) Whether they are marked (demarcated with striping on the street)or unmarked 'no striping) The elements of this section are based on research from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCH RP) and the Federal Marked Unmarked Highway Administration (FHWA), in addition to other best practice guidance. This includes three topic areas: • Crosswalk Fundamentals,which provides an overview of statewide policy and guidance on marked and unmarked crosswalks • Uncontrolled Crosswalks,which provides considerations for siting,enhancing,and removing unsignalized crosswalks,and 2) Whether they are controlled (by a traffic signal or stop-sign) or • Controlled Crosswalks,which provides information on uncontrolled(with no intersection control) crosswalks at signalized intersections. Controlled Uncontrolled Pedestrian crossing and right-of-way laws vary state to state, and are a, L ,J� often a source of driver or pedestrian uncertainty and confusion. This ” section outlines the types of crosswalks, California laws related to e crosswalks, and the steps the City may take in identifying appropriate locations to mark(and potentially enhance)a crosswalk. 3) Whether they are located at an intersection (where two streets meet)or mid-block(between intersections) Crosswalks are primarily classified by three characteristics: 36', CITY or DuBLIN PEDESTRLAN DESIGN GUIDELINESr� WBTI l Intersection Midblock These legal statues are contained in the California Vehicle Code(CVC)as follows: • Section 275 defines a legal crosswalk as: That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at It intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles,except the prolongation of such The following section outlines California's laws related to crosswalks. lines from an alley across a street. Additionally,based on pedestrian safety and crosswalk marking research, o Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian some types of crosswalks are safer than others in certain contexts. This crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. follow sections provide guidance on why, where, and how to treat crosswalks at controlled and uncontrolled locations, respectively, based Section 21950 describes right-of-way at a crosswalk: on this recent state of the practice research. The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an In California, a legal crosswalk exists where a sidewalk meets a street, intersection. regardless of the presence of markings (i.e., with or without striping to denote the crosswalk). Pedestrians may legally cross any street at any Section 21955 describes where pedestrians may not cross a location, except at unmarked locations between immediately adjacent street: signalized crossings, or where crossing is expressly prohibited. Marked Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control crosswalks reinforce the location and legitimacy of a pedestrian crossing. signal devices or by police officers,pedestrians shall not Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in marked or cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. unmarked crosswalks. At other legal crossing locations, the pedestrian must yield the right-of-way to motorists. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ' ,r -r"EDESTRLkN DESIGN GUIDELINES Uf DUBLIN visual cue of a marked crosswalk. Pedestrians also do not always know the right-of-way law, and will either wait for a gap in traffic, or assert Sidewalks and crosswalks are essential links within a pedestrian network. their right-of-way by stepping into the roadway. Strategies for this Whether commuting, running an errand, exercising, or wandering, challenge are discussed in the Education and Enforcement section of this pedestrians need safe and convenient crossing opportunities to reach document. their destinations.A marked crosswalk has four(4)primary functions: 1. To create reasonable expectations where pedestrians may cross a roadway 2. To improve predictability of pedestrian actions and movement The identification of candidate locations for marked crosswalks involves 3. To channel pedestrians to designated crossing locations (often two steps. selected for their optimal sight distance) 4. To establish a legal midblock crossing location between adjacent The first step is to locate the places people would like to cross the street. signalized intersections. These locations are called pedestrian desire lines, which represent the most desirable, and typically most direct, crossings. Pedestrian desire Advantages of Marked Crosswalks lines are influenced by elements of the roadway network, such as transit stops, and nearby land uses (homes, schools, parks, trails, commercial Marked crosswalks offer the following advantages: centers,etc.). • They help pedestrians find their way across complex intersections The second step in identifying candidate locations for marked crosswalks • They can designate the shortest path is to identify where people can cross safely.Of all road users,pedestrians • They can direct pedestrians to locations of best sight distance have the highest risk of injury in a collision because they are the least • They can re-assure pedestrians of their legal right to cross a protected. roadway at an intersection or mid-block crossing This last point is important.The California Vehicle Code gives the right of way to pedestrians at any marked or unmarked crosswalk (as noted above), but the law is not always obeyed by road users, including both drivers and pedestrians. Drivers fail to yield the right of way without the ' $ CITyOF DURL;N PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES TN 1._!NCON [ PCA _ED This section presents best practices for the installation of marked As summarized in above, two key steps are involved in identifying crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block locations. candidate locations for marked crosswalks: Uncontrolled crossings require additional consideration during planning 1. Identify pedestrian desire lines and design since traffic signals and stop-signs are not provided to 2. Identify places where people can cross safely require motorists to stop—they must recognize the pedestrian and yield accordingly. Thus, providing appropriate enhancements to improve the VV_H z,N I0 !NS i A) L iVIARKED CROSSW.A? K- visibility and safety of pedestrians crossing the street at an uncontrolled location is critical. Once candidate locations are identified, an engineering evaluation is typically conducted to determine if a marked crosswalk should be Several studies of pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossings have been installed at an uncontrolled or mid-block location, and if so, what completed, from which conflicting research had emerged. Studies enhancements beyond striping should be included in the design.Marked conducted in San Diego in the 1970s showed that pedestrian collision crossings may be considered where all of the following occur: risk at marked, uncontrolled crosswalks was greater than at unmarked crossings. This led many cities to remove marked crosswalks, as they Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk were suspected of providing a false sense of security that drivers would (see Demand Considerations below) yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. However, as a more recent and Sufficient sight distance as measured by stopping sight distance comprehensive 2002 study by the Federal Highway Administration calculations exists and/or sight distance will be improved prior to (FHWA)found that marked crosswalks,when appropriately designed with crosswalk marking visibility enhancements, were not inherently less safe than unmarked No other safety considerations preclude a marked crosswalk locations.The research found that context matters and that appropriate Demand Considerations selection of visibility enhancements is tantamount. Uncontrolled and mid-block crossings should be identified as a candidate for marking with a demonstrated need for a crosswalk. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN '° " PEDESTRUN DESIGN GuIDELINNES Dul3uN Engineering judgment will ultimately be used to select locations appropriate for a marked,uncontrolled crossing. Considerations for Multi-Lane,High Volume,and/or High Speed Locations At uncontrolled locations, enhanced treatments beyond striping and signing may be needed for marked crosswalks under the following conditions: Crosswalks can be marked at intersections and mid-block points. Mid-block crossings play an important role for • Multi-lane streets(three or more lanes);or pedestrian access; without mid-block crossing locations, • Two-lane streets with daily traffic volumes(ADT)greater than pedestrians may face the undesirable choice to detour to a 12,000;or controlled crossing location, detour to an intersection where • Streets with posted speed limit exceeding 30 miles per hour` it is legal to cross even if not controlled, or cross illegally(if Additional funding sources should be identified as needed for these the midblock crossing is between two signalized enhancements. Failing to provide an enhanced crosswalk and/or intersections). Where signals are spaced far apart (generally removing a crosswalk should be an option of last resort. more than 600-800 feet), pedestrians may have to detour several minutes to a controlled crossing location. Pedestrians are more likely to wait for a gap in traffic and cross at an unmarked location, rather than travel a distance out of their way to find a marked crosswalk. Midblock locations may also offer and important safety benefit, as they have fewer potential vehicle-pedestrian conflict points than crosswalks at intersections. zegeer, et al. "Safety' Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations." Federal Highwav Administration,2005. 