Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdateCELEBRATING DUBLIN C AL IFOR N' A STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 6.1 DATE: January 10, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager SU ELECT : Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update Prepared by: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will hold a public hearing to review and consider adopting the proposed update to the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This includes an exemption from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed Plan updates and replaces the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and will inform future infrastructure, program, and policy recommendations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Adopting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All Staff costs and consultant costs associated with the preparation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are funded in the approved 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements, CIP No. ST0517. The City received $210,000 in funding from the Transportation Development Act Article Three funds to assist with the preparation of the Plan. Any improvement projects implementing the proposed recommendations in the Plan will also be covered under the approved CIP No. ST0517 or will be brought forward to the City Council with a recommendation for funding. Page 1 of 8 382 DESCRIPTION: Background The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports the City's efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means of transportation and recreation. The Plan includes an assessment of existing system conditions through an inventory of infrastructure, programs, and policies related to biking and walking, analysis of bicycle level of traffic stress, evaluation of collision data, estimation of bicycle and pedestrian access and demand, and public input. The updated Plan results in a recommended biking and walking network and a prioritized list of projects to support biking and walking in Dublin. This Plan replaces the City's 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update Key sections and recommendations of the Plan are summarized in the sections below. Community Engagement The community engagement effort included the following virtual and in -person activities: • Project Website and Interactive Map. The project website, accessed at https://dublinbikeped.org/, provides information about the Plan, including the project timeline, engagement activities, and summaries of technical analyses, along with an interactive map that allows respondents to provide geographic input on key issues and opportunity locations for biking and walking throughout Dublin. Since going live in March 2020, the website received approximately 1,500 visits and almost 300 unique comments were posted on the map. • Public Workshop. A virtual public workshop was held on September 2, 2020 with approximately 45 members of the public in attendance. The meeting included a presentation, live polls, and a question -and -answer period. The meeting was recorded and is available on the project website. • Public Survey. A public survey was used to collect information from the public about their personal transportation preferences, travel habits, and issues and opportunities related to biking and walking in Dublin. The 17-question survey was distributed in summer 2020 and received almost 200 responses about travel behavior and mode preference, travel to school, challenges, barriers to access and mobility, and priorities for investments related to biking and walking. • In -Person Events. The project team participated in three in -person events as public health guidance due to the COVID-19 pandemic allowed. Flyers with the public survey link were handed out at the Farmers' Market on May 27, 2021, and people were rewarded with giveaways for participation. The City partnered with Bike East Bay to hear from trail users at the Alamo Creek Trailhead as a part of the National Bike Month Activities in 2021. Draft network recommendations were shared at the St. Patrick's Day Festival in 2022. Page 2 of 8 383 Plan Vision The City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel and connect individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations. Plan Goals • Enhance Safety. Prioritize safety in design and implementation of biking and walking facilities. • Increase Biking and Walking. Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation. • Improve Connectivity. Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well- connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. • Enhance Accessibility. Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities. • Prioritize Investments. Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including supporting programs and operation and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities. Existing Conditions and Needs Analysis The existing conditions and needs analyses were conducted to set the foundation for the policy recommendations and provide the technical analysis to support the development of the prioritization framework and implementation strategy. This analysis covered: • Program and Policy Inventory. The project team reviewed bike- and pedestrian -related programs and policies from relevant planning documents and conducted benchmarking interviews with staff from seven City departments and the Dublin Unified School District to develop an updated inventory of existing programs and policies relevant to biking and walking and identify gaps or needs that could be addressed by the Plan. • Land Use and Demographic Analysis The project team gathered and summarized land use and demographic data to provide background and context to inform the Plan development, including the demand analysis and prioritization. • Collision Analysis. The project team analyzed reported collision data from the six most recently available years (2014-2019) involving bicyclists and pedestrians. A citywide analysis was conducted to identify corridors and locations with the highest concentration of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. These corridors are called high injury networks (HINs) (Figure 25, page 64 and Figure 26, page 65 of the Plan, provided as Attachment 3). The collision data was further analyzed to identify any citywide trends based on temporal characteristics, lighting conditions, location characteristics (intersection versus segment), main cause of the collision, age, and gender. • Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis. The project team analyzed the bicyclist level of traffic stress (LTS) on the City's existing roadway network ("on -street LTS") and on the Page 3 of 8 384 Class I path, or the shared -use path network ("path LTS") with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians away from the roadway like the Iron Horse Regional Trail. Bicycle LTS methodology considers various roadway characteristics such as the number of vehicle travel lanes, speed of vehicle traffic, and presence and width of a bike facility to measure the stress a bicyclist feels while riding on a given facility. The goal of planning and designing a bicycle network is to enable people of all ages and abilities to feel safe and comfortable riding bicycles throughout the City. These LTS findings are useful for identifying high stress locations where installation of, or upgrades to, bicycle infrastructure would increase bicyclists' comfort and safety. • Pedestrian Barriers Analysis Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe crossing opportunities can create barriers to walking by requiring people to go out of their way to avoid the gap or by forcing people to walk in the street and increase exposure to vehicle traffic. The project team identified and mapped existing barriers to a safe and comfortable walking network in Dublin, including major arterials and freeways with high vehicle speeds and volumes, gaps in the sidewalk network, and locations with long crossing distances and limited street connectivity. The barriers analysis was used as one input into the Access and Demand Analysis. • Access and Demand Analysis. The ability of people to walk or bike to key destinations was analyzed to estimate existing access to key destinations. The output from the land use and demographic analysis, collision analysis, barrier analysis, and bicycle LTS analysis were key inputs to estimate the share of the Dublin population that had comfortable access and could be expected to walk or bike to each activity center. Access to each destination was estimated for existing conditions with the existing network and with network recommendations to understand the potential effect of Plan implementation on walk and bike mode share. Network Recommendations Public feedback and findings from the existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to the network recommendations (Figure 3, Page 15 in the Executive Summary section and Figure 35, Page 78 in Network Recommendations section of the Plan, provided as Attachment 3), which include: • Corridor Projects. Corridor projects were identified on high -stress roadways that represented major barriers to biking and walking. • Point Projects Point projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to biking and walking, including freeway crossings, high -stress trail crossings, high -stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions. Over 50 centerline miles and 54-point project locations were identified to increase low -stress bicycle connectivity and reduce barriers to walking by improving crossings and closing gaps in the network. A complete streets approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, pedestrian-, and transit -supportive investments are considered in each corridor and crossing project. The project recommendations are presented as a package, with concurrent improvements to support all three active and sustainable travel modes. Network recommendations include: Page 4 of 8 385 • Shared Lane (Class III): 12.4 miles • Bike Lane (Class IIA): 3.1 miles • Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB): 17.0 miles • Path - Shared use path like Iron Horse Regional Trail used by bicycles and pedestrians (Class IA): 7.9 miles • Complete Streets Study o Upgrade to Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV): 10.4 miles o Improvements to existing shared use paths adjacent to roadway: 4.9 miles o Speed Reduction: 1.3 miles • Point Projects o Freeway Interchange projects: 16 locations o Trail Crossing projects: 5 locations o Street Intersection projects: 33 locations Program and Policy Recommendations Public feedback and findings from the program and policy review and existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to the draft program and policy recommendations. The recommendations are organized into eight topic areas and supported by specific strategies and actions to guide the work of the City's bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement infrastructure recommendations to encourage active transportation in the City. Implementation Strategy The project team developed and implemented a prioritization framework, prepared cost estimates, and identified funding sources. The prioritization framework considered factors including safety, social equity, connectivity, and network quality as well as previously identified projects and feasibility of implementation to identify the locations where investments should be prioritized. The infrastructure projects were divided into three tiers, as follows: • Tier Projects. High priority projects with secured funding or implementation sources. • Tier II Projects. High priority projects with no identified funding source. • TierlllProjects. Lower priority investments that support a full low -stress walking, biking, and rolling network across the City with no identified funding source. The total cost of all the projects identified in this Plan is approximately $104 million to $215 million. The low -end of the cost estimate assumes implementation of projects by reorganization of the roadway through restriping and minor, quick -build treatments, such as creating curb extensions using delineators and paint. The high -end of the cost estimate considers the need to move the curb to add new bicycle facilities, upgrade bicycle facilities, update or add pedestrian crossings, update pedestrian facilities, add street trees, redesign freeway interchange ramps, and Page 5 of 8 386 add signage. The cost estimates also include soft costs for Staff time, engineering, design support, construction management, and contingency. Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination of funding sources, including ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the City's General Fund, funds collected through developer fees, and State, regional, and federal grants. The Plan identifies potential funding sources and relevant requirements. A few of the projects identified in Tier I are partially funded by the above -mentioned funding sources and will be implemented through various projects in the adopted 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance The draft Supplemental Design Guidance document (Page 270 of Attachment 4 - Appendix D) identifies relevant resources for a variety of design topics applicable to planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Specifically, it includes topics in developing Dublin's biking and walking infrastructure, including bikeway selection and facility design, bicycle facilities through intersections, accessible pedestrian signals, and crosswalk improvements. REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AN D AGENCIES: • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings. A TAC composed of staff from the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, as well as AC Transit, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, BART, Dublin Unified School District (DUSD), Caltrans, and various City departments were engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There were four TAC meetings over the course of the project between spring 2020 and 2022. • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meetings. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) BPAC, which serves as Dublin's local BPAC, was engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There have been five BPAC meetings with the fifth and final meeting held in July 2022. • City Council Information Session. The Plan was presented to the City Council on August 16, 2022. The majority of the feedback was positive. The Mayor and Councilmembers supported the vision of an all -ages and -abilities network and appreciated the recommendations identified in the Plan. Most of the discussion was related to the potential funding sources and implementation timelines for Tiers I, II, and III projects. There were several comments about the importance of coordination with adjacent jurisdictions and other agencies (e.g., Caltrans, BART, DUSD). The City Council's comments have been addressed and incorporated into the Plan. • Parks and Community Services Commission. The Plan was presented to the Parks and Community Services Commission on September 19, 2022. The majority of the feedback was positive. The Commissioners supported the vision of an all -ages and -abilities network and appreciated the recommendations identified in the Plan. Most of the comments were about specific projects, priorities, or policies. For example, one Commissioner suggested prioritizing enhanced connections around the future Emerald High School and SCS Page 6 of 8 387 Property, while another suggested considering a requirement to provide e-bike charging locations. The Parks Commission's comments have been addressed and incorporated into the Plan. • Planning Commission: The Plan was presented to the Planning Commission on November 8, 2022. Staff responded to questions from Commissioners about proposed improvements in Downtown Dublin, the percentage of pedestrian injuries, progress towards completing bike lanes identified in the current plan, e-bikes and how proposed improvements will be funded. There were three public speakers who were supportive of the Plan but provided comments and suggested changes. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Plan to the City Council and requested that Staff return in two years with a report on the Plan implementation and challenges (PC Resolution No. 22-15, Attachment 5). To address some of the common concerns heard at the above -mentioned public meetings regarding the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure around the future Emerald High School and the SCS Property, a new recommendation that would allow a complete streets study on Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road was added to the proposed project list. Additionally, the proposed project in the vicinity of the future Emerald High School on Central Parkway along with a proposed project in the Downtown area on Dublin Boulevard was moved to a higher tier. Staff will also continue to monitor the impact of emerging trends such as e-bikes as mentioned under the Emerging Technologies and Innovations Policy in Section 5 - Recommended Policies Programs, Policies and Practices in the Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Plan is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 21080.20 Bicycle Transportation Plans because it consists of bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements for the urbanized City of Dublin. The plan focuses on restriping streets and highways, signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles, and signal timing to improve intersection operations. Recommended projects within the Plan that do not fall strictly within the project types described under PRC Section 21080.20 include feasibility studies, a project previously approved following CEQA review, projects that would be statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.25, and projects that would be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. Such projects would be subject to independent environmental review prior to implementation. The CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo (Attachment 2) discusses these exemptions in further detail. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE Strategy 1: Downtown Dublin and Economic Development Objective A: Continue support of the Downtown Preferred Vision and Downtown Dublin Specific Plan including improving visual and environmental quality and evaluating specific business uses. Page 7 of 8 388 Strategy 5: Safe and Accessible Community Objective E: Support existing and innovative public safety efforts. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Plan, along with the Plan's Supplemental Design Guidance was posted on the City's website prior to the City Council meeting on August 16, 2022, was sent via e-mail on September 8, 2022 to parties who signed up for notification through the Dublin Outreach website "dublinbikeped.org" and the City's "Notify Me" system, and was posted on the City's social media channels on September 12, 2022. A public notice regarding this public hearing was published in the East Bay Times. A copy of this Staff Report was sent to Alameda County Transportation Commission's Independent Watchdog Committee. The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Adopting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act 2) Exhibit A to the Resolution - CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo 3) Exhibit B to the Resolution - Draft Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 4) Appendices to Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5) Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-15 - Recommending that the City Council Adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Find the Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Page 8 of 8 389 Attachment I RESOLUTION NO. 23-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AND FINDING THE PLAN EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council adopted the Bikeways Master Plan (2007 Bikeways Master Plan) and associated amendments to the Dublin General Plan and various Specific Plans for consistency with the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014 Plan) that combined the update to the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan and the City's first Pedestrian Plan into a comprehensive document that provides policies, network plans, prioritized project lists, support programs and best practice design guidelines for bicycling and walking in Dublin; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the City Council also adopted amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and Dublin Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the text and maps remain consistent with the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update; and WHEREAS, Policy 1-3 of the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends an update every five years to reflect best practices in bicycle and pedestrian policy and design, changing community interests and needs, and remain eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding; and WHEREAS, this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan updates and replaces the City's 2014 Plan by building upon the 2014 Plan's goals and recommendations and by using new guidance documents. The update resulted in infrastructure, program, and policy recommendations that support walking and biking in Dublin; and WHEREAS, it was determined that no further amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Specific Plans are required at this time; and WHEREAS, the update to the 2014 Plan has been renamed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain projects require review for environmental impacts and, when applicable, environmental documents to be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Plan was examined to determine if the environmental review is required. The analysis concluded that the Plan is exempt from CEQA review as follows (Exhibit A - CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum, dated October 2022): Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 1 of 3 390 • The Plan qualifies for the statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.20 Bicycle Transportation Plans because it consists of bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements for the urbanized City of Dublin. • Some of the implementation measures and projects identified in the Plan are also statutorily exempt under Public Resources Codes section 21080.25. • In addition, the Plan and some implementation projects under the Plan qualify for the following categorical exemptions and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land; and WHEREAS, following a noticed public hearing on November 8, 2022, the City of Dublin Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-15 recommending that the City Council find that the Plan is exempt from CEQA and that the City Council adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, attached here to as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Plan and CEQA exemptions, on January 10, 2023, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider the Plan and CEQA exemptions and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and testimony at the hearing; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings for the Plan is the City of Dublin Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on the basis of the findings above and the record as a whole (including Exhibit A - the CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo), the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find that the project is exempt from CEQA and directs Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Office of Planning and Research, Alameda County Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Exhibit B). Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 2 of 3 391 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2023 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 3 of 3 392 Exhibit A Attachment 2 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan City Project No. ST0517 CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum prepared by City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Contact: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic) prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 October 2022 RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers rinconconsultants.com 393 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Plan Location and Description 1 3. Senate Bill 288 1 4. Statutory Exemption Consistency Analysis 2 5. Additional Exemption Eligibility 3 6. Conclusion 4 7. References 4 CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum 394 1. Introduction Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Exemption Eligibility Memorandum for the City of Dublin's Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update (Plan). The purpose of this memorandum is to assess whether the Plan meets the provisions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.20, which provides a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This exemption recognizes that CEQA does not apply to a bicycle transportation plan for an urbanized area that includes restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. This memorandum also identifies other statutory and categorical exemptions that are applicable to specific projects recommended within the Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update, including PRC Section 21080.25; CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities; CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. This memorandum accompanies the Notice of Exemption in determining the Plan qualifies for an exemption from CEQA. 2. Plan Location and Description The Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update would be implemented in the City of Dublin. Dublin is 14.59 square miles in area, located in Alameda County along 1-580, approximately 350 miles north of Los Angeles and 35 miles east of San Francisco. The City of Dublin is generally bounded by the City of San Ramon to the north, Castro Valley to the west, the City of Pleasanton to the south, and the City of Livermore to the east. The Plan would update the City of Dublin's 2014 Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and would reflect current conditions and changes in community demographics, the physical environment, and public policy. The Plan would reflect a comprehensive citywide effort to guide, prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, public health, physical activity, and recreational opportunities. The Plan would also assess existing system conditions, analyze community needs, and evaluate demographic data. 3. Senate Bill 288 Senate Bill (SB) 288, signed into law at the end of the 2020 legislative session, facilitates projects that broaden California's development of sustainable transportation facilities through streamlining of CEQA review requirements. Specifically, SB 288 amends PRC Section 21080.20, which exempts bicycle transportation plans (including those with pedestrian improvements) for urbanized areas, to extend exemption eligibility through the end of 2029. SB 288 also repeals the requirement for lead agencies to conduct traffic and safety impact assessments. Lead agencies must file a notice of exemption when pursuing the exemption for one of these project types. SB 288 also added CEQA exemptions under PRC Section 21080.25 for the following project types: pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit prioritization, conversion of roadways to bus -only lanes, expansion of bus or light rail service, charging stations for zero -emission transit buses, or projects that reduce minimum parking requirements. This exemption expires at the end of 2022 but may be replaced by SB 922, which would extend CEQA exemptions under PRC Section 21080.25 until the end of 2029. SB 922 was enrolled in August 2022 but has not yet been signed into law. PRC Section 1 395 Exemption Eligibility Memorandum Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 21080.25 specifically details exemptions for new pedestrian and bicycle facilities including, but not limited to, bicycle parking, bicycle sharing facilities, and bikeways, as long as certain conditions are met. Therefore, individual projects recommended within the Plan would be further eligible for statutory exemption from CEQA at the project level under PRC Section 21080.25, should SB 922 be signed into law. 4. Statutory Exemption Consistency Analysis The Plan qualifies for the SB 288 exemption under PRC Section 21080.20 as a bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan for an urbanized area. A bicycle transportation plan exempt from CEQA must be in conformance with the requirements of SB 288, as articulated in PRC Section 21080.20. The following analysis assesses how the Plan meets each of the SB 288 stipulations. (1) The plan is located in an urbanized area. The term "urbanized area," as defined by the general CEQA classification in PRC Section 21071, is an incorporated City that either has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. The City of Dublin is an incorporated city with a population of 72,932 in 2022 (California Department of Finance 2022). The City of Pleasanton is also an incorporated city, is contiguous with the City of Dublin, and has a population of 77,609 in 2022. The City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton are two contiguous incorporated cities with a combined population of approximately 150,541 in 2022. Therefore, the Plan meets this requirement. (2) The plan consists of restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. The Plan contains approximately 125 recommended projects that primarily focus on the restriping of streets and highways; signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; and signal timing to improve intersection operations. Therefore, the Plan meets this requirement. (3) The lead agency shall hold one noticed public hearing in the area affected by the bicycle transportation plan to hear and respond to public comments prior to determining that a project is exempt. The notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. The Draft Plan, the Plan's Design Guidelines, and the Staff Report were made available to the public through the City of Dublin website when the Draft Plan was taken to the Dublin City Council as an informational item on August 16, 2022. Furthermore, the Draft Plan was sent via email on September 8, 2022, to parties who signed up for notification through the Dublin Outreach website (dublinbikeped.org) and the City's Notifyme system. The Draft Plan was posted on the City of Dublin's social media channels (NextDoor, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) on September 12, 2022. The Draft Plan was also presented to Parks and Community Services Commission on September 19, 2022. In addition, the Plan will be considered at a noticed public hearing by both the Planning Commission and the Dublin City Council, where members of the public will have an opportunity to comment. Therefore, the Plan meets this requirement. 396 5. Additional Exemption Eligibility Some trail and trail connection projects recommended in the Plan may not fall within the project types described under PRC Section 21080.20. However, most of these projects are located within existing paved areas and rights -of -way, would be built out with other proposed development projects requiring independent environmental review, and/or would be undertaken by a different lead agency., Many of these projects would be eligible for a categorical exemption at the project level, as described below. In addition, two projects (bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Alamo Canal at Civic Plaza and bicycle and pedestrian connection to Alamo Canal and Iron Horse Trail at Sierra Court Cul-de-sac (T-8 and C-3)) recommended in the Plan identify specific projects for future study. These projects are unfunded, are not included in the City's current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and would require independent environmental review after future study and project design, prior to implementation. Furthermore, Project C-2 (Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project) is not listed in the exemption criteria but was previously approved following CEQA review (State Clearinghouse No. 2012062009) and is currently under construction. CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 details Class 1 exemptions that consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features. These projects must involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Examples of projects eligible for a Class 1 exemption under subsection (c) include, but are not limited to, existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and other similar alterations that do not create additional automobile lanes. The addition of trails and trail connections to existing roadways, trails, and paths would be eligible for exemption under CEQA Section 15301(c), as such projects would constitute negligible expansion of existing use and would not create additional automobile lanes. CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 details Class 3 exemptions for projects that consist of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Examples of projects eligible for a Class 3 exemption under subsection (d) include, but are not limited to, water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of a reasonable length to serve such construction. The addition of some trail connections would be eligible for exemption under CEQA Section 15301(d), as they would consist of the construction of a limited number of new small street improvements. CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 details Class 4 exemptions that consist of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples of projects eligible for a Class 4 exemption under subsection (h) include, but are not limited to, the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights -of -way. Many of the trail projects recommended in the Plan would 3 397 Exemption Eligibility Memorandum Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update take place within existing rights -of -way and would therefore be eligible for exemption under CEQA Section 15304(h). 6. Conclusion Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, the proposed Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update would meet the requirements for an exemption from CEQA. Therefore, it is concluded that the Plan is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.20. Recommended projects within the Plan that do not fall strictly within the project types described under PRC Section 21080.20 include feasibility studies, a project previously approved following CEQA review, projects that would be statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.25, and projects that would be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. Such projects would be subject to independent environmental review prior to implementation. 7. References California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. "Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State - January 1, 2021 and 2022" https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e4-2010-2020/ (accessed September 2022). California Legislative Information. 2020. SB-288 California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions: transportation -related projects. Published September 30, 2020. https://Ieginfo.Iegislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=201920200SB288 (accessed September 2022). 398 CITY OF DUBLIN Melissa Hernandez (Mayor) Jean Josey (Vice Mayor) Shawn Kumagai (Councilmember) Sherry Hu (Councilmember) Michael McCorriston (Councilmember) Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation and Operations Manager Sai Midididdi, Project Manager and Associate Civil (Traffic) Engineer Laurie Sucgang, Assistant Public Works Director Andrew Russell, Public Works Director Bridget Amaya, Parks & Community Services Assistant Director Hazel Wetherford, Economic Development Director John Stefanski, Assistant to the City Manager Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community Development Director E CONSULTANT TEAM Kittelson & Associates —Amanda Leahy, AICP; Laurence Lewis, AICP; Camilla Dartnell; Mike Alston, RSP Winter Consulting —Corinne Winter TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chris Stevens, Dublin Unified School District Kevin Monaghan, Dublin Police Services Bonnie S. Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Lisa Bobadilla, Transportation Division Manager at City of San Ramon Cedric Novenario, Senior Traffic Engineer at City of Pleasanton Julie Chiu, Associate Civil Engineer at City of Livermore Andy Ross, Assistant Planner at City of Livermore Christopher Marks, Associate Transportation Planner at Alameda CTC Sergio Ruiz, Branch Chief for Active Transportation at Caltrans Jake Freedman, East Alameda County Liaison at Caltrans District 4 Mariana Parreiras, Project Manager at BART Cyrus Sheik, Senior Transit Planner at Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority Chloe Trifilio, CivicSparks Fellow ALAMEDA CTC BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Matt Turner (Chair), Castro Valley Kristi Marleau (Vice Chair), Dublin David Fishbaugh, Fremont Feliz G. Hill, San Leandro Jeremy Johansen, San Leandro Howard Matis, Berkeley Dave Murtha, Hayward Chiamaka Ogwuegbu, Oakland Nick Pilch, Albany Ben Schweng, Alameda 2 City of Dublin DRAFT 400 TABLE F NTENT Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 17 2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement 35 3. Walking & Biking in Dublin Today 44 4. Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Networks 77 5. Recommended Programs, Policies, and Practices 95 6. Implementation Strategy 106 Glossary 122 Appendix DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 401 XEUTIVE SUMMARY THE NEED FOR A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN In Dublin, residents and visitors walk and bike for transportation and recreation. People walking and biking are vulnerable road users, and the City needs a connected network of quality infrastructure and amenities to support safe travel by these sustainable modes. Walking and biking for transportation improves health and well-being and provides numerous environmental and economic benefits. The City of Dublin's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan) is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports City efforts to improve safety and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means of transportation and recreation. This Plan builds on, updates, and replaces the 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2014 Plan) and makes recommendations for infrastructure, programs, and policies that support walking and biking in Dublin. VISION STATEMENT The City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel. In Dublin, walking and biking connects individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations. AT, Enhance Safety Prioritize safety in design and implementation of walking and biking facilities. • Increase Walking and Biking Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation. i Aim Improve Connectivity Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well- connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. Enhance Accessibility Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities. Prioritize Investments Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including supporting programs and operation and aintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 403 PR CESS Project Initiation FALL 2020 Network Recommendations & Implementation Plan Baseline Inventory & Needs Analysis EARLY 2022 ?lo Draft Plan Public Participation via In Person Events and Workshops ORGANIZATION The Plan document is organized in the following chapters: 1. INTRODUCTION — Outlines the project's background, vision, planning process, timeline, and goals. 2. COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT — Summarizes the approach to, and findings from, community and stakeholder engagement activities. 3. WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY — Maps and analyzes physical and socioeconomic conditions applicable to improving walking and biking in Dublin. Evaluates bicycle level of traffic stress, collision history, high injury streets, and other barriers to walking and biking. 4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORK —Summarizes the approach to developing network recommendations and presents the recommended citywide bicycle and pedestrian network. Final Plan & Environmental Review SUMMER 2022 5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, POLICIES, & PRACTICES —Summarizes the approach to developing non - infrastructure recommendations and presents the program and policy recommendations. 6. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY —Summarizes the prioritization framework and presents a tiered list of projects for implementation that considers resource availability and funding opportunities. Presents cost estimates and identifies potential funding sources for these recommendations. WINTER 2022 7. LOOKING AHEAD — Recaps key findings from prior chapters and discusses next steps for Plan implementation. 8. TECHNICAL APPENDIX —Includes bicycle and pedestrian facility design guidelines and provides memorandums documenting technical analysis and engagement activities. 6 City of Dublin DRAFT 404 • COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT At the outset of the planning process, a community engagement plan was created to outline activities, methods, and tools that would be used for public and stakeholder engagement. Due to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic and subsequent stay-at-home orders, the community and stakeholder engagement effort included digital outreach. In -person events were held when it was safe to do so. For more, see Chapter 2. Project Start Go Online Workshop & FAQ Live SEP 2, 2020 Stakeholder Meetings APR —MAY 2021 ittb BPAC #1 SEP 17, 2020 • Alamo Creek Trailhead it Pop -Up MAY 27, 2021 Farmers' Market Pop -Up MAY 25, 2021 • OD' BPAC #2 MAY 25, 2021 id t ST PATRICK'S DAY POP-UP MAR 12, 2022 • (.;' 0 BPAC #4 FEB 24, 2022 BPAC #3 OCT 21, 2021 CC Aproval Project End PC Nov 8 2022 tts) BPAC #5 JUL 21, 2022 2020 2021 1— 2022 Q1 I Q2 I Q3 I Q4 I Q1 I Q2 I Q3 I Q4 I Q1 I Q2 I Q3 I Q4 PROJECT WEBSITE 101 1.1 TAC #1 TAC #2 MAR 4, 2020 SEP 15, 2020 IAA TAC #3 JUN 3, 2021 BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee TAC - Technical Advisory Committee CC - City Council PC - Planning Commission Parks - Parks Commission Public Survey MAY - SEP 2021 IAA TAC #4 MAR 15, 2022 Parks Sept. 19, 2022 CC August 16, 2022 DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 405 WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY DUBLIN DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT 0 cr 0 Dublin Population 71 Dublin Population by Age 8% 15-24 35% 25-44 *rounded Source: US Census American Community Survey 5 year Estimates (2015-2019) 4% BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 2+ RACES 1.1 % Hispanic or Latino/a/x 39% WHITE 6.5% Hispanic or Latino/a/x Dublin Population by Race/Ethnicity 111 1% FILIPINO 5% - VIETNAMESE - 5% - KOREAN 1% • OTHER • ORIGINS • 2% OTHER 1.6% Hispanic or Latino/a/x <1% AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 49% • • ASIAN . <1% Hispanic or • Latino/a/' x 28% CHINESE (EXCEPT • TAIWANESE) • • 48% ASIAN-INDIAN • • • • • 8 City of Dublin DRAFT 406 Commute Snapshot 0"41 e"*1 DRIVE ALONE 115% TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT, CAR SHARE (E.G., GETAROUND, TURO), TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (E.G., LYFT, UBER), ORATAXI CARPOOL 2% EITHER WALK OR BIKE 2015-2019 American Community Survey data MORE THAN 9 DUBLINERS COMMUTE OUTSIDE THE CITY FOR WORK 3% OF HOUSEHOLDS IN DUBLIN DO NOT OWN A VEHICLE Others worked from home or took other modes to work DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 407 PROGRAM AND POLICY NEEDS • Additional resources, including staff dedicated to active transportation. • Updated design guidance and standards to incorporate the innovations and changes since the 2014 Plan. • Enhanced coordination across departments. • Clearer processes and stronger policies related to pedestrian and bicycle project maintenance, design review, and implementation. SAFETY AND COMFORT COLLISION ANALYSIS FINDINGS • 68 bicycle -involved collisions over the 6-year period; 3 fatal and severe injury collisions. • 81 pedestrian -involved collisions over the 6-year period; 12 fatal and severe injury collisions. • People 15-24 years old are overrepresented in pedestrian and bicycle collisions. They represent 25% and 18% of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in collisions, but make up just 8% of the city's population • 62% of the pedestrian collisions occurred on just 8.4 miles of roadway that comprise the pedestrian high injury network (see Figure 25) • 62% of the bicycle collisions occurred on just 6.7 miles of roadway that comprise the bicycle high injury network (see Figure 26). BICYCLE LEVEL OF STRESS ANALYSIS • Low -stress on -street facilities are typically local residential streets without dedicated bicycle facilities. • Arterial streets, such as Dublin Boulevard, are typically higher -stress due to high vehicular speeds, high traffic volumes, or multiple travel lanes. • Sidepaths can be high stress or low stress, depending on path width, shoulder width, and presence of wayfinding. • Only 37 percent of collectors and 7 percent of arterials in Dublin are low stress. Many businesses and services are located on or near collectors, and these desintations can only be accessed with some travel along or across the collectors or arterials. For more, see Chapter 3. Figure 1. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification LOW STRESS STREETS HIGH STRESS STREETS 11 0 30 Arterial Streets Collector Streets Residential Streets 60 90 120 150 Miles *Miles do not include paths. 10 City of Dublin DRAFT 408 WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS SCHOOLS Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary, and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated walk access with around 36 percent of students living within a 10-minute walk. Access points on high -stress streets create a barrier and reduce the likelihood of students to bike to school. • Dublin High, • Murray Elementary, and • Frederiksen Elementary, • Wells Middle School. BART Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/ Pleasanton or West Dublin BART stations. Less than one percent of "interested and concerned" bicyclists have a low -stress bicycle route to BART. JOB CENTERS Access to job centers is limited by the distance between employment and residential uses. Job centers are located on high -stress streets, which currently limit safe and comfortable bicycle access to these sites. PARKS Almost 62 percent of residents live within a 15-minute walk of a park. Table 18. Pedestrian Typology Age Typology Walking Characteristics Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings 14 to 55 Teenage and Working Age Adults Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk gaps, unsi:naIized crossings at major roads, and absence o= midblock crossings Over 55 Aging The limits experienced by young adults and adults and further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings Figure 2. Bicyclist Typology Low Stress Tolerance 27.6% 58.1% ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT 10.1% High Stress Tolerance SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN Nearly 42 percent of residents have a low -stress bicycle route to a park. For more, see Chapter 3. 