40 CITyoF DunlN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES W 16N IS T tE ";t,'F tO F.NT Preferred crossing treatments are identified as the basic pedestrian crossing improvements to be provided at stop-controlled and signalized Controlled crosswalks are those that are provided at stop controlled or intersections. It is recommended that new controlled intersections be signalized intersections. Generally, these crossings do not need designed with these treatments included; existing controlled enhancements beyond standard crosswalk markings (two parallel lines), intersections that require retrofits may be prioritized and upgraded as as the traffic signal or stop-sign controls allocation of right-of-way. City funds become available. These treatments are based on However,in some cases,such as in the Downtown,the City may consider 3 recommended best practices in pedestrian safety: providing enhanced crossings to create a sense of place or improved aesthetics.This chapter presents preferred and enhanced measures for Mark crosswalks on all legs of the intersection unless it is not pedestrian treatments at controlled locations to: feasible due to safety reasons determined by engineering judgment • Improve the visibility of pedestrians to motorists and vice versa . Provide advanced stop bars in advance of each crosswalk • Communicate to motorists and pedestrians who has the right-of- . Minimize the number of vehicle traffic lanes pedestrians must way cross • Accommodate vulnerable populations such as the disabled, Provide median refuge islands and thumbnails,as width and path children,and the elderly of turn maneuvers allow • Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles Remove sight-distance obstructions • Reduce vehicular speeds at locations with potential pedestrian Provide directional curb ramps for each crosswalk(e.g.,two per conflicts corner) All treatments identified in this chapter are required or allowed by the Eliminate free right-turn slip lanes,where feasible standards and specifications in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(CA MUTCD). 3 See America Walks SignafiZed Intersection Enbancements that Benefit Pedestrians htto iam.3S w lks o wo ontcnt'uF ' W lk,�iima�aed- lntc.i ton F nhznccmcut Ke�ort U�j 416,012 odf(2012). `Il s BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN DUBi1♦'Uf IN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GuIDELIIe�ES L • Locate bus stops on the far-side of the intersection crosswalk enhancements at controlled intersections. These treatments • Minimize cycle lengths provide additional enhancements to improve visibility between drivers • Provide pedestrian signals on all legs at signalized intersections if and pedestrians by slowing traffic through geometric changes, providing feasible as per safety analysis and engineering judgment signal timing or phasing modifications, or enhancing striping or signing • Provide adequate pedestrian clearance intervals(crossing time) to improve visibility. at signalized intersections Tables 5 — 18 describe recommended crossing treatments and `- enhancements. At high volume pedestrian crossing locations or areas designated by the City as pedestrian zones, the City may desire to provide additional 42 CIrvOF DUBLfN PEDESTRIAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Dy$ liv RESOURCE DOCUMENTS Federal Standards and Resource Documents: Guide to the Development of Pedestrian Facilities,American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,2000 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,Federal Highways Administration,December 2009. Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,2004. Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines(ADAAG).United States Access Board. California Standards and Resource Documents: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,Caltrans,January 2010. Highway Design Manual,California Department of Transportation. Other Guidelines and Resource Documents: TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562:Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings.Washington D.C.:TCRP and NCHRP,2006. Pedestrian Technical Guideilnes: A Guide to Planning and Design for Local Agencies in Santa Clara City, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, October 2003. Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Available: hhtp://www.mtc.ca.aov/r)lanning/bicyclespedestrians/routine accommodations.htm 2006. Pedestrian Safety Resource Guide, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Pedestrian Committee, Available: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/PEDSAFETYRESOURCEGUIDE.doc 2004. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 77IM7 BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES DucibN This section provides guidance and standards for the design of bikeways This chapter preserParking sign guidelines for the following topics: and bicycle parking facilities in the City of Dublin.The appropriate design Class IShare Paths of bicycle facilities is an integral component of encouraging the use of MinimuPreferred Widths bicycles for commuting and recreational purposes. Good design affects Shared- th Features Crossinments the experience, enjoyment and comfort for bicyclists, and should path ams ultimately provide the highest level of safety possible for all road and class H A Bianes path users. The Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan envisions a Nextto l Parking convenient, comfortable, and safe comprehensive bicycle network that Next to d Parking attracts bicyclists of all users for utilitarian and recreational trips. Withoung • On Hills Bikeway planning and design in California typ ically relies on the Class B B Buffered Bicycle Lanes guidelines and design standards established by Caltrans and Striping Treatments Bicycle Markings and Intersections documented the 2012 Highway Design Manual(HDM).The HDM bicycle Treatments at Interchanges,Bridges and Tunnels design guidelines follow standards developed by the American Bicycle Loops and Detectors Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO)and Class III A Bicycle Routes with Sharrows the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)and identify specific design Bicycle Routes standards for various conditions and bikeway-to-roadway relationships. Sharrow Markings These standards provide a good framework for future implementation, Bicycling Signage Wayfinding/Destination Signage but depending on the circumstances may not always be feasible given Signs for Shared Roadways specific constraints and can often be expanded.Whatever the case may Bicycle Parking be, local jurisdictions must be protected from liability concerns so most Maintenance Standards agencies adopt the Caltrans or AASHTO standards as a minimum. utility Covers and Construction Plates BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ""`-- BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBtIiV Caltrans standards provide for three distinct types of bikeway facilities: Class I bicycle paths, Class II bicycle lanes, and Class III bicycle routes, as described in Table 23. In addition to those three classifications, the �:as I Shared Use Path'" proposed Dublin network includes the Buffered Bicycle Lane classification These facilities provide a completely separate righr of way and are (Class IIB). Each bikeway classification proposed in this plan is presented designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle I on Figures la and lb. cross-flow minimized. Class II A-Blcvde Lane - - - - - - Bicycle lanes provide a restricted right-of-way and are designated for the use Bicycle design guidance is also provided in a variety of best practice of bicycles for one-way travel with a striped lane on a street or highway, documents,including the National Association of City and Transportation Bicycle lanes are generally a minimum of five feet wide_Vehicle parking and Official's (NATCO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd edition, and the `ehide/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle facilities (2012). Each `Vass[I B Buffered Bic✓de!_ace Buffered bicycle lanes are conventional bicycle lanes that provide a restricted document provide guidance on innovative facilities that are not directly right-of-way with an added buffer space separating the bike lane from the addressed in the HDM, such as buffered bicycle lanes, conflict zone adjacent vehicle lane and/or parking lane.The buffered area provides greater j treatment,and physically separated bikeways. distance between bicyclists and parked cars and moving traffic and allows for bicyclists to pass one another within the bicycle lane without entering the vehicle lane.Buffered bicycle Lanes are generally made up of a six foot wide oicycle lane and a two-foot wide buffer.The buffer is striped with two solid white lines with diagonal hatching or chevron markings within the buffer zone- Class III A.Bicvcle Route with Sparrows These bikeways provide a right-o-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with motor vehicles. These include sparrows or "shared-lane markings"to highlight the presence of bicyclists. 46 '" "" CITyOF DUBLIN w yd y b� T,,: -:n,s.' Bike W.,Sign Optional F ry r.a s_„i -n Bie frave Tr R,, IZ r W �u' _ iruvei noel 1 Hkke !