4.3% DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 409 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS BICYCLE FACILITIES The recommended new facilities include the following: Shared Lane (Class I): 12.8 miles Standard or Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class II): 19.9 miles With Shared Lane (Class III): 12.4 miles Separated Bicycle Lane (Class IV): 10.4 miles For more, see Chapter 4. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES The recommended pedestrian and bicycle networks were developed in tandem using a complete street approach. A suite of pedestrian treatments is recommended along project corridors so that when concept designs are developed, bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be planned, designed, and implemented at the same time. Pedestrian improvements include: • consistent sidewalk • buffers with street trees and green stormwater infrastructure • high -visibility crosswalks • accessible curb ramps • curb extensions • reduced corner radii • signal improvements SPOT IMPROVEMENTS Intersections and mid -block locations in the city with relatively high collision frequency and severity relative to the rest of the network have been prioritized for safety enhancements. The recommendations for this Plan include 16 freeway modernization improvements, 33 intersection improvements, and 5 crossing improvements. For more, see Chapter 4. 12 City of Dublin DRAFT 410 PROGRAM AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS • Y AK Y Coordination and Collaboration Data Collection Design 4 Emerging Technologies Funding and Implementation Operations and Maintenance Promotion and Encouragement Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities For more, see Chapter 5 DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 411 IMPLEMENTATION STkpii i U _o ° ° PRIORITIZATION ° FACTORS Table 1. Prioritization Factors and Variables FACTOR VARIABLE Safety High -Injury Corridors Social Equity Youth and Senior Population Connectivity Demand Analysis Proximity to Schools Quality of Service Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Sidewalk Gaps Major Barriers Freeway Crossings Consistency with Past Planning Previously Identified Projects Ci ESTIMATES TIER I Near -Term Project Cost $21,085,000 - $27,589,000 TIER II AND TIER III Long Term Investment Cost $82,250,000- $186,580,000 For more, see Chapter 6. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination of ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B, BB, and Measure RR), the City General Fund, the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, developer - funded projects, and transportation impact fees, with some funding from state, regional, and federal grants. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law in November 2021, established more than two dozen competitive grant programs for infrastructure initiatives. These discretionary grants and other funding sources are described in Chapter 6. FUNDING IDENTIFIED IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2022-2027) $1,879,684 for citywide bicycle and pedestrian projects. $12,147,565 for street resurfacing. 14 City of Dublin DRAFT 412 Figure 3. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks, buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure, high -visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements. Refer to Table 6 for detailed project descriptions. Proposed Point Project • Spot Improvement Parks Reserve Forces Training Area STH ST ]IH ST n Biddle ark Duel sceraTT BROOEP Proposed Segment Project Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath I I 151 Schools BART Stations Parks DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 413 1. INTR i DU This chapter introduces the project, including its background and need, and sets the stage for the analysis, findings, and recommendations detailed in subsequent chapters. ABOUT THE PLAN The City of Dublin's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports the City's efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means of transportation and recreation. This Plan updates and replaces the City's 2014 Plan by building upon the 2014 Plan's goals and recommendations and by using new guidance documents. The update will result in infrastructure and program and policy recommendations that support walking and biking in Dublin. TI i'N THE 2014 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN The 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and the following six goals included in the 2014 Plan, provides a baseline for the updated Plan. 2014 GOALS Goal 1: Support bicycling and walking as practical, healthy, and convenient alternatives to automobile use in Dublin. Goal 2: Implement a well- connected active transportation system to attract users of all ages and abilities. Goal 3: Incorporate the needs and concerns of bicyclists and pedestrians in all transportation and development projects. 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS DU CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Duel Adopted by the vCounui on October], Goal 4: Support infrastructure investments with targeted bicycle and pedestrian education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs. Goal 5: Maximize multi - modal connections in the transportation network. Goal 6: Improve bicycle and pedestrian safety citywide. NEW GUIDANCE Since the 2014 Plan was adopted, bicycle and pedestrian planning and design guidance and standards have evolved to include innovative treatments and guidance from local and national agencies. Best -practice documents should be considered when implementing any bicycle and pedestrian facility. The latest versions of best -practice design guides developed by outside sources should be DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 415 consulted regularly to ensure information is up to date. Relevant guidance includes: • California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2018) • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) • FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts (2016) • AC Transit Multimodal Corridor Design Guidelines (2019) • National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2014) • NACTO Transit Street Design Guide (2016) • NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide (2016) Relevant documents and additional guidance is presented in the Design Guide (appendix D). PROGRESS SINCE THE 2014 PLAN Since the 2014 Plan's adoption, the City and developers have built 10.8 miles of the 2014 proposal of 35.3 miles of bikeways. They have built seven of the 25 recommended pedestrian projects, and two more are in progress. The infrastructure inventory is presented in Figure 4. This Plan update reevaluates recommendations and carries forward relevant projects from the 2014 Plan. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS Federal, state, and local agencies develop policies and publish plans to guide investment and set transportation priorities. Understanding how these plans and policies relate and fit together helps ensure recommendations are consistent with and build on prior planning efforts. This section describes relevant plans and policies. Table 2 presents what aspects of the most relevant existing policy and planning documents were used to guide this Plan's policies and projects. FEDERAL POLICIES USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. In 2010, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued a policy directive in support of walking and bicycling. The policy encouraged transportation agencies to go beyond minimum standards and fully -integrate active transportation into projects. As part of the statement, the USDOT encouraged agencies to adopt similar policy statements in support of walking and bicycling considerations. Americans with Disabilities Act —The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III is legislation enacted in 1990 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 accommodation to be accessible and usable to all people, including people with disabilities. 18 City of Dublin DRAFT 416 Figure 4. Infrastructure Inventory s INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY DUBLIN CALIFORNIA The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan produced a suite of infrastructure recommendations, including the following: WALKING NETWORK PROJECT TYPES A recommended walking network consisting of five main improvement types: AmINTERSECTION CROSSING TREATMENTS ij SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS 4 SIDEWALK REMOVE A IMPROVEMENTS J. f BARRIERS ADA V IMPROVEMENTS Signalized Tassajara Creek trail crossing at Central Parkway. The 2014 Plan recommended Tassajara Creek crossing locations at Dublin Boulevard which have not yet been built. III k4% • 24 pedestrian infrastructure projects BIKEWAY NETWORK PROJECT TYPES A recommended bikeway network with the following intended focus: CONNECTIONS TO KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS COMFORT AND LOW LEVEL OF STRESS CONNECTIONS TO REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM CONNECTIONS TO ADJACENT CITIES Class IIA bike lane along Tassajara Road, which was proposed in the 2014 Plan. 83 bikeway infrastructure projects, totaling 35.3 miles DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 19 417 PROGRESS: Pedestrian projects proposed and built, by project type PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT TYPE PROPOSED BUILT IN PROGRESS + Intersection crossing treatments 12 2 0 71 Sidewalk improvements 2 0 1 L- ADA improvements 6 1 0 Signal modifications 4 1 0 T"f Remove Barriers 3 3 1 Wayfinding signage 1 0 0 Total 28 7 2 Some projects included multiple types and are double or triple counted into all relevant categories. Bicycle facilities proposed and built, by mileage Built To be Built by City To be Built by Developer 10 8 6 4 2 0 9.2 4.8 4.0 3.3 0.8 0.8 Class IIIA Class IIA Class IIB Proposed mixed facilities are listed by their highest proposed class (e.g., Class IIAIIIIA is listed as Class IIA) 2.7 5.4 Class I 2.4 To be Built by City To be Built by Developer 20 City of Dublin DRAFT 418 Figure 5. 2014 Plan Proposed Bikeway Facilities Proposed Bikeways, Built Class I Class IIA Class IIB Proposed Bikeways, Not Built ▪ • Class ▪ • Class IIA ▪ • Class IIB ▪ • ClasslllA 0 J) I Mile 0 Pedestrian Intersection/Crossing Project • Not Built • Built Pedestrian Corridor Projects Not Built In Progress Built �nArIaN4 DUBLIN BL ♦Dougherty Hills ♦Open Space %♦ OZ if-,,,,.." • ♦o • • .p itiH 51 Fc joi ■NOJeVN -�� ■■ ♦ • ■ •.• • t ' R � • • Pas Reserve Forces o 'r+i4� ■ . • qv ♦ ♦ "Training Area m rA ♦ ■ ` a�• } .� ♦ ■ Dk ♦ e ♦ ain sr aaoD�GLL . ■ • . ♦ • ve • 4Y ■ ♦^�^ • 1 Pam' rrRsr ADDBN� y R•• i■ :�44 ooR ♦ oLEA ON DR r•�ir� ♦��♦ n ■ • 0 9 a PAP ♦ o c1Hsr p /a, ■ ■ ♦�^ Fallon •♦♦j♦ n ♦ os`" I _ 1 ♦ • /��'%rti o Emerald ■ I. . ; .. i 1 SParkportsi . ■ ►� .• l1 ■ , ♦� ■ p` s��•►�rrn■► ■ ■ a Glen Park _ _ ■ ■ In �i' ` •y °P +. �~ ■ CENTRALPW a • ♦ + II II • S L •,y,, ■�ERB.�VI DUBLIN: ■ • • •�, 0 0 9Ni �� = civic Plozg +♦ . RLc.r crl�� i ■ ■ Oar I: w� . r • v�rvj•I.�•� .♦ • - f/SIDE DR ♦�a. ... �.iilLi¢ it.rI • a DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 21 419 Table 2. Relevant Plans and Policies Plan Bicycle Pedestrian Policies Policies TATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES Relevance to Current Plan Facility/ Network Maps Project Design Recommendations Program Guidelines or Concept Recommendations Designs California Green Building Code Caltrans Toward an Active California (2017) Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2020) • • Alameda Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2019) • Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021) • MTC Active Transportation Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022) • East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan (2013) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES Local Roadway Safety Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022) • Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022) • • 22 City of Dublin DRAFT 420 Relevance to Current Plan Plan Project Bicycle Pedestrian Facility/ Design Recommendations Program Policies Policies Network Maps Guidelines or Concept Recommendations Designs 'LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES CONTINUED Mk Streetscape Master Plan (2009) • Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution 199-12) (2012) • • Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor and Connectivity Studies (2013) • • Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014) • Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2014) • • • • • • General Plan Land Use & Circulation (2014) Circulation & Scenic Highways Element • • Schools, Public Lands, & Utilities Element • • Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022) • Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study (2017) . Traffic Safety Study Update (2018) ' Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (2020) • • Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (2020) • DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 23 421 Plan Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Relevance to Facility/ Network Maps Current Plan Design Guidelines Project Recommendations or Concept Designs Program Recommendations Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (2019) • • Specific Plans Dublin Crossing (2013) • • • Downtown (2014) • • Dublin Village Historic Area (2014) • Eastern Dublin (2016) • • • EDERAL PLANS AND POLICIES USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accomodation Regulations and Recommendations • • • Americans with Disabilities Act • • • 24 City of Dublin DRAFT 422 STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES Complete Streets Act of 2008: California's Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly bill 1358) requires all cities to modify the circulation element of their general plan to "plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users" when a substantive revision of the circulation element occurs. The law went into effect on January 1, 2011. The law also directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to amend its guidelines for the development of circulation elements to aid cities and counties in meeting the requirements of the Complete Streets Act. Senate Bill 375/Assembly Bill 32: California Assembly Bill 32 requires greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 28 percent by the year 2020 and by 50 percent by the year 2050. Senate Bill 375 provides the implementation mechanisms for Assembly Bill 32. Senate Bill 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations and regional planning agencies to plan for these reductions by developing sustainable community strategies (SCS), which will be a regional guide for housing, land uses, and transportation and will incorporate the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). A key component of SCS is the reduction of automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled. Planning for increases in walking, bicycling, and transit use as viable alternatives to automobile travel are important components of these SCS/RTP plans. California Green Building Standards Code: According to Chapter 7.94 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code, bicycle parking and support facilities in both residential and non-residential development shall conform to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The CALGreen Code includes both mandatory and voluntary measures. For non-residential buildings, it is Plan Oversight VI TOWARD CALIFORNIApP mandatory that both short-term and long-term bicycle parking is provided and secure. Generally, the number of long-term bicycle parking spaces must be at least 5 percent of the number of vehicle parking spaces. Schools have additional requirements so both students and staff have access to sufficient bicycle parking. Caltrans Toward an Active California (2017): Toward an Active California is Caltrans's first statewide policy and plan to support bicyclists and pedestrians through objectives, strategies, .Cernamia 'ours safer. 22„ ®7"y40 4,25 % ES T10% and actions. Toward an Active California introduces 4 new objectives, 15 strategies, and 60 actions that are specific to active transportation and serve as the basis for Plan implementation. Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018): This plan evaluates bicycle needs on and across the State transportation network and identifies priority bicycle projects. Projects are prioritized as top tier, mid tier, and low tier. The following projects are recommended for Dublin: DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 25 423 • Top Tier Project: Santa Rita Road and I-580 interchange reconstruction (ramps only); Class IIB facility • Mid Tier Project: Tassajara Creek and I-580 new separated crossing; Alcosta Boulevard and I-680 minor interchange improvements (signage and striping); Class II facility • Low Tier Project: Demarcus Boulevard and I-580 new separated crossing Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2020): This plan identifies and prioritizes pedestrian needs along and across the State Highway System to inform future investments. The plan's main output is a prioritized list and map of location -based pedestrian needs and a toolkit with strategies to address those needs. Alameda Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2019): The 2019 Countywide Active Transportation Plan (CATP) updates and combines the Countywide Bicycle Plan and the Countywide Pedestrian Plan. The CATP analyzes low -stress bike networks, identifies a countywide high injury pedestrian and bicycle network, evaluates major barriers to the bicycle and pedestrian network, and establishes a framework for prioritizing projects of countywide significance to inform decision -making about active transportation funding at the Alameda County Transportation Commission. At the local level, the CATP provides resources to member agencies to help advance projects that provide complete, safe, and connected networks for biking and walking, including better connections to the regional transit network. Connectivity analysis presented in the CATP indicate that the east planning area, which includes the City of Dublin, generally has poor low -stress connectivity in the rural and outlying suburban areas and in the business park portions of Dublin and Pleasanton. Based on the high -injury network analysis completed in the CATP, the combined bicycle and pedestrian high -injury network miles represent less than one percent of the total countywide high -injury network. In the east planning area, Dublin Boulevard from Arnold Road to Hacienda Drive and Village Parkway from Davona Drive to Tamarack Drive have the highest bicycle collision severity scores. Dublin Boulevard was identified as the street with the most miles on the pedestrian high -injury network. The 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan (2020): The 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan (2020 CTP) was adopted along with the Community -Based Transportation Plan and the New Mobility Roadmap. The 2020 CTP covers transportation projects, policies, and programs out to the year 2050 for Alameda County. The Community - Based Transportation Plan is an assessment of transportation needs in the county's low- income communities and communities of color with a focus on input collected via community engagement activities. The New Mobility Roadmap provides a foundation for agency policy, advocacy, and funding decisions to advance new mobility technologies and services for the Alameda CTC and partner agencies, as well as the private sector. The 2020 CTP 10-year priority project list includes the following projects in the City of Dublin: Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Dublin Boulevard, Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Implementation, West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station Active Access Improvements, Safe Routes to School Improvements, Interchange modernizations at I-580/I-680, I-580/Fallon/El Charro, and I-580/Hacienda, widening of Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and Tassajara Road and the extension of Dublin Boulevard 26 City of Dublin DRAFT 424 MESSAGE FROM THE DISTRICT 4 DIRECTOR an I North Canyons Parkway. To complement these projects, the 10-Year Priority Projects and Programs, the 2020 CTP includes a series of Strategies that reflect guiding principles, industry best practices, and a gaps analysis of areas that aren't fully covered by projects: safe system approach, complete corridors approach, partnerships to address regional and megaregional issues, transit accessibility and transportation demand management, and new mobility and an automated, low - emission and shared future. MTC Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021): This plan from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the region's long- range strategic plan. It is focused on the interrelated elements of housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment. MTC Active Transportation Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022): This forthcoming plan will guide investments in infrastructure and the development and implementation of regional policy. The plan supports the Plan Bay Area 2050 strategy to build a complete streets network and helps to meet goals to improve safety, equity, health, resilience, and climate change. East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan (2013): This policy document guides future development of parks, trails, and services. LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES Streetscape Master Plan (2009): This master plan maximizes opportunities to craft an urban image unique to Dublin and opportunities to maintain existing amenities like street trees. Among other goals, the plan aims to coordinate improvements and responsibilities for Dublin's streets and to strengthening Dublin Boulevard's streetscape. In the context of active transportation, this plan is a valuable resource for identifying and implementing street improvements that contribute to Dublin's image. Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution No. 199-12) (2012): The City of Dublin's Complete Streets Policy identifies complete streets planning as a critical contributor to: • Increase walking, biking, and taking transit • Reduce vehicle miles traveled • Meet greenhouse gas reduction goals Together, these targets aim to benefit public health. The policy emphasizes community engagement, sensitivity to land use and context, and coordination with nearby jurisdictions to connect infrastructure across city boundaries. The policy names several improvements DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 27 425 that should be considered to benefit all users of the street, including sidewalks, shared use paths, bike lanes and routes, and accessible curb ramps. Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor and Connectivity Studies (2013): Completed in 2013, these two studies evaluated options for improving bicycling conditions on Dublin Boulevard, particularly in Downtown Dublin. A traffic analysis determined that removing a vehicle travel lane on Dublin Boulevard would delay transit service and worsen traffic during peak periods. Community members and local business owners expressed concern that this change would be a barrier to visiting Downtown Dublin by car. Ultimately, a shared -use path running alongside Dublin Boulevard and connecting to the Alamo Canal Trail became the long-term vision for bicycling in Dublin. In the interim, the City added sharrows (a Class III Entrance to Iron Horse Trail facility) to Dublin Boulevard between Dublin Court and Tassajara Road and permitted riding on sidewalks to make bicycling a more comfortable experience for all skill levels. Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014): The University of California, Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies Technology Transfer Program prepared this assessment for the City of Dublin in 2014. The assessment authors compared different types of collisions that occurred in Dublin with other cities in California and found that Dublin has a relatively high number of collisions involving pedestrians —particularly young and old pedestrians — and collisions involving high vehicle speeds. Opportunities to improve walking conditions in Dublin include traffic calming programs, transportation demand management policies and programs, and coordination with health agencies. This assessment also included specific areas of Dublin where improvements could benefit pedestrian conditions. The updated bicycle and pedestrian plan reviewed these key areas. Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2014): Adopted in 2014, Dublin's 2014 Plan established key goals and policies to maintain and improve biking and walking infrastructure. The plan's goals and policies support its vision for Dublin The 2014 Plan inventoried the bicycle and pedestrian network and documented potential improvements to specific facilities. The plan organized infrastructure projects at key locations into four tiers by priority and intended to actualize the proposed biking and walking network. Programming opportunities to attract biking and walking trips are also identified in the 2014 Plan. In addition to listing potential funding sources for 28 City of Dublin DRAFT 426 project implementation, the 2014 Plan includes bicycle and pedestrian design guidelines that apply national resources and best practices to project implementation in Dublin. General Plan Circulation & Scenic Highways Element and Schools, Public Lands, & Utilities Element (2014): The General Plan's Land Use & Circulation elements focus on meeting the mobility needs of all roadway users by any mode and aligns with two key documents: the City of Dublin's Complete Streets Policy and the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (a regional plan). The element promotes the use of local and regional trails and emphasize improving experiences walking and taking transit. The elements prioritize two areas for active transportation investments: the Eastern Extended Planning Area and Downtown Dublin. The elements' guiding policies that are the most relevant to the Plan include: • 5.3.1.A.3—Encourage improvements in the Enhanced Pedestrian Areas to improve the walkability of these areas. • 5.5.1.A.1—Provide safe, continuous, comfortable, and convenient bikeways throughout the city. • 5.5.1.A.2—Improve and maintain bikeways and pedestrian facilities and support facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. • 5.5.1.A.3—Enhance the multimodal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. • 5.5.1.A.4—Provide comfortable, safe, and convenient walking routes throughout the city and, in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, BART stations, schools, parks, and commercial centers. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022): The Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) establishes goals, standards, guiding policies, and an action plan to guide the City of Dublin in the acquisition, development, and management (operations and maintenance) of Dublin's park and recreation facilities through the ultimate build -out of the City in accordance with the General Plan. This PRMP update addresses the program and facility needs of the anticipated future population growth. The development standards for new parks and facilities are intended to provide for quality parks, trails, sports fields and recreation and cultural facilities needed at build -out in a manner that is fiscally sustainable to operate and maintain. Relevant goals and objectives include exploring improving/adding bike paths and walking trails, and continuing to maintain and improve existing facilities, parks, trails, and open spaces. The standards and criteria for the City's parks and recreation facilities include requirements for bicycle parking, paving, and width. Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study (2017): Based on a multimodal assessment and community outreach processes, this Feasibility Study arrives at several key preferred alternatives for the Iron Horse Regional Trail and its crossings on Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. A multi -use trail separating people walking and biking was preferred; a bicycle/ pedestrian bridge was preferred for crossing Dublin Boulevard, DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 29 427 while an at -grade crossing was preferred for Dougherty Road. Improvements near the BART station are intended to both enhance access to transit and improve experiences for trail users passing through the station area. Improvements to the Iron Horse Regional Trail contribute to this Plan by making use of the Trail easier and more convenient. Traffic Safety Study Update (2018): Collisions were studied in the 2018 Traffic Safety Study Update (Safety Study) to evaluate safety performance on specific street sections and intersections. Overall, collisions had increased at the time of the Safety Study, likely as a result of population increases and people living and driving in Dublin, particularly East Dublin. Recommendations in the Update include continuous bicycle lanes at Central Parkway and Tassajara Road. The collision analysis included in this Plan supplements the findings and recommendations of the Safety Study. Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (2020): The Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond, establishes the City's vision for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045. The CAP names transportation as the largest source of emissions in Dublin and lays a plan for Dublin to become carbon neutral by 2045. Zero -emission vehicles and mode shift to biking, walking, and transit trips are key strategies to reduce Dublin's GHG emissions and meet citywide targets. The CAP sets measures to develop plans and programs around transportation demand management, transit - oriented development, parking management, and electric vehicle infrastructure planning to support mode shift and electrification of Dublin's vehicle fleet. A shift to alternative, active, shared, and electric mobility will provide safer routes between home, transit stops, and other community amenities, reduce GHG emissions, reduce traffic congestion, improve public health outcomes, and have economic benefits. City of Dublin Streetscape Master Plan (2020): The Downtown Streetscape Master Plan provides direction for public and private investment, specifically in regard to the development of the public realm and Downtown's identity. One of the plan's key goals is to develop pedestrian -oriented environments on Commercial Throughways and on Downtown Local Streets. On these roadways as well as on Crosstown Boulevards and Parkways, the plan also emphasizes providing safe and comfortable facilities and crossings for people walking and biking. Recommended improvements within the Downtown area are prioritized into four tiers that can be matched to project scale, budget, funding source, and other opportunities. Tier 1 and Tier 2 street and pedestrian enhancements are illustrated on Figures 24, 25, and 27 and include restriping/road diet evaluation, sidewalk widening, intersection and mid -block crossing treatments, as well as art and wayfinding opportunities. Notable guidelines include widening sidewalks to provide a minimum 12-foot sidewalk with minimum five- to six-foot clear throughway zone for walking. 30 City of Dublin DRAFT 428 Specific Plans Four areas of Dublin have specific plans that outline guiding principles, policies, and design guidance related to active transportation: Dublin Crossing, Downtown, the Dublin Village Historic Area, and Eastern Dublin. Dublin Crossing (2013): This Specific Plan focuses on improving east -west connectivity in the Dublin Crossing, particularly between transit stops, destinations, and trails. A relevant guiding principle in this Specific Plan is to make it easier and more convenient for people to access and use the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station, and retail destinations without a car. Downtown Specific Plan (2014): Guiding principles, pertinent to biking and walking in Downtown, aim to create pedestrian -friendly streets, enhance multimodal travel options, and cultivate pedestrian connections to retail destinations. Transit -oriented development and lighting should be scaled to people walking in Downtown. Pedestrian connectivity between buildings, parking, and sidewalks should be maintained throughout Downtown, and pedestrian amenities like street furniture are encouraged. Dublin Village Historic Area (2014): Placemaking, creating a positive experience for people walking, and attracting people to this area are key goals of this Specific Plan. Creating positive experiences for people walking includes providing more crosswalks and median refuges, calming vehicle traffic, adding pedestrian amenities or a plaza, and implementing pedestrian - scale lighting and wayfinding. Eastern Dublin (2016): A key goal in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is to reduce reliance on single -occupancy vehicles by planning the area's land uses to naturally promote walking, biking, taking transit, and ridesharing. Notably, development with a higher intensity is encouraged near transit corridors in Eastern Dublin. Relevant policies in this Specific Plan include: • Providing sidewalks in the Town Center and Village Center • Requiring development to balance pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile circulation • Creating a north -south trail along Tassajara Creek and other streams • Establishing a bike network that meets both travel needs and recreational opportunities • Providing bicycle parking at key destinations Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (2019): The purpose of the City's Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (GSI) is to describe how the City will meet requirements specified in the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2015- 0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 issued on November 19, 2015. This GSI Plan demonstrates how the City is meeting MRP requirements and intends to use GSI to enhance the urban environment. Local Roadway Safety Plan (anticipated 2022). The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local roads. Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan (anticipated 2022). The ADA Transition Plan is a formal document outlining the City's compliance with ADA. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 31 429 VISION, GOALS, & PERFORMANCE MEASURES To set a clear path forward, City staff and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members outlined the City's purpose, vision, and goals for this Plan. PROJECT VISION This Plan sets forth the following vision: VISION STATEMENT The City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel. In Dublin, walking and biking connects individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations. GOALS This Plan establishes the following five overarching goals related to the vision that guide recommendations: 1 Enhance Safety Prioritize safety in design and implementation of walking and biking facilities. Increase Walking and Biking Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation. Improve Connectivity Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. Enhance Accessibility Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities. flati Prioritize Investments Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including program support, operation, and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity in the community. 32 City of Dublin DRAFT 430 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Setting performance measures helps track progress toward goals and document the results of investments in biking, walking, and rolling. The following performance measures and desired trends have been established to track progress towards achieving the goals of this Plan: Goal Performance Measure (Desired Trend)* Enhance Safety • Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations • Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Increase users' perception of safety • Decrease average crossing distances 4001 Increase Walking and Biking • Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities Improve Connectivity • Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps • Increase number of crossing opportunities • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces Enhance O Accessibility • Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues • Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair 1111 O Prioritize Investments • Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to build a complete streets network • Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation infrastructure spending *not in order of importance DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 33 431 . UNITY & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Inclusive and meaningful community and stakeholder engagement is necessary to create a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that is community-suported and implementable. A community and stakeholder engagement plan was developed at the outset of the planning process to outline the activities, methods, and tools that would be used to engage the Dublin residents and key stakeholders. The community and stakeholder engagement plan established a framework and identified opportunities and specific milestones for sharing information, soliciting feedback, and collaborating with agency stakeholders and Dublin community members. ENGAGEMENT AND COVID-19 Due to the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the resulting stay-at-home order initiated on March 17, 2020 in Alameda County that affected the ability to conduct in -person engagement, a hybrid approach was used. Primarily digital outreach methods were used with in -person engagement when possible to safely and effectively reach a broad audience. ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES To better understand Dublin's walking and bicycling issues and opportunities, stakeholders and community members were engaged through the following methods: The engagement timeline is shown in Figure 5, and specific activities are described in this section. • Project web site • Interactive map • Public survey • Public workshop • Pop-up events • Stakeholder meetings • Technical Advisory Committee meetings • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meetings Photos from pop-up events at the St Patrick's Day Festival and Alamo Creek Trailhead DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 35 433 • Figure 6. Public Engagement Timeline Project Start Go Online Workshop & FAQ Live SEP 2, 2020 Stakeholder Meetings APR -MAY 2021 BPAC #1 SEP 17, 2020 PROJECT WEBSITE Farmers' Market Pop -Up MAY 25, 2021 • OD' BPAC #2 MAY 25, 2021 Alamo Creek Trailhead Pop -Up MAY 27, 2021 chi /fp cos r.A‘ r.A‘ r.A‘ TAC #1 TAC #2 TAC #3 MAR 4, 2020 SEP 15, 2020 JUN 3, 2021 BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee TAC - Technical Advisory Committee CC - City Council PC - Planning Commission Parks - Parks Commission Public Survey MAY - SEP 2021 ST PATRICK'S DAY POP-UP MAR 12, 2022 • R BPAC #4 FEB 24, 2022 • itt BPAC #3 OCT 21, 2021 CC Aproval Project End PC Nov 8 2022 itts, BPAC #5 JUL 21, 2022 IAA TAC #4 MAR 15, 2022 Parks Sept. 19, 2022 CC August 16, 2022 36 City of Dublin DRAFT 434 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND FINDINGS Community feedback and findings are presented in this section. Select quotes from community members are presented throughout the Plan document. Supporting materials are included in appendix A. PROJECT WEBSITE AND INTERACTIVE MAP An interactive website was created to share key project milestones and provide information about the Plan development and events. Since going live in March 2020, the project website has received approximately 1,500 visits (with 2.7 actions per visit), 3,700 page views, and 123 data downloads. The website also included an interactive online map on which the public could identify desired improvements, gaps, and key destinations in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network. The online map received a total of 208 comments. Map feedback was classified into four categories: barriers, ideas, praise, and questions (Figure 7). Nearly half of responses indicated a barrier to walking or biking, and another third offered an idea to improve walking and biking conditions. The remaining responses were either praise for actions the City has taken to create a safe and connected active transportation network and promote sustainable transportation options or questions about the Plan or planning process. Responses were analyzed to identify central themes for each of the four categories. BARRIERS Themes for each of the response categories were Aa. generated from the subject matter of received comments to summarize the most common kinds of community input. The top five themes in the barriers category are shown in Figure 8 and listed in ranked order below. Figure 7. Web Map Comments by Category 7% QUESTION 47% 13% BARRIER PRAISE Figure 8. Barrier Themes in Comments 17% BIKE CONNECTIONS 14% MAINTENANCE 12% SIGNALS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ■ ■ PEDESTRIAN CROSSING D% RIIIVING ' <1% D WALK DESIGN I BIKE RACKS 35% BIKE SAFETY 33% IDEA DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37 435 Bike Safety. Comments that discussed bike safety largely focused on a need for greater separation between bikes and vehicles, traffic calming, lack of bike lanes, and concerns about biking near on- and off -ramps. 17% Bike Connections. Comments that discussed bike connections largely focused on consistent connections to paths, across over and under passes, and main bike routes. 14% Maintenance. Comments that discussed maintenance largely focused on poor road conditions, debris in the road, and broken sidewalk. 12% 8% Signals. Comments that discussed signals largely focused on issues with signal bike detection at intersections. Pedestrian Safety. Comments that discussed pedestrian safety largely focused on dangerous crossings. ♦ I ♦ IDEAS -t Community members also offered ideas. The top four themes of these ideas are shown in Figure 9 and are listed in ranked order: MOST COMMON BARRIER LOCATIONS MENTIONED In addition to the most common themes, there were also common locations identified by community comments. The top five locations for comments noted as barriers were: 1 DUBLIN BOULEVARD 2 TASSAJARA ROAD FALLON AMADOR VALLEY ROAD BOULEVARD DOUGHERTY ROAD u1 Bike Lanes. Comments that discussed bike lanes largely focused on a need for greater connections between important destinations and along major roads and trails. Pedestrian Connections. Comments that discussed pedestrian connections largely focused on improving specific sidewalk connections and creating walking paths. Figure 9. Idea Themes in Comments 26% BIKE SAFETY 24% CIKE NECTIONS 12% SIGNALS 1ow BIKE L/0 CONNECTIONS poi PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES 6 SIDEWALK 0 DESIGN 14% DRIVING TRAFFIC 47 CALMING .4� BIKE 0 AMENITIES 38 City of Dublin DRAFT 436 12% Signals. Comments which discussed signals largely focused on safer intersections through changes to signals timing. Bike Connections Comments that discussed bike connections largely focused on connecting bike trails and lanes to key destinations and each other. 12% 22 Other The remaining in the ideas category covered pedestrian amenities, sidewalk design, driving, traffic calming, and bike amenities. PRAISE lig Respondents praised several key features of Dublin's existing walking and biking network as well as the City's ongoing efforts to improve it. The top three themes in the praise category are shown and listed in rank order in Figure 10. General. Comments that were general were focused on appreciation for the City's efforts to improve bike and pedestrian facilities. Bike Lanes. Comments that discussed bike lanes were focused on effective plastic barriers, separated bike paths, and green paint. Signals. Comments that 18% discussed signals were focused on flashing lights at intersections and well -placed crossing buttons. 12% Other The remaining comments in the praise category covered existing amenities and connections. UESTIONS • Three key question themes emerged from the online map responses; they are listed below and illustrated in Figure 11. Planning Process. Questions about the planning process had to do with the reach of the survey, how funding is being used efficiently, and how the City plans to finish certain projects. Connections. Comments which discussed bike and walk connections asked about projects at specific locations, including whether they were planned or if they can be added to the City's efforts. Micromobility. Questions about micromobility focused on legal operating requirements, including whether electric scooters are allowed on bike paths about whether electric scooters are allowed on bike paths. Figure 10. Praise Themes in Comments 35% GENERAL 35% BIKE LANES ■ 18% SIGNALS I9% CONNECTIONS AMENITIES 9% Figure 11. Question Themes in Comments 56% PROCESS G CONNECTIONS MICROMOBILITY DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 437 PUBLIC SURVEY A public survey was used to collect information from the public about their personal transportation preferences, travel habits, and issues and opportunities related to walking and biking in Dublin. The public survey was distributed in Summer 2020 and was promoted on social media and posted to the website. A fact sheet with the survey link and QR code was provided at the Alamo Creek Trailhead and Farmers' Market pop-up events. Approximately 200 responses were received to the 17-question survey, which covered travel behavior and mode preference; travel to school; challenges and barriers to moving around Dublin; and priorities for investments related to walking and biking. 