-ane L yn2 9iie Figure la. Bikeway Classfications F E H R t P E E R S 3ixz Aoute>iyn 3 lih- Figure lb. Bikeway Classfications FEHR PEERS BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN CLASS I SHARED USE PATH opposite directions of travel.A centerline strip is particularly beneficial to bicycle commuters who may use unlighted bicycle paths after dark. Class I bikeways are typically called bicycling paths, multi-use or shared Sidewalks and meandering paths are usually not appropriate to serve as use paths and are typically located along separate right-of-way such as bicycle paths because they are primarily intended to serve pedestrians, creeks, canals, or rail lines and are completely separated from vehicle generally do not meet Caltrans' design standards, and do not minimize traffic.Cross traffic by motor vehicles should be minimized along bicycle motor vehicle cross flows. Where a shared use path is parallel and paths to avoid conflicts. Bicycle paths can offer opportunities not adjacent to a roadway, there should be a five-foot or greater width provided by the road system by serving as both recreational areas and/or separating the path from the edge of roadway, or a physical barrier of desirable commuter routes. sufficient height should be installed. Side paths require appropriate intersection controls or additional conflict treatments at intersections and According to the Caltrans and AASHTO standards,two-way bicycle paths driveways. This may include the use of bicycle signals and protected should be ten feet wide under most conditions,with a minimum two-foot turns for autos,for example. wide graded area on both sides.In constrained areas,an eight-foot wide path may be adequate.Bicycle paths are usually shared with pedestrians s and if pedestrian use is expected to be significant, the path should be greater than ten feet, preferably twelve feet wide. Table 28 presents Aerred Design Element Stdards) recommended Class I path widths. Minimum Width 8 Where possible, bicycle paths should have an adjacent four-foot wide Vertical Clearance 8.unpaved area to accommodate joggers. This jogging path should be placed on the side with the best view,such as adjacent to the waterfront Horizontal Clearance 2.or other vista,as shown on Figure 2. Maximum Cross Slope 2. Notes Decomposed granite, which is a better running surface for preventing 1 Where feasible,use of preferred=Development injuries, is the preferred surface type for side areas and jogging path, Source_Caltrans HOM,2012;AASHTO G while asphaltic concrete or Portland cement concrete should be used for Facilities,2012,4"'Edition. the bicycle path. A yellow centerline stripe may be used to separate BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN' D uBICYCtE DESIGN GUIDELINES B''L'l BIKE PATH 2 A C MItNiMUM3 OR RE:Cy,'�LED The following sections present typical design features found on Class I A r,OR CECOMPOZEC CRAMT1 AP'Hrs1VF_ facilities. CDb1P4CTFD —8-CRADE --------------------- Bollards are not recommended. Where there is a demonstrated need for 14A";VC MA7EPVU a physical barrier due to concerns regarding motorized vehicles ' _CM1`C iED- 0 REP 0 PT accessing the pathway, for example split design treatment should be used. SHARED-USE PATH The California MUTCD discourages the use of bollards if other options are practical,and bollards are general not a preferred treatment for path design. The preferred option would be to split the path by direction to _J r go around a small center landscape feature. Rather than one 8' or 10' trail,the trail would be split into two 4'or S' paths.This feature not only narrows the trail and prevents vehicles from entering, but also introduces '0,' a lateral shift for cyclists,encouraging slower speeds in conflict zones. 3' IC OR DECOMPOSED GRANFTF 1,1JI-11AIDIPSIV E Bridges or undercrossings will be required wherever shared use paths DECOMPOSED GRAMTE cross creeks, waterways, major streets and limited access freeways. Crossings can utilize pre-fabricated bridges made from self-weathering Figure 2. Typical Class I Shared Use Path steel with wood decks.Bridges should be a minimum of 8'wide(between CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES Cir'Y ae DuBCIN handrails) and preferably as wide as the - approaching trails. Openings between railings should be 4" maximum. Railing Shared-use path crossings come in many configurations, with many height should be a minimum of 42"high, variables: the number of roadway lanes to be crossed, divided or undivided roadways, number of approach legs,the speeds and volumes 1^N C i N G of traffic,and traffic controls that range from uncontrolled to yield,stop or signal controlled.Each intersection is unique and requires engineering Fencing may be necessary on some judgment to determine the appropriate intersection treatment.The safe shared use paths to prevent path users and convenient passage of all modes through the intersection is the from trespassing on adjacent lands, or to TRAIL primary design objective. Regardless of whether a pathway crosses a protect the user from dangerous X-IN6 roadway at an existing roadway intersection, or at a new midblock areasFences should maintain safety location, the principles that apply to general pedestrian safety at without compromising security. They should be tall enough to prevent crossings (controlled and uncontrolled) are transferable to pathway trespassing, but they should maintain clear sight lights from the trail to intersection design. the adjacent land uses. In areas where private residences are passed, privacy may be a concern. Screen fences should be used to maintain When shared use paths parallel roadways at intersections, the path privacy of residents.Screen fences can be made of wood,concrete block should generally be assigned the same traffic control as the parallel or chain link if combined with vine planting. However, if fencing is used, roadway(i.e.,if the adjacent roadway has a green signal,the path should there must be at least 2'of lateral clearance from the edge of the bicycle also have a green/walk signal; if the parallel roadway is assigned the path. right-of-way with a stop or yield sign for the intersecting street,the path should also be given priority). Where right-turn conflicts are expected, 0_t"K B R'AiVI PS protecting the right-turn phase, separating out the pedestrian phase, Where curbs are present,curb ramps should be provided and be as wide and/or adding a separate bicycle signal phase may be appropriate. At signalized intersections,if the parallel roadway has signals that are set to as the entire path. Designs should also follow the most recent Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) to provide universal recall to green every cycle, the pedestrian signal heads for the path accessibility. should generally be set to recall to walk. Where the signals for the parallel roadway are actuated,the path crossing will also need actuated BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN -- BICYCtE DEStGN GuIDEUNES DUBLIN bike detection and is required under CA MUTCD (Section 4D.105). The minimum required clearance interval for bicycles in the CA MUTCD is six seconds of initial start-up time plus 14.7 feet/second to finish the '. crossing (Section 4D.105 The USE PED SIGNAL sign should be used at shared use path crossings at signalized intersections. Pedestrianrh pushbuttons should be located within easy reach of both pedestrians and bicyclists,who should not have to dismount to reach the pushbutton.`' ra 44J Ped Push B+ttton` / Maior At nal 9icyde Loop Detectors '/� Signs on Paths Some jurisdictions have used STOP ~ „r.:""' � 4 � signs and BICYCLISTS MUST DISMOUNT signs to regulate bicycle traffic one d� shared-use paths. These signs are PUSH BUTTON generally ineffective and result in i FOR frequent violations.and disregard for GRENLIGHT `�. , fl other types of path signage. �� Pea Gush Button ,. Yi tp �✓ 'Per California Vehicle Code Secuens 21200-21212 and Streets and I fighway<Code ` 885-886,887-888.8,and 890-894?,bicycles are generally prohibited from riding on sidewalks or in crosswalks. An exception to this is on marked crosswalks of multi- use paths. On-mule-use paths,bicyclists function as pedestrians at intersections by activating the pedestrian signal and waiting for the Fight to change in their favor. ,52 CITY OF DuaLiN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES Dusli3 Countdown pedestrian signals should be installed at all new signalized path crossings and retrofitted as signal heads are replaced.As required by the MUTCD, the walk signal for any path shall not conflict with a Bicycle signal heads permit an protected left-or right-turn interval.While bicyclists can benefit from the exclusive bicycle-only signal a`llll`fl I�^i wi� I� safe passage that pedestrian signals provide, bicycle signals are the phase and movement at preferred practice for a path crossing to address right-of-way issues. signalized intersections. This Consideration should be given to providing a leading pedestrian interval takes the form of a new signal at path crossings(i.e.,three seconds of green/walk signal time are given head installed with red, amber to path users before any potentially-conflicting motor vehicle and green indications for bicycle movements are given a green signal). This allows pedestrians and traffic only. Bicycle signals are an ` bicyclists to have a head start into the roadway to become more visible approved traffic control device in to turning traffic. California,described in Part 4 and 9 of the CAMUTCD. Bicycle signal The figure on the previous page illustrates the preferred approach for a faces (at right) also have interim ' shared use path at a controlled intersection. Paths should cross at the approval under the Federal intersection to encourage use of the intersection crossing and have path MUTCD. Bicycle signals can be users in the location where they are most anticipated.In many cases, a actuated with bicycle sensitive loop detectors, video detection or push path will be separated from a roadway by between 20 and 50 feet. buttons. The City of Dublin may install bicycle signals at intersections Locating path crossings along these alignments (that is 20 to 50 feet with heavy bicycle volumes, on bicycle paths adjacent to intersections away from the intersection) creates a condition where vehicles do not where heavy bicycle traffic in the crosswalk may conflict with turning expect to encounter a path crossing and vehicles leaving the intersection vehicles,or at three-legged intersections where bikes may enter or exit a are accelerating away from it when they cross the path crossing. For bicycle path at the intersection.Bicycle signal warrants defined in Section signalized pathway crossings, an advance loop detector within 100 feet 4.0 of the CA MUTCD should be considered before installing a bicycle of the intersection should be considered, so bicyclists can approach the signal.The thresholds require bicycle volumes to exceed 50 per hour and intersection slowly but without having to stop. vehicle volumes are greater than 1,000 vehicles per hour, or in locations that have a history of bicyclist-involved collisions (>2 in one calendar year),or in locations where a multi-use path intersects a roadway. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ' BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDEU ES Dut3l.liv At unsignalized or stop controlled locations, crossing design and Motor-vehicle scale street lights on travel lanes and intersections, often placement should adhere to the Crosswalk Design Guidelines section of keeping the edge of the roadway and sidewalk areas in the dark. this document. Pedestrian-scale lighting is street lighting at a lower height and placed to provide direct illumination of the path area. Lamp posts are spaced more frequently and at lower heights, approximately 10 to 16 feet in height. Pedestrian-scale lighting can improve safety at night time, allowing trails Furnishings along ashared-use path should be concentrated at specific points to form gathering nodes. These nodes occur at intersections and paths to be illuminated. Such lighting is particularly important on paths and trails that connect to transit stations, for example, where between different path types, special viewpoints, or at distinctive bicyclists and pedestrians may be using the path after dark. landscape features. Shared-use path support facilities consist of staging areas, seating and tables, weather-protection structures, drinking fountains, waste receptacles, fencing, bicycle racks, interpretive and directional signage and restrooms. Rest areas are portions of paths that are wide enough to provide wheelchair users and others a place to rest while on trails without blocking continuing traffic. Rest areas are more effective when placed at intermediate points, scenic lookouts, or near other trail amenities. Most Staging areas should be provided at path entrances.These areas should rest areas will have seating, shade, a place to rest bicycles, and waste include basic information such as directional information and signage, receptacles. On longer paths, restrooms and/or water fountains may be bicycle parking, seating and waste receptacles. Restrooms, water desirable where feasible. fountains,and weather structures should be provided where practical and feasible.At path entrances where a substantial number of users are likely to drive, a parking lot should be provided; however, vehicle parking should be minimized to encourage non-motorized access to recreational Benches provide people of all ages and abilities a place to sit and rest facilities. along trails.Seating should be placed away from the path, at least 3 feet from the trail edge, to allow room for people to sit with outstretched 54 CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN OO legs. An area adjacent to the bench should be able to accommodate a wheelchair. W5ST Trash receptacles should be installed along bicycle paths at regular intervals, as well as at rest areas, path entrances, and seating areas, to encourage proper waste disposal. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES DITBLI N CLASS 11A BICYCLE LANES Conventional Bicycle Lane Standards: Bicycle lanes should be designed to meet Caltrans standards,which require a minimum width of 4 feet with This section includes guidelines for Class II A bicycle lanes along no gutter pan; otherwise a minimum of 5 feet should be provided. The roadways and at intersections. Class II A bicycle lanes provide a Preferred 'bicycle lane width is 6 feet. Where drainage or other designated space within the roadway for bicyclists to ride.Most bicyclists obstructions constrict clearance between the vehicle travel lane and benefit by having a lane that is separate from motor vehicle traffic. storm drains, designers should take care to maintain a 2.5-foot clear Conventional bicycle lanes are described in this section; the following longitudinal surface,free from drainage grates and other obstructions in section on Class II B addresses buffered bicycle lanes. order to give the cyclist adequate width to ride. Where present, the direction of the drain gate should be perpendicular to the bicyclist's path In a mostly built-out location such as Dublin, adding to the bicycle of travel. Signs that say BICYCLISTS WRONG WAY may be used on the network is mostly accomplished through retrofitting existing roadways. back of bicycle lane signs or on separate posts to discourage wrong way Adding bicycle facilities to existing streets may be done through right-of- riding. way reallocation (narrowing or removal of vehicle travel lanes) or widening the right-of-way to accommodate additional space needed.To accommodate bicycle lanes, vehicle lanes may be narrowed to a � x; z minimum of 10 feet of most City roadways; however, transit agencies prefer that any roadway with bus routes have 11-foot travel lanes. The following pages illustrate minimum and preferred dimensions for on- street bicycle lanes under the following conditions: — � r Adjacent to Parallel Parking Adjacent to Angled Parking - • Street –2.5'Minimum– Curb Stormdrain Without Parking Clear On a Hill The figures on the following pages illustrate the preferred widths for bicycle lanes in the following situations: �f? .. CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES D LcII'L I'NF rnax 150 mm k 4 f6-inch) spacing A� "Ali--; : s. Pavement stencils should be reflectorized and be capable of maintaining an appropriate skid resistance under rainy or wet conditions to maximize safety for bicyclists.The minimum coefficient of friction should be 0.30. Thermoplastic can meet all of these requirements.It is optimized when the composition has been modified with crushed glass to increase the coefficient of friction and the maximum thickness is no larger than 100 mils(2.5 mm). Diredion Diroction Directim The Caltrans standard for placement of bicycle lane stencils states that of tr'i'vet of travel of travel markings should be on the far side of each intersection and at other A C locations as desired.Generally,bicycle lane markings should be provided at transition points, particularly where the bicycle lane disappears and reappears,as it transitions from curb side to the left side of the right-turn lane. Otherwise, place them at least every 500 feet or once per block- Symbols shown in the figures are for illustration purposes and should not be used as spacing or placement guidelines Bicycle lane markings should continue at least up to the intersection approach, and continued skip-stripe markings through the intersection are preferred. Details about innovative intersection treatments are included in this section. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES CiJil N �'- - Resources: • California Highway Design Manual • AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities Key Considerations: Cost: • Bicycle lanes adjacent to parallel parking need to provide l"i Preferred 6'Aefermd 1411'Preferred adequate space for bicyclists to ride out of the"door-zone". -- -. --- Riding in the door-zone presents a risk to cyclists,as the area is adjacent to the parking lane where,if a car door was opened,it :.b s;lkec,"esrrPe may hit the cyclist. • Bicycle lane stencils and arrows should be marked at the start of every block,then as needed but not less than every 500 feet. Additional stencils and arrows may be placed for wayfinding. • Parking"T's"may be used in lieu of the 4-inch parking stripe,if 4"Park,"q san,x preferred. • Bicycle lane signs(R81 CA)may be provided along the edge of the travel way to reinforce presence of the bicycle lane. • BICYCLISTS WRONG WAY(R-Slb)signs may be used on the back of bicycle lane signs or on separate posts to discourage wrong way riding. • Treatment may be combined with other supplemental treatments such as colorized pavement,conflict zone and/or intersection enhancements described in Bicycle Lanes at a d Arc�SY"'°°' Intersections. • See Bicycle Lanes at Intersections Section for guidance on striping bicycle lanes at intersections and turn lane treatment 'i I'minimum width for autside rra,el lanes along bus routes options. $$ CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES �, DUBLIN PA,, See Bicycle Lanes at Intersections Section for guidance on striping bicycle lanes at intersections and turn lane treatment Key Considerations: options. • If no gutterpan is present,bicycle lanes should be a minimum of Resources: 4 feet wide. California Highway Design Manual • With a gutterpan,bicycle lanes should be a minimum of 5 feet, AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities preferred 6 feet. • Bicycle lanes adjacent to the curb should provide adequate width ........... for bicyclists to avoid obstructions(i.e.,drainage grates,sewer covers,etc.).A continuous clear riding zone of 2.5'(minimum)is recommended. • Consider providing"No Parking:Bike Lane"signs(R7-9)and two painting curb red to reduce likelihood of parking in the bicycle lane. • Bicycle lane stencils and arrows should be marked at the start of every block,then as needed but not less than every 500 feet. Additional stencils and arrows may be placed for wayfinding. • Bicycle lane signs(R81 CA)may be provided along the edge of �� 3 the travel way to reinforce presence of the bicycle lane. • BICYCLISTS WRONG WAY(R-Slb)signs may be used on the back of bicycle lane signs or on separate posts to discourage wrong way riding. • Treatment may be combined with other supplemental � „''ert�rrosca� treatments such as colorized pavement,conflict zone and/or intersection enhancements described in Bicycle Lanes at Intersections. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN '-" ' DtJ 1311 N ICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES • BICYCLISTS WRONG WAY(R-51b)signs may be used on the back of bicycle lane signs or on separate posts to discourage wrong In most cases, bicycle lanes should be provided on both sides of a two- way riding. way street,- however, in cases where roadways have steep grades and limited right-of-way,a bicycle lane in the uphill direction and shared lane Resources: markings (sharrows) in the downhill direction would be considered • California Highway Design Manual acceptable(AASHTO,2012).This facilitates slower bicycle travel speeds in AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities the uphill direction. Key Considerations: Use 81KES ALLOWED FULL USE OF LANE signs - - Sldi v�•Ik. dn—k On narrower roadways,shared lane markings may be placed in the center of the lane to discourage vehicles from passing is x�d cyclists BIKES ALLOWED FULL USE OF LANE(MUTCD R4-11)signage may be appropriate on downhill segments to supplement shared lane markings. Treatment is most appropriate on streets with posted speed limits of 25 mph or lower. Bicycle lane stencils and arrows should be marked at the start of e,k.is�e=,mom+ every block,then as needed but not less than every 500 feet. UM;11 axxv"n Additional stencils and arrows may be placed for wayfinding or where motorist compliance is expected to be low Bicycle lane signs(R81 CA)may be provided along the edge of the travelway to reinforce presence of the bicycle lane. ^+of Sri sc>Le ' CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN c 'f CLASS 11B RJIFTERED BICYCLE LAINES California MUTCD differs from the federal MUTCD in its interpretation of this section (Figure 3A-113(CA), Detail 44 and Figure 3D-2), where in Some cyclists are comfortable riding next to vehicle traffic; however,the California: close proximity to automobiles may discourage new riders from bicycling,especially on high volume or high speed roadways.Thus,many . A single dotted white lane line=Permitted crossing cities have addressed this barrier by using a painted buffer zone that . Solid parallel white lane lines=Prohibited crossing provides additional separation between automobiles and bicyclists in . Solid double parallel white lane lines= Prohibited crossing order to increase cyclists comfort levels. Buffers may be provided on Buffer zones are typically striped with solid parallel white lane lines,with either/both the travel lane and on-street parking side of the bike lane. an option to add diagonal or chevron markings within the buffer area. Where space constraints do not allow for buffers on both sides, care The following page depicts recommended striping and dimensions for should be taken to assess the risk of speed differentials between vehicles buffered bike lanes.Since crossing the buffer zone with such striping is and bicyclists and parking turnover and door-zone risks to determine technically prohibited in California,one of two striping patterns may be which side of the bike lane receives the buffer treatment. used to allow vehicles to cross the buffer zone to turn or to access on- Buffered bike lanes are considered "allowable"treatments within current street parking: bike design standards outlined in the California Manual on Uniform One of the two buffer lane lines may be dotted Traffic Control Devices. The guidance for appropriate striping of these The buffer may be consolidated to a single lane line facilities, however, has been limited and is somewhat implicit within Buffered Lanes and Turn Lanes: The California Vehicle Code (CVC) transportation design standards. Recommended practices for striping addresses requirements for turning across double parallel white lane lines buffered bike lanes are provided in some guidance documents,including (section 21460). This has been a point of confusion for bicyclists and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, as well as several other drivers who interpret this provision as a restriction of their ability to cross international bike design guides. Potential conflicts between vehicle the buffer zone to make a turn or park. However, buffer treatments are codes and striping standards has led some agencies to hesitate in generally striped with parallel white lines (two lines), as opposed to applying buffered bike lane treatments.The California MUTCD describes double parallel white lines (four lines). More details about conventional the appropriate striping for buffer treatments in Chapter 3D on and buffered bike lanes and turn lanes are included in the Intersection preferential lane markings. This section outlines what striping patterns section below, which includes an illustration of buffered bike lanes at should be used to allow and prohibit vehicles from crossing a buffer.The right turn lanes. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BICYCLE DESIGN GuIDELINES DtlBLI fV z a' �F N � I L t9kpt '. rr'� � •_� Example striping that complies with California guidance to dash buffer to indicate crossing the buffer is allowed for turning or parking maneuvers.image source:Fehr& Peers. San Jose.California(2012). Example buffered bike lane with chevron-style buffer zone. which breaks at intersections to denote vehicle crossing locations.Image source:NACTO.Austin, TX. 62 CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES st IU, Dury (;(JFF R;D 131C:YC' l lA,^[:S BICYCLISTS WRONG WAY(R-51b)signs maybe used on the back of bicycle lane signs or on separate posts to discourage wrong Key Considerations: way riding. 9. • Buffer should be a minimum of 18 inches;preferred width of 3 to Resources: 4 feet. • • Buffer placement may be on either or both vehicle travel lane or California Highway Design Manual • on-street parking side.Where space constraints do not allow for AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities buffers on both sides,care should be taken to assess the risk of _ speed differentials between vehicles and bicyclists and parking ` ? turnover and door-zone risks to determine which side of the bike Nationally, the majority of collisions between motorists and bicyclists lane receives the buffer treatment. occur at intersections. While design guidance for bicycle lanes • Inside buffer lane line should be dashed where vehicle cross- acknowledges that intersections are often constrained by the desire for traffic(turn maneuvers or on-street parking)is expected. additional turn lanes for autos and allows engineers to drop bicycle lanes • Diagonal cross-hatching or chevron markings should be used at intersections, this practice is not recommended. There are several where the buffer zone is 2 feet or wider. engineering treatments to significantly reduce conflicts at intersections, • Where the buffer space is wider than 4 feet and through traffic is as summarized on the following pages. allowed on both sides of the buffer,it is recommended that chevron markings(with the point of the"v°facing oncoming traffic)be used to discourage drivers from traveling in the buffer space and remind them that travel is permitted on both sides of the buffer space. • Bicycle lane stencils and arrows should be marked at the start of every block,then as needed but not less than every S00 feet. Additional stencils and arrows may be placed for wayfinding. • Bicycle lane signs(R81 CA)may be provided along the edge of the travelway to reinforce presence of the bicycle lane. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN am�,i. BICYCtE DESIGN GUIDELINES DU'B'LI'N'i NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide NACTO Design Urban Bikeway Design Guide: Bicycle lane pockets between right-turn lanes and through lanes should be provided where available lane width allows. 6 ­11 RO'—d Key Considerations: • Bicycle lane pockets should be provided to the left of right-turn only lanes. • If a shared through/right-turn vehicle lane is provided,no bicycle lane pocket should be marked.If vehicle volumes require striping of a through/right-turn lane,consider use of shared lane �,y Zl, markings to denote preferred path of bicycle travel. • The maximum recommended turn pocket length for right-turn lanes adjacent to bicycle lanes is 150'to avoid excessively long turn pockets,which leave bicyclists exposed,riding between two lanes of traffic. • Treatment may be combined with other supplemental treatments such as colonized pavement,conflict zone and/or Ali intersection enhancements described in Bicycle Lanes at Lanes I Intersections. • Bicycle detection should be provided per CA MUTCD. Resources: California Highway Design Manual • AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities 64 CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES SUBIf 1? I rr F[:tit:D BICYCLE 1 AN ES AT i N +:R,S t..l..,Tf N a rrcre:rw iarrvrer me ink. Bicycle lark Str Bicycle lane pockets between right-turn lanes and through lanes should be provided where available lane width allows. Gr«nsiao-smw I N wher. "I°xAx�"I rwn T rurm Imo Key Considerations: ramgncrgm i ��' \ cawn • Bicycle lane pockets should be provided to the left of right-turn #y only lanes. • If a shared through/right-turn vehicle lane is provided,no bicycle p: lane pocket should be marked.If vehicle volumes require striping of a through/right-turn lane,consider use of shared lane m° s swwrwma �; markings to denote preferred path of bicycle travel. Ad}x Through&rytle \ • Generally,the maximum recommended bicycle lane length adjacent to auto turn lanes is 1S0'to avoid excessively long distances in which bicyclists are exposed and riding between two lanes of traffic. NOTroxALE • Treatment may be combined with other supplemental treatments such as colorized pavement,conflict zone and/or intersection enhancements described in Bicycle Lanes at Intersections. • Bicycle detection should be provided per the CA MUTCD. Resources: • California Highway Design Manual • AASHTO Guide for the Design of Bicycle Facilities BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN � � ' DUB';L1tV,', BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES Resources: Colored bicycle lanes can be used in high-conflict areas to alert motorists FHWA Interim Approval for Green Pavement: to the presence of bicyclists and bicycle lanes. Dublin has installed http:!