2 RESPONSES were received to the 17-question survey SURVEY RESULTS General Travel Behavior and Mode Preferences When asked about modes taken to work and school prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 33 percent of respondents said they drove alone, 17 percent used a bike or scooter, and 17 percent walked. These numbers stayed relatively constant when respondents were asked about the same behaviors during COVID. The top reason (22 percent) respondents gave when asked why driving to work was the best option was that driving alone was the quickest and most convenient option. Around 10 percent of respondents indicated safety, irregular work schedules, and the need to make additional stops as reasons they chose to drive alone to work. Of respondents who use a combination of travel modes, there were a similar number of respondents across modes. Travel to School Approximately 38 percent of respondents had school -age children. Of those respondents, approximately 40 percent indicated that they used a personal vehicle for school drop-off/pick-up. Another 26 percent walked to school while 14 percent biked. Respondents indicated the top three factors discouraging walking or biking to school were safety concerns (35 percent), distance or travel time (18 percent), and lack of sidewalks or curb ramps (13 percent). Barriers to Walking and Biking When asked about barriers to walking and biking, respondents indicated that safety was a primary consideration, followed by vehicle speed. Responses were mixed on the topics of street lighting and maintenance, with a fairly even split of people indicating it was either not important, somewhat important, or very important. Most respondents were less concerned with distance to their destinations or available shade. Investment Priorities When asked what types of improvements would encourage walking or biking, 22 percent of respondents indicated better/more sidewalks and trails, 14 percent indicated better/more bicycle facilities, 11 percent indicated slower vehicles and more traffic calming, and 10 percent indicated better maintenance of existing facilities. When asked where the City should prioritize walking and biking improvements, the top three responses (about 20 percent each) were high collision locations; routes connecting people to schools, libraries, parks, and other key destinations; and, along and across busy streets. PUBLIC WORKSHOP On September 2, 2020 a digital workshop was held via Zoom to inform the public about the Plan and gather broad community feedback. Forty- two people attended the hour- long Zoom workshop, which included a presentation and a question -and -answer period. This workshop aimed to establish a community understanding of the planning process and to obtain feedback on the project's vision and goals. The workshop also included a poll, which asked 40 City of Dublin DRAFT 438 Figure 12. Poll Responses to Classification of Bicyclist Types by Frequency of Bicycle Use Daily or nearly daily, 5 A few times per week, 4 A few times per year, 3 A few times a month, 2 ■ Enthused and confident ■ No way, no how participants questions about their experiences on public streets, their comfort with various modes of micromobility, and their demographic information. The workshop also included a poll asking participants about their experiences walking, biking, and using micromobility on public streets, whether they feel comfortable using these modes in Dublin, and whether they would want to see bike and scooter share programs in Dublin. The poll received 30 responses. Participants of the poll were also asked how they classify themselves in terms A few times per week, 4 A few times per year, 2 A few times a non... 1 A few times per week, 4 A few times per year, 1 ■ Interested but concerned ■ Strong and fearless of confidence using a bike in Dublin, as well as how often they ride a bike. Of the responses, the most common confidence level was Enthused and Confident (47 percent), followed by Interested but Concerned (27 percent), Strong and Fearless (23 percent), and No Way, No How (3 percent) (see Figure 12). POP UP EVENTS Feedback was gathered at three in -person events to understand where people walk and bike and what issues, concerns, ideas, and priorities they have related to walking and biking in Dublin. Project Overview — Why a BPMP Update? 2012 Complete Streets Policy 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Dublin General Plan and Various Specific Plans FARMERS' MARKET-25 MAY, 2021 Feedback was gathered on existing conditions and needs. Approximately 40 people provided input, and participants were rewarded with Carrot Cash and giveaways. ALAMO CREEK TRAILHEAD-27 MAY, 2021 Dublin partnered with Bike East Bay in an effort to hear from trail users at the Alamo Creek Trailhead as part of Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update National Bike Month Activities. Feedback was gathered in real time and flyers with the public survey link were handed out. ST. PATRICK'S DAY FESTIVAL-12 MARCH, 2022 Feedback was gathered on the draft network recommendations and additional comments on program and policy priorities for walking and biking in Dublin. The St. Patrick's Day Festival in Dublin is one of the biggest local community events of the year. This two - DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 439 day celebration brings out thousands of engaged residents and visitors per day, making it an important opportunity for the City of Dublin to communicate its plans and receive feedback. The celebration had an added importance this year as this would be the first in -person public event of this scale in Dublin since 2019, making for an excited and engaged audience. Approximately 136 community members provided feedback on possible infrastructure improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists in Dublin, and this pop-up resulted in 231 unique data points. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) involves interested community members in Alameda CTC's policy, planning, and implementation efforts related to bicycling and walking. The Alameda CTC BPAC includes representatives from cities in Alamo Creek Pop Up Event Alameda County, including Castro Valley, Dublin, Fremont, San Leandro, Berkeley, Hayward, Oakland, Albany, and Alameda and serves as Dublin's advisory body as Dublin does not currently have a local BPAC. The Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update was brought to the Alameda CTC BPAC five times during the project. The group provided feedback on key items throughout the planning process, including the technical analysis approach and findings and program, policy, and project recommendations. Comments were addressed and incorporated into the Plan document. Meeting summaries and supporting materials are included in appendix A. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to provide key guidance on the Plan. The TAC included staff from City departments, including Planning, Economic Development, and Parks & Community Service and other agency representatives from Dublin Unified School District, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Fire Department, San Ramon, Pleasanton, Livermore, Alameda CTC, Caltrans, BART, and LAVTA. The team hosted five TAC meetings over the course of the project. The Plan process, community engagement, existing conditions and needs analysis, prioritization framework, and program, policy, and project recommendations were discussed during these meetings. Comments were addressed and incorporated into the Plan document. Meeting summaries and supporting materials are included in appendix B. 42 City of Dublin DRAFT 440 441 3. WALKI IN DU LI This chapter provides an overview of walking and biking in Dublin and presents results of the existing conditions and needs assessment, which includes relevant demographic data, existing walking and biking infrastructure, high injury bicycle and pedestrian network, and bicycle level of traffic stress analysis. This inventory and analysis of existing citywide conditions sets the stage for identifying strategic pedestrian and bicycle investments and informs the prioritization process and network recommendations presented in chapter 4. 0 llf O Dublin Population: 111 61,240 Source: US Census American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates (2015-2019) G , BIKING DAY LIVING AND WORKING IN DUBLIN This section discusses demographics and transportation data including race/ethnicity, age, gender, mode share, and worker inflow and outflow patterns. The purpose of this information is to provide background and context describing people living and working in Dublin as it relates to walking and biking. The data presented is obtained from the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), Longitudinal Employer - Household Data (LEHD) from 2017, and the American Community Survey five- year estimates (2015-2019) from the US Census. RACE & ETHNICITY The most common racial background of Dublin residents is Asian alone (49 percent) and White alone (39 percent). Approximately 6 percent of Dublin residents identify as being two or more races, and 4 percent of residents identify as Black/African American alone. Approximately 10% of Dublin residents identify as hispanic or latino/a/x. Dublin's population by race & ethnicity is illustrated in Figure 13. GENDER Dublin has an almost 50/50 split of people self reporting as females vs males. Note that American Community Survey data is not available for gender identity for the years covered by this Plan. AGE The most common ages of Dublin residents are 25-44 (40 percent) and 45-64 (24 percent). Combined, ages 25-64 make up 64 percent of the population. The Dublin population younger than 15 accounts for 24 percent of the total population, while the population over 65 makes up 9 percent. Figure 13 illustrates Dublin's population by age. ZERO -VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS When compared with the surrounding Alameda County, Dublin has a lower proportion of households without vehicles. Overall in Alameda County, 10 percent of households do not have a vehicle; in Dublin, 3 percent of households do not have a vehicle. 44 City of Dublin DRAFT 442 Figure 13. Dublin Population by Race & Ethnicity 4% BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 6% 2+ RACES 1.1 % Hispanic or Latino/a/x 39% WHITE 6.5% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 7e FILIPINO 5% — VIETNAMESE 5% — KOREAN 7% • OTHER • ORIGINS • 2% OTHER 1.6% Hispanic or Latino/a/x <1% AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 49% • ASIAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x 28% CHINESE (EXCEPT TAIWANESE) 48% ASIAN-INDIAN * 10.1 % of Dublin's population identify as hispanic or latino/a/x Figure 14. Dublin Rounded Population by Age 8% 15-24 35% 25-44 16% 5-14 El— 7% UNDER 5 9% 65+ 24% 45-65 Figure 15. Dublin Population by Gender 5 i /5 OF RESIDENTS FEMALE AND MALE 1 *gender identity data is not available DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 45 443 Figure 16. Workers by Residence and Job Location PEOPLE LIVING & PEOPLE WORKING WORKING PEOPLE LIVING IN DUBLIN IN DUBLIN IN DUBLIN 16,042 1,484 23,161 Source: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamic (LEHD), 2017. WORKERS Based on the most recent LEHD data available (2017), the net inflow and outflow of Dublin workers is the following: • 16,042 people live elsewhere and commute into Dublin • 23,161 people live in Dublin and commute elsewhere • 1,484 people live and work in Dublin Only about 6 percent of workers living in Dublin also work in Dublin. COMMUTE MODE SHARE Working Dublin residents use various modes to travel to work (see Figure 17). The commute data shown below provides a basic understanding of how people travel to and from work. However, because the data comes from the US Census —which only provides journey -to -work data for the primary mode of Figure 17. Commute Mode 67 / DROVE ALONE den, PUBLIC TRANSIT (INCLUDING 15 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (UBER, LYFT) AND TAXI) Ip CAR/TRUCK/VAN - 9 CARPOOLED I7 WORKED AT HOME 1 WALKED 1 BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE Source: US Census American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates (2015-2019). transportation —information on other trips, such as walking or biking to connect to public transit, are not represented. Approximately 76 percent of Dublin residents commute to work by car, either alone (67 percent) or in a carpool (9 percent). Public transportation is the second most popular way to commute at 15 percent. Walking represents approximately 1 percent of commute modes. Biking and riding a motorcycle each represent less than 1 percent of all commute modes. Additionally, about 7 percent of working Dublin residents worked from home. COMMUTING & COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically transformed the commuting and transportation landscape as restrictions on non- essential travel forced everyone into unplanned lifestyle changes. As we look to the future, it is unclear how COVID-19 will change commuting and teleworking patterns. Findings 46 City of Dublin DRAFT 444 from current research indicate that teleworking will increase relative to pre-COVID-19 conditions and people will be more likely to walk/bike/drive and less likely to take transit' BART STATION ACCESS There are two BART stations in Dublin: the West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station and the West Dublin BART Station. Based on the ridership data presented in BART's Station Profile Survey (2015), there were approximately 8,000 daily station entries at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and 3,700 daily station entries at the West Dublin BART Station. As shown in Figure 18, 9 percent of riders walk and 5 percent of riders bicycle to the West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station; 11 percent of riders walk and 4 percent of riders bicycle to the West Dublin BART Station. A total of 68 shared -use electronic lockers operated by BikeLink are provided at the West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station, and 56 lockers are provided at the Figure 18. Mode Split for BART Station Access in Dublin Drop off/Taxi/Other Drive alone/carpool Motorcycle/motorized scooter Transit Bicycle Walk • West Dublin Dublin/Pleasanton West Dublin BART Station. With almost 15 percent of residents using public transportation to get to work, there is an opportunity to encourage more people to walk and bike to BART. This can be accomplished by focusing on convenient, safe first -mile and last -mile connections to these stations and secure end -of -trip facilities. 24% 30% ■ 9%11% 51% 60% PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST TYPOLOGIES People have varying abilities and tendencies to walk or bike and different sensitivities to the presence and quality of transportation infrastructure based on age, gender, physical mobility, and other factors. A person's income level, race, and availability of parking can help explain their tendency to walk or bike. Source: BART Station Profile Survey (2015) 1 https.//www.kittelson.com/ideas/will-covid-l9-permanently-alter-teleworking-and-commuting-patterns-heres-what-1000-commuters-told-us/) DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 445 Pedestrian and bicyclist typologies were developed to understand the ability and propensity of people living within Dublin to walk or bike. These typologies are used to estimate the population of each walker and bicyclist type within the city's census block groups and more accurately estimate the potential for bicycle and pedestrian investments because they account for neighborhood populations rather than uniform citywide demographics. Table 3. Pedestrian Typology PEDESTRIAN TYPOLOGY The walking typology presented in Table 3 was determined based on travel behavior research and experience working on walking infrastructure. As shown in Table 3, the typology assigns walking characteristics based on age (under 14, 14-55, and over 55). For many people with disabilities and people over 55, the absence of curb ramps and presence of multi -lane crossings can be barriers to walking. Age Typology Walking Characteristics Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings 14 to 55 Teenage and Working Age Adults Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk gaps, unsignalizec crossings at major roads, and absence of midblock crossings Over 55 Aging The limits experienced by young adults and adults anc further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY The bicyclist typology, or "four types" categorization, was developed in Portland, Oregon in 2005 as an organizing principle for understanding people's relationship to bicycling for transportation as well as their concerns and needs related to bicycling.2 Based on this research, bicyclists can be placed into one of four groups based on their relationship to bicycle transportation: Figure 19. Bicyclist Typology NO WAY, NO HOW 27.6% Low Stress Tolerance No Way, No How, or Non -Bicyclists. People unwilling or unable to bicycle even if high -quality bicycle infrastructure is in place. Interested but Concerned. People willing to bicycle if high -quality bicycle infrastructure is in place. People in this type tend to prefer off-street, separated bicycle facilities or quiet residential streets; they may not bike at all if facilities do not meet their needs for perceived safety and comfort. 58.1% 10.1% SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN 2 Roger Geller, "Four Types of Cyclists," Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507. High Stress Tolerance 4.3% 48 City of Dublin DRAFT 446 Table 4. Bike Group Typology— City of Dublin Population Share of Bicyclist Type by Age Bicyclist Type Under 5 6-18 Share of Age Group 18-34 35-54 55+ Dublin adult (18+) Strong and Fearless 0% 0% 11% 2% 0% 4.1% Enthused and Confident 0% 0% 7% 12% 7% 10.3% Interested but Concerned 0% 100% 61% 59% 46% 58.1% No Way, No How 100% 0% 21% 27% 47% 27.6% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Enthused and Confident. People willing to bicycle if some bicycle -specific infrastructure is in place. People in this type generally prefer separated facilities and are also comfortable riding in bicycle lanes or on paved shoulders, if necessary. Strong and Fearless, or Highly Confident. People who are willing to bicycle alongside vehicle traffic and on roads without bike lanes. One end of the spectrum includes people who are comfortable riding with vehicle traffic, such as adult regular bike commuters. These highly confident bicyclists are willing to ride on roads with little or no bicycle infrastructure. The other end of the spectrum Source: Table developed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from data presented by Dill and McNeil includes people who are not comfortable riding with or adjacent to traffic. This group often includes children, older adults, and adults who ride infrequently. Typically, these riders prefer off-street bicycle facilities or biking on low -speed, low -volume streets. If bicycle facilities do not meet their comfort preferences, they may not to bike at all. The middle of the spectrum includes bicyclists who prefer separated facilities but are willing to ride with or adjacent to traffic when vehicle volumes and speeds are low enough and separated facilities are not provided. Table 4 shows the population share for each typology and age group. These population shares were extrapolated to the City of Dublin population to estimate the proportion of adults within the typologies illustrated in Figure 19. EXISTING WALKING AND BIKING NETWORKS This section defines the features, conditions, and types of walking and biking facilities in Dublin (Figure 20). It includes and explains maps of existing on -street bikeways, off-street paths, sidewalks, crossings, and supportive amenities and infrastructure —like walking - and biking -oriented wayfinding, bike parking, drinking fountains, and sidewalk benches. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 447 Figure 20. Existing Bicycle Network Map Dougherty Hills Open Space 1 � I Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Ail, Si GTN ST BRODER [It GLEASON DR Fallon Sports Park Existing Facility Shared Lana (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath f L_l Public Schools BART Stations Parks 50 City of Dublin DRAFT 448 TYPES OF BIKEWAYS Dublin's existing bikeway system consists of a network of bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. There are four types of bikeways as defined by chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2017). In addition, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) has adopted a set of sub- classifications for each Caltrans classification. These sub- classifications were designed to correspond with the previously existing system and to incorporate emerging facility typologies. Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road. Person riding a bike on a Class II facility separated from right -turning traffic. MULTI USE PATHS (CLASS I) Multi use paths provide a separate facility designed for the exclusive use of bicycles, pedestrians, and other non - motorized uses with minimal vehicle crossflows. Generally, bicycle paths serve corridors not served by streets or are parallel to roadways where right of way is available. These paths provide bicyclists both recreational and commute routes with minimal conflicts with other road users. Class IA Paths —Multiuse paths along a separate alignment. In Dublin, this bikeway class exists on the Iron Horse Trail and the Martin Canyon Creek Trail. Class IB Sidepaths— Sidepaths that double as sidewalks along the side of a roadway. Examples include segments along the north side of Dublin Boulevard and the west side of San Ramon Road. Diagram of typical Class IB path configuration Alamo Creek Trail, Dublin, CA. Source: City of Dublin Class IB Path on San Ramon Road, Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 449 BICYCLE LANES (CLASS II) Bicycle lanes are on -street bikeways that provide a dedicated space for the exclusive or semi -exclusive bicycle use. Through - travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited; vehicle parking and pedestrian- and motorist-crossflows are permitted. Class IIA—A conventional one-way striped bicycle lane. Class IIB—Upgraded bicycle lane with a striped buffer or green conflict markings. In Dublin, this bikeway class exists on Dublin Boulevard from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon Road and on Tassajara Road from Rutherford Drive to Fallon Road. Diagram of typical Class IIB bike lane configuration Class IIB Facility on Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, CA. Source: City of Dublin. BICYCLE ROUTES (CLASS III) Bicycle routes do not provide a dedicated space for bicycles, but instead, bikes share the lane with motorists and signs or pavement markings indicate the bike route. Class IIIA—Signage-only routes. Diagram of typical Class Class IIIB Wide curb III bike lane configuration lane or shoulder that may include signage. Class IIIC—Route with standard shared lane markings ("sharrows") that can be used to alert drivers of the shared roadway environment with bicyclists. This class of bikeway exists on Davona Drive. Class III Facility in Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 52 City of Dublin DRAFT 450 SEPARATED BICYCLE LANES (CLASS IV) Separated bicycle lanes are bicycle lanes that provide vertical separation from motorists on roadways. The separation may include grade separation, flexible posts, planters, on -street parking, or other physical barriers. These bikeways provide a greater sense of comfort and security in comparison to standard Class II bike lanes. Class IV facilities are especially relevant for high-speed or high -volume roadways. Separated bike lanes can provide one-way or two-way travel. Class IV Facility, San Diego, CA Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE In addition to the on- and off-street facilities, supporting infrastructure is essential to promote walking and biking as viable modes of transportation. Critical elements include end -of -trip facilities, such as bicycle parking, showers, and lockers. Other critical infrastructure elements include wayfinding, drinking fountains, seating, and shade. BICYCLE PARKING Secure short-term and long-term bicycle parking that can accommodate a wide range of bicycles including children's bicycles, electric bicycles, and cargo bicycles, for example, are necessary to support biking. Access to secure bicycle parking is one of the top factors determining whether someone chooses to ride a bike or not. Bike parking should be added to new developments as well as key destinations like BART New development provides key opportunities to ensure Dublin adequately provides both short- and long-term bicycle parking. Bike Parking at Dublin Library Source: City of Dublin DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 451 Currently, Dublin follows parking requirements n Section 5.106.4 of the California Green Building Code. This code states that short-term parking must be provided for five percent of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two -bike capacity rack. The bicycle parking must be anchored within 200 feet of the visitors' entrance. Long-term bike parking must be provided for new buildings with tenant spaces with 10 or more tenant -occupants, also at a 5 percent of vehicle parking space rate with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility. Short-term bicycle parking refers to traditional bike racks, which may be located on public or private property. Bike racks serve people who need to park their bikes for relatively short durations of about two hours or less. Because short- term bicycle parking does not provide additional security, locked bicycles and their accessories may be exposed to theft or vandalism. However, short-term bike racks are more numerous and conveniently located near destinations. To deter theft or vandalism, short-term parking should be within eyesight of a building or destination or located in well -traveled pedestrian areas. Dublin has short-term bicycle parking in the Downtown area as well as at many local parks and community centers. Long-term bicycle parking is the most secure form of parking and and is necessary for most workplaces, residences, transit stations, park and ride lots, and other locations where individuals park their bikes for more than a few hours or overnight. Because long-term bike parking requires more space than short-term racks, facilities may be located farther away from the ultimate destination. Long-term parking is also often more expensive due to added security and space requirements. Long- term parking can consist of bike lockers, enclosed bike cages, bike rooms, and bike stations, each of which is discussed in the following bullets. Long term parking should also support charging for e-bikes. Bike lockers are fully enclosed and generally weather -resistant spaces where a single bicycle can be parked and secured by key or electronic lock. Shared -use electronic lockers operated by BikeLink are provided at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (68 lockers) and West Dublin BART Station (56 lockers). The BikeLink system allows users to pay by the hour for use of the lockers through a membership card. Enclosed bike cages are multiple bike racks contained by a fence. The enclosure entrance is secured with a lock or key code, but within the cage, bicycles are exposed and secured to racks with personal locks. Cages can be outdoors (ideally with a roof for weather resistance) or located in building parking garages or utility rooms. Because contents are visible through the cage and bikes inside are accessible, the security of a bike cage depends on good management of access keys or codes. Bike cages are most appropriate for closed environments such as businesses, office buildings, or multi -family developments with access limited to owners, tenants, or employees. • Bike rooms are bicycle racks located within an interior locked room or a locked enclosure. Because they house bikes behind solid walls, bike rooms are more secure than bike cages, where bikes remain visible from the outside. As with bike cages, bike room security depends on access key and code management. Bike rooms are most appropriate where access is limited to owners, tenants, or employees. • Bike stations are full -service bike parking facilities that offer controlled access and other supporting services like attended parking, repairs, and retail space. Bike stations can offer services such as free valet parking, 24-hour 54 City of Dublin DRAFT 452 BikeLink lockers at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Source: Kittelson * Associates. Inc. Maintenance station on a trail. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Wayfinding signage for West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. access -controlled parking, sales of bike accessories, bike rentals, and classes. Other Infrastructure and Amenities Skateboard and Scooter Lockers should be provided at key destinations with high levels of skateboard and scooter activity like schools, transit stations, parks, and trailheads. Showers, Lockers, and Changing Rooms are important end -of -trip amenities that encourage bicycle commuting. Some places of employment in Dublin may provide showers, lockers, and changing rooms. However, the City does not inventory such facilities. The Shannon Community Center, Dublin Civic Center, and the high school and middle schools all provide showers and lockers. Maintenance Stations for bicycles should be provided throughout the city at key destinations with high levels of bicycle activity like trailheads, employment centers, transit stations, parks, and schools. Maintenance stations may include a repair stand with tools, such as screwdrivers, flat wrenches, pressure gauges, tire pumps, and other equipment, to allow people biking the opportunity to make on -the -go repairs. Wayfinding helps a high -quality bicycling and pedestrian network be easily navigable. Bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding helps residents, tourists, and visitors find key destinations. Modern, cohesive, multimodal sign plans and designs distinguish walking and bicycling routes, highlight specific destinations, and facilitate connections to and from public transit stops. Wayfinding can also define connections with popular hiking trails and regional trails. There is a need for a comprehensive wayfinding signage program in Dublin. Lighting improves safety and visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. Some routes that are convenient during the day are unusable in the dark, limiting their utility and effectiveness. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 453 Illuminating trails and sidewalks reduces the possibility of user collisions with objects or each other and makes deformities or unevenness in the surface more visible which can also prevent falls and crashes. For example, pedestrian -scale lighting improvements on Dublin Boulevard under the I-680 overpass are needed to improve visibility of people walking along the corridor. Pedestrian amenities are a critical part of pedestrian -focused design, which prioritizes safety, comfort, and quality of service. Amenities like planters, benches, drinking fountains, restrooms, and sidewalk trees all enhance a walking environment. Shared mobility allows for flexible transportation options and provides bicycles and scooters to community members who would otherwise lack access to these modes. Dublin does not currently offer shared mobility options. KEY WALKING AND BIKING DESTINATIONS The choice and ability to walk and bike to essential destinations greatly benefits community members through increased activity and improved health. Walking and biking also benefits the broader community by reducing in greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle congestion. People have varying abilities and tendencies to walk or bike based on infrastructure presence and quality. Land - use patterns that determine the distance between origins and destinations as well as the density, diversity, and intensity of uses also shape people's walking and biking habits. Key walking and biking destinations were mapped. Specific points of interest were selected for consistency with the Plan's goals to increase walking and biking mode share to school, transit, trailheads and parks, and work. These activity centers are shown in Figure 21 and include: • Schools: All public K-12 schools within Dublin Unified School District • BART: West Dublin/ Pleasanton station and Dublin/Pleasanton station • Job Centers: Seven job centers that include Dublin's largest employers and concentrations of employment • Parks: Neighborhood and community parks in Dublin Person with an e-scooter waiting to cross at Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road. Source: Kittelson & Associates. Inc. 56 City of Dublin DRAFT 454 Figure 21. Land Use, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Map Alameda County San Ramon WEST DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON We,sMliddl! Contra Costa County Parks Reserve Forces Training Area NRODER NI GLEASON DR DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON Pleasanton leanor Mur Fallon Midd Dublin Crossing goal. CANYON ND Livermore 0 I Mile 0 Shared Lane (Class III) Downtown Dublin Bike Lane (Class IIA) Employment Centers Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) . Parks Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Public Schools - Existing Class IB Sidepath BART Stations DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57 455 EXISTING PROGRAMS As shown in Table 5, the City, the school district, the Police Services, Alameda CTC, and nonprofit organizations provide numerous programs that support walking and biking in Dublin. These programs play an important role in promoting active transportation and fostering safe walking and biking in the city. The City of Dublin recognizes the critical role that programs and policies play in complementing physical infrastructure to promote walking and biking and will continue to support and broaden the reach of these existing programs. Table 5. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs Program Description Managing Department / Organization Offering Services Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Bicycle and pedestrian counts are included in the City's turning movement counts. Bike counters collect data on the Iron Horse and Alamo Canal trails. Bicycle and pedestrian count data is also provided in environmental documents and traffic studies. Traffic and Planning Safe Routes to SRTS establishes routes which maximize safety for travel to and from schools as well as educates school administrators, parents, Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) with support from Alameda CTC; several City departments, including Police, Planning, and Traffic School (SRTS) and children about vehicle, bike, and pedestrian safety. Bicycle Rodeo Dublin Police Services has a Bicycle Safety Program, which is offered to elementary schools in Dublin. The program supports safe bicycle riding and challenges students' riding abilities in a safe and controlled environment. Dublin Police Services promotes bicycling by educating students Police and Safety Program about riding safely and properly. Adult School Crossing guards help children safely cross the street at key locations on the way to school. Crossing guards set an example of how to safely cross the street, and they may help parents feel more comfortable allowing their children to walk or bike to school. Police and Traffic Crossing Guards 58 City of Dublin DRAFT 456 Program Description Managing Department / Organization Offering Services National Bike Sponsored by the City, National Bike Month activities encourage people to bike during the month of May. Promoted events include cycling workshops, classes, and giveaways. The City also sponsors Bike to Work (or Wherever) Day, which provides energizer stations and self -guided rides, and Bike to Market Day, which rewards bicyclists with "carrot cash" to use at the Dublin Farmers' Market. Traffic and Environmental Programs Month Activities Walk and Roll to During October, Walk and Roll to School Week encourages the Dublin community to walk, bike, skate, and ride scooters to school. Dublin schools celebrate walking and bicycling with promotional assemblies, walking school buses and bike trains, DUSD, Traffic School Week giveaways, and prizes. Dublin's participation is partially funded by Measure B/BB. Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Workshops The City hosts biannual bicycle and pedestrian workshops to share information about new bicycle and pedestrian projects and solicit feedback on current and future pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Traffic Traffic Safety The City's Traffic Safety Committee — comprised of representatives from Dublin Police Services' traffic unit, Public Works' transportation staff, and City maintenance staff —meets monthly to discuss public comments on potential traffic safety issues and to recommend appropriate actions. Common inquiries include requests for traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds, stop sign installations, and new signs and pavement markings. Police, Traffic, Maintenance Committee Program Description Managing Department / Organization Offering Services Community Rides and Bike Clubs Community rides help build both community and physical skills among new and continuing riders. They provide a guided pathway for new bicyclists to gain confidence riding and navigating the city on a bike. Regular rides foster community among riders, especially for youth looking for physical and creative outlets outside of school. During school, nonprofit organizations also lead bike clubs at middle and high schools, where staff provide bikes and safety gear and take students on group adventure rides. Community rides can be offered to the entire community or geared to women, queer -identifying, or other less - likely -to -ride demographics that are better served by a safe space that celebrates and empowers rider identity. Cycles of Change, Bay Area Outreach and Recreation Program, Bike East Bay Bike Education Classes One or more sessions, bike education classes teach riders bike safety, bike mechanics, theft prevention, and other useful skills. Youth Bike Rodeos, Bike Mechanics Classes, Adult Bike Safety Classes, and Family Biking Workshops are a few examples of the variety of different bicycle classes offered by nonprofit organizations. Cycles of Change, Bike East Bay DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 457 BARRIERS TO WALKING AND BIKING Barriers to a safe and comfortable walking and biking network in Dublin take many forms, including • High -stress streets with multiple vehicle travel lanes, high vehicle volumes, high vehicle speeds, and lack of separation between vehicles and other modes. • Conflicts between bicyclists and turning or merging vehicles at intersections and interchanges. • Linear barriers such as the two major state highway system facilities (Interstate 680 and Interstate 580) that have limited and poorly - designed crossings for people walking and biking. • Long crossing distances and limited street connectivity (e.g., cul-de- sacs and long block lengths) for people walking. • Lack of east -west connectivity that limits route options for people walking and biking and forces travel along high -stress arterials like Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard. "This stretch is scary for bicycling when the lane disappears with lots of traffic." community member "A person in a wheel chair or a parent with a stroller can't safety navigate the sidewalk." community member Incomplete or broken sidewalks, inadequate sidewalk widths, missing or outdated curb ramp designs, and a limited number of accessible pedestrian signals. These conditions discourage walking and biking and can increase stress and discomfort for those who choose to walk and roll. This discussion of barriers has two key parts: first, a discussion of safety barriers based on bicyclist and pedestrian collision statistics and citywide high - injury networks; and second, a discussion of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity based on the bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis and pedestrian crossing opportunities analysis. VEHICLE SPEED & SAFETY As vehicle speeds increase, the risk of serious injury or fatality also increase. Increased speeds also reduce the driver's visual field and peripheral vision. Managing and reducing vehicle speeds is imperative to achieving safer streets. 60 City of Dublin DRAFT 458 Figure 22. Influence of Vehicle Speed on Driver's Cone of Vision & Pedestrian Survival Rates Higher speeds affect a driver's ability to perceive, focus on, and react to things in their line of vision. 15 mph 20 mph Higher speeds decrease the chance that a pedestrian will survive a crash. Souce: Tefft, 2013 75% of pedestrians will SURVIVE a crash at 32 mph. 30 mph 40 mph f* If 50 % of pedestrians will SURVIVE a crash at 42 mph. pedestrians will SURVIVE a crash at 50 mph. Based on the Local Road Safety Analysis, which evaluates all collisions on local roads within the City of Dublin between 2016 and 2020: • Pedestrian collisions account for 28 percent of all fatal and serious injury collisions in the City —that is more than 10 percent higher than the state average. A disproportionate share of fatal and serious injury — including pedestrian collisions —occur in dusk/dawn or dark conditions. COLLISION ANALYSIS Pedestrian and bicyclist collision data from 2014 to 2019 from local police reports and the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System capture safety trends citywide. This section describes the location, severity, circumstances, and timing of collisions involving people walking and biking. Findings from this analysis will help determine streets to prioritize to make it safer for people walking and biking. • • COLLISION TRENDS Available variables in the 25% of collision data helped identify citywide trends. Pedestrian and bicycle collisions were analyzed separately based on the following characteristics: • Lighting conditions • Location characteristics (specifically intersection versus segment collisions) • Primary collision factors cited by reporting officers • Age and perceived gender of people walking and biking involved in collisions The small size of each dataset-68 bicycle collisions and 81 pedestrian collisions over six years —limits the ability to find statistically valid trends. However, even with these limitations, the analysis revealed several patterns that reflect conditions in Dublin. LOCATION Table 6 and Table 7 present pedestrian and bicycle collisions based on location and severity. Intersection collisions are those reported to have occurred within a 250-foot intersection influence area —all others are considered segment collisions. A majority of both pedestrian and bicycle collisions happened at intersections, where there are more conflicts with motor vehicle traffic than at other locations along roadways. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 459 Table 6. Pedestrian Collisions by Location and Severity Fatal and Location Severe Injury Collisions Other Total Reported Share of Total Collisions Collisions Reported Intersection 11 63 74 91% Segment 1 6 7 9% Total Reported 12 69 81 100% Table 7. Bicycle Collisions by Location and Severity Fatal and Location Severe Injury Collisions Other Total Reported Share of Total Collisions Collisions Reported Intersection Segment 2 1 50 15 52 16 76% 24% Total Reported 3 65 68 100% Figure 23. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Lighting Conditions 70 60 50 m g 4Q LL G 30 o 20 u 10 0 7E3 Daylight 14t 13% a% 4t Dark - Street Lights Dusk- Dawn • Pedestrian Collisions • Bicycle Collisions 1, Dark- No Street Dark- Street Lights Lights Not Functioning Lighting Conditions NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database. Lighting Lighting conditions are an important factor for pedestrian and bicyclist visibility and personal security by enabling people to see each other. Figure 23 presents pedestrian and bicycle collisions by lighting conditions. The majority of bicycle and pedestrian collisions occurred in daylight conditions. All reported fatal and severe - injury bicycle collisions occurred in daylight conditions. When collisions occurred in dark conditions, they happened primarily under streetlights. Primary Collision Factors Primary collision factors (PCFs) are provided in the data and aggregated based on the section of the California Vehicle Code that the reporting officer records. For bicycle collisions, the PCFs were • Automobile right of way violation (26 percent of collisions), which indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes regarding a failure to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. This action may come from either the bicyclist or motorist involved. • Improper turning (16 percent of collisions), which indicates a motorist committed a hazardous violation while turning. • Other hazardous movement (12 percent of collisions), an aggregated violation category that indicates a hazardous movement on the part of either the bicyclist or motorist involved. The PCFs cited most frequently for pedestrian collisions were • Pedestrian right of way violation (27 percent of collisions), which indicates a driver violated a pedestrian's right of way. • Other improper driving (20 percent of collisions) represents an aggregation of motorist violations. • Automobile right of way violation (14 percent of collisions), which indicates 62 City of Dublin DRAFT 460 one of several California Vehicle Violation codes regarding a failure to yield right of way to oncoming traffic. This action may come from either the pedestrian or motorist involved. • Pedestrian violation (6 percent of collisions), which indicates a pedestrian violated laws regarding right of way. Age of Parties Involved Figure 24 compares the ages of people walking or biking involved in collisions to Dublin's population. Age data was only available for 76 percent of pedestrians and for 63 percent of bicyclists involved in collisions. This comparison reveals that people aged 15-24 are overrepresented in bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Although they make up just eight percent of the city's population, people in this age group represent 25 percent and 18 percent of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in collisions. Similarly, people aged 45-64 are underrepresented among pedestrian and bicyclist collisions (at 12 percent each), despite making up 25 percent of Dublin's population. Gender of Parties Involved Additionally, gender was recorded by the reporting officer for 78 percent of bicyclists involved in collisions and for 59 percent of pedestrians. Available data reveals that men represented approximately 60 percent of pedestrians involved in collisions and 83 percent of bicyclists involved in collisions. HIGH -INJURY NETWORK An analysis of the citywide roadway network was conducted to identify a set of bicycle and pedestrian high -injury streets, together called a high - injury network (HIN). This HIN constitutes the worst - performing segment locations based on collision severity and frequency of collisions involving people walking and biking. Figure 24. Age of Parties Involved in Collisions 0 c 0 N 40% 35% 30% - 25% Q 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 18% 8% Under5 29% 16`. 5-14 years old 35% 8% 9% 4% I ■ 15-24 years old 25-44 years old 45-64 years old 65+years old • Pedestrians Involved • Bicyclists Involved • Dublin Population Share (63% age reported) (76% age reported) NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database. "Every time I cross here, I almost get hit by a car trying to enter the freeway." community member DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 461 Figure 25. Pedestrian High -Injury Network Map San Rar.._ Alameda County Contra Costa County QP SpDcs ore !` Dougherty Open Space Parks Reserve Forces Training AreaFallon CD4C Plaza 'bon Biddle LT' o NDJeUN BRI GH TON OR �/ a 1 BTH s� BRODER BL J TiR Si MADDEN WY GLEASON DR Pleasanton 62 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred on 4 percent of Dublin's roads (8.4 miles) 71 percent of the pedestrian high injury streets has four or more vehicle through lanes Mile 0 Pedestrian High Injury Network 64 City of Dublin DRAFT 462 Figure 26. Bicycle High -Injury Network Map San Ramon Alameda County Dougherty Hills Open Space Civic Plaza Contra Costa County Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ]STH si rH Si sc HORIZON PW o o 0 'ion Biddle c a Park DUBLIN BL sCABIE,TRrWI Pleasanton GLEASON OR pfg Emerald Glen Park CENTIBB L P W ryO4THSLDE DR QP SNocs ore 0 Livermore Mile 0 62 percent of bicycle collisions occurred on 3.5 percent of Dublin's roads (6.7 miles) 88 percent of the bicycle high injury streets has four or more vehicle through lanes Bicycle High Injury Network DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 463 Table 8. High Injury Streets Roadway Extents Pedestrian High Injury Streets Amador Valley Boulevard I-680 to Burton St. Arnold Road I-580 to Dublin Blvd. Bent Tree Drive Fallon Rd to Sugar Hill Terr. Burton Street Amador Valley Blvd. to Tamarack Dr. Dublin Boulevard Hansen Dr. to Grafton St. Hacienda Drive I-580 to Dublin Blvd. Regional Street Southern extents to Amador Valley Blvd. Tamarack Drive Canterbury Ln. to Brighton Dr. Tassajara Road Dublin Blvd. to Gleason Dr. Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to Davona Dr. Amador Valley Boulevard Total Bicycle Mileage: 8.4 miles High Injury Street San Ramon Rd. to Penn Dr. Dublin Boulevard Silvergate Dr. to Myrtle Dr. Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to City Limits (N) Total Mileage: 6.7 miles 66 percent of bicycle collisions and 66 percent of pedestrian collisions occur on just 10 percent of streets in the City. High Injury Streets Table 8 provides the extents of each high injury street along with the total mileage (measured as centerline miles). HIGH INJURY NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS • 62 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred on 4 percent (8.4 miles) of Dublin's roads. • 62 percent of the city's bicycle collisions occurred on 3.5 percent (6.7 miles) of Dublin's roads. Dublin's pedestrian and bicycle HINs overlap for many of their segments. About 10 miles or just over 5 percent of Dublin's roadways appear in either the bicycle HIN, pedestrian HIN, or both. This means that 66 percent of Dublin's bicycle collisions and 66 percent of its pedestrian collisions occur on just 10 percent of streets in the city. Key Characteristics of the Pedestrian HIN • Approximately 40 percent of the pedestrian HIN has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Additionally, 32 percent of the HIN mileage consists of roads with speed limits of 40 or 45 miles per hour. The remainder of the HIN has speed limits of 25 or 30 miles per hour. • Approximately 55 percent of the pedestrian HIN consists of roads classified as arterial roads; the remaining roads are collector or residential streets. • Approximately 47 percent of the HIN has five or six vehicular through lanes. Another 24 percent of the network has four vehicular through lanes. The remainder of the HIN consists of roads with two or three lanes. 66 City of Dublin DRAFT 464 Key Characteristics of the Bicycle HIN • Approximately 78 percent of the bicycle HIN mileage consists of roads with speed limits of 35 or 45 miles per hour. The remainder of the HIN has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. • The bicycle HIN is nearly evenly divided between arterial and collector roadways, with 54 and 46 percent, respectively. • Approximately 88 percent of the HIN has four or more vehicular through lanes. BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS LTS METHODOLOGY People on bikes are vulnerable street users. The presence of any one of several factors can make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable. Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) measures the stress imposed on bicyclists by a road segment or crossing.' The LTS methodology was used to classify Dublin's intersections and on -street roadway and path segments as one of four levels of traffic stress. Classifications range from LTS 1 to LTS 4, with 1 being the most comfortable/ least stressful and 4 being least comfortable/most stressful. ON -STREET ROADWAY SEGMENT LTS METHODOLOGY The on -street roadway segment LTS methodology provides criteria for three bicycle facility types: bike lanes alongside a parking lane, bike lanes not alongside a parking lane, and mixed traffic (i.e., no bike lanes present). On -street roadway segment LTS analysis considers several factors that affect bicyclist comfort, including the number of vehicle travel lanes, vehicle Figure 27. Roadway Characteristics Used to Calculate Bicycle LTS NUMBER OF LANES PRESENCE & WIDTH OF BIKE LANES - 0 0 . trik311 SPEED OF TRAFFIC 1-01-"?". PRESENCE & WIDTH OF PARKING + BIKE LANES volume, vehicle speed, presence and width of bike lanes, presence and width of parking lanes, and presence and type of separation between the bike lane and vehicle travel lanes (see Figure 27). Path LTS Methodology The path LTS methodology was created to account for the various design factors that affect quality of service and bicyclists' NUMBER OF VEHCILES PRESENCE & PHYSICAL BARRIER BETWEEN BIKE LANES & VEHICULAR TRAFFIC stress on the Class IA paths and Class IB sidepaths in Dublin. The analysis considers segment characteristics, including path width, shoulder width and separation, and wayfinding. The analysis also considers intersection/crossing elements, such as traffic control, crossing distance, geometric elements, pavement markings, and signage. 3 This report uses an on -street LTS methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) and documented in the Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity report published in 2012. This methodology was further refined by Dr. Peter Furth of Northeastern University in 2017. See Mekuria, Mazza C., "Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity" (2012), All Mineta Transportation Institute Publications., Book 4. http://scholarworks.sjsu. edu/mti_a11/4 and http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/, specifically "Version 2.0," published in June 2017. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 465 Crossing LTS Methodology A crossing LTS analysis was conducted for street and path intersections located along high -stress facilities (segments that scored LTS 3 or LTS 4) since it is likely that the characteristics of a high -stress segment can affect the bicyclist experience when crossing from a low -stress street. The crossing methodology analyzes intersections and crossings for the following situations: • Intersection approaches for pocket bike lanes (bike lanes that are to the left of a dedicated right -turn vehicle lane) • Intersection approaches for mixed traffic in the presence of right -turn lanes • Intersection crossings for unsignalized crossings without a median refuge • Intersection crossings for unsignalized crossings with a median refuge These situations do not describe all crossing circumstances. For example, in Dublin, many Class I facilities cross at signalized intersections. These situations are covered in the path LTS methodology. LTS RESULTS The LTS analysis was conducted using a spatial database with inputs obtained through a combination of field review, Google Earth aerial review, and City input. Assumptions were applied to fill data gaps where necessary. The on -street and path LTS results, presented together on Figure 28, illustrate citywide bicycle level of traffic stress and network connectivity. To simplify the level of detail shown, the directionality of the on -street LTS has been suppressed. Each on -street segment is displaying its highest (i.e., worst) LTS value. Refer to appendix C for the full set of LTS maps, including directional LTS. • On -Street Level of Traffic Stress. Low -stress streets in Dublin are typically local residential roads without dedicated bicycle facilities where vehicle speeds and volumes are low. Higher stress streets are often arterial roads like Dublin Boulevard, which are less comfortable for bicyclists, due to the relatively higher vehicular speeds, higher traffic volumes, and the number of vehicle travel lanes. These higher stress streets present barriers to low -stress travel where they intersect with low -stress facilities and create islands isolated by high -stress segments and crossings. • Path LTS. Class IA multiuse paths most frequently score an LTS 2 given their width, shoulder, and wayfinding presence. Class IB side paths frequently score an LTS 3 with no wayfinding present along their segments. Path crossings vary, but they rarely exceed LTS 3 except at intersection crossings with high speeds, high volumes, and no crossing markings or signage. Although path LTS values were assessed for every path crossing location, only crossings with scores lower than their connecting path segments are mapped in the results. In other words, the mapped crossings are those which degrade the neighboring segment path LTS. • Low Stress Islands. Figure 29 presents Dublin's network of low -stress facilities and highlights where gaps and islands exist. Fallon Road, Tassajara Road, San Ramon Road, and Dublin Boulevard are prime examples of low -stress gaps in the on -street network. In Dublin, most streets are residential streets. Nearly all of those streets (98 percent) are low stress because of their low speeds and volumes. With generally higher speeds and volumes, 68 City of Dublin DRAFT 466 Figure 28. On Street and Path LTS Combined Map Alameda County Pleasanton Contra Costa County 0 Mile 0 Path LTS Scores On -Street LTS Shared Use Path (Class IA) Sidepaths (Class iB) Path Crossings LTS1 LTS1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 1 • LTS 1 LTS 2 • LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 3 LTS 4 • LTS 4 DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 467 Figure 29. Low Stress Islands Map Pleasanton Contra Costa County On -Street LTS 1 2 Shared Use LLIER CANYON RO Livermore 1 Mile 0 Class IB Path (Class IA) Sidepath LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 70 City of Dublin DRAFT 468 collector and arterial roadways are higher stress for bicyclists unless they have appropriate facilities. Only 37 percent of collectors and 7 percent of arterials in Dublin are low stress (see Figure 30). Many businesses and services are located on or near collectors, and these desintations can only be accessed with some travel along or across the collectors or arterials. The goal of planning and designing a low -stress bicycle facility network is to enable people of all ages and abilities to feel safe and comfortable riding bicycles throughout the city. These LTS findings are useful for determining and locating appropriate low -stress bicycle facilities in the city. Dublin's extensive network of low -speed and low -volume local neighborhood streets already create a backbone for a low -stress biking network; however, these streets are isolated pockets throughout the city and remain separated by high -stress Figure 30. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification LOW STRESS STREETS HIGH STRESS STREETS 11 0 30 Ar Cc Re terial Streets llector Streets sidential Streets 60 90 120 150 Miles *Miles does not include paths. arterial and collector streets. By enhancing low -stress streets and adding separated bicycle facilities on targeted segments of higher -speed and higher - volume collectors and arterials, Dublin can support a more connected, low -stress bicycle network that better serves key destinations throughout the city. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe crossing opportunities can create barriers to walking by requiring people to go out of their way to avoid the gap or by forcing people to walk in the street and increase their exposure to vehicle traffic. The current barriers to walking are mapped in Figure 31. "You can't use the sidewalk without tripping on a jagged piece of concrete." community member DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 469 Figure 31. Pedestrian Crossing Barriers Map San Ramon Alamedalk County DUBLIN BL • • Dougherty Hills T Open Space 1\\ • Contra Costa County Parks Reserve Forces Training Area 8TH ST /TM ST BRODER BL QO� • `�/ ® �GLEASONpB 1• P,,AP• I \\\0 6TH ST —/' • o• \ rvoR¢oN Pw /Emerald /*ORK U / a- �9P _ I F, - ' Glen Pork / W \��on Biddle ?��� CENTm LPW o / \\Park G —/ I O S8ERRP 0 oue IN BL r,d-_ro_ o 0 Civic Plaza -:...z`Sy�RLETr CT I Pleasanton ;r OYi r / 'eMH/A ADDEN wv ° O ^ Fallon d Sports •=_. i Park COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 A Major street barrier - signal with no major street Roadways/Paths crossings - Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street) ® Major street barrier -- all -way stop, no marked crossings Paths • Major street barrier - side -street stop control Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at Not a barrier - full accessibility nodes - Sidewalk gap on major road • Not a barrier- RRFB 72 City of Dublin DRAFT 470 WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS The ability of people to walk or bike to key walking and biking destinations was analyzed to estimate existing access to key destinations. This analysis was used to identify barriers in the existing network and highlight locations where investments would have the greatest potential to close gaps in the network and increase access and mode share. The share of the Dublin population that could be expected to walk or bike to each activity center was estimated based on pedestrian and bicyclist typology, distance to the destination, and the quality of available infrastructure. These estimates of walk and bike access were determined by four inputs: • Demographic data: Dublin residents were grouped into walking and biking typology groups based on age. Groups exhibit different propensities to walk or bike and respond differently to supportive infrastructure. • Network distance to destination: The analysis assumed that people used the shortest available route to get to the destinations • Barriers and impediments: For walking, uncontrolled crossings of major roads were identified as blocking or impeding an available walking route. For biking, a high LTS score (3 or 4) blocks or impedes available routes. Barriers block access and require a different route; impediments increase the perceived travel distance, which decreases the likelihood of walking or biking. Populations experience barriers and impediments differently. For example, uncontrolled crossings of major roads can create inaccessible routes for young children and older adults, but are merely inconvenient for teenagers and adults who are more likely to be able to cross. Pedestrian and bicyclist typologies were used to capture such differences in experiences. • Mode share data: Kittelson used data from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), BART station profile surveys, the American Community Survey (ACS), and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) mode share surveys to estimate the percentage of people walking and biking and the relationship between mode share and destination distance. The percentage of the population estimated to walk or bike varies based on the perceived distance to the destination. For example, more people walk for a half - mile trip than a one -mile trip. The analysis was conducted using a four -step process illustrated in Figure 32. WALKING AND BIKING DEMAND ANALYSIS PROCESS The methodology analyzes existing walking and biking access to key destinations using historical travel pattern and count data, demographic data, and infrastructure data. This analysis did not consider other factors that influence mode choice decisions like access or ability to ride a bicycle, income and wealth, disability, and trip chaining characteristics. This analysis indicates the magnitude of existing and potential latent demand for walking and biking based on a set of informed assumptions about the known relationship between infrastructure and mode choice. Existing demand is summarized in this section, and the detailed methodology and outcomes are presented in appendix D. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 471 Figure 32. Walking and Biking Demand Analysis Process 01 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS Categorize population into walking and biking typologies at Census • block level 02 POPULATION ASSIGNMENT TO BUILDINGS : Assign and : apportion : population : by typology : to residential = buildings WALK ACCESS 03 NETWORK ANALYSIS •. Calculate :network •. distance to :points of :interest and :percieved •. distance :based on :infrastructure •. factors and 04 AGGREGATE RESULTS • Using a distance/ mode split lookup table, estimate the mode share to points of interest. Calibrate based on :walking and ; existing mode split :biking typology : and travel data • Schools: Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary, and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated walk shares with around 36 percent of students living within walking distance. Other elementary schools similarly exhibit high estimated walk shares, due in part to the localized nature of their student population compared to middle and high schools. • Transit: Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/Pleasanton or West Dublin BART stations. Over 40 percent of Dublin residents live more than two miles from either BART station. • Job Centers: The walk share estimates range from 4 to 9 percent for each job center. The limited walkability of these sites is largely the result of the distance between the employment and residential uses. • Parks and Open Space: Access for each resident was determined by the nearest City park. The analysis measured perceived distance to any park for each resident rather than to a specific park. Almost 25 percent of Dublin residents live within one - eighth of a mile from a park, and 62 percent of residents live within a one -mile perceived walking distance of a park. Figure 33. Walk Access Walk Access for Adults to BART Access Distance - - 0- 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Youth Walk Access to Cottonwood Creek School y�Y Pea.o,ton Walk Access to BART for Youth, Older Adults, and People with Disabilities Parks * BART Access - Sidewalk gap on major road - Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Aamon Note: Full side graphics are included in the appendix. 74 City of Dublin DRAFT 472 Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles BIKE ACCESS • Schools: Access points to Dublin High, Frederiksen Elementary, Murray Elementary, and Wells Middle School are provided on high -stress streets (streets with LTS scores of 3 or 4). High -stress streets create an access barrier and reduce the propensity of students to bike to school. Amador Elementary and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated bike share with 14 percent of students having low - stress bicycle access. Figure 34. Bike Access to BART Bike access to BART for (left to right) "interested but concerned", "enthused and confident" and "strong and fearless" riders. Illustrates the barriers to access for the "interested and concerned" group, Dublin's largest population of bicyclists. Note: Full size graphics are included in the appendix. BART access points - 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles • Transit: Based on the bicyclist typology and available infrastructure, approximately 12 percent of Dublin residents have a bike route matching their stress tolerance and can access one of the two BART stations within an approximately 15-minute ride at a 10-mile per hour pace. Less than one percent of interested and concerned bicyclists have a low -stress bicycle route to BART. Bike access to BART for "interested but concerned" • Job Centers: The share of population with an available and acceptable bicycle route varies from 18 percent to 37 percent; the resulting bike mode share estimates range between 1 and 3 percent for each job center. Limitations to bicycle access at these sites is primarily the result of being located on major arterials, which are typically high -stress streets. Bike access to BART for "enthused and confident" • Parks and Open Space: Access for each resident was determined by the nearest City park. The analysis measured perceived distance to any park for each resident rather than to a specific park. In Dublin, 42 percent of Dublin residents have an acceptable bicycle route to a park. Nearly 40 percent have no available low -stress route, and the remaining residents would not choose to bike if a low - stress route were available. Bike access to BART for "strong and fearless" DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 473 4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS This chapter presents the recommended citywide bicycle and pedestrian networks. These networks represent the City's vision for walking and biking infrastructure in Dublin, with new and improved facilities to create safe and comfortable connections to key destinations for users of all ages and abilities. Public feedback and findings from the existing conditions assessment, high -injury network, bicycle level of traffic stress, pedestrian connectivity, and demand analysis contributed to developing the recommended network shown in Figure 35. NETWORK DEVELOPMENT The network was developed in three phases: • Phase 1: Network Framework • Phase 2: Network Evaluation • Phase 3: Network Refinement The following sections describe the process and outputs of each phase. PHASE 1: NETWORK FRAMEWORK The active transportation network framework includes a variety of sources of data and information including community feedback, related plans and projects, existing conditions and needs analysis, and evaluation of destinations and barriers documented in the preceding chapters. PHASE 2: NETWORK EVALUATION The Plan's vision includes creating a safe and comfortable walking and biking network that can be enjoyed by all. Ultimately, the goal of the low -stress network is to enable a wider cross section of the city's population to feel comfortable and safe while making trips by bike and on foot. With the vision of an all ages and abilities active transportation system in mind, criteria from the Federal Highway Administration's Bikeway Selection Guide were used to select initial low -stress facility recommendations for all streets in Dublin. These initial recommendations will help the largest segment of the population to feel comfortable while walking and biking (see Figure 35). Speed and volume roadway operational characteristics were used to determine the appropriate low -stress bicycle facility type. The identified facility types should be considered a minimum. In cases where more space is available, the City will increase the level of separation between people driving and people biking. "Bike lanes and separate pedestrian path are great" community member DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Figure 35. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities Parks Reserve Forces Training Area RTH ST 7TH ST bTH ST HORIZON P PRODEP • • . .. ryo�ry'/STDE DR b II Mile 0 Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks, buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure, high -visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements. Refer to Table 6 for detailed project descriptions. Proposed Point Project • Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Projer• Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) t t Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath kid Schools BART Stations Parks ity of D DRAFT 476 Figure 36. Preferred Bikeway Type 10k 9k 8k 7k 6k 5k 4k 3k 2k 1k 0 Notes Shared Lane or Bike Boulevard 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 SPEED MILES PER HOUR 1 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed. 2 Advisory bike lanes may be an option where traffic volume is <3K ADT. 3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible. Source: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Bikeway Selection Guide, FHWA-SA-19-077, February 2019, https:// safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf. "Would love to see separated bike lanes with street trees and widened sidewalks." community member PHASE 3: NETWORK REFINEMENT Once the low -stress facility was determined, a high- level feasibility assessment of each corridor was conducted to evaluate the potential implications of installing the low -stress facility. For example, assessments considered whether vehicle parking or vehicle travel lanes would need to be removed to install a low -stress facility. For locations where implementation of the all ages and abilities low - stress facility would be more challenging, potential parallel routes were sought to provide similar quality of access as the constrained corridor. Constrained or challenging corridors were identified and recommended for further evaluation as part of a complete streets study. The resulting project list was refined to address feedback from City staff, TAC, BPAC, and community members. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 477 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS COMPLETE STREET APPROACH A Complete Street approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, and pedestrian - supportive investments are included in each corridor and crossing project and transit -supportive elements will be further considered along transit corridors as part of design development. The following list illustrates the range of treatments that may be applied to corridor and crossing projects: • Advance yield markings • Curb extensions • Median refuges or crossing islands • Centerline hardening4 • Intersection daylightings • Narrow vehicle travel lanes • Traffic control modifications (e.g., stop sign, signal) • Signal timing and phasing modifications (e.g., restrict right turn on red) 4 Centerline Hardening. A left -turn traffic -calming treatment that features a vertical element, such as a bollard, rubber curb, or concrete curb installed along the centerline at intersection departures to force drivers to approach the turn at a steeper angle and slower speed. 5 Intersection Daylighting. A strategy to increase visibility at intersections by prohibiting parking (e.g., installing red painted curb) at least 20 feet in advance of a crossing. • Sidewalk widening • Added or upgraded bike facility The project recommendations are presented as a package, with concurrent improvements to support all three active and sustainable travel modes. CORRIDOR PROJECTS Corridor projects were identified on high -stress roadways that represented barriers to walking and biking. Recommended corridor projects are summarized in Table 9 and presented by location in Table 10. Table 9. Project Type by Length Project Type Miles Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepaths (Class IB) Path (Class IA) Speed Reduction Evaluation Total 12.4 3.1 17.0 10.4 4.9 7.9 1.3 56.8* * Corridor projects are not double counted in this total if they represent multiple project types, like speed reduction and buffered bike lanes. City of Dublin DRAFT Table 10. Recommend Projects by Location Project ID Project Location From Project Description • SEGMENT PROJECTS S-1 Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 Gleason Drive Hacienda Drive Dublin Boulevard Arnold Road Arnold Road Brannigan Street Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Southern City Limits Scarlett Drive Dublin Boulevard Gleason Drive Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Tassajara Road Altamirano Ave Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit; if speeds are not lowered, as a future phase provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 Grafton Street Tassajara Road, Dougherty Road, an Hacienda Drive Kohnen Way Southern City Limits Tassajara Road Village Parkway North Dublin Ranch Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Antone Way Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping Dublin Boulveard Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings Rutherford Drive Northern City Limits Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways S-11 Village Parkway S-12 Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard Palisades Drive North Dublin Ranch Drive Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide a Class IV or Class I facility Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81 479 Project ID Project Location Project Descriptio S-13 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-14 Amador Valley Boulevard Stagecoach Road Dougherty Road Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-15 Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern City Limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7. S-16 S-17 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive San Ramon Road Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive Western extent Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-18 Fallon Road Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern city limits Tassajara Road Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. S-19 Gleason Drive Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. S-20 Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension S-21 Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive Northern City Limits Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities S-22 S-23 S-24 Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Dougherty Road As recommended in the 2014 plan, upgrade to separated Class I facilities providing sufficient space to reduce conflicts between people walking and biking; evaluate opportunities to improve walkability by reducing obstructions; enhance median and lighting along Dublin Boulevard under I-680; improve sidewalk connection across commercial driveway and at bus stop (east of Regional Street); add pedestrian -scale lighting under I-680 Overpass. Install barrier in median underneath overcrossing to prohibit pedestrian crossings. Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Fallon Road Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment 82 City of Dublin DRAFT Project ID Project Locatio Project Descriptio S-25 S-26 Central Parkway Tassajara Road Fallon Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Various locations: N Dublin Ranch Drive, S Dublin Ranch Drive, Hansen Drive, Starward Drive, San Sabana Road, Southwick Drive, Hibernia Drive, Donohue Drive, Keegan Street, Peppertree Road, Madden Way, Kohnen Way, York Drive, Maple Drive, Inspiration Drive, and Vomac Road Study opportunities, create designs, and implement traffic calming and signs to create Class III Bikeways along the identified roadways S-27 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-28 John Monego Court Dublin Boulevard Southern extent Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-29 Sierra Lane Sierra Court Dougherty Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-30 York Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Poplar Way Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-31 Hibernia Drive Dublin Boulevard Summer Glen Drive Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-32 Shannon Avenue Vomac Road Peppertree Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-33 Glynnis Rose Drive Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-34 Central Parkway 500' west of Croak Road Croak Road Extend bike lanes and sidepaths along Central Parkway to Croak Road S-35 Croak Road/Volterra Drive Volterra Court Dublin Boulevard If Croak Road is improved south of S Terracina Drive, add low stress bicycle facilities based on anticipated speeds, volumes, and FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommendations S-36 Central Parkway Iron Horse Parkway Tassajara Road Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-37 Gleason Drive Fallon Road Brannigan Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-38 Amador Plaza Road Southern Extent Amador Valley Boulevard Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-39 Silvergate Drive San Ramon Road Peppertree Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-40 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-41 Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive Central Parkway Northern City Limits Improve wayfinding and signage for parallel path on east side; restripe to upgrade Class IIA facilities to Class IIB facilities S-42 Lockhart Street Gleason Drive Add a Class IIB bike lane where no bike lane currently exists or improve adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan S-43 Stagecoach Road Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-44 Sierra Ct Dublin Boulevard Northern extent Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-45 Amador Valley Boulevard Village Parkway Stagecoach Road Upgrade from Class IIA to Class IIB Bicycle Lane S-46 Bent Tree Drive Fallon Road East Sugar Hill Terrace Restripe to a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-47 Hacienda Drive Gleason Road Dublin Boulevard As a follow up to S-3, evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility S-48 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-49 S-50 Hacienda Drive San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7. Southern city limits Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, and conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment S-51 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. S-52 Clark Ave/Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Upgrade from Class IIB to Class IV Bicycle Lane S-53 Martinelli Way and Iron Horse Parkway BART Station on Iron Horse Parkway Hacienda Drive Add Class I facilities on both sides of the road on Martinelli Way and support the Class I facilities by adding signage, wayfinding, and crossing improvements at the intersections; connect to the BART Station by providing continuous Class I or Class IIA facilities along Iron Horse Parkway. S-54 Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard Add bike lanes with the implementation of the Golden Gate extension project TRAIL PROJECTS T 1 Iron Horse Regional Trail Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to create park space and trail access and connectivity improvements T-2 Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road T-3 East of Tassajara approximately 500 ft Dublin Boulevard Central Parkway With development, add Class I connection between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road T-4 Dublin Creek Trail Amador Plaza Road San Ramon Road Add trail connection along Dublin Creek along the Zone 7 channel, to connect at San Ramon Road T-5 San Ramon Bike Path Shannon San Ramon Bike Path Create connection to Shannon Community Center from the San Ramon Bike Path Community Center T-6 Alamo Canal Trail Dublin High School and Village Parkway Alamo Canal Trail between Cedar Lane and Ebensburg Lane Add Class I facility along east side of Village to connect to the Alamo Canal Trail T-7 Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road Village Parkway As recommended in the 2014 plan, widen existing sidewalk and add signing and striping treatments to create a shared use path on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. T 8 Alamo Canal Trail/ Civic Plaza Village Parkway/ Clark Avenue Alamo Canal Trail Add a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the canal to create Class I connection between Village Parkway/Clark Avenue at Alamo Canal Trail at the Dublin Public Safety Complex Site T Dublin Boulevard Extension Fallon Road Collier Canyon Park (Livermore) Create Class I connection along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension corridor from Fallon Road to Collier Canyon Parkway (Livermore) T-10 Brannigan Street Central Parkway Emerald Glen Park/Tassajara Road Gleason Boulevard Through development, add Class I facility on the west side of Brannigan St. from Central Parkway to Gleason Boulevard T-11 T-12 Central Parkway Brannigan Street Add Class I connection and street crossing enhancements on the north side of Central Parkway from Emerald Glen Park/Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street Dublin High School Iron Horse Trail Village Parkway Add Class I connection along the south side of the school grounds and Dublin Swin Center from Iron Horse Trail to Village Parkway T-13 Tassajara Creek Dublin Boulevard Pleasanton Study options for gap closure to provide a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing and shared use path from Tassajara Creek at Dublin Boulevard south over I-580 into Pleasanton T-14 Nielson Elementary School Amarillo Road Mape Memorial Park Path Add Class I connection along the southern edge of Nielson Elementary to connect Amarillo Road with the existing path along Mape Memorial Park to san Ramon Road T-15 Altamirano Street Dublin BART station Martinelli Wa y Add Class I connection along Altamirano Street between the Dublin BART station and Martinelli Way T-16 Croak Road Dublin Boulevard Positano Parkway Add Class I connections along Croak Road from Dublin Boulevard to Positano Parkway T-17 Positano Parkway Croak Road La Strada Drive Add or improve trails along Positano Parkway to connect to the trail on Croak Road T-18 Tassajara Creek Trail Tassajara Road Trailhead Wallis Ranch development trails Add Class I connection between the existing Tassajara Creek trailhead on Tassajara Road and trails in the Wallis Ranch development DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan POINT PROJECTS Crossing projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to walking and biking, including freeway crossings, high -stress trail crossings, high -stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions. The recommended crossing projects are presented in Table 11 and includes: • Interchange projects to modernize and improve multimodal access and traffic safety, lessening the barriers to walking and biking that are posed by the I-580 and I-680 freeways. • Crossing projects to improve connections to and along existing Class I paths and trails or to provide mid - block connections across existing roadways. • Intersection projects to improve safety for people walking and biking by modifying intersection signal timing, geometry, signing, or striping. Table 11 outlines the recommended crossing projects by location. Table 11. Recommended Crossing Projects by Location Project rolec oca io rolect Description ID 1 FREEWAY CROSSING PROJECTS FC-1 San Ramon Road at southbound I-580 westbound ramp entrance FC-2 San Ramon Road at northbound I-580 westbound ramp entrance FC-3 San Ramon Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-4 St. Patrick Way at I-580 ramp terminal and entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Project ID Project Location Project Descriptiori FC-5 FC-6 Dougherty Road at I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Dougherty Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC 7 Dougherty Road at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-8 Hacienda Drive at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-9 Hacienda Drive at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-10 Hacienda Drive at I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC 11 Tassajara Road at I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC 12 Tassajara Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-13 Tassajara Road at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-14 Fallon Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal and entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC-15 Fallon Road at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings FC 16 Village Parkway at I-680 NB ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECTS C-1 C-2 C-3 Regional Street between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard Provide mid -block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment) Dublin Boulevard and Iron Provide pedestrian and bicycle Horse Trail overcrossing to connect to Don Biddle Community Park Sierra Court cul-de-sac Add connection from Sierra Court to the Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network Project ID Project Location roject Description C-4 Tassajara Creek Trail and Dublin Boulevard Study the feasibility of improving the crossing of Tassajara Creek Trail at Dublin Boulevard by providing better connections to the existing crossing at John Monego Court. Provide wayfinding and signs to direct people biking and walking between the trail and the intersection. C-5 Tassajara Creek Trail and Tassajara Road Improve connections to nearby crossings or add crossing at Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek Trail (south of Rutherford Drive) to provide access to the trailhead; improve general access to and connectivity from the trail to Tassajara Road and local destinations ■ INTERSECTIO ' ROJECTS I-1 Central Parkway/Aspen Street Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school I-2 Grafton Street/Antone Way Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school I-3 Amador Valley Boulevard/ Burton Street Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school I-4 Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard As recommended in the 2014 plan, improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Remove slip lanes; reduce curb radii on all corners; install curb extensions on the SE and SW corners; install directional curb ramps. Project Project Location ID Project Descriptiori I-5 Village Parkway/Tamarack Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-6 Village Parkway/Brighton Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. 1-7 Dublin Boulevard/Hibernia Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. 1-8 Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. 1-9 Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87 Project ID Project Locatio roject Description As recommended in the 2014 plan, I-10 Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway improve safety tor people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce width of SB right -turn lane and reduce turning radii; remove NB right -turn slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks. I-11 Grafton Street/Madden Way/Kohnen Way Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school I-12 Antone Way/Bridgepointe Lane Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school I-13 S Dublin Ranch Drive/ Woodshire Lane Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school I-14 Tassajara Road and Palisades Drive Add Class I signage, striping, and signal changes to create visibility of people walking and biking across the existing Tassajara Road and Palisades Drive signalized crossing I-15 I-16 Martin Canyon Creek Trail at Silvergate Drive Gleason Drive/Grafton Street Provide Class I facilities on the west side of Silvergate Drive and make intersection changes at Hansen Drive and Bay Laurel Street to provide comfortable connectivity to the existing stop controlled intersection at Hansen Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Project Project Location ID Project Descriptiori 1-17protecte Gleason Drive/Brannigan street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like bike lane intersection striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. 1-18protecte Central Parkway/Brannigan street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like bike lane intersection striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-19 Dublin Boulevard/ Brannigan street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-20 Central Parkway/Hibernia Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-21 Central Parkway/Hacienda Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I 22 Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like bike lane intersection striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. 88 City of Dublin Project ID Project Locatio roject Descriptio 1-23 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-24 Fallon Road /Central Parkway Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-25 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-26 Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. 