/mutcdfhwadotgcv resocrc,s/interim approval.ja14 rode continuous green bicycle lanes on Golden Gate Drive in Downtown nt'n Dublin. Other cities including San Francisco, Portland,and New York City FHWA Bicycle Facilities Currently Approved and Under have successfully experimented with colored bicycle lanes at highway Experiment: interchanges and locations where drivers have otherwise encroached on http:/-ww'v vfhnadotnov/environme�tlbic,c'e pedestrian/gUida bicycle lanes. nce/ esign guidance/rnutcd bikec`m Key Considerations r� Green can consist of colored paint or thermoplastic �k FHWA Interim Approval outlines specifications for green pigment ^ Use of continuous green colored bicycle lanes,conflict zones, and striping through intersections has interim approval under at the federal and state levels,with green as the preferred color. More information is available on the federal MUTCD website: z; Mrs 4 http�i/r:u+cd f�wa.dotgpv/resourc�s'i�terim �ppr�vaVial4iinde � _ �f �' x.htm r frra Use of green colored pavement outside of bicycle lanes and Y W conflict zones is not currently allowed under the interim approval and is considered experimental;though some cities,such as San Francisco,have used green pavement to provide wayfinding at intersections and to indicate the preferred path of travel,often with shared lane markings,as shown at bottom right. CTTYOF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES C)Y' (Y �U$LIN Y i y r i e �s Full b .. . BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES Dulsi'.IN Resources: • FHWA Interim Approval for Green Pavement: This "skip-striping" directs cyclists to the bicycle lane and increases the htto'"rnutcdfhwadotgov/res^urcesiintprifn aoprovalla'4/inde x.htm visibility of cyclists to motorists traveling through the intersection. To • FHWA Bicycle Facilities Currently Approved and Under identify that the markings are for bicyclists, the City of Dublin may consider striping chevrons or sharrows through the intersection as well. Experiment: ht*c %••awwfhwadct.gov%envirgnme^t/biccle oedestranlquida Key Considerations ncc/resign guidance/rnutcd bike cfm • Use at intersections with moderate to high bicycle volumes or where bicyclists may need to reposition themselves to continue in the bicycle lane • Use across right-turn pockets,where on-street parking is provided prior to the intersection or where the Intersection widens to accommodate a right-turn pocket • Use to delineate bicycle-bus conflict zone through bus stop areas • Recommend use of green pavement with skip-striping in Dublin eE ,p•}fF;,E,�p1 s ,�, • Generally do not use across right-turn only lanes,as indicate at ;igg right mi • Use 4 foot skip-strip with 8 foot space for green skip-striping `. • Include BEGIN RIGHT-TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES sign(R4-4) and RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT(R3-7R)with skip-striping at right-turn pockets • Skip-striping should begin a minimum of SO feet before the intersection. On high volume roadways,dotted lines are recommended 100 feet before the intersection (ti;$..... %"^" CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES C IY'Y V DUBLIN i if greater than 200 feet.Where possible,avoid right turn lanes greater than 200 feet. Resources: Bicycling and walking routes at highway interchanges require special t ITE has developed best practices guidelines for bicycle treatments treatment to ensure the safety and comfort for all road users. Fast moving traffic, highway on and off-ramps and wide travel lanes make interchanges, as outlined in the draft publication n Recommended interchanges difficult areas for bicyclists and pedestrians to navigate. Practice for Accommodating Bicycles and Pedestrians of Interchanges.Each type of interchange design calls for unique design details.Two examples Key Considerations are illustrated here: • Travel lanes should be reduced from 12 feet or more to 10 or 11 feet to slow motor vehicle speeds and provide additional space for bicycle lanes and sidewalks. • Class II A or B bicycle lanes should be striped continuously across overpasses and underpasses wherever feasible • Minimize distances in which bicyclists are required to travel between two moving traffic lanes • Use skip stripes to delineate bicycle path travel through conflict zones • Consider colored bicycle lanes in conflict areas • Avoid high-speed,uncontrolled movements.A tight diamond configuration with square off and on-ramps to encourage slower motor vehicle speeds and is recommended • Avoid multiple right-turn lanes on cross-street.Dedicated right turn lanes create a conflict for cyclists traveling through an intersection that must cross the right turn lane to continue to ride straight.Where possible,retain single right-turn lanes,even BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 7 1' ' BICYCLE SIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN Bike lane at a long dual right lane on-ramp 1 Bike lane at a short single right lane on-ramp. ,70 CITY OF Dum_IN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY t)F DUBLIN clear the intersection. The time that a bicyclist needs to cross an intersection is longer than the time needed for a motorist, but shorter As new signals are installed or major updates occur to existing signalized than the time needed for pedestrians. In general, while the normal locations, bicycle detection is required to be installed on the bikeway yellow interval is usually adequate for bikes, an adjustment to the system for all actuated movements of the signal. Bicycle detection may minimum green should be considered, particularly for bicyclists entering be provided by the following methods: from side streets.Sections 4.12.4 and 4.12.5 of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and Section 4D.105(CA)of the California • Loop detectors MUTCD include detailed equations for bicycle signal timing and • Bicycle push buttons clearance intervals. • Video • Infrared Key Considerations Decisions regarding type of passive detection to use should be coordinated with upgrading of auto detection on a citywide basis. If the City installs newer technologies such as video and infrared detection for automobiles, these should be calibrated to detect bicyclists as well. These technologies may have higher startup costs but may be more cost effective over time with reduced maintenance costs. LOOP DETECTORS Where loop detectors are installed, they should be located in the approach bicycle lane 100 feet in advance of the intersection as well as at the intersection itself. The upstream loop should not be used when it would be triggered by right-turning vehicles. When the upstream loop is triggered,the green time should be extended for the cyclist to reach the loop at the stop bar,at which point the signal should allow the cyclist to BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ICYCLE DESIGN GuIDELINES DUBMIv PUSHBUTTONS Pushbuttons are { appropriate when others methods of detection are not feasible, H part icularly at narrow — tunnels or where multi- use paths cross signalized intersections. A bicycle TYPICeaL Eli"YCLE DETECT P LCCP pushbutton/pad/bar is A'VD LEGEND PLAC.E"ENTG similar to those used for pedestrians, but installed in a location most convenient for bicycles and actuates a signal timing most appropriate for bicyclists. The sign TO REQUEST plate located above the pushbutton/pad/bar indicates that it is for use by GREEN bicyclists.The larger the surface of the button, the easier it is for cyclists I to use,thus a push pad is preferential to a pushbutton,and a push bar is WAIT 00 preferential to a push pad, as it can be actuated without removing one's ON hands from the handlebars. Advantages of the pushbutton are that It is typically less expensive than other means of detection, and it allows for cl different signal timing for different user needs. The disadvantages of the pushbutton are that the location of the pushbutton usually does not allow the cyclist to prepare for through or left-turning movements at the intersection,and that it forces the bicyclist to stop completely in order to BICYCLE DETECTOR LEGEMD actuate the signal. 72 CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GuIDELINES D UcBI L'I'N' Figure 3. Placement of In-Pavement Bicycle Detectors at Intersections wY Fabling ! � lane ............. 77 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBi.IN CLAss 111A BICYCLE ROUTES WITH S H A R RO NVS u N--" Curb:Lane Width Average Daily Travel Speed (in feet) Traffic(ADT) Class III bicycle routes are intended to provide continuity throughout a _2'arterial; bikeway etwork and are primarily identified with si ra e. Bicycle routes are Under S,C00 Under 25 mph Y P Y 9 9 J 11'c llector,no minimum I shared facilities with motorists on roadways. Bicycle routes can be used to on local streets vehicles conned discontinuous segments of a Class I or Class II bikeway,typically on Lu, 5,000--20-'2C 2-3-35 mph low volume roadways or where right-of-way constraints do not allow for 0,er 35 mph(Class Ili dedicated bikeways and speed differentials between bicycle and motor vehicle facilities are permitted bu[ 15 Over 20,000 not recommended en traffic are low. Minimum widths for bicycle routes are not presented in the greets with travel speeds Highway Design Manual, as the acceptable width is dependent on many 35 mph) factors. Table 29 presents recommended average daily traffic (ADT) and Scurr =--hr&F r is,201- speed thresholds for bicycle routes. In the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan,California HDM Class III Bicycle Routes are designated Class IIIA Bicycle Routes with Shared Lane Shared lane markings (sharrows) are pavement markings that indicate a Markings (sharrows), as the minimum standard for bicycle routes in shared lane for bicycles and vehicles, and recommend appropriate Dublin includes the use of sharrow markings and 'BIKES MAY USE FULL positioning for bicyclists away from the 'door zone" of parked cars. LANE"signage,which are described below. Sharrows reinforce the potential presence of bicycles within the travel lane, and indicate to all users that bicyclists are allowed to ride in the center of the lane where there is not adequate space to allow for safe side-by-side travel of both vehicles and bicycles. Sharrows are typically used to enhance Class III bicycle routes. Sharrows are especially useful on traffic calmed streets where the bicycle- vehicle speed differential is low, on streets with insufficient space to 74 CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES Du$ I., accommodate a separate bike lane, where a gap may be filled in an V° existing network, and to designate safe positioning through an intersection. Sharrows may be used to direct through-traveling bicyclists `rE"t� to the outside of turning lanes,and to appropriately position bicyclists in the middle of a travel lane adjacent to front-in angled parking, where a traditional bike lane does not allow for safe visibility. Another potential application for sharrows is in high-conflict zones. Sharrows are approved by the Federal and California State guidance and are widely used.As they are still a relatively new bicycle treatment type, applications will likely change over time.Sharrows