1-27 Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road As recommended in the 2014 plan, reduce curb radii on all corners; install directional curb ramps at all corners Subject to further analysis, remove NB overlap phase; install pedestrian countdown signals and audible warning signs Stripe crosswalk on south leg subject to further analysis Project ID Project Location Project Descriptio 1-28 San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard Consider adding leading pedestrian intervals for all approaches; Consider removing slip lanes on NW and NE corners and add curb extensions on SW, NW, and NE corners pending additional engineering analysis; Consider striping crosswalk on south leg pending additional engineering analysis 1-29 Regional Street/Amador Valley Boulevard Consider modifying signal to include leading pedestrian interval on EB and WB approaches; Consider protected left -turn phasing for NB and SB traffic. I-30 Amador Valley Boulevard/ Amador Plaza Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road Mark crosswalk on east leg of intersection; Widen median and add median tips as feasible to provide 6' pedestrian refuge; Reduce curb radii Improve safety for people walking and I-31 biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce curb radii on all corners and install directional curb ramps. St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate I-32 Drive Install wayfinding signage to West Dublin I BART; install bulb -outs at all corners; construct directional curb ramps I-33 Amador Valley Boulevard/ Donohue Drive As recommended in the 2014 plan, reduce curb radii on all corners; widen medians and add median tips; install directional curb ramps on all corners DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Pla OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to this Plan's specific recommendations for projects, there are a number of steps that the City can undertake to improve walking and biking in Dublin. The City should implement the program and policy recommendations and the best practices described in the engineering and design guide. Additionally, the City can continue to implement projects from other previous or parallel planning efforts, including those shown in Figure 37 and listed below: • Dublin Downtown Streetscape Plan • BART Station Access Projects • Iron Horse Regional Trail Projects • Dublin Safe Routes to School Projects • Local Road Safety Plan Projects INCREASED ACCESS TO DESTINATIONS With implementation of the network recommendations, low - stress biking and comfortable walking and rolling access to key destinations would increase. Existing biking access to BART was compared to biking access with the implementation of the project recommendations. Bicycle access to BART with the existing network and implementation of network recommendations is summarized in Table 12 and shown in Figures 38 and 39. As demonstrated by this analysis, network recommendations would increase potential bicycle access to BART by almost 600 percent, providing 71 percent of Dublin residents with a travel route along streets that match their stress tolerance. Table 12. BART Access by Bicyclist Type Bicyclist Type Share of Bicyclist Type with Suitable Access to BART Existing Network Recommended Network No Way, No How 0% 0% Interested but Concerned 0% 8% Enthused and Confident 36% 51% Strong and Fearless 52% 52% Total Across all Biker Types 6% 12% Share of population with bicycle routes available that are suitable to their Traffic Stress tolerance 12% 71% 0 City of Dublin Figure 37. Recommended Projects from Other Plans Map San Ramon Alameda County Contra Costa County • •Dougherty Hills • ♦pen Space Parks Reserve Forces Training Area • • ♦ o __ ♦ ♦ �r on Biddle E, :fat Civic Plaza ,..,. I - - - 71,LLSiOE DR I! ---I r- I r-- I ♦• I 1 -o- GLEASON DR o w 1 1 CFNj L I WFallon Sports Pork Pleasanton I 1 Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations BART Station Access Project Locations Livermore Mile 0 Public Schools BART Stations Class IA Multi -use Path Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations Class IB Sidepath Safe Routes To School Project Locations Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Figure 38. Existing Bike Access to BART Network Alameda County Contra Costa County Parks '=rve Forces Tr: i ing Area Pleasanton Level of Traffic Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment LTS 1 — LTS 1 • • LTS 1 LTS 2 — LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Livermore Mile 0 Bart access points Access Distance - - - - 0- 1/4miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles 92 City of Dublin Figure 39. Recommended Bike Access to BART Network Alameda County 'leasanton Dublin residents with a bicycle route along streets that match their level of traffic stress tolerance would increase from 12 percent to 71 percent. Contra Costa County Level of Traffic Stress Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment LTS 1 — LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 — LTS 3 LTS 4 — LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Livermore iMile 0 Bart access points Access Distance - 0- 1/4 miles - 1/4-1/2 miles - 1/2-1 mile - 1 - 1-1/2 miles - 1-1/2-2 miles 2+ miles DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93 5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES This chapter presents the Plan's recommended programs, policies, and practices. It provides recommended strategies and actions to support walking and biking in the city. It also discusses recommended policies that the City should implement as well as best practices that the City can undertake in developing programs to encourage active transportation in the city. The recommendations are organized into the following categories, which consist of focused topic areas and recommendations: This chapter also references the Engineering and Design Guide, which was developed as part of this project, as a resource for recommended practices. The guide is included in Appendix D. Coordination and Collaboration Funding and Implementation cecNi Data Collection Oa Operations and Maintenance L4C Design Promotion and Encouragement sa Emerging Technologies Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95 493 A walk- and bike -friendly Dublin requires investing in infrastructure as well as ongoing programs that encourage and support more people to choose sustainable transportation options. To advance the vision and mission of this Plan, the City of Dublin must envision new policy and program initiatives and expand existing ones. The following program and policy recommendations are based on feedback from stakeholder interviews as well as guidance from the technical advisory committee, the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee, a public survey, and online and in - person public engagement. Recommendations are organized into eight topic areas, each of which are supported by specific strategies and actions. • A strategy is a high-level approach to reach an outcome that works toward larger goals. • An action is a specific step that advances the strategy. These strategies and their actions will guide the work of the City's bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement the infrastructure recommendations presented in the previous section. Many factors contribute to the success of a specific action, or strategy —including partner agency support, funding opportunities, and alignment with technological advancement and industry change. Dublin, CA Source: City of Dublin 96 City of Dublin DRAFT 494 ja COORDINATION AND A:A; COLLABORATION Establish effective coordination processes and partnerships to advance bicycle and pedestrian projects. The City cannot reach its goals without the support of other key agencies: those who own, operate, and manage streets and trails, those who provide transit service within the city, and the agencies who fund plans, projects, and programs that advance transportation goals and objectives. The Alameda County Transportation Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Caltrans, East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD), United States Army Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks), Dublin Unified School District (DUSD), and adjacent jurisdictions all play critical roles in how streets and trails function. Because the reach of this Plan covers all city streets and trails regardless of ownership, the jurisdictional roles and responsibilities of agency partners at both the project and system -wide planning level are important and invaluable. STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Establish protocols and procedures for coordination of bicycle and pedestrian projects with external agency stakeholders. Utilize existing regional channels, such as the Tri- Valley Transportation Council, to coordinate bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects that abut or intersect jurisdictional boundaries. Coordinate with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to provide park access opportunities with local trails and bike paths and promote green transportation access and compliant accessibility from public transit stops to the regional parks and trails. This is consistent with Public Access 5 and Public Access 7 in the EBRPD Master Plan. Designate a City staff member and work with DUSD to designate a district staff person who is responsible for coordinating issues related to school connectivity and Safe Routes to School. Develop templates for access easements and private property paths and coordinate with developers to advance completion of bicycle and pedestrian connections through and along private property. While the Plan includes specific recommendations for Class I multi -use paths, there is a larger need to highlight the opportunities that new development provides to create active transportation and greenway connections. Future developments should identify how trails can be implemented to complete connections with existing neighborhoods and across barriers. The City should consider how easements can be developed for the use of paths on private property as part of the development review process. Future development sites, especially along Dublin Boulevard, should be evaluated to include or contribute to paths that provide better linkages along and across the street. Partner with advocacy groups and community -based organizations to increase awareness of and build support for pedestrian and bicycle projects. Advocacy groups and community -based organizations are trusted partners that can highlight and elevate community voices. These alliances promote stronger, more meaningful collaborations that can be crucial to advancing active transportation projects and improving project outcomes. Work with Dublin Police Services to develop priorities and strategies to promote traffic safety (e.g., focused enforcement), particularly on high - injury streets and near schools. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97 495 cecld DATA COLLECTION Routinely collect trip and facility information to track trends, evaluate projects, and prioritize investments. Data is crucial to make an evidence - based case for active transportation. Surveys, counts, and infrastructure data provide essential information about the built environment and user habits and experiences. This data can then help explain how projects affect neighborhoods and work toward achieving City and agency goals. By collecting location -specific data related to transportation behaviors, project design elements can be analyzed for their effectiveness and take advantage of opportunities to refine a project's design. Data can also help communicate a project's effects to the public and decision makers as well as track trends over time. STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Develop a data collection plan and standard operating procedures for collection of speed survey data, especially along high -injury segments and other priority locations, such as streets near schools. Develop a data collection plan and standard operating procedures for collection of bicycle and pedestrian counts, especially at activity centers and other priority locations, such as streets near schools. Develop and maintain a spatial database and inventory of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities, including pedestrian -oriented lighting, curb ramps, crosswalks, traffic control devices, bicycle parking, maintenance stations, and multimodal count and vehicle speed data. Complement the City's bi-annual bicycle and pedestrian workshops with a written summary documenting progress implementing pedestrian and bicycle projects in the City. Post the written summary online, through social media channels, and provide a subscription option to facilitate distribution of information to interested community members. Ensure that transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for new development adheres to the City's Current TIA Guidelines, addresses safety and comfort of people walking and biking, and includes the collection of bicycle and pedestrian counts. The safety analysis should be data -driven and generally follow best practices outlined in the FHWA's Incorporating Data -Driven Safety Analysis in Traffic Impact Analysis: A How To Guide. https://safety.fhwa.dot. gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa19026.pdf. 98 City of Dublin DRAFT 496 • DESIGN Go beyond minimum design standards to incorporate safe walking and biking facilities into transportation projects. Upcoming capital projects should be influenced by the Design Guide, which references the priority networks defined in this Plan, namely the pedestrian priority network and the all ages and abilities network (for biking and micromobility). Design decisions are often most difficult where these two priority networks overlap with major arterials, particularly when the public right of way is constrained. While challenging, these corridors, provide the greatest opportunity to make bold changes that will advance mode shift goals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and decrease vehicles miles travelled (VMT). STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Adhere to recommendations in the Design Guide as part of the Plan. Additionally, the City should incorporate best practice design guidance coinciding with Plan updates (at a minimum) and make updates as needed to reflect changes in transportation options, local, State, and national best practices, and new information as a result of research and evaluation of available data. Require new infrastructure projects to adhere to the Design Guide established by this Plan by implementing a design review process that ensures compliance, including for construction work zones. This recommendation is consistent with Climate Action Plan 2030 Measure SM-7: Develop a Built Environment that Prioritizes Active Mobility and supporting actions that improve the pedestrian experience and create a built environment that prioritizes active mobility. Develop design standards for the incorporation and use of pedestrian -scale lighting on new and reconstructed public streets, private streets, and within private development projects. Lighting can enhance the built environment and increase safety and security of people walking and biking. Pedestrian -oriented facility and intersection lighting helps motorists to see people walking and biking and avoid collisions. Pedestrian walkways, crosswalks, transit stops, both sides of wide streets, and streets in commercial areas should be well lit with uniform lighting levels to eliminate dark spots. Establish a list of approved traffic calming strategies and devices to be routinely considered with restriping and other roadway improvement projects. Continue to include bicycle and pedestrian considerations during review of new development. Follow best practices for site access and driveway design. example: consolidate or eliminate existing curb cuts and minimize new curb cuts; improve driveway sightlines; and, require parking ramps to include mirrors and messaging to prioritize people walking and biking. Rather than alerting people walking and biking that a car is approaching, messaging should alert drivers that a pedestrian or bicyclist is approaching. Coordinate pedestrian and bicycle design with the City's Climate Action Plan and Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99 497 0 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIONS Leverage emerging transportation technologies to support travel by sustainable modes. Today's rapidly advancing technology simultaneously provides opportunities for transformational change and introduces new challenges. Adapting to such change requires anticipating and keeping pace with technology and being responsive to community needs. The greatest challenge is to safely, efficiently, and equitably transition to a transportation future in which everyone benefits from transformational transportation technologies, including ride -hailing, car -sharing, micromobility options, mobile fare payment apps, multimodal trip planning apps, real-time travel information apps, e-commerce apps, and grocery or meal delivery services, just to name a few. STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Develop flexible policies to support development of emerging technologies and alternative modes of transportation, including shared autonomous vehicles, connected vehicles, and micromobility-share services. Policy topics to consider include general provisions, operations, equipment and safety, parking and street design, equity, communications and community engagement, data, and metrics. Consistent with Strategy 3—Sustainable Mobility and Land Use in the Climate Action Plan 2030, the City will work with micromobility and last -mile transportation providers to allow the use of scooters and bike share programs in specific Dublin locations. Monitor and evaluate the impact of emerging transportation technologies, such as bikeshare and scooter share, as well as prominent trends including e-bikes, on walking and biking in Dublin. Formulate partnerships to advance implementation of innovative, ambitious, and scalable pilots, such as micromobility services and mobility hubs. Leverage, manage, monitor, and design for new and emerging technologies that increase visibility and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, assess digital wayfinding tools that provide real time information, explore emerging technology such as adaptive lighting, and test new technologies related to pedestrian and bicycle detection and data collection. Build a culture of continuous improvement in knowledge, education, and communications around technologies that advance transportation options. Support and create opportunities for staff training and capacity building through payment of professional memberships and participation in conferences, webinars, and trainings. Develop policy for use of e-bikes and personal mobility devices on multi- use paths and trails, and conduct public safety, education, and outreach campaigns to raise awareness of path etiquette. 100 City of Dublin DRAFT 498 FUNDING AND Ma IMPLEMENTATION Increase investment in walking and biking infrastructure and supporting programs. Identify and allocate resources to implement Plan recommendations. Walkable and bikeable communities have considerable economic benefits. In addition to capital gains, investment in placemaking and active transportation yield intangible, societal benefits. However, investments in active transportation infrastructure and supporting programs consistently fall short of other transportation investments, and there is a demonstrated need to increase the funding and resources allocated to walking and biking. STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Incorporate proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in this Plan into the development review processes. Develop clear direction for City staff and the development community for implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects. Continue to apply for local, state, and federal grants to support active transportation network improvements and programming. Leverage potential grant and alternative funding strategies. Utilize dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. Add priority bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in this Plan to the Capital Improvement Program. Develop strategies for rapid network implementation and interim, or quick - build, design treatments. Utilize a quick -build approach, focusing on signing, striping, and markings and lower cost infrastructure modifications to implement near -term treatments that improve safety outcomes for people walking and biking. Broaden public involvement efforts and seek to engage the community and solicit feedback on an ongoing basis. The City strongly encourages public comment, input, and involvement in a wide range of transportation issues. To increase opportunities for community engagement, the City should continue to provide multiple opportunities and various forums for feedback, provide regular/routine communication with the community, and proactively involve the public in the decision -making process. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101 499 00 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Prioritize operations and maintenance of walking and biking infrastructure to make walking and biking safe and attractive options. When people decide to walk and bike, the condition of sidewalks, crosswalks, signals, bike lanes, bikeways, and trails are key factors. Inadequately maintained sidewalks and bicycle facilities create hazardous conditions and disrupt network connectivity. Facility quality also influences travel choice and behavior. Implementation of pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly signal timing operations and maintaining good sidewalk, street, and trail conditions are critical components of an accessible bicycle and pedestrian network. STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Utilize flexibility created through the passage of Assembly Bill 43 to set safe speed limits in key areas within the city. The City should implement changes authorized in AB 43 and utilize guidance outlined in City Limits from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to reduce default speed limits (1) on streets designated as safety corridors or high injury corridors (streets that have the highest number of serious injuries and fatalities); (2) in designated slow zones; and (3) on other designated corridors using a safe speed study. Under the provision that went into effect in January 2022, the City should move to lower speed limits by 5 miles per hour (from 25 mph to 20 mph or from 30 mph to 25 mph) in key business activity districts, streets where at least half of the property uses are dining or retail. Under the provision that goes into effect in June 2024, the City should reduce speeds by 5 mph on streets designated as safety corridors according to a definition that will be established by Caltrans's roadway standards manual. Develop policy and guidance for modifications to traffic signal operations, including implementing leading pedestrian intervals, providing automatic recall, installing accessible pedestrian signals, implementing no right turn on red, and implementing protected -only left -turn phases. Establish, update, and implement maintenance policies and standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on City right of way. Review the existing Class I Facility Maintenance Plan (2015), and develop a standard maintenance plan for bicycle facilities of all types in the city that accounts for factors such as signing and striping maintenance and sweeping protocols. Continue to collaborate with East Bay Regional Parks District to coordinate maintenance efforts for off- street facilities in the city. When deciding which facilities to maintain first, prioritize facilities with the highest ridership and those that provide access to schools, business districts, major employers, major transit centers, and other important destinations. 102 City of Dublin DRAFT 500 •C PROMOTION AND ENCOURAGEMENT Encourage and promote increased use of sustainable travel modes, especially walking and biking. Active travel, including walking and biking, benefits physical and mental health as well as the environment. To promote active travel, the City must provide convenient, safe, and connected walking and biking infrastructure. But implementing programs and campaigns that provide targeted information or incentives can also motivate people to walk or bike. The recommendations focus on non -infrastructure or programmatic elements that emphasize active travel as a convenient and healthy option. STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Continue to create a digital and printed citywide pedestrian and bike network and amenities map. Coordinate with local organizations to create programs and events that support active transportation and enhance the built environment. Sample topics include open streets, slow streets, temporary street closures, and pavement to parks, parklets, and plazas. This recommendation is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Guideline 3.2.6 Parklets and Guideline 3.2.7 Street Closures. Continue to partner with Alameda CTC and DUSD to deliver Safe Routes to School assessments and programs. Encourage all Dublin schools to participate. Consider steps to becoming a Bicycle Friendly Community through the League of American Bicyclists. The program provides a roadmap to improving conditions for bicycling and guidance to help make a community's vision for a better, bikeable community a reality. A Bicycle Friendly Community welcomes bicyclists by providing safe accommodations for bicycling and encouraging people to bike for transportation and recreation. Encourage businesses to be recognized as Bicycle Friendly Businesses through the League of American Bicyclists. The program recognizes employers for their efforts to encourage a more welcoming atmosphere for bicycling employees, customers, and the community. Interested business can apply here: https://www.bikeleague.org/business. Develop and implement a citywide transportation demand management (TDM) program to support additional transportation options, incentives to choose sustainable modes, and supplemental infrastructure improvements identified in this Plan. The TDM program should include guidance for staff on requirements for new development, including bicycle parking and policy strategies (such as density bonus for vehicle parking reductions) and vehicle parking strategies (such as shared and priced parking). This recommendation is consistent with (1) Measure 3: Develop a Transportation Demand Management Plan in Strategy 3: Sustainable Mobility and Land Use Measure and (2) Measure ML-2: Reduce Municipal Employee Commute GHG Emissions; and (3) the Climate Action Plan 2030. The TDM Plan will identify strategies to help facilitate the move from single -occupancy vehicles to less carbon intensive transportation modes, like walking and biking. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103 501 SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES Provide supportive infrastructure and amenities to make walking and biking convenient and comfortable. On any given street, careful and thoughtful design of the built environment affects accessibility, legibility, a sense of place, and security. The features that give a street character are often found in the frontage or amenity zones; key elements include supporting infrastructure like lighting, wayfinding, bicycle parking, benches, green stormwater infrastructure, transit stops, and mobility hubs. STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS Require short-term and long-term parking that accommodates various types of bicycles, skateboards, and scooters. Install new short- and long-term parking to meet the recommendations and requirements outlined in the Design Guide. For example, provide electric outlet near long-term parking to accommodate electric bicycles and provide bicycle parking spaces that allow for a footprint of 3 feet by 10 feet in a horizontal rack. Consider adding or improving bicycle parking and providing other bicycle amenities, such as lighting, maintenance stations, shaded benches, and drinking fountains in City parks, at trailheads, community centers, transit stops, BART stations, Park and Ride lots, and in other high travel areas. Develop a bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding plan and install wayfinding throughout the city. The plan should refer to and coordinate with recommendations identified in the Public Art Program and Downtown Dublin Streetscape Master Plan. This recommendation is consistent with the Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Guideline 4.2.2 Wayfinding. 104 City of Dublin DRAFT 502 6. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY This Plan's infrastructure and programmatic recommendations provide strategies and actions to help Dublin become a more walkable and bikeable city. Implementation of these recommendations will occur over time, depending on available resources and funding sources. This chapter provides an overview and outcomes of the prioritization process, estimated project costs, and a matrix of applicable funding sources to advance implementation. PRIORITIZATION PROCESS The project recommendations include a total of 56.8 miles across 54 segment projects; 18 trail projects; 16 freeway crossing projects; 5 pedestrian crossing projects; and 33 intersection projects. Prioritizing these projects is essential to optimize use of staff time and resources. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 803: ActiveTrans Priority Tool (APT) prioritization process was used to identify priority locations for pedestrian and bicycle projects that improve conditions for people walking, biking, and rolling in Dublin. The prioritization process and outcomes are summarized in this section and additional discussion is provided in appendix F. The APT methodology uses a standard set of terms and definitions to describe the different steps in the process. The following definitions apply within the APT: • Factors are categories used to express community or agency values considered in the prioritization process and contain groups of variables with similar characteristics. • Weights are the numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors based on community or agency values. • Variables are characteristics of roadways, households, neighborhood areas, and other features that can be 6 Peter A. Lagerwey, et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook, NCHRP Report 803, Project No. 07-17 (2015), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf. measured, organized under each factor. The terms variables and evaluation criteria may be used interchangeably. • Scaling is the process of making two variables comparable to one another (e.g., number of collisions versus population density). The prioritization factors and evaluation criteria (or variables) shown in Table 13 align with the Plan's goals, and they were developed in collaboration with the City, the Technical Advisory Committee and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Variables were given equal weight in the analysis. 106 City of Dublin DRAFT 504 Table 13. Prioritization Factors and Variables FACTOR VARIABLE NOTES PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE Safet y High -injury corridors Prioritize locations identified along the bicycle and pedestrian high- injury networks. This variable aligns with the goal enhance safety. • IX • CAD Social Equity Youth and senior population Prioritizes locations with high scores indicating where investment would promote positive outcomes for vulnerable road users (youth and senior populations). This variable aligns with the goals improve connectivity and enhance accessibility. • X 6AD Connectivity Demand analysis Prioritize locations with high potential for walking and biking to unlock latent demand. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. • x '.: Proximity to schools Prioritize locations within one mile of schools to provide increased opportunities to bike and walk to school. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. • IXEgt p: Quality of Service Bicycle level of traffic stress Prioritize locations based on the presence of existing high -stress riding facilities. This variable aligns with the goal increase walking and biking. IS et Sidewalk gaps Prioritize locations with sidewalk gaps that may create barriers for people walking. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. • X Major Barriers Freeway crossings Prioritize improving safety and quality of service for ramp terminal intersection and freeway crossings. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. • /X IS C k et Consistency with Past Planning Previously identified projects Prioritize locations of pedestrian and bicycle projects that were identified in the previous plan. This variable aligns with the goal prioritise investments. • IX DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 107 505 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN After applying the evaluation criteria and conducting the prioritization analysis, three tiers of recommendations emerged. The infrastructure projects were divided into three tiers, representing the following: • Tier I: High priority projects with likely funding or implementation sources • Tier II: High priority projects with no identified funding source • Tier III: Lower priority investments that support a full low -stress walking, biking, and rolling network across the City TIER I PROJECTS Nine segment projects, one trail projects, two crossing project, and three intersection projects were identified as Tier I projects. The Tier I projects include a complete streets study, striping and signage for high -stress streets scheduled for repaving over the next three years, four new actuated crossings near schools, and a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing bridge. Tier I projects, those most likely to be implemented in the next several years, are shown in Figure 40. TIER II PROJECTS Ten segment projects, one crossing project, and seven intersection projects were identified as Tier II projects. Tier II projects were identified using the same prioritization criteria and framework as Tier I projects, with input from City staff and through public engagement. Tier II projects are high priority projects that may require additional feasibility analysis and concept design development prior to implementation. The list of Tier II projects is presented in Table 15 and the comprehensive prioritized list of projects is presented in Appendix C. TIER III PROJECTS Tier III projects include the remaining recommendations that increase the safety and comfort of people walking, biking, and rolling in the city. While Tier III projects are not listed in the implementation plan projects in Table 15, they can be found in the full list of projects provided in Table 6 in the Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian Networks section. 108 City of Dublin DRAFT 506 CITYWIDE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS A total of 41 strategies and actions were recommended in one of eight policy and program topic areas. These recommendations will guide the City's bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement the infrastructure recommendations. COST ESTIMATES The total cost of all the projects identified in this Plan is between $103 and $214 million (see Table 14). This cost includes adding bicycle facilities, upgrading bicycle facilities, updating or adding pedestrian crossings, updating pedestrian facilities, adding street trees, redesigning interchange ramps, and adding signage. Table 14 shows the estimated cost for all projects, including planning -level costs and soft costs for engineering, design support, and contingency. Although the cost estimates vary most based on bicycle facility type and how that facility will be implemented, pedestrian and transit costs are equally important and included on a per -mile basis in each cost as well. Costs for the individual corridors can be found in the full project list in appendix G. Cost estimates' high ends consider a need to move the curb, therefore upgrading all pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, street trees, ADA ramps, etc.) while the low costs can be implemented through restriping the roadway. If all segment projects were able to be implemented through roadway reorganization, restriping, or minor additional treatments, it would cost approximately $103 million to implement the Plan. If reconstructing the curb to implement each segment project, the Plan is expected to cost about $214 million. Planning -level cost estimates vary depending on project context, which includes type of facility, existing conditions, right of way acquisition, and desired functional and aesthetic improvements like landscaping or hardscaping. Project costs were adjusted to include variable costs for engineering, design support, and contingency. Cost estimates were calculated using a combination of inputs from the City and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guide. Moving forward, the City will need to develop detailed estimates during the preliminary engineering stage to calculate more accurate project costs. These more -detailed estimates are important due to the varying costs of obtaining right of way, construction, drainage, and grading. Right of way should also be considered in preliminary engineering, as the listed cost estimates do not include right of way costs. Many projects can be implemented without purchasing additional right of way by reallocating space within the existing right of way. Cost estimates for support programs are not provided, as the costs to implement these programs can vary greatly. Prior to implementing support programs, the City should outline the necessary element of each program and establish a cost. For example, to understand what an open streets or slow streets program would need, the City could consider questions such as how often streets would need to close and how much those closures would cost. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 109 507 Table 14. Total Project Costs PROJECT TYPE MILES LOW COST HIGH COST Shared Lane (Class III) 12.4 miles $1,698,000 $1,698,000 Bike Lane (Class IIA) 3.1 miles $4,177,000 $17,757,000 Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) 17.0 miles $3,239,000 $39,421,000 Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) 10.4 miles $13,440,000 $52,048,000 Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepath (Class IB) 4.9 miles $5,460,000 $8,307,000 Shared Use Path/Paved Trail (Class IA) 7.9 miles $40,428,776 $40,550,480 Speed Reduction Evaluation (exclusively) 1.3 miles $139,000 $2,753,000 Freeway Crossing Projects 16 $17,840,000 $17,840,000 Pedestrian Crossing Projects 5 $9,520,000 $9,520,000 Intersection Projects 33 $7,393,000 $24,274,000 Total $ 103,335,000 $ 214,168,000 110 City of Dublin DRAFT 508 Table 15. Implementation Plan List: Tier I and Tier II Projects PROJECT ID TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION TO FROM LOW COST* HIGH COST** S-1 Tier I Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street $25,000 $239,000 $25,000 $176,000 S-2 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan Street S-3 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Gleason Drive $106,000 $176,000 S-4 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road $229,000 $176,000 S-5 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit; if speeds are not lowered, as a future phase provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Altamirano Ave $53,000 $176,000 S-6 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping Grafton Street Kohnen ` Y Antone Way $42,000 $176,000 S-7 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings Tassajara Road, Dougherty Road, and Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Dublin Boulveard $150,000 $176,000 S-8 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Tassajara Road North Dublin Ranch Drive Rutherford Drive $138,000 $5,334,000 S-9 Tier I Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Village Parkway Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits $945,000 $5,601,000 S-10 Tier II Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street $691,000 $135,000 S-11 Tier II Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide a Class IV or Class I facility Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard $91,000 $5,334,000 * Restriping ** Full Reconstruction DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 111 509 PROJECT ID TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION TO FROM LOW COST* HIGH COST** S-12 Tier II Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin Ranch Drive $18,000 $25,000 S-13 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits $274,000 $5,601,000 S-14 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Amador Valley Boulevard Stagecoach Road Dougherty Road $331,000 $5,601,000 S-15 Tier II Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7. Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern City Limits $505,000 $5,601,000 S-16 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Fallon Road Inspiration Drive San Ramon Road $1,212,000 $1,653,000 $1,322,000 $5,601,000 $5,601,000 $5,601,000 S-17 S-18 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Inspiration Drive Western extent Tier II Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. Gleason Drive Southern city limits S-19 Tier II Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara Road $238,000 $999,000 S-20 Tier II Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits $259,000 $5,466,000 S-21 S-22 Tier II Tier II Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities As recommended in the 2014 plan, upgrade to separated Class I facilities providing sufficient space to reduce conflicts between people walking and biking; evaluate opportunities to improve walkability by reducing obstructions; enhance median and lighting along Dublin Boulevard under I-680; improve sidewalk connection across commercial driveway and at bus stop (east of Regional Street); add pedestrian -scale lighting under I-680 Overpass. Install barrier in median underneath overcrossing to prohibit pedestrian crossings. Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive Northern City Limits $80,000 $4,956,000 $5,466,000 $3,304,000 Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Dougherty Road estripmg econstruction 112 City of Dublin DRAFT 510 PROJECT ID TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION TO FROM LOW COST* HIGH COST** S-23 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive $497,000 $4,375,000 S-24 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Fallon Road $1,322,000 $5,740,000 S-25 T-1 Tier II Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Central Parkway Tassajara Road Fallon Road $227,000 $4,558,000 Tier I Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to create park space and trail access and connectivity improvements Iron Horse Regional Trail 0 0 $11,560,000 $11,560,000 T-2 Tier II Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road $765,000 $765,000 T-3 Tier II With development, add Class I connection between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road East of Tassajara approximately 500 ft Dublin Boulevard Central Parkway $621,000 $320,000 $621,000 $320,000 C-1 Tier I Provide mid -block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment) Regional Street between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard C-2 Tier I Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing to connect to Don Biddle Community Park Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Trail $6,318,000 $2,132,000 $6,318,000 $2,132,000 C-3 Tier II Add connection from Sierra Court to the Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network Sierra Court cul-de-sac I-1 Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Central Parkway/Aspen Street $320,000.00 $320,000 I-2 Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Grafton Street/Antone Way $320,000.00 $320,000 I-3 Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Amador Valley Boulevard/Burton Street $320,000.00 $320,000 I-4 Tier II As recommended in the 2014 plan, improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Remove slip lanes; reduce curb radii on all corners; install curb extensions on the SE and SW corners; install directional curb ramps. Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard $123,000.00 $972,000 * Restriping ** Full Reconstruction DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 113 511 PROJECT TIER ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION TO FROM LOW COST* HIGH COST** I-5 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Village Parkway/Tamarack Drive I-6 Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike Tier II lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading Village Parkway/Brighton Drive pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. I-7 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. $123,000.00 $972,000 $123,000.00 $972,000 Dublin Boulevard/Hibernia Drive I-8 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road I-9 Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike Tier II lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive $123,000.00 $972,000 $123,000.00 $972,000 $123,000.00 $972,000 I-10 Tier II As recommended in the 2014 plan, improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce width of SB right -turn lane and reduce turning radii; remove NB right -turn slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks. Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway J $123,000.00 $972,000 Total Tier I $21,085,000 $27,589,000 Total Tier II and Tier III $82,250,000 $186,580,000 Total (all tiers) $103,335,000 $ 214,169,00 * Restriping ** Full Reconstruction 114 City of Dublin DRAFT 512 Figure 40. Tier I Projects Map Dougherty Hills Open Space Parks Reserve Forces Training Area rrH ST rq • N�JBUN 5 LEASON DR 6TH ST • ,w • pLw•w•w HORIZON Pw o o e Emeraw y o Glen Parld k i• CENT&PW h•bon Biddle E _--� W Park 1 SIERRP's.4 DUBLIN BL 00w•w•w•• i • � ORniSI Proposed Point Project • Spot Improvement MADDEN WY Fallon iSports v � Park 0 I Mile 0 Proposed Segment Project Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) • • • Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) • Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV) • • • Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath I I Packs Public Schools BART Stations LIE R Cl DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 115 513 FUNDING SOURCES Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination of ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the City General Fund, developer -funded projects, and State, regional, and federal grants. There are many funding sources and programs available at the federal, state, regional, countywide, and local levels for pedestrian and bicycle projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) alone identifies almost 20 different sources across United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) funding programs that can be used to support active transportation improvements such as bike racks for transit vehicles and new sidewalks and separated bike lanes. On November 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), also called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The law authorizes $1.2 trillion for federal investments in transportation, broadband access, clean water, and electric grid renewal. The USDOT will distribute funds over five years through more than two dozen targeted competitive grant programs for initiatives like better roads and bridges, investments in public transit, and resilient infrastructure. This program and other relevant funds are summarized in Table 16 along with current funding levels, applicable project type, and limitations. Table 16. Funding Sources FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & FUNDING LEVELS LIMITATIONS LOCAL General Fund Capital improvements without other Approximately $700,000 funding sources regularly available. was allocated to projects Relevant projects receiving funding that included bicycle and through the General Fund as pedestrian enhancements identified in the 2022-2027 Capital in 2021-2022 and a total of Improvement Program (CIP) include $342,000 has been allocated Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements, Downtown Dublin over the 2022-2027 period, per the CIP. Street Grid Network, and San Ramon Trail Lighting. Impact Fees Capital improvements, including Impact fees contributed & Developer streetscape enhancements, that $2,400,000 in 2021-2022 Mitigation would improve conditions for people and are anticipated to walking and biking. fund almost $1,000,000 Current impact fees include Eastern of pedestrian and bicycle - Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, Western Dublin Transportation related projects 2022-2027. The St Patrick Way Impact Fee, Dublin Crossing Extension is a developer - Transportation Fee, Tri-Valley funded project (about Transportation Development Fee, and $3,750,000) that includes Dublin Crossing Fund. pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 116 City of Dublin DRAFT 514 FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS COUNTYWIDE AND REGIONAL Measure B and Bicycle and Pedestrian Program: MEASURE B: $1,400,000 Measure BB Capital project, programs, and plans allocated in 2021-2022 that directly address bicycle and & $300,000 allocated in pedestrian access, convenience, safety, and usage. Cannot be used 2022-2027 to Annual Street Repaving, Citywide for repaving an entire roadway or for Bicycle and Pedestrian programs that exclusively serve city Improvements and the staff. Iron Horse Trail Bridge Local Streets and Roads Program: at Dublin Boulevard. Capital projects, programs, maintenance, or operations that MEASURE BB: $6.5 million of Measure BB directly improve local streets and funds was allocated to roads and local transportation. bicycle and pedestrian Cannot be used for programs that exclusively serve city staff. projects in 2021-22, including $5.2 million from Measure BB Grants. Approximately $4.7 million has been allocated in 2022- 27. Measure RR Projects are required to make the $1,500,000 allocated to Iron BART system safer, more reliable, and Horse Bridge at Dublin to reduce traffic. Boulevard in 2021-22 and no funding is allocated to bicycle or pedestrian projects in 2022-27. FUND NAME One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS $916 million in OBAG 2 regionwide $750 million in OBAG 3 for projects from 2023-26 with additional funds anticipated through the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.' Local street and road maintenance, streetscape enhancements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, Safe Routes to School projects, and transportation planning. Most projects must be in a priority development area (PDA) or have a connection to one. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 39 Design and construction of walkways, bike paths, bike lanes, and safety education programs. Project must be in an adopted plan. All projects must be reviewed by Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). $3 million annually every 2-3 years regionwide I STATEWIDE Statewide Gas Tax Revenue Construction, engineering, and maintenance. Ineligible expenses include decorative lighting, transit facilities, park features, and new utilities. $2 million allocated in 2021-22 and $3.7 million allocated in 2022-27. Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Road maintenance and rehabilitation, safety improvements, railroad grade separations, traffic control devices, and complete streets components. If it has a pavement condition index (PCI) of 80 or more, a city may spend its RMRA funds on other transportation priorities. Dublin has a PCI greater than 8010 1.8 million in 2021-22 and $5.6 million in 2022-27 for Annual Street Resurfacing and Iron Horse Bridge at Dublin Boulevard 7 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-2 8 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-3 9 https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/transit-2lst-century/funding-sales-tax-and-0. 10 https://www.dublin.ca.gov/1955/Pavement-Management-Program DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 117 515 FUND NAME Active Transportation Program (ATP)11 PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS $1.65 billion for Cycle 6 (2023) up from $223 million in Cycle 5. The State budget bill added $1 billion in June 2022 after applications were submitted. Biannual program Infrastructure projects and plans, including bicycle and pedestrian projects, active transportation plans, quick build projects, and Safe Routes to School Plans, as well as education and encouragement activities. Funding cannot be used for funded projects or for cost increases. Scoring criteria favors projects located in or benefiting equity priority (disadvantaged) communities. Sustainable Communities Multimodal transportation and land use planning projects that further the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy. Requires 11.47 percent local match. $29.5 million, split between statewide and regional competitive funds Strategic Partnerships Planning efforts that identify and address statewide, interregional, and regional transportation deficiencies on the state highway system in partnership with Caltrans. Requires 20 percent local match. Would require Dublin to apply as sub -applicant to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). $4.5 million, $3 million of which is dedicated to projects related to transit State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)'2 Repair and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements. Elements include pavement, bridges, culverts, and transportation management systems. Projects must be on the California State Highway System. $18 billion statewide for 4 years Portfolio updated every 2 years FUND NAME State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS $71 million for Alameda County13 Updated every 2 years Any transportation project eligible for State Highway Account or federal funds. Projects need to be nominated in Regional TIP, but MTC may nominate fund categories. El FEDERAL Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program Projects that connect active transportation infrastructure. $1 billion nationally Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Focuses on infrastructure treatments with known crash reduction factors, such as countermeasures at locations with documented collision and safety issues. $263 million allocated statewide for 2022 Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Major infrastructure projects, especially with road, bridge, transit, or intermodal components. Minimum grant size of $5 million. It is possible to propose a program (or network) of projects that address the same transportation challenge. $2.275 billion nationally Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) Comprehensive safety action plan development and implementation. $6 billion nationally PROTECT Resilience Grants Transportation resilience planning and project implementation. $1.4 billion nationally Reconnecting Communities Removing or retrofitting highways to restore community connectivity. $1 billion nationally 11 https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program 12 http.//www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/SHOPP/2018 shopp/2018-shopp-adopted-by-ctc.pdf 13 https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/stip/2022-stip/2022-adopted-stip-32522.pdf 118 City of Dublin DRAFT 516 FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS $1 billion nationally SMART Demonstrating projects utilizing Grants innovative technology to improve transportation efficiency and safety. National Infrastructure Project Assistance grants program (Mega) Highway or bridge project, including grade separation or elimination project. Supports large, complex projects that are difficult to fund through other means and that are likely to generate national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits. Minimum grant size of $100 million. It is possible to propose a program, or network, of projects that address same transportation challenge. $5 billion nationally (2022-2026) Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highways Projects grants program (INFRA) Multimodal freight and highway projects of national or regional significance to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people in and across rural and urban areas. Minimum project size of $100 million. A network of projects can be proposed that address same transportation problem. $7.25 billion nationally (FY 2022-2026) Healthy Streets Program Projects that reduce the urban heat island and improve air quality. $500 million Bridge Investment Program Bridge replacement, rehab, preservation, and protection. $15.8 billion Congestion Management & Air Quality (CMAQ) Transportation projects or programs that contribute to attainment of national air quality standards. Must reduce air pollution and be included in the regional transportation plan. Estimated $2.54 billion nationally in 2022, $506 million of which apportioned to California 14 https.//www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.cfm. FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Improve conditions and performance on any federal -aid highway, bridge, or tunnel projects on a public road; includes pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. In general, funds aren't used on local roads, but there are many exceptions to this 14 $13.835 billion estimated nationally in 2022; $1.2 billion of which is apportioned to California Divided into population - based and statewide funds. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 119 517 PERFORMANCE MEASURES Setting performance measures helps track progress toward goals and document the results of investments in biking, walking, and rolling. Performance measures and monitoring also helps to identify opportunities for improvement. Table 17 presents the performance measures and desired trends that have been established to track progress toward achieving this Plan's goals. Table 17. Goals and Performance Measures GOAL PE ���DND Enhance Safety • Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations • Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Increase users' perception of safety • Decrease average crossing distances 41°1 Increase Walking and Biking • Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities IIII Improve Connectivity • Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps • Increase number of crossing opportunities • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces Eil Enhance Accessibility • Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues • Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces • Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements • Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair rip a Prioritize Investments • Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to build a complete streets network • Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation infrastructure spending 120 City of Dublin DRAFT 518 LOOKING AHEAD Walking and biking allow residents and visitors of Dublin to travel throughout the city in a way that promotes a sustainable, healthy, and vibrant community. This Plan helps foster a safe and connected multimodal transportation network and establishes Dublin's vision and comprehensive approach to improving walking, biking, and rolling. The ultimate goal is a universally -accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated system that promotes active and sustainable transportation as a convenient alternative to motor vehicles. The Plan's performance measures allow for the ongoing tracking of progress towards implementation of the following goals: Enhance Safety Increase Walking and Biking Improve Connectivity Enhance Accessibility The Plan provides for both near -term and long-term infrastructure investments to achieve the Plan's vision and goals as well as policy and programmatic recommendations that encourage and support walking, biking, and rolling. Together, these components create a comprehensive approach that will guide, prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, and public health in Dublin. Prioritize Investments DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 121 519 L ARY 2014 PLAN. The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which is being replaced by this plan. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION. Active transportation includes personal mobility devices of all kinds: bicycles, wheelchairs, scooters, rollerblades, skateboards, hoverboards, e-bikes, e-scooters, motorized wheelchairs, and more. Emerging technology and the availability of personal mobility devices complicate the definitions of bicycle and pedestrian. This Plan recognizes the high degree of overlapping policy, programmatic, and infrastructure needs among active modes and considers these a part of the bicycling and walking ecosystem. Where necessary, the Plan distinguishes electric mobility such as e-bikes and e-scooters to meet their unique requirements and needs. ARTERIALS: Major roads that connect urbanized areas, cities, and industrial centers and generally have fewer direct access points. BICYCLE. A bicycle (or bike) is a human -powered or motor - powered, pedal -driven vehicle with two wheels attached to a frame. Bicycles can be categorized in different ways, including by function, number of riders, general construction, gearing, or means of propulsion. The more common types include utility or commuter, mountain, road or racing, touring, hybrid, cruiser, BMX, and electric. Less common types include tandem, low -riders, tall bikes, fixed gear, folding, cargo, and recumbents. Unicycles, tricycles, and quadracycles are often referred to as bicycles though they are not strictly bicycles as they have fewer or more than two wheels. BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS. Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is an analysis approach that quantifies the amount of comfort and level of stress that people feel when they bike on certain streets based on interactions with other travel modes, traffic control, and roadway characteristics. The methodology was developed in 2012 by the Mineta Transportation Institute and San Jose State University. BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY. Bicyclist typology was developed in 2005 in Portland, Oregon to help understand how people used bicycles for transportation and what biking concerns and needs they had.15 Based on this research, bicyclists tend to fall into one of four groups: (1) Strong and Fearless — willing to bicycle with limited or no bicycle -specific infrastructure. (2) Enthused and Confident — willing to bicycle if some bicycle - specific infrastructure is in place. (3) Interested but Concerned — willing to bicycle if high -quality bicycle infrastructure is in place (4) No Way No How — unwilling to bicycle even if high -quality bicycle infrastructure is in place COLLECTORS: Major and minor streets and roads that connect local streets with arterials. Collectors are generally shorter and have lower speeds than arterials. COMPLETE STREET. Complete Streets is an approach to planning, designing, building, operating, and maintaining streets that enables safe access for all people who need to use 15 Roger Geller, "Four Types of Cyclists," Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507. 122 City of Dublin DRAFT 520 them, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. https:/smartgrowthamerica.org/ what -are -complete -streets/ COMPLETE STREET STUDY. A Complete Street Study is recommended on constrained corridors with multiple competing priorities where Class I or Class IV facilities were identified as the suitable facility to provide an all ages and abilities network. The Complete Street Study may include data collection, analysis, concept design development, and engagement and would be intended to evaluate conditions for people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving along the corridor and assist decision -makers and the public in selecting a preferred alternative for implementation. CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT. An overarching management program and/or plan to guide allocation and regulation of the curbside for optimized mobility and safety for people using the curb space. Curb uses and users include: bicycle infrastructure, pedestrians and crossing infrastructure, vehicle storage, freight and passenger loading, parklets, food trucks and mobile vendors, among others. ELECTRIC BICYCLE. An electric bicycle has fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. According to Section 312.5 of the California Vehicle Code, there are three classifications of electric bicycles: (1) A Class 1 electric bicycle, or low -speed pedal -assisted electric bicycle, has a motor that assists only when the rider is pedaling. That motor ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. (2) A Class 2 electric bicycle, or low -speed throttle -assisted electric bicycle, has a motor that can be used to propel the bicycle exclusively. The motor is not capable of assisting when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. (3) A Class 3 electric bicycle, or speed pedal -assisted electric bicycle, has a motor that assists only when the rider is pedaling. The motor stops assisting when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. This class of electric bicycles is equipped with a speedometer. END -OF -TRIP FACILITIES. Designated places —like secure bicycle parking, locker facilities, and changing rooms —that encourage bicyclists, joggers, and walkers to use sustainable modes to travel instead of driving. HIGH INJURY NETWORK. The collection of worst - performing street segments based on severity and frequency of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. MICROMOBILITY. Any small, low -speed, human or electric -powered transportation device, including bicycles, scooters, electric -assist bicycles (e-bikes), electric scooters (e-scooters), and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances. PEDESTRIAN. People who travel by walking or jogging and people who use a mobility assistive device like walkers, canes, crutches, wheelchairs, or mobility scooters. PERSONAL MOBILITY DEVICE. Various mechanical means of transportation including seated and standing traditional and electric scooters, skateboards, powered wheelchairs, bicycles, and Segways. ROLLING. Rolling as a way to get around can mean many things, like bicycling, using a wheelchair, scooting, skateboarding, among other methods. SHY DISTANCE. Shy distance refers to the space left between vehicles or pedestrians and bicyclists as they pass each other. The amount of shy distance required for safety tends to increase with speed. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 123 521 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 522 523 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 524 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 525 ill MR1111 Attachment 4 APPENDIX MMUNIT'.' GAGE EN UM ARY: ITY Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 527 winter consulting Date: February 14th, 2020 Project: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan To: Sai Midididdi, Project Manager From: Corinne Winter (Winter Consulting) through Mike Alston (Kittelson) FINAL Community Engagement Plan Introduction The Community Engagement Plan (CEP) for the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update (the Plan) establishes a framework for soliciting meaningful information and insights to inform decision making. Through the strategies outlined in the CEP, and in partnership with agency staff and community members, the Project Team will engage appropriate stakeholders to better understand walking and bicycling issues and opportunities within Dublin. This input will inform the development of bicycle and pedestrian projects, policies, and programs for the Plan update. The CEP includes the following sections: 1. Guiding Principles 2. Engagement Process a. Stakeholder Identification b. Engagement Strategy & Activities c. Documentation and Transition of Stakeholder Relationships Appendices 1. Potential TAC Members 2. Potential Pop -Up Locations 3. Organizations 1. Guiding Principles The strategies outlined in this CEP are guided by four principles: • Build on ongoing planning efforts: The City of Dublin (City) has past experience working with community stakeholders. This CEP will build off of the City's prior and ongoing engagement efforts. • Coordinate outreach efforts: In order to take full advantage of stakeholder input, the Project Team will fully coordinate various outreach activities with the project's technical tasks. • Build relationships with community -based organizations: The Project Team will develop strategies to build and maintain strong relationships with Dublin and surrounding area community -based organizations (CBOs), and will identify opportunities to partner with community stakeholders on outreach implementation. • Engage stakeholders effectively and equitably: The Project Team will work to ensure participation from a wide range of community members, including individuals from disadvantaged communities, of different ethnicities, and other community members who are traditionally underrepresented in outreach and engagement, including people with limited mobility. On -demand interpretation will be made available for all engagement activities to enable successful communication with all of Dublin's diverse residents. 528 2. Engagement Process winter consulting Community engagement for the Plan will include the following steps, as illustrated in Figure 1: • Identify stakeholders • Engage stakeholders • Analyze feedback Figure 1: Stakeholder Engagement Process Step 1 Identify Stakeholders •Step 1.1: Identify agency partners •Step 1.2: [Identify community partners 2.1 Stakeholder Identification Step 2 Engage Stakeholders • Step 2.1: Partner with agencies and community groups •Step 2.2: Consult engaged community members •Step 2.3: Inform the general public to increase participation Th 1 Step 3 Analyze Feedback •Step 3.1: Document and address feedback received during engagement •Step 3.2: Establish mechanisms for continuity in relationships 1 The Project Team will identify stakeholders that may have an interest in shaping the outcomes of the Plan, including those that aren't yet aware the Plan is underway. These stakeholders generally fall into one of two categories: • Agency Partners: Agencies responsible for project implementation, whether direct or indirect (e.g., agency departments, elected leaders) • Community Partners: Community members who may be affected by or interested in changes to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, policies, and/or programs in Dublin Agency Partners Stakeholders include City of Dublin staff in Planning, Public Works, Parks, Community Services, and Dublin Police Services; Alameda County Fire Department; Dublin Unified School District; and elected/appointed representatives and other institutions (e.g., Kaiser Hospital), which influence transportation policy and project implementation. Community Partners The City's residents, businesses, bike shops (e.g., Dublin Cyclery), and groups such as Bike East Bay, Walk the Trail, and the Chamber of Commerce, will be interested in and impacted by the implementation of projects and policies defined in the Plan. Therefore, these community partners are an important group of stakeholders. Page 2 529 winter consulting 2.2 Engagement Strategy & Activities This section describes: • The committees that will interface with the Project Team • The activities that will be designed when consulting appropriate stakeholders at major decision -making points • The communication plan used to keep the public informed and to increase participation in the activities described Governing Groups and Committees The Project Team will form a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide key guidance. The Alameda CTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) serves as the Dublin's BPAC and will also provide important input. 1. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) o Members: See Appendix 1 for public agency representatives from various departments in Dublin o Role: The TAC will be consulted at five key project milestones and will be responsible for shaping the direction and outcomes of the Plan. Prior to TAC meetings, the Project Team will prepare meeting materials, and support the Project Manager in correspondence with TAC members. During TAC meetings, the Project Team will share relevant Plan information, review findings, discuss concerns and tradeoffs, and seek the TAC's guidance on Plan recommendations. o Frequency: See Table 1 for a tentative meeting schedule, topics, and outcomes. 2. Alameda CTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) o Members: Current BPAC members o Role: Solicit input from the Alameda CTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to provide additional guidance and support for the draft Plan. o Frequency: Introduce the Plan at the BPAC's April 30 meeting and then update BPAC throughout the Plan process as appropriate. Table 1: TAC Meeting Topics and Target Outcomes Anticipated Date Topics Target Outcomes Meeting #1 March 2020 (Phase 1) ■ Introduce the Plan process ■ Share the Community Engagement Plan ■ Solicit input on the project vision ■ Establish collective understanding of the Plan and planning process ■ Obtain feedback on Community Engagement Plan and upcoming stakeholder engagement ■ Obtain input on project vision Meeting #2 May 2020 (Phase I) ■ Review and discuss preliminary existing conditions ■ Update on community outreach ■ Review draft vision and goals ■ Obtain feedback on draft existing conditions findings ■ Obtain feedback on draft vision and goals Meeting #3 Fall 2020 (Phase 2) ■ Review preliminary findings from needs analysis ■ Update on community outreach ■ Share findings from needs assessment ■ Solicit input on recommendations for policy, program, and infrastructure elements Meeting #4 Winter 2021 Draft prioritization approach and plan recommendations ■ Obtain feedback on draft prioritization approach and Plan recommendations Page 3 530 (Phase 2) Meeting #5 Spring 2021 (Phase 3) winter consulting ■ Present draft Plan for review and comment • Obtain feedback on draft Plan Community Engagement Activities In addition to the ongoing partnerships described above, community engagement for the Plan includes activities to solicit input from the Dublin community on walking and biking, shown in Table 2. At key points in the technical work, the Consultant Team will summarize the feedback received from these engagement activities to incorporate into findings and recommendations. A wide range of community stakeholders will be consulted in the development of these activities to help: • Identify potential gaps in the Project Team's understanding of existing conditions • Obtain feedback on feasible alternatives from a broad spectrum of current and potential pedestrians and bicyclists • Cultivate community support for future implementation Page 4 531 winter consulting Table 2: Outreach Activities During Each Plan Phase Activity Purpose and Target Outcomes Phase I: Project Launch (Feb — Oct 2020) Phase 2: Review of Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements (Nov 2020 through Apr 2021) Phase 3: Draft and Final Plan One (1) workshop; City's bi- annual transportation community workshop Inform the public about the Plan and gather broad community feedback ■ Establish collective understanding of the planning process; Obtain feedback on project vision Two (2) pop-up events; potential locations are listed in Appendix 2 • Inform the public about the Plan and gather broad community feedback ■ Assess qualitative priorities in various neighborhoods • Meet residents at local events or meetings, and also advertise the events to the broader community Two (2) public meetings (e.g. City Council or Commissions) Provide support to City staff and answer stakeholders' questions Distribute flyers/ postcards/business cards to various community locations Website and online map • Spread information and interest in the Plan via Dublin's community facilities, library, trailheads, and through other City locations/programs ■ Advertise interactive online map and other ways to provide input • Will be updated at key project milestones and will provide information about the Plan development and events ■ Online map will give the public the opportunity to identify desired improvements, gaps, and key destinations in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network Inform elected officials Two (2) pop-up events; potential locations are listed in Appendix 2 Inform the City Council that the Plan is kicking off and invite them to sign up for future project emails, if interested Inform the public about the Plan and gather broad community feedback on draft Plan elements Assess qualitative priorities in various neighborhoods Meet residents at local events or meetings, and also advertise the event to the broader community One (1) Walking Tour Investigate existing conditions with Bike East Bay, Walk the Trail, and other community stakeholders ■ Gather specific input on pedestrian and bicycle facilities, network gaps, and infrastructure needs Two (2) public meetings (e.g. City Council or Commissions) ■ Provide support to City staff and answer stakeholders' questions Website and online map and • Project website will be updated at key project milestones and will provide information about the Plan development and events • Online map will give the public the opportunity to review the proposed network/improvements and provide input One (1) workshop; City's bi- annual Transportation Community Workshop • Gather broad community feedback • Assess qualitative priorities across the City • Obtain feedback on draft Plan elements Two (2) public meetings (e.g. City Council or Commissions) ■ Provide support to City staff and answer stakeholders' questions Website ■ Project website will be updated at key project milestones and will provide information about the Plan development and events Page 5 532 winter consulting Plan Communications Plan communication tools are summarized in Table 3 and rely on electronic communication channels (i.e., City of Dublin, City PIO (Public Information Officer), and partner websites; social media accounts; stakeholder email lists; and Dublin Library and facilities). Content will be published concurrently with Plan milestones to keep the public up-to-date on the Plan's status, help identify additional stakeholders, and increase participation in the outreach activities described in Table 2. The Consultant Team will also work with local community and business organizations to expand the reach of the Plan's communication channels. Appendix 3 offers a preliminary list of stakeholder organizations. Table 3: Plan Communication Tools Activity Purpose Occurrence Target Outcomes Flyer/ Postcard/ Business Card Share Plan information with the public during Phase I Develop an initial flyer at outset of Plan; distribute on two separate dates ■ Spread information and build interest in the Plan via Dublin's facilities; Library, trailhead message boards, and through other City locations (e.g., bike lockers at BART, bus shelters) Website Broadly share Plan materials and provide a platform for additional community participation The website will be updated at key milestones ■ Document outreach meetings ■ Link to/embed the online map ■ Allow the public to provide feedback on the Draft Plan Social Media Broadly share Plan materials and encourage additional community participation using the City's existing platforms As appropriate throughout the Plan ■ City to promote the Plan website, online map, in - person outreach events, and Plan milestones on existing City platforms Plan email list Keep interested parties informed about key milestones and outreach touch points As appropriate throughout the Plan ■ Keep interested parties updated on Plan status and highlight opportunities to share feedback ■ Help market outreach meetings and other feedback opportunities Help increase interest and engagement in outreach activities On -Demand Language Interpretation Service A phone -based service that provides interpretation in 244 languages As appropriate throughout the Plan ■ Permits an increase in community stakeholders' participation in certain outreach activities described in Table 2 ■ Engage stakeholders effectively and equitably Partner - Organization Outreach Leverage partnerships with organizations interested in transportation to reach their constituencies As appropriate throughout the Plan Keep organizations' constituents updated on Plan status and highlight opportunities to share feedback Help market outreach meetings and other feedback opportunities Help increase interest and thus improve engagement in outreach activities Online Engagement This section describes the approach for the Plan website, social media communications, and online map. Plan Website Online engagement tools will complement in -person outreach efforts. The Project Team will create a robust and customized online content management system (CMS) with significant capabilities and potential. This section Page 6 533 winter consulting describes the initial framework for the CMS tool, but further customization is possible throughout the span of the planning process depending on project needs. All aspects of the online tool will be fully accessible (compliant with the most stringent Federal accessibility standards) and will be easily utilized from both computers and various mobile devices. Optional demographic surveys will allow the project team to assess who is interacting with the online engagement tools and use this information to make decisions regarding in -person engagement (i.e., geographies or demographics that aren't represented can be further emphasized). Content for publication The CMS tool will provide a central storehouse for all general project information that might be of interest to stakeholders, for example: • Project scope and timeline • Agendas, minutes, and presentations from relevant meetings • Connections to/from other relevant project websites • Upcoming outreach events Content to encourage discourse In addition to providing static information, the CMS tool will be leveraged at multiple points during the planning process to solicit feedback from stakeholders and to share sophisticated project information. These mechanisms will include interactive online survey maps. Social media Social media engagement seeks to increase conversation around the project, reach target demographics that are outside currently engaged demographics, and successfully solicit feedback at various project stages. Mechanisms for advertising the online assets Regardless of how robust they are, online engagement platforms are only as useful as the amount of traffic that they receive and who they are able to reach. Recognizing the importance of driving traffic to the web assets, the Project Team will develop multiple channels to advertise the project website and tools, including the City and partners' email distribution lists, social media, project collateral, and in -person outreach. 2.3 Documentation and Transition of Stakeholder Relationships This aspect of the engagement process focuses on documenting the outreach efforts as well as ensuring continuity between planning and implementation. The Consultant Team will establish mechanisms for continuity in stakeholder relationships by providing the stakeholder database to the City and making all online assets made available to City for future use. The Team will indicate if follow-up with specific demographics or individuals may be recommended. Documentation will include activity summaries for each of the three outreach phases as well as a summary outreach report. The Consultant Team will transfer all engagement materials and files to the City for future use or reference. All outreach efforts will be documented and summarized in a summary outreach report, which will be folded into the final Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Page 7 534 winter consulting Appendix 1: Potential TAC Members Contact Emai Designation Agency/Department Confirmed ••• •--- Wheeler Kristie.Wheeler@dublin.ca.gov Assistant Lommunrty uevelopment Director Planning Yes Bridget Amaya Bridget.Amaya@dublin.ca.gov Assistant Parks & Community Services Director Parks & Community Service Yes Chris Stevens Chief Facilities Operations Officer; Office 925-828-2551 ext. 8061, Cell 925-557-0109 Dublin Unified School District Verbal ok/No email confirmation yet Yes stevenschris@dublinusd.org Kevin Monaghan Kevin.Monaghan@dublin.ca.gov Traffic Sergeant _ Dublin Police Department Darrell Jones Darrell.Jones@dublin.ca.gov Deputy Fire Marshall Dublin Fire Department Yes Lisa Bobadilla lbobadilla@sanramon.ca.gov Division Manager, Transportation Division, Public Works City of San Ramon Yes Cedric Novenario cnovenario@cityofpleasantonca. gov Senior Traffic Engineer City of Pleasanton Yes Julie Chiu jchiu@cityoflivermore.net Associate Civil Engineer City of Livermore Yes -Include both Andy Ross aaross@cityoflivermore.net Assistant Planner City of Livermore Yes -Include both Hazel Wetherford Hazel.Wetherford@dublin.ca.gov Economic Development Director City Manager's Office Yes John Stefanski John.Stefanski@dublin.ca.gov Assistant to the City Manager City Manager's Office Yes Christopher Marks CMarks@alamedactc.org Associate Transportation Planner Alameda CTC Yes Sergio Ruiz 1 sergio.ruiz@dot.ca.gov Branch Chief for Active Transportation Caltrans ' Yes Jake Freedman Jake.Freedman@dot.ca.gov East Alameda County liaison Caltrans Yes Mariana Parreiras mparrei@bart.gov Project Manager, BART Planning, Development & Construction, 510.464.6169 BART Emailed the contact- Not confirmed yet Cyrus Sheik csheik@lavta.org LAVTA Yes Appendix 2: Potential Pop -Up Locations Event Date Phase Location Shamrock 5k Fun Run & Walk unday, March 15, at 8:30 a.m. Phase 1 • Dublin Saint Patrick's Day Festival Saturday, March 14 & Sunday, March 15 Phase 1 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA Bike East Bay — Family Cycling Workshops Saturday, March 28, 2020 110 a.m. —1 p.m. Phase 1 2100 E Cantara Drive Dublin Farmers' Market Thursdays, beginning April 2, 4:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. Thursday, May 28 — Bike to Market Day Phase 1 or 2 Emerald Glen Community Park, Dublin, CA Dublin Pride Volunteer Day Saturday, April 25 8 a.m. -1 p.m. Phase 1 Emerald Glen Park, Gleason Dr., Dublin Page 8 535 winter consulting Cinderella Ride 2020 Saturday, March 28, 2020 Phase 1 Las Positas College — Livermore, CA Dublin Pride Week Workshops Saturday April 25 May 3 Phase 1 Various locations throughout Dublin Bike Commuting 101 Thursday, April 30 Phase 1 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA Bike to Work Day Thursday, May 14, 2020 Phase 1 East and West Dublin BART, Dublin, CA Community Bike Ride May 16, 2020 Phase 1 11-mile ride between City of Pleasanton and City of Dublin Spring Eggstravaganza Saturday, April 11, 2020 8:30 a.m. — 1:00 p.m. Phase 1 4201 Central Parkway Picnic Flix Fri, June 12 Fri, July 311Fri, Aug 1 Phase 1 4201 Central Parkway Family Campout June 20-21, 3:00 p.m. — 10:00 a.m. July 11-12, 3:00 p.m. — 10:00 a.m. August 8-9, 3:00 p.m. — 10:00 a.m. Phase 1 Emerald Glen Park Alamo Creek Park Schaefer Ranch Park Dublin Heritage Park and Museums Music Jams & Hands -On History Day Phase 1 6600 Donlon Way, Dublin, CA Splatter September 12 Phase 1 Emerald Glen Park, 4201 Central Parkway, Dublin, CA Walk and Roll to School First week of October, planning meetings with schools in Sept. Could promote plan @ meeting and ask site leads to distribute info or host workshop @ school Phase 2 Homecoming Parade TBD Phase 2 Dublin High School Dublin Senior Center Info. Fair October 3, 2020 Phase 2 The Wave Swim lessons, swim meets, etc. Phase 2 Dublin Library Tabling at entrance during peak use Phase 2 Appendix 3: Stakeholder Organizations Organization Website Number & Email WHEELS https://www.wheelsbus.com/ 925-828-0231 info@lavta.org Dial -a -Ride https://www.wheelsbus.com/ 925 455 7510 info@lavta.org Bike East Bay https://bikeeastbay.org/ kristi@bikeeastbay.org The Trail Group Valley Spokesmen Bicycle Club https://www.valleyspokesmen.org 925-828-5299 webmaster@valleyspokesmen.org Indians in Dublin, Ca Facebook Link Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs https://www.apapa.org 916-928-9988 info@apapa.org Integrity in Action Dublin-integrity-in-action.org info@dublinintegrityinaction.org 925-828-6200, Inge Houston, Chamber of Commerce www.dublinchamberofcommerce.org CEO/President, ceo@dublinchamberofcommerce.org Innovation Tri-Valley Lynn Naylor, CEO, Inavlor@innovationtrivallev.org Dublin Senior Foundation 925-833-1866 Dublin Community Foundation http://www.dublinfoundation.org/ 614-889-2001 Page 9 536 winter consulting New Life Church www.newlifeinfo.com 925-355-9200 Muslim Community Center https://mcceastbay.org/ 925-485-1786 contact@mcceastbay.org Valley Christian Center www.comediscovervcc.org 925-560-6202 Blazing Fire Church https://blazingfire.org/home 925-264-9161 info@blazingfire.org Dublin Art Collective Facebook.com/DublinArtCa Sri Panchamukha Hanuman Temple https://panchamukhahanuman.org/ 510-926-7638 pmhtemple@gmail.com Dublin Fighting Irish http://www.dublinfightingirish.org 510-714-1439 irishyouthfootball@yahoo.com Tri-Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau 925 846 8910 Tri-Valley YMCA 925-263-4444 Women's Club of Dublin/San Ramon https://dsrwomensclub.org/ 925-828-0231 dsrwcmail@gmail.com Dublin Sister City Association Facebook Link 925-899-4771 Dublin Partners in Education www.dpie.org 925-828-2551 x8024 Dublin Lions Club 925 828 6636 steve6gd@yahoo.com Girl Scouts https://www.crossroadsgirlscouts.com/ 800-447-4475 crossroadsgirlscouts@gmail.com Boy Scouts of America http://www.sfbac.org/about/ebscoutshop 925-785-4518 jalewis@bsamail.org Dublin Historical Preservation Association http://dhpa.org/ dhpaorg@gmail.com Dublin 4-H https://www.dublin4h.com/ 925-462-4518 cnattu@gmail.com badami@gmail.com Child Care Links https://behively.org/ 925 417 8733 hello@behively.org BART Kamala Parks, KParks2@bart.gov Senior Support Programs of the Tri-Valley Alameda County Safe Routes to School http://alamedacountysr2s.org/ info@alamedacountysr2s.org Kaiser Permanents Ronald Wetter, Community & Governmental Relations Manager, ronald.wetter@kp.org Zeiss Meditec Mark Boyd, Sr. Facilities Manager, mar.boyd@zeiss.com Vagaro HQ Kerry Melchoir, Director of Operations, kerrymelchior@vagaro.com TriNet HQ Jay Meyer, Director of Facilities, jay.meyer@trinet.com Patelco Credit Union HQ Cara Houck, Community and Corporate Social Responsibility Specialist, chouck@patelco.org AEye HQ Jennifer Deitsch, Communications Director Ross Stores HQ Lynn Mayate, Corporate HR, lynn.mayate@ros.com Graybar Kristian Reyes, Kristian.Reyes@grybar.com Page 10 537 winter consulting Chabot Las Positas Julia Dozier, District Executive Director, Community College District jdozier@clpccd.org Dublin San Ramon Services District Judy Zavadil, zavadil@dsrsd.com Camp Parks Brian Lucid, Analyst, brian.m.lucid.civ@mail.mil Tri-Valley Career Center Sarah Holtzclaw, Program Manager, sholtzclaw@clpccd.org Federal Corrections Institute Alameda County (Courthouse, Office of Emergency Services, County Jail) Page 11 538 APPENDIX A UNITY NG GE ENT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 539 BICYCLE AND DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN 7\770771; MASTER PLAN Please fill out our Public Survey! OUR VISION The City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel and connect individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations. GOALS Enhance Safety Prioritize safety in design and implementation of walking and biking facilities. Increase Walking and dBiking Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation. Improve Connectivity Develop a bicycle and ttpedestrian network that provides well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. Vision & Goals Enhance Accessibility Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities. INVOLVED Go to www. dublinbikeped.org to learn more and provide input to inform the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Existing Conditions 1 1 JUN 1 1 1 1 1 1 111. Project & Program Recommendations AUG OCT DEC FEB APR 2021 JUN AUG 1 OCT Prioritize Investments Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including supporting programs and operation and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities 1 Draft & Final Plan DEC FEB 2022 APR MAY City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 833-6630 I (925) 833-6651 FAX www.dublin.ca.gov Email us at: bikeandpedplan@dublin.ca.gov 540 APPENDIX A UNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMAR UBLIC SURVEY Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 541 .1rCity of Dublin's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update 4 Transportation DUBLIN SurveyCALIFORNIA The City of Dublin is updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to further the Dublin's commitment to create a walk- and bike -friendly community. The Plan will include goals and recommendations to ensure that walking and biking in Dublin is safe, comfortable, and fun for all ages and abilities. This survey is intended to better understand travel behavior of residents who walk and bike in Dublin. This data will be used to inform the program, policy, and project recommendations. This survey will take approximately 7 minutes to complete, and the information collected will be confidential and used solely to inform the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update. To learn more about the City of Dublin's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, please visit the project website: www.DublinBikePed.orq The more survey responses we get, the better informed our Plan will be. Please share this survey with your friends, colleagues, family, and neighbors! General Travel Habits 1. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, how frequently did you use each of the following options to travel to work or school? Check the appropriate boxes. Less than 1-3 once a days a Never month month At least once a week Drive alone in personal car, truck, van, or motorcycle Carpool with others (car or van) Public transit (Bus, BART) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CID Paratransit CID Employer -provided shuttle Personal Bicycle CID ❑ ❑ Bike share ❑ ❑ Scooter share/personal scooter ❑ ❑ Walk Taxi (Includes Uber, Lyft etc.) Use wheelchair/mobility aid CID ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Combination of multiple travel modes (bike to a transit station, drive to a vanpool location, etc.) ❑ ❑ 2. After the COVID-19 pandemic, how frequently will you use each of the following options to travel to work or school? Check the appropriate boxes. Less than once a Never month 1-3 days a month At least once a week Drive alone in personal car, truck, van, or motorcycle ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Carpool with others (car or van) DODD Public transit (Bus, BART) Paratransit Employer -provided shuttle Personal Bicycle Bike share Scooter share/personal scooter Walk Taxi (Includes Uber, Lyft etc.) Use wheelchair/mobility aid Combination of multiple travel modes (bike to a transit station, drive to a vanpool location, etc.) 3. On Question 1, if you selected "Combination of multiple travel modes," what travel modes are involved in your trip? Check all that apply. Personal vehicle (drive alone) Carpool / Vanpool Public Transit Paratransit Employer -provided shuttle Personal Bicycle Bike share Scooter share/personal scooter Walk Use a wheelchair/mobility aid Taxi (Includes Uber, Lyft, etc.) Other: OOOOOOOOOOOO 542 4. If you most often drive alone to work, which of the following are the main reasons? Check all that apply. Don't usually drive alone to get to work Driving alone is quickest/most convenient option Privacy Safety Cost of other transportation options is prohibitive Irregular work schedule Need to make additional stops on the way to or from work, or in the middle of the day ❑ Work reasons/commitments ❑ Don't have access to or want to take a shower at work if I walk or bike ❑ Too hard to get to transit stop/station from home ❑ Too hard to get to transit stop/station from work ❑ Public transportation or paratransit are not available or convenient ❑ Sidewalks are not traversable while using a wheelchair or mobility aid ❑ The route I would use does not have curb ramps ❑ Tactile warning surfaces (such as yellow truncated domes) are either confusing or not present ❑ Weather ❑ Insufficient bike parking ❑ Other, please specify: 5. Do you have school -aged children? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Prefer not to answer 6. If you have children, how do your child(ren) typically travel to/from school? (Check all that apply.) O OOOOOOOO Walk Dropped off in a personal vehicle School bus Public transportation (bus/rail) Paratransit, wheelchair or mobility aid Bike Scooter Drive themselves alone or with siblings Other: 7. If you have children, please indicate which, if any, of the following factors discourage your child(ren) from traveling to/from school by biking, using a scooter, walking or using a wheelchair/mobility aid. (Check all that apply.) Takes too long / distance to school Inconvenient Not safe from traffic Not safe from crime It isn't "cool"/peer pressure Lack of bicycle facilities Lack of sidewalks Lack of curb ramps Tactile warning surfaces (such as yellow truncated domes) between sidewalk and street are either confusing or not present ❑ Sidewalks in poor condition (cracks, uneven surface, etc.) or obstacles on the sidewalk (light poles, trees, etc.) ❑ Insufficient bike parking ❑ Other: O OOOOOOOO O OOOOOO Walking and Biking in Dublin 8. How important are the following potential barriers when considering whether to bike, walk or travel using a wheelchair/mobility aid somewhere, like to work or to run errands? Cars go too fast and/or are too close to the sidewalk The existing sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and trails are not maintained properly Existing sidewalks, bicycle facilities and trails do not provide safe access for my wheelchair or mobility aid Not important Somewhat Very important important ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ There isn't enough lighting in the areas where I would walk or bike ❑ ❑ ❑ Crossing the street feels dangerous It is inconvenient to get to close -by destinations (grocery stores, jobs, schools, parks, transit stations) There is not enough shade to keep me comfortable on the walk or bike/scooter ride ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Are we missing anything important? Please write in comment box 9. What is your favorite street to bike, walk or travel on using a wheelchair or mobility aid in Dublin, and why? 10. What types of improvements would encourage you travel more in Dublin by biking, walking or by wheelchair/mobility aid? Select up to three. ❑ Better/more bicycle facilities ❑ Better/more sidewalks and trails ❑ Lower vehicle speeds and/or more traffic calming infrastructure (ex. Curb extensions, etc.) ❑ More pedestrian countdown signals and pedestrian hybrid beacons at intersections ❑ Improved street lighting ❑ More marked crosswalks at intersections and/or in the middle of the block ❑ Better maintenance of existing sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and paths ❑ Employer incentives to walk or bike to work ❑ Better sidewalk, bicycle facility, and trail connections to transit stops/stations ❑ More trees, shade, benches or other amenities along my route ❑ More curb ramps and audible pedestrian push buttons ❑ Additional short- and long-term secure bike parking for all types of bicycles ❑ Additional onboard bike parking on transit ❑ Other: 543 11. Where should the City prioritize walking improvements first? Select up to three. ❑ Places where pedestrians are involved in traffic crashes ❑ On routes connecting people to schools, libraries, and parks ❑ On routes connecting people to transit stops ❑ To serve people who rely on walking the most (such as those who have limited access to vehicles or transit) ❑ Along and across busy streets ❑ On streets connecting to businesses ❑ In areas with the most people walking ❑ Other: 12. Where should the City prioritize biking improvements first? Select up to three. ❑ Places where bicyclists are involved in traffic crashes ❑ On routes connecting people to schools, libraries, and parks ❑ On routes connecting people to transit stops ❑ To serve people who rely on biking the most (such as those who have limited access to vehicles or transit) ❑ At trail intersections ❑ Along and across busy streets ❑ On streets connecting to businesses ❑ In areas with the most people biking ❑ Other Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about biking, walking or using a wheelchair/mobility aid in Dublin? About You The following questions will help City staff ensure that people throughout Dublin and from different backgrounds are participating in this process. Remember that your responses to the survey questions are completely anonymous. 13. What are the cross streets nearest to your home address? (Enter as you would in Google Maps...example response: "Dublin Boulevard and Regional Street, Dublin, CA")? 14. Your age ❑ 5-14 years old ❑ 15-24 years old ❑ 25-44 years old ❑ 45-64 years old ❑ 65+ years old ❑ Prefer not to respond 15. Other than yourself, are any members of your household: (Check all that apply.) ❑ Under age 18 ❑ Over age 65 ❑ Not applicable ❑ Prefer not to respond 16. What is your gender identity? ❑ Female ❑ Male ❑ Gender non -conforming (Please specify): ❑ Prefer not to respond 17. How do you identify your race/ethnicity? (Select all that apply.) OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO White Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Chinese Filipino Asian Indian Vietnamese Korean Japanese Other Asian Native Hawaiian Samoan Chamorro Other Pacific Islander Other Prefer not to respond 18. Do you have a motor vehicle available for your use? ❑ Yes ❑ No Thank You! 19. Thank you for participating in this survey! The information you provided is an important part of developing the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update. 20. Do you have suggestions about issues or improvements to specific locations in Dublin? If so, we encourage you to also submit comments using the project's online interactive map, accessible at www.DublinBikePed.orq 544 APPENDIX B EXISTING DITI A N Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 545 ICV KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 900 OAKLAND, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 F 510.839.0871 Date: June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 To: Sai Midididdi, TE From: Quinn Wallace; Erin Ferguson, PE, RSP; Amanda Leahy, AICP Subject: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies The City of Dublin (City) is updating the 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014 Plan). The Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update (Plan) will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. As part of the baseline conditions and needs assessment, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) is inventorying existing programs and policies related to walking and biking. This memorandum (memo) details this inventory and key themes from interviews conducted with representatives of seven City departments and the Dublin Unified School District. The memo is organized into the following sections: • Document Review Summary • Benchmarking Interviews Summary • Programs Overview • Key Needs and Recommendations • Appendix: Interview Questionnaires DOCUMENT REVIEW SUMMARY This section summarizes current and draft policies and planning documents that are the most relevant to this Plan. Documents shown in Table 1 were reviewed and summarized in this section with the intent to guide the active transportation goals, policies, and projects presented in this Plan. In addition to the documents identified in Table 1, the Plan will coordinate with upcoming efforts, including the Local Roadway Safety Plan and ADA Transition Plan. Following Table 1, each plan is described in greater detail and organized by scale chronologically. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 546 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 2 Table 1: Relationship to Approved and Ongoing Plans Facility/ Bicycle Pedestrian Design Design Network Policies Policies Guidelines Concep Maps Program Recommendations State and Regional Plans California Green Building Code • Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2019) 0 III Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan • • Local Plans Streetscape Master Plan (2009) • Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution 199-12) (2012) • • Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor and Connectivity Studies (2013) • Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014) • • • • General Plan Land Use & Circulation (2014) Circulation & Scenic Highways Element Schools, Public Lands, & Utilities Element • • Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 547 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 3 Plan Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facilit Networ Maps Design Guidelines Design Concepts Program Recommendations Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study (2017) Traffic Safety Study Update (2018) Climate Action Plan (2020)MIII • Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (2020) • Local Road Safety Plan (in progress) II ID ADA Transition Plan (in progress) • Specific Plans Dublin Crossing (2013) • • Downtown (2014) ID Dublin Village Historic Area (2014) • Eastern Dublin (2016) • • Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2020. State and Regional Plans State and regional plans pertinent to the Plan are summarized in this section. A summary of additional state and regional plans are included in the existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. California Green Building Standards Code According to Chapter 8.76 of the City of Dublin's Municipal Code, bicycle parking and support facilities in both residential and non-residential development shall conform to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The CALGreen Code includes both mandatory and voluntary measures. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 548 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 4 For non-residential buildings, it is mandatory that both short-term and long-term bicycle parking is provided and secure. Generally, the number of long-term bicycle parking spaces must be at least 5% of the number of vehicle parking spaces. Schools have additional requirements so that both students and staff have access to sufficient bicycle parking. Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans (2012) The Alameda Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans established policies at the county level to augment regional and local bicycle and pedestrian plans, programs, and goals. Following a wave of legislative and regulatory changes intended to link transportation and land use planning (such as AB 32), the plans envisioned a transportation system that is multimodal, safe, accessible, affordable, and equitable, integrated, and more. In 2012, a total of $390 million (7% of total program funding) was dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian projects throughout the County. Two active transportation projects were identified in Dublin: the Alamo Canal Trail under 1-580 and Gap Closure and Development of the Iron Horse Trail. Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2019) The 2019 Countywide Active Transportation Plan (CATP) combines updates of the Countywide Bicycle Plan and Countywide Pedestrian Plan. The CATP includes an analysis of low stress bike networks, identifies a countywide high injury pedestrian and bicycle network, evaluates major barriers to the bicycle and pedestrian network, and establishes a framework for prioritizing projects of countywide significance to inform decision -making around active transportation funding at Alameda County Transportation Commission. At the local level, the CATP provides resources to member agencies to help advance projects that provide complete, safe, and connected networks for biking and walking, including better connections to the regional transit network. Connectivity analysis presented in the CATP indicate that the East planning area, which includes the City of Dublin, generally has poor low -stress connectivity in the rural and outlying suburban areas, and the business park portions of Dublin and Pleasanton. Based on the high injury network analysis completed in the CATP, the combined bicycle and pedestrian high injury network mileage represents less than one percent of total countywide high injury network mileage. Within the East planning area, Dublin Boulevard from Arnold Drive to Hacienda Drive and Village Parkway from Davona Drive to Tamarack Drive experience the highest bicycle collision severity score and Dublin Boulevard was identified as the street with the most mileage on the pedestrian high injury network. Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan evaluates bicycle needs on and across the State transportation network and identifies priority bicycle projects. Projects are classified by prioritization categories of top tier, mid tier, and low tier. The following projects are recommended for Dublin: • Top Tier Project: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 549 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 5 o Santa Rita Road and 1-580: Interchange reconstruction (ramps only), Class IIB facility • Mid Tier Project: o Tassajara Creek and 1-580: New separated crossing o Alcosta Boulevard and 1-680: Minor interchange improvements (signage and striping), Class II facility • Low Tier Project: Demarcus Boulevard and 1-580: New separated crossingLocal Plans Existing and draft plans with relevant plans, policies, and goals are described in this section of the non - infrastructure inventory. Streetscape Master Plan (2009) This Master Plan maximizes opportunities to craft an urban image unique to Dublin and to maintain existing amenities like street trees. Goals of the Streetscape Master Plan range from coordinating improvements and responsibilities for Dublin's streets to strengthening the streetscape design of Dublin Boulevard. In the context of active transportation, the Streetscape Master Plan is a particularly valuable resource for identifying and implementing street improvements that contribute to Dublin's image. Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution 199-12) (2012) The City of Dublin's Complete Streets Policy identifies complete streets planning as a critical contributor to: • Increase walking, biking, and taking transit, • Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and • Meet greenhouse gas reduction goals. Together, these targets are intended to result in public health benefits. The Policy emphasizes community engagement to remain sensitive to land use and context and coordination with nearby jurisdictions to connect infrastructure across city boundaries. The Policy names several improvements that should be considered to benefit all users of the street, including sidewalks, shared use paths, bike lanes and routes, accessible curb ramps, and more. Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor and Connectivity Studies (2013) Two studies completed in 2013 that evaluated options for improving bicycling conditions on Dublin Boulevard, particularly in Downtown Dublin. A traffic analysis determined that removing a vehicle travel lane on Dublin Boulevard would delay transit service and worsen traffic during peak periods. Community members and local business owners expressed concern for this potential barrier to visiting Downtown Dublin via car. Ultimately, a shared -use path running alongside Dublin Boulevard and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 550 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 6 connecting to the Alamo Canal Trail became the long-term vision for bicycling. In the interim, sharrows (a Class III facility) were added to Dublin Boulevard between Dublin Court and Tassajara Road, and the City permitted riding bicycles on sidewalks to make riding a more comfortable experience for all bicyclists' skill levels. Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014) The UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies Technology Transfer Program prepared this Assessment for the City of Dublin in 2014. The authors compared different types of collisions that occurred in Dublin with other cities in California; they found that Dublin has a relatively high number of collisions involving pedestrians, particularly youth and elderly pedestrians, and collisions involving high vehicle speeds. Opportunity areas to improve walking conditions in Dublin include traffic calming programs, transportation demand management policies and programs, coordination with health agencies to promote walking and biking, and more. This Assessment also includes specific areas of Dublin where pedestrian conditions could significantly benefit from improvements, which will be reviewed in this Plan. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014) Adopted in 2014, Dublin's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014 Plan) established key goals and policies to maintain and improve biking and walking infrastructure. Goals and policies support the 2014 Plan's Vision for Dublin: The purpose of the City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is to provide a policy and implementation framework for maintaining and improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the City. This Plan envisions a network of safe, comfortable, and attractive facilities that meet the needs of users of all ages and abilities and connect users with key destinations —schools, residential neighborhoods, parks, shopping areas, and job centers —within the City and in adjacent jurisdictions. An inventory of the bicycle and pedestrian network and potential improvements to specific facilities are documented. Infrastructure projects at key locations are organized by priority into four tiers and are intended to actualize the proposed biking and walking network. Programming opportunities to attract biking and walking trips are also identified in the 2014 Plan. In addition to providing an inventory of potential funding sources for project implementation, the 2014 Plan includes bicycle and pedestrian design guidelines that apply national resources and best practices to project implementation in Dublin. General Plan Land Use & Circulation: Circulation & Scenic Highways Element and Schools, Public Lands, & Utilities Element (2014) The General Plan's Land Use & Circulation Elements focus on meeting the mobility needs of all roadway users by any mode and aligns with two key documents, the City of Dublin's Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution 199-12) and the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan (a regional plan). The Element promotes the use of local and regional trails and emphasize improving experiences walking and taking Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 551 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 7 transit. The Elements name two areas, the Eastern Extended Planning Area and Downtown Dublin, where active transportation investments are a priority. The Elements' Guiding Policies that are the most relevant to this Plan include: 5.3.1.A.3 Encourage improvements in the Enhanced Pedestrian Areas to improve the walkability of these areas. 5.5.1.A.1 Provide safe, continuous, comfortable and convenient bikeways throughout the City. 5.5.1.A.2 Improve and maintain bikeways and pedestrian facilities and support facilities in conformance with the recommendations in the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. 5.5.1.A.3 Enhance the multi -modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation. 5.5.1.A.4 Provide comfortable, safe, and convenient walking routes throughout the City and, in particular, to key destinations such as Downtown Dublin, the BART Stations, schools, parks, and commercial centers. Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2015) The Parks and Recreation Master Plan establishes goals, standards, guiding policies, and action programs to guide the City in the acquisition, development and management (operations and maintenance) of parks and recreation facilities. Goals and guiding policies and actions identified in the plan encourage creation of a continuous network of linear parks, paths, walks, and trails to enable travel by non -motorized modes. The standards and criteria for the City's parks and recreation facilities include requirements for bicycle parking, paving, and right-of-way width. Iron Horse Regional Trail Feasibility Study (2017) Based on a multimodal assessment and community outreach processes, this Feasibility Study arrives at several key preferred alternatives for the Iron Horse Regional Trail and its crossings on Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. A multi -use trail separating people walking and biking was preferred; a bicycle/pedestrian bridge was preferred for crossing Dublin Boulevard, while an at -grade crossing was preferred for Dougherty Road. Improvements near the BART station are intended to both enhance access to transit and improve experiences for trail users passing through the station area. Improvements to the Iron Horse Regional Trail contribute to this Plan by making use of the Trail easier and more convenient. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 552 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 8 Traffic Safety Study Update (2018) Collisions were studied in the 2018 Traffic Safety Study Update (Update) to evaluate safety performance on specific street sections and intersections. Overall, collisions had recently increased at the time of this Update, but there were also more people living and driving in Dublin, particularly East Dublin. Based on recent collision history, certain street sections and intersections merited improvements, such as continuous bicycle lanes at Central Avenue and Tassajara Road. The collision analysis included in this Plan supplements the findings and recommendations of the Update. Climate Action Plan (2020) The Climate Action Plan (CAP), Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond, establishes the City's vision for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045. The CAP names transportation as the largest source of emissions in Dublin and lays a plan for Dublin to become carbon neutral by 2045. Zero -emission vehicles and mode shift to biking, walking, and transit trips are key strategies to reduce Dublin's GHG emissions and meet citywide targets. The CAP sets measures to develop plans and programs around transportation demand management, transit -oriented development, parking management, and electric vehicle infrastructure planning to support mode shift and electrification of the Dublin's vehicle fleet. As stated in the CAP, a shift to alternative, active, shared, and electric mobility will provide safer routes between home, transit stops, and other community amenities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce traffic congestion, improve public health outcomes, and have economic benefits. Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (2020) The Downtown Streetscape Master Plan provides direction for public and private investment, specifically in regard to the development of the public realm and Downtown's identity. One of the plan's key goals is to develop pedestrian -oriented environments on Commercial Throughways and on Downtown Local Streets. On these roadways as well as on Crosstown Boulevards and Parkways, the plan also emphasizes providing safe and comfortable facilities and crossings for people walking and biking. Recommended improvements to Downtown are prioritized into four tiers that can be matched to project scale, budget, funding source, and other opportunities. Tier 1 and Tier 2 street and pedestrian enhancements are illustrated on Figure 3 and Figure 4 and include restriping/road diet evaluation, sidewalk expansion, intersection and mid -block crossing treatments, as well as art and wayfinding opportunities. Notable guidelines include expanding sidewalks to provide a minimum 12-foot sidewalk with minimum five- to six-foot clear throughway zone for walking. Specific Plans Four areas of Dublin have specific plans that outline guiding principles, policies, and design guidance related to active transportation: Dublin Crossing, Downtown, the Dublin Village Historic Area, and Eastern Dublin. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 553 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 9 Dublin Crossing (2013) This Specific Plan focuses on improving east -west connectivity in the Dublin Crossing, particularly between transit stops, destinations, and trails. A relevant guiding principle in this Specific Plan is to make it easier and more convenient for people to access and use the Iron Horse Regional Trail, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, and retail destinations without a car. Downtown Specific Plan (2014) Guiding principles pertinent to biking and walking in Downtown aim to create pedestrian -friendly streets, pedestrians, and bicyclists, enhance multimodal travel options, and cultivate pedestrian connections to retail destinations. Transit -oriented development and lighting should be scaled to people walking in Downtown. Pedestrian connectivity between buildings, parking, and sidewalks should be maintained throughout Downtown, and pedestrian amenities like street furniture are encouraged. Dublin Village Historic Area (2014) Placemaking, creating a positive experience for people walking, and attracting people to this area are key goals of this Specific Plan. Creating positive experiences for people walking includes providing more crosswalks and median refuges, calming vehicle traffic, adding pedestrian amenities or a plaza, and implementing pedestrian -scale lighting and wayfinding. Eastern Dublin (2016) A key goal in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is to reduce reliance on single -occupancy vehicles by planning the area's land uses to naturally promote walking, biking, taking transit, and ridesharing. Notably, development with a higher intensity is encouraged near transit corridors in Eastern Dublin. Relevant policies in this Specific Plan include: • Providing sidewalks in the Town Center and Village Center • Requiring development to balance pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile circulation • Creating a north -south trail along Tassajara Creek and other streams • Establishing a bike network that meets both travel needs and recreational opportunities • Providing bicycle parking at key destinations BENCHMARKING INTERVIEWS SUMMARY Benchmarking interviews were conducted virtually with representatives of seven City departments and the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) in April and May 2020. The purpose of the benchmarking interviews is to understand each relevant City department and DUSD's active transportation policies, programs, and needs that both support and can be supported by the Plan. Points of emphasis from the interviews will inform the Plan's recommendations and are described and summarized in this section. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 554 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 10 Interviewees' complete responses can be found in the Appendix. Interviews were conducted with the following City departments and DUSD: • Traffic • Economic Development • Community Development • Fire • Police • Maintenance • Parks and Community Services Emphasis areas emerged as either a theme across multiple interviews or as single points of discussion that are particularly relevant to biking and walking in Dublin. Recommendations draw upon these emphasis areas within the framework of the City's existing policies and plans, as detailed in the previous section of this memo. Policy and program recommendations are intended to act as a starting point for the Plan, and they may be updated and refined as technical analyses and community engagement processes continue. Emphasis areas, specific topics of each emphasis area, and draft recommendations (where applicable) are described in Table 2. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 555 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 1, 2022 Project #: 24392 Page 11 Table 2: Benchmarking Interview Themes Emphasis Area Desire for stronger policies Topic 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Design Guidelines Recommendation Back the design guidelines with policy to require adherence to the Guidelines Consider approving the Plan in the form of a City resolution or ordinance Implement amendments to the Municipal Code to require priority design elements as part of development project implementation. Standard plans for new development Update design standards to include bicycle and pedestrian -friendly standards, such as smaller driveway turning radii Unclear bicycle and pedestrian improvement processes Craft a policy, or accompanying tool, that provides clear direction for bicycle/pedestrian project implementation Create a priority project list of identified improvements that can be applied to development projects as community benefits. Tension with General Plan policies Consider modifying policies in the General Plan Circulation Element that facilitate auto -centric development or standards Vision Zero Consider implementing a Vision Zero policy in Dublin Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 12 Emphasis Area Unclear bicycle and pedestrian project implementation processes Topic Coordinating with proposed development projects Recommendation Establish clear development standards and implementation requirements for new development. Coordination challenges in implementing bicycle and pedestrian improvements Intersection treatments for bicyclists and pedestrians that impact vehicle operations Establish guidance to assist decision makers in determining design solutions when tradeoffs are involved Filling gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian network with developers' improvements Coordinate development review processes with the implementation plan for the proposed bicycle and pedestrian network City's plans concurrently in development Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements into the City's ongoing plans, such as the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan, to identify and secure various funding sources for bicycle/pedestrian projects Communication with developers and business owners Consider implementing a transportation demand management program. Conduct a travel survey focused on walking, biking, and transportation demand management to Dublin's business community. Develop and continually update a spatial database of bicycle and pedestrian counts. Regional coordination Consider coordinating bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects through regional channels, particularly in the Tri- Valley area, that already exist due to Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 13 Emphasis Area Topic Recommendation enforcement needs and economic development opportunities Staffing needs Coordinating and implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects Hire at least one full time dedicated staff person (per 100,000 population) to meet the League of American Bicyclist's Bronze Standard School crossing guards and traffic enforcement near schools Consider hiring more sworn or unsworn police officers to enforce road rules near schools Emergency response vehicle needs Vertical deflection in bicycle facilities Design speed tables and Class IV bicycle facilities with the Fire Department for application in Downtown Dublin Speed management and traffic calming devices Develop a pre approved list of traffic calming devices with the Fire Department Barriers to connectivity Freeways Continue to coordinate with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to minimize negative effects of highways to people walking and biking Limited east -west connectivity through Downtown Dublin and between parks Lacking pedestrian facilities on undeveloped parcels Consider paving sidewalks at key locations to fill gaps in the pedestrian network Incomplete intersections and trail crossings Establish design standards for trail crossings and for trails that run adjacent to roadways Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 14 Emphasis Area Topic Recommendation Consider implementing special accommodations (such as the East Dublin BART station and Iron Horse Trail connection) for bicyclists at trail crossings with the Fire Department's approval Non-infrastructural barriers to biking and walking High vehicle volumes and speeds Consider traffic calming, bulb -outs, and narrowing vehicle travel lanes to reduce traffic stress to pedestrians and bicyclists Identify opportunities for paseos and shared -use paths in Downtown to separate vehicles from people walking and biking Lacking wayfinding for bicyclists and pedestrians Include wayfinding standards and implementation considerations (such as cost and timeline) in the Plan Provide guidelines for consistent visual cues to people walking and biking in the Plan Safety concerns or discomfort while walking or biking Coordinate projects to address safety needs at schools between DUSD, the City's Transportation Department, and Dublin Police Identify locations where lighting can be improved on Dublin's trails Implement transportation demand management programs, such as BART Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 15 Emphasis Area Topic Recommendation shuttles, that can supplement bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure Treat locations where people walking and biking have conflicted with vehicles entering or exiting driveways, such as at the Senior Center Unclear maintenance protocols or responsibilities Trail sweeping Establish general bicycle and pedestrian facility maintenance policies and standards in the Plan Bicycle facility paint Consider developing a maintenance plan for Dublin's bicycle facilities, including painting and sweeping needs Challenges in implementing CALGreen standards Requesting bike showers and lockers in new development Provide direction in the Plan of how to implement CALGreen standards in the development process Unknown bike parking and amenities demand and needs Bike parking implementation and long-term use Consider requiring bike parking analysis when parking studies are conducted in Dublin Consider focusing bike parking in areas where there is assumed bike demand, such as job centers, the BART stations, and technology -focused businesses Craft a policy or objective to establish an inventory of bicycle facilities, parking, and amenities throughout Dublin, including in Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 16 Emphasis Area Topic Recommendation parks, that can also be used for maintenance plans Include bike parking in the Plan's Design Guidelines Bike parking needs at parks and events Install bike parking racks at parks that complies with the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan or where there is a demonstrated need, including at Stagecoach and at the Sports Grounds Require temporary wayfinding signage at events to notify attendees of bike valet Differing speeds of people walking and on a single facilitythe biking g E-bikes Develop a policy and design standards in Plan that address varying users' speeds on a single facility Multi -use trails in parks Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2020. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 1, 2022 Project #: 24392 Page 17 PROGRAMS OVERVIEW In the benchmarking interviews, City and DUSD staff described how several City programs support biking and walking in Dublin. Programs are also described on the City's website and in the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Programs support and aim to implement the City's policies and goals. The City's active transportation programs are described in Table 3. Table 3: Active Transportation Programs Program Description Managing Department Bicycle and pedestrian counts Bicycle and pedestrian counts are included in the City's turning movement counts. Bike counters collect data on the Iron Horse and Alamo Canal Trails. Bicycle and pedestrian count data are also provided to the City in environmental documents and traffic studies. Traffic and Planning Safe Routes to School 1 (SRTS) SRTS aims to establish routes which maximize safety for travel to and from school sites, as well as to educate school administrators, parents, and children about vehicle, bike, and pedestrian safety. DUSD with support from Alameda CTC, several City Departments, including Police, Planning, and Traffic Adult school crossing guards2 Crossing guards help children safely cross the street at key locations on the way to school. Crossing guards may help parents more comfortably allow students to walk or bike to school while setting an example of how to safely cross the street. DUSD, Police, and Traffic Bike to Work Day s Bike to Work Day is a City -sponsored activity that encourages commuters to bike to their place of work. The event includes energizer stations for refreshments and giveaways. Bike to Work Day is expected to be held on September 24, 2020. Traffic and Environmental Programs Notes: 1. Source: https://dublin.ca.gov/349/Safe-Routes-to-School 2. Source: http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/crossing guard/index.cfm 3. Source: https://dublin.ca.gov/954/National-Bike-Month-Activities Additional program details and needs are provided below: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 562 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 18 • A recommended action item from the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan not yet implemented is a GIS database of bicycle and pedestrian counts by location. The database should be continually updated as the City receives and collects new count data. • The City integrates SRTS into planning processes through the City's partnership with Alameda CTC's Safe Routes to Schools Program (SR2S) Program.' When development projects include a new school, the Planning Department and DUSD coordinate to evaluate connections to the school. o There is a need to designate a staff person at DUSD and the City who are responsible for coordinating and overseeing school connectivity. This staff responsibility would ensure that school access is sufficient from the planning stage all the way through to the operation of schools. • The Transportation Department fields requests for crossing guards, and school principals determine crossing guard needs for their school. Dublin Police then hires the crossing guards and manage the program. o A coordination protocol may be needed between DUSD and the Transportation Department to jointly identify and cross-check crossing guard needs. KEY NEEDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In compiling the non -infrastructure inventory described in this memo, several needs and recommendations became clears. These bicycle- and pedestrian -related needs and recommendations are described below: • Vehicle speeds and volumes were identified in benchmarking interviews as challenges to walking and biking comfortably in Dublin. Additionally, the Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014) recommends improve walking conditions using traffic calming programs, transportation demand management (TDM) policies and programs, and coordination with health agencies to promote walking and biking. TDM programs could be informed by surveys conducted with the business community and bicycle and pedestrian counts. • Active transportation investments in East Dublin and Downtown Dublin are considered a priority in the General Plan Land Use & Circulation Element. Biking and walking needs in these geographic areas, gaps in the walking and biking network, and safety treatments near parks, senior centers, and schools should be considered in the Plan's prioritization framework. Additionally, a database of bicycle and pedestrian counts would guide investments. • Guided by the Plan's updated Design Guidelines, trail crossings and complete intersections should be implemented through coordinated development processes and special accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians that the Fire Department may provide. Notably, 1 Alameda CTC administers the Alameda County SR2S Program, which also includes the International Walk and Roll to School Day as part of its programming. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 563 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan — Inventory of Existing Programs and Policies (Draft) June 5, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 19 crossing conditions on the Iron Horse Regional Trail can be improved at Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. • Driveways were identified as a potential point of conflict for bicyclists and pedestrians, and radii should be modified to both enhance the safety of people walking and biking and accommodate emergency response vehicles. Additionally, road safety treatments are identified in the Plan's collision analysis. • East -west connectivity, particularly through Downtown and to the City's parks, was emphasized as a need in benchmarking interviews. The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (2013) also identifies this need, particularly between transit stops, destinations, and trails. • Promoting and facilitating biking and walking to local destinations is a need in Dublin, according to benchmarking interviews, several specific plans, and the draft CAP (2020). A travel survey with the business community could provide additional insight as to how to make biking and walking an appealing option for more residents, commuters, and visitors. • Improved coordination and clearer work processes to implement bicycle and pedestrian projects are needed to upgrade and expand the bicycle and pedestrian network, establish maintenance plans and ongoing infrastructure needs, and maximize both local and regional resources. Next Steps Upon receiving comments from the City, Kittelson will revise and finalize this non -infrastructure inventory, which will then be used as the basis for program and policy recommendations in the Plan. Kittelson will prepare cost estimates and an implementation plan for recommended policies and programs and will work with the City to identify which, if any, of the recommendations could be further developed within the Plan. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 564 APPENDIX B EXISTING ITI N LYSI C Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 565 V KITTELSON Imo' &ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 900 OAKLAND, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 F 510.839.0871 Date: June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 To: Sai Midididdi, TE City of Dublin From: Amanda Leahy, AICP, Mike Alston, RSP, Quinn Wallace, Erin Ferguson, PE, RSP Project: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Subject: Demographic Analysis The City of Dublin (City) is updating the 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan). The Plan will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. As part of the baseline conditions and needs assessment, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) gathered and summarized demographic data. The findings of this demographic analysis will inform the Plan's bicycle and pedestrian demand analysis. After completing the baseline conditions and needs assessment, this analysis may be used in prioritizing the Plan's projects, identifying project and program recommendations, and developing an implementation plan. This memorandum (memo) details the methodology, maps, tables, and charts produced to analyze Dublin's demographics. Charts, tables, and graphs provide additional context by comparing key Dublin demographics to the same statistics across Alameda County. The memo is organized into the following sections: • Methodology • Map Packages o Population — Race/Ethnicity and Age o Workers —Travel Modes and Times o Households — Income, Vehicles, and Health • Comparison of City of Dublin to Alameda County • Next Steps Maps included in each of the map packages are as follows: • Population — Race/Ethnicity and Age o Total Population of Block Groups o Total Population of Transportation Analysis Zones FILENAME: H.• 124124392 - DUBLIN ATPITASK3 - BASELINE CONDITIONS & NEEDSASSESSMENTI3.3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANAL YSISIMEMO (FINAL - TO CLIENT 6-22-2020124392 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS MEMO 20200622. DOCX 566 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 2 o Minority Race/Ethnicity Population o Population Under Age 18 o Population Ages 65 and Older • Workers —Travel Modes and Times o Number of Workers per Block Group o Commuters by Public Transportation o Pedestrian Commuters o Commuters by Bicycle o Commuter Travel Times Greater than 30 Minutes • Households — Income, Vehicles, and Health o Number of Households per Block Group o Number of Households per Transportation Analysis Zone o Household Income Under 25% of City Median Income o Household Income 25% - 50% of City Median Income o Household Income 50% - 100% of City Median Income o Household Income 100% + of City Median Income o Zero Car Households o CalEnviroScreen METHODOLOGY Data sets from the U.S. Census the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) were used in this analysis. The CalEnviroScreen is generated by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and maps disadvantaged areas statewide based on a number of indicators generated from socioeconomic and environmental health data. Those data include pollution exposure, environmental effect, sensitive population, and socioeconomic indicators. The CalEnviroScreen tool produces an overall score for each census tract and compares the results as percentiles across all of California. Communities within the top 25th percentile statewide are considered disadvantages communities under the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program grant guidelines. CalEnviroScreen data is summarized at the Census tract level, while all other Census data sets are summarized at the block group level (i.e., more granular). CalEnviroScreen indicators fall into four broad groups —exposures, environmental effects, sensitive populations, and socioeconomic factors. In Dublin, there are 10 tracts containing 19 block groups. Block groups are shown in the Total Population of Block Groups, Number of Workers per Block Group, and Number of Households per Block Group maps. Census data variables were grouped into categories that show the relevant demographic trends in Dublin. The block groups are described in more detail below. Demographic data primarily came from the Census's American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 5- Year Estimates. Variables from these data sets include: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 567 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 3 • Age • Race and ethnicity • Household income • Commute mode • Commute time • Vehicles per household In addition to using data sets from the American Community Survey (ACS), data was obtained from the Census's Longitudinal Employer -Household Data (LEHD) dataset.' The analysis related to jobs was conducted on primary jobs, which includes the highest paying job per individual worker (one person per job). This includes both public and private sector jobs. Census Block Group Data Because block groups do not coincide with municipal boundaries, some judgment is required when determining which block groups to include in Dublin analysis for two reasons: 1. Block groups abutting the City boundaries but not fully contained within Dublin must either be included or excluded. Block group 4505022 on the western boundary and block groups 4507521 and 4507511 on the eastern boundary include substantial land area outside City boundaries, but all or most of the population in each case is within City boundaries (based on the distribution of development). Therefore, all three are included in analysis. 