should not be used as a substitute for other separated bicycle facilities when warranted by on- road conditions and lane width. Sharrow pavement markings provide a reduced level of comfort compared to separated bicycle facilities,and are usually not appropriate on roads with speeds above 3S mph,though it is allowed under the CA MUTCD. T q c=i S,ar ow, Iacernenc source:Oahe.Stile Urirersity "BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE" sign (R4-11) may A"Share the Road"sign assembly(W11-1 + W16- be used in addition to the Share the Road Markings 1P) is intended to alert motorists that bicyclists to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy wir., may be encountered and that they should be MAY USE the travel lane. These signs are included in the mindful and respectful of them. However,the sign FULL LANE MUTCD,and they should be used included on Class is not a substitute for appropriate geometric IHARIE IIIA facilities. --_.....Ra-„ WI IP design measures that are needed to accommodate j (p! bicyclists.The sign should not be used to address reported operational issues, as the addition of this BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN a' -"75 „ t', E DESIGN DTI ELI S Dui�L>N. warning sign will not significantly improve bicycling conditions.The sign may be useful under certain limited conditions, such as at the end of a bicycle lane,or where a shared use path ends and bicyclists must share a lane with traffic. The sign may also be useful during construction operations, when bicyclists may need to share a narrower space than usual on a travel way.This sign should not be used to indicate a bicycle route.A fluorescent yellow-green background can be used for this sign. 76 1 1 1 CITY OF DURLIIV BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES LI lT Uf DUBLSN e.LAS^3 I1IA a`,1(_1'Y(__'L "; r L, F1,I Resources: S HA.Rk )V,V NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide:httn:///nacto.org/cities-for- Class IIIA Bicycle Routes with Sharrows are signed bicycle routes with fycling/design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking-/shared-lane- sharrow markings centered on the travel lane. markings/ Key Considerations r: r • Stripe sharrows on the center of the travel lane to promote single-file travel and reduce wear of the marking under vehicles' 'a" �\ tires • MUTCD guidance requires sharrow placement at a minimum y fl distance of 11 feet from the curb in lanes adjacent to parallel a r parking,and four feet from the curb in lanes on streets with no a' on-street parking. H • Place Sharrows immediately after the intersection and not greater than every 250 feet,with spacing of 150 feet recommended • BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE sign(R4-11)should be used on r f ' 3 d W I all Class IIIA Bicycle Routes,with a minimum of 2 signs per block, including one sign located immediately after the intersection A; USE 8'. U v FULL LANE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN " BICYCLE DESIGN SIDELINES DUBLIN x R4-11 BMUFl_ sign placed on each block MAY USE FULL LANE Sharrows spaced+ every 150'& centered on outside travel lane CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES ; u DUBLIN {WAYFINDING AND DESTINATION Resources: JIGNAGE City of Oakland In July 2009,the City of Oakland adopted a new system for bicycle wayfinding signage based on these new MUTCD sign The 20102 CA MUTCD includes guidelines for wayfinding signage. These standards, with the addition of the City of Oakland logo (see image, signs provide flexibility and may reduce costs for signing bicycle routes in right). urban areas where multiple routes intersect or overlap. The City of The green sign system includes three sign types: Oakland and West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC)wayfinding program provide examples of wayfinding signage Confirmation Signs:Confirm that a cyclist is on a designated that can be deployed at citywide scale or for particular kinds of uses, bikeway.Confirmation signs are located mid-block or on the far such as in downtown districts or adjacent to transit. side of intersections,and include destinations and distances • Turn Signs:Indicate where a bikeway turns from one street on Key Considerations: to another street.Turn signs are located on the near side of intersections,and include directional arrows. • Identify key destinations that require wayfinding,-including • Decision Signs:Mark the junction of two or more bikeways. regional trails,Downtown Dublin,and Dublin/Pleasanton BART Decision signs are located on the near-side of intersections,and Stations,and community destinations include destinations and directional arrows. • Conduct a study to determine the location of key"decision- points",where signs would need to be placed to give bicyclists Destination symbols, such as to Dublin/Pleasanton BART Stations, and pedestrian advance warning of the route regional trail access,Downtown Dublin,and community destinations may • Include time estimates for walking and biking,respectively,to be used. each destination More information available at: • Follow best practice guidance,such as the WCCTAC Transit htti)://www.oaklandi)w.com/AssetFactory.asi)x?did=3528 Wayfinding Plan,to determine the type of sign to use for land use context and mode(bicyclist or pedestrian) BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN .. 7 "': BICYCtE DESIGN GUIDELINES DUBLIN A Source: City of Oakland Design Guidelines for Bicycling Wayfinding Signage,July,2009 Ll C—fl—cfl,�in Sig, 7vrn S;,j,, CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 1Y Oi DUCIBLIN W TA : The WCCTAC Transit Wayfinding Plan provides consistent ,. route and distance information for transit users, pedestrians and ; bicyclists.This plan identifies preferred routes, locations and content for caycttah�zw�� signage, and provides preferred sign design options. Signs are available A" for different land uses contexts and differentiate between the needs of (bP#sha.rsl bicyclist and pedestrians. More information is available at: http7//www wcaccesstransit.com/wayfindino/ h t k ,, t t� aac aT 3 a ij t ---- — ar��ed.royrIrg sevr�y�ttrsr�t g�eycue�ra�vr:natr� ' 0",STI.,t Path sk'v ie a u,le rds nn-Street Pw�Aes BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN ✓ " ' C E DESIGN GUI LINES Du i>,tiI'ry BICYCLE A I J Parking should be highly visible, accessible and easy to use. Facilities should be located in well-lit areas and covered where possible. Secure and convenient bicycle parking is an essential element of a bicycle Installation is equally Important;for example a rack that Is too close to a trip, and critical in the effort to increase bicycle activity. Bicycle parking wall or other obstruction will not be effectively utilized. See the figures can be categorized as either short- or long-term, and the different on the following pages for design specifications. purpose and design of short- and long-term bicycle parking must be The existing bicycle parking ordinance is discussed in Chapter 5 considered: Recommended Networks. The purpose of this section is to provide Short-Term Parking is intended for less than two hours and corresponding design guidance on the selection and siting of bicycle • should be conveniently located at destinations. They are parking. Three categories of bicycle parking are discussed in this section: typically bike racks,and should allow the bike frame and one In-street/Sidewalk Parking wheel to be securely locked to the rack in a stable position Lockers without damage to the bicycle.Short-term parking should be Enclosed Facilities free,as security is minimal,and use of proper bicycle parking facilities should be encouraged.Inverted U-racks meet these Table 26 provides a summary of these categories including typical types criteria and are recommended. of bicycle parking and how they should be used. Long-Term Parking is meant to accommodate users expected For more information about the design and siting of bicycle parking, to park bikes for several hours,and should therefore be secure consult the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP's) and weather protected.Long-term bicycle parking facilities Bicycle Parking Guidelines, 2nd edition for national best practices for should protect the entire bicycle and components from theft and bicycle parking guidance. See their weosite, exposure to weather.Lockers,check-in facilities,monitored httn:/is�;ww.apbp.ora/�p�e=PUblicayons for additional information. parking,restricted access parking,and personal storage are appropriate for long-term parking.Long-term parking is considerably more secure than short-term parking,and many users may be willing to pay a nominal fee to guarantee the safe storage of their bicycles.However,long-term parking should be free in places where vehicle parking is free. 82 CITY OF DuBL:K Bicyc E DESIGN GUIDELINES ;, DUBLIN Why In-Street/Sidewalk Parking(Shoff Term) a • Inverted U-Rack Appropriate in areas Ideal for short-term n • In-Street Bicycle with pedestrian activity parking needs(2-3 Corral and commercial areas. hours) • Covered Bicycle In-street facilities are Parking Facilities ideal for areas with • Surface Parking Lot constrained sidewalk Conversion space. Lockers(Long-Term) • Key Lockers Appropriate for areas Provides a high level of ; • Electronic Lockers with low street activity security,useful for ' or isolated areas. long-term parking �F. needs(>3 hours) Enclosed Facilities(Long-Term) I Inverted U-Racks are the most typical form of short-term bicycle parking. • Bicycle Cage Ideal for major transit Provides the highest • Bicycle Room hubs and areas with level of security, Photo:Dan Burden • Bicycle Station high bike volumes. particularly when Enclosed facilities can parking is attended. also be located in Ideal for long-term and residential,commercial over-night parking or employment centers needs. with indoor space. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN `. " DuI3I_I', IC CI- DESIGN UI E LIN ES is all that Is available,concrete footings should be poured. Multiple loop racks on flanges may in Installed in asphalt,which This section describes several types of typical short-term, in-street and can be useful for in-street bike corrals.For a more secure rack sidewalk parking techniques. installation,perpendicular bars could be installed under the surface to prevent the rack from being pulled directly from the Key Considerations: concrete. • Bicyclists need to be able to lock both their frame and wheels to Consult the diagrams that follow for guidance on siting and the rack spacing of short-term racks Racks should be in a highly visible location secured to the ground,preferably within 50 feet of a main entrance to a building or facility Whenever possible,the racks should be visible from the doorways and/or windows of buildings,and not in an out of the way location,such as an alley Care should be taken to not site the rack too close to a wall or fence,orient the rack the wrong way,or impede pedestrians To accommodate a range of bicycle styles and sizes,racks must be installed to allow sufficient space between bicycles and wfi:ee.nvc�.�n;bi�,rcie Embe,lc'cn{r=+±ty,7r mrY rrtstv,lazrn,, between racks,as indicated at right y i;� ""o krowr. • Where multiple racks are installed adjacent to each other,racks rnorir p 45J must be spaced to allow sufficient space for bicyclists and their et Crevb're Metc wr bicycles to move about between racks,typically four-feet apart where aisles are provided • Install racks with surface mount(rather than cast-in place)in concrete(rather than asphalt)wherever possible. Anti-tampering bolts and other hardware should be used. If an asphalt substrate OTYOF DUPLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES i1Y Q! DUBLI N ;, �� ' �a Riole.'h7ter}nter i�%`'�W,kraAE rxks 'xN9——*.1q stra w—d uaAds-M,�M car daNS. a Bike racks must be placed so that both sides are accessible for use;this photo illustrates poor rack placement. r ....._....._3+8 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Du„r�Ll{,ly BICYCLE ES GUIDELINES Additional Considerations: Consider consolidating bicycle racks and providing a sheltered " structure,also referred to as a"bicycle oasis"(shown at right). The cover should be at least seven feet above the ground. Existing covers such as overhangs or awnings are a low cost way of incorporating covered parking. A , • At bus stops,bike racks should be placed outside of the bus pad ■ area,adjacent to the front and back door of the bus to allow for increased pedestrian circulation at the bus stop and ADA access �T Surface Parking Space Conversion • Look for opportunities to convert auto parking spaces near key destinations to short term or long-term bicycle parking. Six racks can fit into the space occupied by one car. Bike cages can also r� be used in parking lots and provide security access through Lbw electric pass key systems A Bicycle Oasis(left)provides multiple bicycle racks underneath a sheltered awning. This protects bikes from the elements. 86 Ci vof DUBLIN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES Dui,iv Striped areas remain clear Remove parking lane for wheelchair access to and extend sidewalk to bus doors. 'Trees create waiting area. Bus Shelter Lighting Bike lacks I 4)lie .............. Bus Bicycle rack siting recommendations (below) from APBP Bicycle Parking Guide,2"d Edition BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES DciBtt iv the locker to comfortably open the door and slide the bicycle in and out,which equates to six feet of clearance from both doors. Bicycle Lockers are long-term covered storage units that can be locked Wedge-shaped locker units can also be used—these individually, providing secure parking for one bicycle. Bicycle cages are accommodate one bicycle,and are a useful design for corner secure areas with limited-access doors. Occasionally, they are attended. areas. They can also be placed against walls in areas with a Each of these means is designed to provide bicyclists with a high level of constrained public right-of-way. security so that they feel comfortable leaving their bicycles for long periods of time. They are appropriate for employees of large buildings •�; and at transit stations. Lockers provide a secure place for bicyclists to store their helmets or other riding gear. y Key Considerations: owing ���� - Electronic bike lockers provide secure individualized parking that use can be accessed with an electronic card. Unlike standard key lockers,which provide one key for one renter,a single e-locker ' can be rented by multiple cyclists each week by using smart card - x technology.The improved efficiency translates into greater availability,and is a popular option at transit stations throughout the Bay Area. Bicyce lockers come in a variety of shapes and sizes depending on the need and the amount of space available,and the most common bicycle locker size is approximately 40"wide by 48" high by 72"long,which typically includes a diagonal divider 19th Street & Broadway Downtown Oakland BART electronic lockers. inside the locker so that they will accommodate two bikes. Source: Jason Patton,City of Oakland • Most lockers with diagonal dividers are designed to open from two sides,so there should be adequate room on both sides of 88 CiTYOF DumiN BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 11Y'Y(} DUBLIN f • '•M1; ,i:;•i;is ;5; .5:i;•i:5_., :5';•. •5:•.: t•Yti\�ti-, Y• �1 is 9 t: \ .•15.5 1\ t` l 3'-tr' 0.fir�mu3Y E-R"i7ea:i�acr. it;5 For AaesS&C.fWa n 7-g s fit,; PLAN VIEW Bike Locker Placement Guidance r PRCFILE VIEW SCE VIEW BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN `' BICYCLE DESIGN GUIDELINES Dul3unr • Cyclists gain access to the bike cage by signing up in advance for a key or a key code. Magnetic pass keys also allow parking This section describes several types of typical off-street and enclosed managers to monitor who goes in and out of the bike cages. parking facilities, which are typically used for long-term parking. There Local jurisdictions or local non-profit organizations are typically are two basic types of enclosed long-term parking facilities: responsible for implementing and maintaining this type of faclity. • Bicycle Cages are shared access storage areas in which cyclists lock their own bikes Key Considerations for Bicycle Rooms: Bicycle Rooms provide indoor enclosed and sheltered parking • May have wall racks or floor racks,and should allow easy access and protection from theft. by elevator or ramp to the ground level Key Considerations for Bicycle Cages: Bike rooms provide enclosed and sheltered parking and protection from theft Often uses at transit centers and large employers or universities Typically found at transit terminal,but any available building to provide an extra layer of security for long-term bike parking floor space can be converted into a bike room Typically a popular option for bike commuters because they • Adding self-serve features such as bike pumps,bike stand and provide a high degree of security and they protect bikes basic tools creates extra amenities to cyclists. Can be accessed by registered users at any time,and with Require little maintenance and an attendant is not needed unlimited ins and outs. because users are provided with an access code to enter racility. • Provide additional security over U-racks or other on-street Bike rooms are Ideal In business parks or apartment or parking facilities though many people may have access ro the facility condominium complexes. Individual businesses or apartment complexes would be responsible for providing bike room Small cages are preferred to limit the number of people with facilities. access to any single cage. Security may be bolstered by surveillance cameras and monitoring. • A single cage of 18'by 20'occupies the same footprint as two standard parking stalls(or 9'by 20'each.) 90 CITY OF DUBL[N BICYCLE D E S i GN GUIDELINES \A O W ����w< :z���&��&�«©. Highs a¥Bicycle Cages.Source:J.Lut m and J.Stanley BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN \ BICYCLE DESIGN GuIDELINES BICYCLE FACILITY MAINTENANCE leave a ridge within the bicycle travel area.Drain grates should be within 6 millimeters of the pavement height to create a smooth travel surface. STANDARDS Special attention should be given to ensure that utility covers and other road hardware are flush with new pavement. Since most cycling occurs on public roads, roadway maintenance is an Rail Crossings: Rail crossings can be hazardous to cyclists, particularly if important part of accommodating cycling. Below are some types of 5 they are at an oblique angle.Warning signs and extra space at the road targeted maintenance. shoulder can allow cyclists to cross at a 901 angle. A special smooth Surface Repairs: Inspect bikeways and road shoulders regularly for concrete apron or rubber flange may bejustified at some crossings. surface irregularities, such as potholes, pavement gaps or ridges. Such hazards should be repaired quickly. Vegetation: Vegetation may impede sight lines, or roots may break up the travel surface. Vegetation should be cut back to ensure adequate Sweeping: Prioritize bicycle routes when establishing a street sweeping sight lines,and invasive tree roots may be cut back to preserve the travel schedule. Sweep road shoulders of accumulated sand and gravel in the surface. springtime and fallen leaves in the autumn where they accumulate. Sweepings should be picked up rather than just pushed aside in areas Street Markings: Bicycle lane markings and signal loop indicators may become hard to see over time. These should be inspected reaulariy and with curbs.Driveway approaches may be paved to reduce loose gravel on retraced when necessary. paved roadway shoulders. Off-street bicycle facilities should have an established maintenance schedule that includes routine sweeping. Markings: Whenever roadway markings are used, traction or non-skid Pavement Overlays: Where new pavement is installed, extend the paint should be used to avoid the markings becoming slippery in wet weather overlay to the edge of the roadway.If this is not possible,ensure that no ridge remains at the edge of the road shoulder or bicycle lane. Do not 'Todd'Litman,Robin Blair,Bill Demopoulos,Nils Eddy,Anne Fritzel,Danielle Laidl—,Heath Maddox,and Katherine Forster.Pedestrian and Bieyc,'e Planning:A Guide to Best Practices.Victoria Transport Policy Institute(2010) 92 CiT1(OF DuPLIN