2. Block groups may include land and/or population which this plan will have no ability to impact. Two such block groups are block group 4501022, which exclusively includes the Santa Rita County Jail, and block group 4501021, which includes the Camp Parks US Army facility but also includes land developed separately (including the Dublin Crossing development). Camp Parks land is owned and planned by the federal government and is outside the City's planning jurisdiction. The area is generally excluded from the realm of this Plan. Data for block group 4501022 will be excluded from analysis, given that the population's movements and mobility needs are limited to the jail site. Workers within this census block group are identified in the ACS based on their place of residence. A discussion of the populations contained within the 4501021 block group informs whether to retain its data in the analysis. A discussion of the population distribution is included in the next section. Comparison to Travel Demand Model As previously mentioned, this demographic analysis forms the basis for forthcoming demand analysis, prioritization, and project and program recommendations. The variables explored in this analysis will 1 LEHD data is available online at http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 568 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 4 allow the City to spatially prioritize with sociodemographic factors. These demographic data are available from the ACS at the block group level —approximately 19 block groups wholly or partially within City limits. The City maintains a transportation model, which provides smaller units of analysis called transportation analysis zones (TAZs). By comparison, the city is comprised of 134 TAZs. TAZs provide a more granular unit of analysis but fewer demographic variables overall. The relevant data provided by the City model (including data representing 2017) include population and household totals (2017 estimated values) which can be compared to the ACS data. Figure 1 presents a comparison between block group and TAZ population values. TAZ population is aggregated to the block group level for comparison; where TAZs intersect multiple block groups, they are aggregated to the block group that contains their centroid. The comparison shows the values to be generally within approximately 10 percent of one another, with some differences explained by the boundaries that are not coincident. The comparison also shows that block group 4501021 (containing Camp Parks land) has a similar population estimate with the associated TAZs, although a majority of this block group's land is on Camp Parks land. The population accounted for in this block group primarily resides in the southern portion of the block group (outside the Camp Parks land), so the block group population is retained for this analysis. Going forward, the demand analysis and prioritization work using these data will account for the population being concentrated in the southern part of the of the block group.2 The demographic information associated with this block group will be included and carried forward in future analysis. Figure 1 also shows several TAZs with no population —in particular, the centrally located TAZ within block group 4501022. This block group contains the Santa Rita County Jail. ACS data report a population of 900, which exclusively includes inmates (counted as group quarters population). 2 A closer inspection of available ACS data revealed that among the approximately 1,135 residents over age 16 in the block group, 18 are employed in the armed forces. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 569 0 Dublin TAZs TAZs with Zero Population Block Groups Camp Parks (Federal Land) Dublin City Limits Alameda County BG: 4505022, Pop: 3381 TAZs: 6, TAZ Pop: 2473 DUBLIN BL San Ramon BG: 4505021, Pop: 2499 TAZs: 4, TAZ Pop: 2241 BG: 4505011, Pop: 683 TAZs: 2, TAZ Pop: 849 DUBLIN p KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES BG: 4502001, Pop: 1485 BG: 4503001, Pop: 2160 TAZs: 1, TAZ Pop: 1549 TAZs: 6, TAZ Pop: 2053 BG: 4504001, Pop: 2119 TAZs: ■BRIGHTON� 3, TAZ Pop: 1915 - ` h BG: 4505012, Pop: 2447 w TAZs: 8, TAZ Pop: 2544 n • 0 BG: 4502002, Pop: 2097 TAZs: 2, TAZ Pop: 2574 BG: 4502003, Pop: 2518 TAZs: 2, TAZ Pop: 1910j' V Ws •,� TAZs: 143 TAZ Pop: 3818 Pop: 3141 •� BG: 4504003, Pop: 3300 ���������� -TAZs: \,,s ♦������♦ 15, TAZ Pop: 4408 �."IL����•_4_eir cc w z z BLIN BL Contra Costa County 0 0 BG: 4501021, Pop: 1228 TAZs: 5, TAZ Pop: 907 RIZON PW Pleasanton BG: 4501022, Pop: 900 TAZs: 1, TAZ Pop: 0 r BG: 4501023, Pop: 3913 �TAZs: 10, TAZ Pop: 5239 ►'�: BG: 4501011, Pop: 5573 TAZs: 14, TAZ Pop: 9862 , BG: 4507521, Pop: 6642 TAZs: 11, TAZ Pop: 5045 BG: 4507501, Pop: 4842 TAZs: 10, TAZ Pop: 5790 0 BG: 4507511, Pop: 9787 TAZs: 18, TAZ Pop: 8414 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Figure 1 Census Block Groups versus City Model TAZs Dublin, California 570 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 6 MAP PACKAGES Maps produced in this analysis spatially present demographic data in Dublin only. Graphs, charts, and tables in this memo provide additional context and comparisons to all of incorporated and unincorporated Alameda County. The maps are grouped into three packages: • Population — Race/Ethnicity and Age • Workers — Commute Modes and Times • Households — Income, Vehicles, and Health The group is shown first in each map series to provide an overview and is followed by maps analyzing unique variables. For example, the number of households per block group are shown first, followed by a map of household income grouping. Population — Race/Ethnicity and Age This map package shows proportions of racial and ethnic minorities and age groups by each block group's population. Maps in this package include the following: • Total Population of Block Groups • Total Population of Transportation Analysis Zones • Minority Race/Ethnicity Population • Population Under Age 18 • Population Ages 65 and Older Race/Ethnicity In this package, the Minority Race/Ethnicity Population map shows the percent of individuals who identify within a minority race or ethnicity. To form this category, the following Census demographics were grouped together: • Black or African American Alone • American Indian and Alaska Native Alone • Asian Alone • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone • Some Other Race Alone • Two or More Races • Hispanic or Latino Individuals that are white alone (not Hispanic or Latino) are excluded from this category. The Census defines Asian individuals as "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent." The ACS does provide subgroup estimates that better Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 571 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 7 clarify the respondents who indicate Asian alone as their race; those estimates are only available at the City level. Within Dublin, the 26,672 Asian residents are comprised of the following groups, in descending proportional order:3 • Asian Indian: 12,627 (47% of Asian alone residents) • Chinese, excluding Taiwanese: 7,160 (27% of Asian alone residents) • Filipino: 2,040 (8% of Asian alone residents) • Vietnamese: 1,650 (6% of Asian alone residents) • Korean: 1,139 (4% of Asian alone residents) • Pakistani: 452 (2% of Asian alone residents) • Japanese: 428 (2% of Asian alone residents) • Taiwanese: 260 (1% of Asian alone residents) Age Three maps show three age groupings relative to block group populations: • Population Under 18 to show concentrations of where children live • Population Age 65 and Older to show concentrations of where seniors live Workers — Commute Modes and Times This map package shows proportions of key commute modes, including commutes by bicycle, walking, and public transportation, by each block group's number of workers. Charts and tables provided in this section compare commute mode trends and findings using LEND data. Maps in this package include the following: • Number of Workers per Block Group • Commuters by Public Transportation • Pedestrian Commuters • Commuters by Bicycle • Commuter Travel Times Greater than 30 Minutes 3 Other groups in Dublin comprising less than 1% of Asian residents include Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Burmese, Cambodian, Hmong, Indonesian, Laotian, Malaysian, Mongolian, Nepalese, Okinawan, Sri Lankan, Thai, other unspecified, and two or more. Note that the 26,672 total is based on city -level data and varies slightly from the aggregated Census block group totals presented later in this memorandum. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 572 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 8 Commute Modes Three maps display commute modes that are central to the Plan, including Commuters by Public Transportation, Pedestrian Commuters, and Commuters by Bicycle. Due to significant differences between block groups and relatively low percentages, the count of each commuter type per block group is shown in a bubble in addition to the percentages. Notably, one outlier is shown in the Commuters by Bicycle map: one block group has 44 bicycle commuters, amounting to over 20% of its 166 workers. The high proportion of bicycle commuters in this block group may be attributable to the Army Base located in this block group. On the Commuters by Public Transportation map, high proportions of transit commuters can be found not only near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, but also where the Alamo Canal Trail and Iron Horse Trail converge. The Iron Horse Trail connects directly to the BART station and is about a 1-mile bicycle ride. Other densities of transit commuters are likely attributable to the number of workers in the block group, such as near the Martin Canyon Creek Trail. Commute Times A single map, Commuter Travel Times Greater than 30 Minutes, shows the overall high proportions of commuters by block group with commutes over 30 minutes. On this map, commute mode is not considered, so a 30-minute walking or biking commute is classified the same as a 30-minute driving commute. This map may contextualize commute mode choices also displayed in this map package. Dublin Workers and Commuters For purposes of the discussion that follows, the following terms are used: • Workers living in Dublin: This term is used to define jobholders who live in Dublin. They may work in Dublin or elsewhere. • People working in Dublin: This term is used to define people who work in Dublin. They may live in Dublin or elsewhere. Based on the most recent LEHD data available (2017), the net inflow and outflow of Dublin workers is the following: • 16,042 people commute into Dublin for work and live elsewhere ( these are people working in Dublin) • 23,161 people live in Dublin and commute elsewhere to work (these are workers living in Dublin) 1,484 people live and work in Dublin (these are in both categories above) Figure 2 presents this relationship visually. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 573 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 9 Figure 2: Workers by Residence and Job Location People Working in Dublin 16,042 People living and working in Dublin Source: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2017. Work Destinations Workers living in Dublin 23,161 Figure 3 shows that the top job locations of workers living in Dublin range from cities in Silicon Valley to neighboring jurisdictions, such as Pleasanton and San Ramon. San Francisco is the second most common job location after Pleasanton for workers living in Dublin. The home and work location provided by LEHD data are sorted into the three income groups presented. Variation in job location exists by income; Dublin is the fourth highest job location overall, behind Pleasanton, San Francisco, and San Jose. Notably, the relative share of residents working in Dublin is lower among those who make above $40,000 per year compared to other locations. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 574 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 10 Figure 3: Top 10 Job Locations Among Workers Living in Dublin, by Income Level Share of Primary Jobs among Workers Living in Dublin 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% • Workers making less than $15,000 per year • Workers making between $15,000 and $40,000 per year • Workers making above $40,000 per year • Total Primary Jobs 4.6% 3.0% 1 2.6% 2.3% 2.1% 2.1% ,c0o •\c�c'O O`�e 'of O� Ot`� at`a •pte aka �aa _to �a�e eel \e,b. ko• c.p. �� a.ate ��o 0�.� \`Je�� �a�� a�� C, e�� �J�oJ \��Cc Q saw 5 �a e Job Location Source: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND), 2017. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 575 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 11 Commute Distances As highlighted in Figure 3, approximately 6% of workers living in Dublin work in Dublin as well. As shown in Table 1, of the 24,645 workers living in Dublin, 71% work more than 10 miles from home. Compared to the share of total workers, a higher share of the lowest income workers work within ten miles (39% compared to 29%). Table 1: Commute Destinations Among Workers Living in Dublin (Primary Jobs) Distance from Home to Work < 10 miles Workers making less than $15,000 per year 982 (39%) Workers, by Income Level Workers making between $15,000 and $40,000 per year 1,245 (30%) (Percent of Column) Workers making above $40,000 per year 4,815 (27%) All Workers 7,042 (29%) 10 to 24 miles 776 (31%) 1,489 (36%) 8,248 (46%) 10,513 (43%) 25 to 50 miles 366 (15%) 697 (17%) 3,604 (20%) 4,667 (19%) >50 miles 370 (15%) 703 (17%) 1,350 (7%) 2,423 (10%) Total 2,494 4,134 18,017 24,645 Source: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND), 2017. Table 2 provides the distance to home for people working in Dublin. Table 2: Commute Origins Among People Working in Dublin (Primary Jobs) Distance from Home t Wor Workers, by Income Level (Percent of Column) Workers making above $40,000 per year II Wor Workers making Workers making between $15,000 less than $15,000 and $40,000 per per year year < 10 miles 1,004 (28%) 1,355 (26%) 2,657 (31%) 5,016 (29%) 10 to 24 miles 1,087 (30%) 1,813 (34%) 2,830 (33%) 5,730 (33%) 25 to 50 miles 721 (20%) 1,090 (21%) 1,648 (19%) 3,459 (20%) >50 miles 835 (23%) 1,043 (20%) 1,443 (17%) 3,321 (19%) Total 3,647 5,301 8,578 17,526 Source: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEND), 2017. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 576 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 12 The plurality of people who commute to Dublin from elsewhere travel 10 to 24 miles into work (approximately 33%). As shown in Table 2, the distances traveled leaving Dublin for work are generally higher than the distances traveled into Dublin for work. Households — Income, Vehicles, and Health This map package shows proportions of key household metrics by each block group's number of households. Maps in this package include: • Number of Households per Block Group • Household Income Under 25% of City Median Income • Household Income 25% - 50% of City Median Income • Household Income 50% - 100% of City Median Income • Household Income 100% + of City Median Income • Zero Car Households • CalEnviroScreen Income The city's median income is used as the basis for comparing household incomes in Dublin. The city's median household income is $146,208.4 The closest Census income level to Dublin's median household income is $150,000. Four household income groups were created to identify any concentrations of household incomes and any differences in access to key land uses by household incomes. The income groupings used on the maps are described below: • Household Income Under 25% of City Median Income shows households with incomes between $0 and $35,000. • Household Income 25% - 50% of City Median Income shows households with incomes between $35,000 and $75,000. • Household Income 50% - 100% of City Median Income shows households with incomes between $75,000 and $150,000. • Household Income 100%+ of City Median Income shows households with incomes at and above $150,000. On the Household Income Under 25% of City Median Income map, a concentration of households earning less than $35,000 per year may be attributable to the Army Base located in this block group. This concentration also correlates with the number of bicycle and transit commuters in this block group, as shown in the Commuters by Bicycle and Commuters by Public Transportation maps. 4 Source: City of Dublin Demographics. Retrieved from: https://www.dublin.ca.gov/1811/Demographics Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 577 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 13 Another concentration shown in the Household Income 25% - 50% of City Median Income map is located adjacent to the Martin Canyon Creek Trail. Notably, this block group also has a high proportion of transit commuters, as shown in the Commuters by Public Transportation map. This indicates an area of Dublin where income level and commute mode appear to be linked. Similarly, high income level concentrations shown in the Household Income 100%+ of City Median Income map are linked to longer commute times. As shown in the Commuter Travel Times Greater than 30 Minutes map, high proportions of workers commuting more than 30 minutes in eastern block groups of Dublin are located where high proportions of households earn above the median income. Vehicles Dublin's households with zero vehicles are spatialized in the Zero Car Households map. This map is shown to indicate where individuals may rely on biking, walking, and riding public transportation as their primary modes of travel. Health As shown on the CalEnviroScreen map, Dublin's scores indicate that the city is minimally, if at all, disadvantaged from a perspective of health and environment compared to other California communities. Comparison of City of Dublin to Alameda County and East County Planning Area For consistency with the data presented at the block group level, Dublin is represented by an aggregation of constituent tracts, as shown in the Total Population of Block Groups, Number of Workers per Block Group, and Number of Households per Block Group maps. This aggregation may include some people and households not within city limits. However, a comparison of the aggregated Census block totals compared to the Dublin City geography shows the population totals to be within 2 percent of one another. Generally, people of color, particularly Black/African American and Hispanic or Latino groups, are among communities that have been historically disadvantaged in access to transportation services and infrastructure. In comparing racial and ethnicity statistics with Alameda County, this demographic analysis has not found that this trend is prevalent in Dublin. Like Alameda County, Dublin has an approximately 40%-60% split of Non -White Combined populations and white alone populations. Significant differences between Alameda County and Dublin are in the Black/African American Alone and Asian Alone populations. Indian (12,627) and Chinese Except Taiwanese (7,160) groups make up the majority of Dublin's Asian Alone (26,888) populations. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 578 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 14 Table 3: Comparison of Population Variables, Dublin and Alameda County, 2014-2018 Variable Dublin Alameda County Total Population 59,275 1,643,700 Race White Alone 25,172 (42%) 681,725 (41%) Non -White Combined 34,103 (58%) 961,975 (59%) Black/African American Alone 1,769 (3%) 177,135 (11%) American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 269 (<1%) 10,712 (1%0 Asian Alone 26,831 (45%) 486,434 (30%) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 217 (<1%) 13,768 (1%) Some or Other Alone 1,294 (2%) 169,771 (10%) 2+ Races 3,723 (6%) 104,155 (6%) Age Population Under 5 Years Old 4,486 (8%) 97,506 (6%) Population 5-14 Years Old 9,462 (16%) 192,220 (12%) Population 15-24 Years Old 4,738 (8%) 197,570 (12%) Population 25-44 Years Old 20,698 (35%) 516,424 (31%) Population 45-64 Years old 14,699 (25%) 424,063 (26%) Population 65+ Years Old 5,192 (9%) 215,917 (13%) Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. For transportation -focused data, Dublin characteristics are compared to the East County Planning Area as well, as it represents a more similar comparison to the City than the County overall.' Dublin has 8% more commuters who drive alone to work compared to Alameda County as a whole, as also shown by the lower percentages of commuters who bike, walk, or take transit to work. The commute mode in Dublin is more aligned with mode share of commuter in the East Planning Area of the County. In Dublin, 4% fewer commuters drive alone relative to the East Planning Area, and the 4% more commuters take transit. ' The East County Planning area includes Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and unincorporated county area east of Hayward and Fremont. More information and the areas can be found in the Countywide Active Transportation Plan at https://www.alamedactc.org/planning/countywide-bicycle-and-pedestrian-plans/. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 579 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 15 Table 4: Comparison of Worker Variables, Dublin and Alameda County, 2014-2018 Variable Total Workers Age 16+ Dublin 29,874 Alameda County - East Planning Area 118,263 Alameda County 767,292 Commute Mode Car/Truck/Van - Drove Alone 20,544 (69%) 86,523 (73%) 471,802 (61%) Car/Truck/Van - Carpooled 2,829 (9%) 9,923 (8%) 75,493 (10%) Public Transit (including Taxicab) 4,004 (13%) 10,136 (9%) 115,383 (15%) Motorcycle 35 (<1%) 343 (<1%) 2,994 (<1%) Bicycle 116 (<1%) 987 (1%) 15,132 (2%) Walked 343 (1%) 1,890 (2%) 28,513 (4%) Other Means 136 (<1%) 712 (1%) 8,603 (1%) Worked at Home 1,902 (6%) 7,749 (7%) 48,111 (6%) Commute Time, not working from home Travel Time < 30 minutes 12,362 (44%) 55,270 (50%) 339,680 (47%) Travel Time >_ 30 minutes 15,610 (56%) 55,244 (50%) 379,501 (53%) Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. When compared with Alameda County, Dublin has a lower proportion of households without vehicles. The percentage of households, 3% is similar to that in the East Planning Area of Alameda County, 4%. Table 5: Comparison of Zero -Vehicle Households, Dublin and Alameda County, 2014-2018 Variable Total Households Dublin 19,950 Alameda County - Alameda County East Planning Area 81,152 572,870 Vehicle Access Zero -Car Households 665 (3%) 3,051 (4%) 54,816 (10%) Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. When compared with Alameda County, Dublin has relatively high proportions of English -proficient households (that are not English only) and Spanish-speaking households with limited English Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 580 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 16 proficiency. Additionally, Dublin's proportion of zero -car households is 7% lower than Alameda County's proportion of zero -car households. Table 6: Comparison of Household Variables, Dublin and Alameda County, 2014-2018 Variable Total Households Dublin 19,950 Alameda County 572,870 Home Language English Only 10,051 (50%) 314,017 (55%) Other Language (English -proficient) Household 8,297 (42%) 205,763 (36%) Limited English Proficiency Household 1,602 (8%) 53,090 (9%) Spanish 195 (8%) 16,454 (3%) Other Indo-European Language 207 (1%) 4,453 (1%) Asian/Pacific Islander 1,124 (6%) 30,082 (5%) Other Language 76 (<1%) 2,101 (<1%) Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 581 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 17 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS Key takeaways of this demographic analysis are described below: • Land uses and accessible bicycle and pedestrian facilities likely influence the number of commuters who choose to bike, walk, or take transit, such as the high proportion of bicycle commuters in the Army Base's block group. • Correlations are present in Dublin between commuters' travel times and household incomes. High -income households and commuters with travel times longer than 30 minutes are concentrated in the city's eastern block groups. Additionally, high proportions of jobs paying over $40,000 per year are located in San Francisco and San Jose, which likely require commute times longer than 30 minutes. While Pleasanton has the highest proportion of total primary job locations and locations where workers making above $40,000 per year, Dublin has one of the lowest proportions of job locations where workers make above $40,000 per year. • Commuting distances for residents who leave Dublin for work are generally higher than the distances that workers travel into Dublin for work. Mode switch may be more feasible for people commuting to Dublin for work than vice versa. • Several key demographic differences, including zero -car households and multi-lingual households, exist between Dublin and Alameda County. These differences may signify why people bike and walk in Dublin and how they access information regarding active transportation infrastructure and services. The findings of this demographic analysis will inform the demand analysis, which will also be completed as part of the Plan's baseline conditions and needs assessment. The demand analysis will use the age data to develop walking and biking typologies among the Dublin population. After completing the baseline conditions and needs assessment, this analysis may be used in prioritizing the Plan's projects, identifying project and program recommendations, and developing an implementation plan. For project prioritization specifically, the data presented here provide an opportunity for the City to prioritize subgroups of its population based on indicators of relative transportation burden (e.g., presence zero -car households). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 582 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 18 MAP PACKAGE POPULATION - RACE/ETHNICITY AND AGE Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 583 Date: 6/19/2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 x a 0) 0) > Class IA Multi -use Path ) Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction nBlock Groups Dublin City Limits �SpARAT Block Group: 4505022 Population: 3,381 .aL ftLIN_BL Alameda County Block Group: �50X,1 I� Population: 683 Block Group 4505012 Potipulation: 4447 KITTELSON CALIFORNIA ma &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon Block Group \4502001 Population 1,4850 BlockcG•rtoup:• 4503001 Population: 2,160 R RO I Block\Group: 4502002 Population: 2;097 Block Group: 4502003 Populat ion: on: Vs2,518 Blo Population:ckGroup:1,2284501021 Block GroupT:R4'Sb3002 Block Grou..�'��Population: 3,1441 4504003 �� \ Popula ion: 3,300\ 7TH ST ,2TH ST 8TH ST FCI cc HORIZON PWcc G I z T"----''—zill 1 0i w-- 1fii UBLIN B11 SCARLETT Pleasanton 0 0 Contra Costa County Block Group: 4501023 Population: 3,91 -) CENTRAL PW Block Group 450.1011 Population: 5,573 MADDEN WY Block Group: 4507511 Population: 9,787 0 a COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Total Population of Block Groups Dublin, California 584 Population Count by TAZ 0 E E 0 a 0) 0) 3-323 324 - 495 496 - 632 633 - 1,030 1031 - 4,347 Dublin City Limits Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway ••••• Class III Bikeway - Under Construction Alameda County San Ramon Owl 1•1101 •** A. Ore® 7TH 5T 12T H sT 8TH 5T 0 FCI 6TH ST 2 F� 0 Gci SCARLETT CT Pleasanton 0 Contra Costa County 0 O "O �' C'4, FFR�7F�L 0,9 BRODER BL GLEASON D 0 cc COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore DUBLIN KITTELSON CALIFORNIA ma &ASSOCIATES 0 1 Mile 0 Population by TAZ Dublin, California 585 a 0) x Percentage of Minority Race/Ethnicity Population by Block Group • • - - <40% 40% - 50% 51%-60% 61%-70% >70% Key Land Uses A Schools Parks Alameda County Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction KITTELSON CALIFORNIA EXI&ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon Dougherty Hi Open Space 0 0 0,010- wFR RO 7TH ST 1210 ST 8TH ST 6TH ST Pleasanton 0 FCI BRODER BL Contra Costa County QO c> CgFF��/F`L OR Emerald Glen Park Dam ERCANYON RDD Livermore Minority Race/Ethnicity Population Dublin, California 586 0 0 0 E 0 0 0) Percentage Under Age 18 by Block Group 1 • - <10% 10% - 15% 16% - 20% 21%-25% >25% Key Land Uses A Schools Parks Alameda County txxx Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction KITTELSON CALIFORNIA iLx &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon • ,000/700. wFR RO Dougherty Hi Open Space 7TH ST 1 SIERRP fti4 Civic Plaza rt Rp 12TH ST FCI 8TH ST 6TH ST 0) HORIZON PW zit l /��La • 1. DUBLIN ▪ BU10111 J Pril = 0 0 BRODER BL Pleasanton Contra Costa County �RFfk�/ALL OR Dam ER EAMOO N RDD Livermore Population Under Age 18 Dublin, California 587 • 0 E 0 0 0) Percentage of Age 65 and Older by Block Group • - - 0%-1% 2% - 5% 6% - 10% 11%-15% 16% - 18% Key Land Uses jz Schools Parks Alameda County Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IX &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon 1I awl 7TH ST RA to Rp ,2TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST HORIZON PW 9 ESp9 17,110 DUBLIN al 1 0 FCI Pleasanton 0 0 0 BRODER BL Contra Costa County CRFfkG/ell, oR Livermore Population Ages 65 and Older Dublin, California 588 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 19 MAP PACKAGE WORKERS - COMMUTE MODES AND TIMES Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 589 ck Group.mxd jr," 0 E 0 0 E 0 0 0) > Class ' Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class IA Multi -use Path IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction IB Sidepath IB Sidepath - Under Construction IIA Bicycle Lane IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction IIB Bicycle Lane IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction III Bikeway III Bikeway - Under Construction nBlock Groups Dublin City Limits Block Group: 4505022 Workers: 1,660 aU.B_LIN_Bi Alameda County Block Group: 4505021 Workers: 1,305 KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon Block Group: 450202 11 Workers: 1,1711 Block Group: 4502 30111, Workers 890 Bock Group 4503001 0) Block Group: S4502003 Block Gro Workers: Work 1098 Al,----- 17,8 DUBLIN MI SCARLETT CT Pleasanton R RO FCI up: 4501021 ers: 166 Hs HORIZON PW o 9 .- I a -f19 -� CENTRAL PW �f14 Imo- 0 0 Contra Costa County so 'frOR GL l'ock Group: 4501023s Worker 1,898 • BIbck_Group: 4501011 Workers: 3,026 N BIkiG ioup: 1� DE DR 2,747 Block Group: 4507511 Workers: 4,429 0 a COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Number of Workers per Block Group Dublin, California 590 a 0 U 0 E 0 0 0 0 Percentage of Transit Commuters by Block Group • - • <5% 5%- 10% 11%-15% 16% - 20% >20% Transit Commuters per Block Group Key Land Uses Schools Parks Alameda County Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction KITTELSON CALIFORNIA ma &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN I tax, Dougherty Hills Open Space 1�.. wFRRo 7TH ST 0 FCI 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST HORIZON PW 9 cc zB4 �/�Q :AO �I- tiJ i DUBLIN B MIN Pleasanton 0 0 O 0 BRODER BL NMI Contra Costa County CRFf4-/ell, 0,9 Emerald Glen Park IER CANTON RID Livermore Commuters by Public Transportation Dublin, California 591 0 0 a E E E 0 U E 0 ❑ 0 0) Percentage of Pedestrian Class IA Multi -use Path Commuters by Block Group • • O% 0.01 % 0.02% - 0.05% 0.06% - 0.1% 0.11% - 0.25% Ped Commuters per Block Group Key Land Uses Schools MI Parks Alameda County CSSTS Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath - Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction DUBLIN Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction t4reih C' \ASP\RAOO�7yQ7 Oi/ w KITTELSON CALIFORNIA ma &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN Dougherty Hills Open Space SiERRA- Civic Plaza ❑ 0•01110 wFR RO 7TH ST RA4,OF RO 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST SCARLETT CT ❑ FCI 0 ORIZQ 11 W_I Pleasanton BRODER BL ilr GLEAM. N DR 11IMai/ FRs. %TR'L.P ••• mei 111 Contra Costa County OR z HFallon j ¢ Sports 2 Park COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 Pedestrian Commuters Dublin, California 592 E E 0 U E 0 0 a 0 Percentage of Bicycle Commuters by Block Group • • 0% 0.01 % - 0.5% 0.51 % - 1 1.01%-2% >2% Bike Commuters per Block Group Key Land Uses Schools MI Parks Alameda County DUBLIN Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction t4r��h \�SQ\RAOO�7y�7 02/ w1 KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IX &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN e9 G 0,A,DR i O 00111r-- 0 .0000 w4 RO Dougherty Hills Open Space RA4,OF RO 12TH ST 8TH ST 7TH ST 6TH ST 1 SIERRP Civic Plaza "M�_R 0) FCI 0) Z�.NEW Pleasanton Contra Costa County OR BRODER BL ilr GLEAM. N DR 11I� HFallon j ¢ Sports 2 Park 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Commuters by Bicycle Dublin, California 593 0 Percentage of Commuter Travel Times Greater than 30 Minutes by Block Group • <1 % 1%- 10% 10.1 °/O - 25% 25.1 °/O - 50% >50% Key Land Uses %Schools Parks cc L. Alameda County Class IA Multi -use Path LClass IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction DUBLIN IATES CALIFORNIA C&AssoL150N San Ramon Dougherty Hi Open Space Civic Plaza z 0 0 0 0 ./�� wFRRO 7TH ST RQ."OF Rp 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 FCI HORIZON PW LT,ii DUBLIN B _. -Pril = cc 0 BROD Pleasanton 1 Contra Costa County CRFFk�/FLL oR ., I I":1_"i•v1` LL, m 1 OSv �'�� :II ; 5 a _l ) P ER BL pl*� 6L erodoR C p E Mom_ .`��� 1 Fallon 1��i�'—�s, Q Sports L. l� Emerald �� Park ��� Glen Park I ■ 4�`��0•1 --� */CI NTRA4'PV _M+�1(�t 111 0 Livermore Commuter Travel Times Greater than 30 Minutes Dublin, California 594 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 20 MAP PACKAGE HOUSEHOLDS - INCOME, VEHICLES, AND HEALTH Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 595 per Block Group.mxd Date: 6/19/2020 r 0 0 x 0 E 0 0 0 E 0 0 0) Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class IA Multi -use Path IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction IB Sidepath IB Sidepath - Under Construction IIA Bicycle Lane IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction IIB Bicycle Lane IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction III Bikeway III Bikeway - Under Construction nBlock Groups Dublin City Limits Block Group: 4505022 Households: 1,076 DUBLIN BL Alameda County KITTELSON CALIFORNIA \a &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon BlockGroup: 4502002\ Households: 933 Block Group: 45020011� Households: 581 BkockoGr p: o 4503001 Households: 68l�1 Block ` Group: �y�� `50400 ,y Hbuseholds:486 'ee90 Z BlockmGro1 p: 450400=3 Hrouseholds: Block Group: �,y4505012'\� Hou eholds: 987 Block Group: 4502003 7rHsr RO 0 cc O O RA4,GF RO 8TH ST H'buseholds:Block Group: 4501021 6TH ST Households: 91iQRIZON PWcc C O,p L-mg -- , CENTRAL PW FCI DUBLIN B�I_ SCARLETT CT Pleasanton Contra Costa County CRFF/r164, OR Block Group: 45010236 Households: 1,240 Block Group:44501.011 Households: 2,094 ti Block Group: 4507511 Households: 2,736 BI�akiG soup: 4'5075101 I��. Hous llol:ds: (S/DE DR fl 2,027 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 Number of Households per Block Group Dublin, California 596 E E 0 a 0) 0) x Household Count by TAZ 1 - 94 95 - 168 169 - 210 211 -337 338 - 977 Dublin City Limits Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway ••••• Class III Bikeway - Under Construction \RATI OO Alameda County KITTELSON CALIFORNIA ma &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon 'Asa Er U SIERRA, 000r0" 1414%R4,,D 7TH ST RA1,Gf Rp 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST SCARLETT CT Pleasanton FCI Contra Costa County O 0 �� CRffk�7eGL BRODER BL GLEASON D TRAL PW ti S41L V AZ I Lim r► COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Households by TAZ Dublin, California 597 0 E O 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 Percentage of Households Earning Under $35K by Block Group <5D/o 5%- 10% 11%-12% 13% - 20% • >20D/o Key Land Uses jz Schools Parks Alameda L, County Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction • Class III Bikeway • Class III Bikeway - Under Construction DUBLIN BL DUBLIN IATES CALIFORNIA C&AssoL150N San Ramon 1011. Dougherty Hills Open Space Civic Plaza r_ 001 0 i, w 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 FCI HORIZON PW cc 4 if `F'=r---..__zri4arc ES44 1,7,14 DUBLIN al Pleasanton BRODER BL Contra Costa County CRFf4-/BIZ oR Emerald Glen Park 0 0 _ COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Household Income Under 25% of City Median Income Dublin, California 598 Percentage of Households Earning $35K - $75K by Block Group • - - 5% 6% - 10% 11%-15% 16% - 20% >20% Key Land Uses jz Schools Parks xd Date:6/19/2020 0 2 0 0 E 0 0 d oc U a 2 cc W Alameda w County Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction San Ramon DUBLIN IATES CALIFORNIA C&AssoL150N 401110061111111.1 ,00/110 wFR RO 7TH ST RA1,Gf RO 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST Pleasanton 0 FCI BRODER BL �O c�FF�fr7F"v O� �TRAL.P.W,. Contra Costa County ti Emerald Glen Park 1 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Household Income 25% - 50% of City Median Income Dublin, California 599 City Median I 0 E 0 0 0 0 Percentage of Households Earning $75K - $150K by Block Group • - - <20% 20% - 30% 31%-40% 41%-50% >50% Key Land Uses jz Schools Parks Alameda County Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction DUBLIN DIL DUBLIN IATES CALIFORNIA C&AssoL150N San Ramon �� wFR RO Dougherty Hi \Opeen�n Space 1 Civic Plaza ��SCARI RA to RO 1210 ST STH ST 7TH ST 6TH ST 0) FCI 0) Apt .r Pleasanton Contra Costa County a �G cRFF�friF`L OR BRODER BL GLEA N DR Gunn] 411111. III mar "' Ali Emerald ■�I2 Glen Park CENTRAL:P W ADDEN WY COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Household Income 50% - 100% of City Median Income Dublin, California 600 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0) x Percentage of Households Earning $150K or more by Block Group - - • - <25% 25% - 35% 36% - 45% 46% - 55% >55% Key Land Uses A Schools Parks Alameda County txxx Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction DUBLIN IATES CALIFORNIA C&AssoL150N San Ramon Dougherty H. Open Space 049;PN DR 12TH ST 8TH ST 7TH ST Pleasanton 000 0 0 FCI BRODER BL Contra Costa County QO Vi/ �P cRFF��iF`1 OR Dam ERCANYON RDD Livermore Household Income 100%+ of City Median Income Dublin, California 601 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 Percentage of Households with Zero Vehicles by Block Group • - - <0.5% 0.5% - 2% 2.1%-4% 4.1% - 6% >6% Key Land Uses jz Schools Parks Alameda County Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction KITTELSON CALIFORNIA ma &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon Civic Plaza ier- 0 0 0 41/1111111111121111111 ./�� wFRRO 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST 0 FCI 6TH ST d cc HORIZON PW zi DUBLIN B,L• L Pleasanton BRODER BL Contra Costa County Cpeor FlZ 4R ti NIP Emerald Glen Park Q Livermore Zero Car Households Dublin, California 602 CalEnviroScreen • • 1 - 10% (Least 11 - 20% 21 - 30% 31 - 40% Key Land Uses Schools Parks Class IA Multi -use Path Disadvantaged) ` ` ' Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Construction Class IIB Bicycle Lane Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction 4 C:\Users\jsommerville\Desktop\XX Demo Ca 2 2 Alameda 2 County U 111� DUBLIN IATES CALIFORNIA C&AssoL150N San Ramon Dougherty Hi' ,Open Space S �n G�. A Civic 'iaza 71) 7TH ST Rp 12T H ST 8TH ST 6TH ST Pleasanton FCI 0 O 0 O O BRODER BL Contra Costa County COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 CalEnviroScreen Dublin, California 603 APPENDIX B EXISTING ITI N SI ALYSI N RY C C A Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 604 V KITTELSON Imo' &ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 900 OAKLAND, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 F 510.839.0871 Date: June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 To: Sai Midididdi, TE City of Dublin From: Amanda Leahy, AICP; Mike Alston, RSP; Michael Sahimi, AICP; Erin Ferguson, PE, RSP Project: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Subject: Task 3.3.2 Safety Analysis — Trends and High Injury Network Mapping Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) is assisting the City of Dublin (City) to update the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan). This memorandum documents the methodology used for identifying the City's draft high injury network (HIN) as part of Task 3.3.2 - Safety Analysis. It is organized into the following sections: ■ Data Sources ■ Scope of Analysis and Approach to Analysis ■ Citywide Collision Trends ■ High Injury Network Maps This analysis is intended to identify exclusively collision history and trends. The results of this analysis will serve as an input to the forthcoming prioritization framework (Task 4.1) and network recommendations (Task 4.2). Related information, like the presence of schools or vulnerable populations, will be layered alongside this quantitative analysis in the prioritization work. DATA SOURCES Kittelson obtained the six most recent years of reported collision data involving bicyclists and pedestrians from the City's CrossRoads collision database, representing 2014 through 2019. Kittelson checked collision totals against the University of California, Berkeley, Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database and ensured that collisions were not double -counted based on collision locations, dates, and other attributes. Kittelson also used a County of Alameda centerline file to develop the roadway network used for analysis. This network was previously reviewed by the City to confirm roadways and functional classification designations. FILENAME: H.• 124124392 - DUBLIN ATPITASK3 - BASELINE CONDITIONS & NEEDSASSESSMENTI3.3.2 COLLISION ANAL YSISI MEMOIFINAL - TO CLIENT 6-22-2020124392 COLLISION ANALYSIS MEMO 20200622.DOCX 605 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS AND APPROACH TO ANALYSIS Collisions The analysis included pedestrian and bicycle collisions of all severity levels, in descending order of severity: fatal, severe injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain injury, and property damage only (PDO). A collision is classified based on the most severe outcome among any parties involved in the collision. Collisions were geocoded to the subject intersections or the relevant locations along roadways based on the information provided in the collision database. Collisions within 250 feet of an intersection were spatially located to the relevant intersection, and collisions listed as occurring greater than 250 feet from an intersection (as measured from the center of the intersection) were manually moved to the distance listed from the intersection. Street Network The analysis evaluated collisions that occurred on public streets within the City, excluding freeway mainlines (e.g., Interstates 580 and 680) but included ramp terminal intersections of freeways. Analysis Steps The following steps describe the basic analysis approach to identifying the HIN. 1. Establish the HIN database (collisions and roadway network) as described above. 2. Evaluate the frequency and severity of reported collisions using Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO, also known as collision severity score) screening and sliding window methodology from the Highway Safety Manual with severity weighting consistent with the Alameda CTC Countywide Active Transportation Plan (specifics of this methodology described below). 3. Select approximately the top 10 percent of roadways based on collision severity scores to be included in the HIN. 4. Where applicable, extend gaps between portions of the identified HIN provided the roadway characteristics are uniform. Steps 2 through 4 were conducted separately for pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 606 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 3 Collision Severity Score Kittelson used an equivalent property damage only (EPDO) performance measure, also known as a collision severity score, which assigns weighting factors to collisions by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) collisions. For this analysis, the following weights were assigned in concurrence with Alameda CTC: • Fatal and severe injury collisions: 10 equivalent PDOs • Visual injury or complaint of pain (moderate and minor injury) collisions: 5 equivalent PDOs • PDO collisions: 1 equivalent PDO The weighting factors intentionally weigh fatal and severe injuries equally to recognize that the difference between a severe injury collision versus a fatal collision are often more of a function of the individuals involved than the circumstances of the collision. The collision severity score is calculated by multiplying each collision severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula: Collision Severity Score = Fatal weight * # of fatal collisions + severe injury weight * # of severe injury collisions + other visible injury weight * # of other visible injury collisions + complaint of pain injury weight * # of complaint of pain injury weight collisions + PDO collisions The collision severity score is annualized by dividing the score by the number of years (six) of collision data used in the analysis. Resulting Network Kittelson performed a network screening to calculate the collision severity score for half -mile sliding window segments throughout the City. Sliding Window Methodology As part of geocoding the collision data, Kittelson implemented a Python script in ArcGIS. This script segmented the street network into one-half (1/2) of a mile segments, incrementing the segments by one -tenth (1/10) of a mile. The collision severity score was calculated per increment of each segment as the script "slides" along each street in the network. It includes intersections as part of the analysis. By evaluating individual road increments multiple times, the sliding window methodology minimizes inaccurate collision reporting locations and identifies the windows with the highest collision severity scores. This methodology helps to identify portions of roadways with the greatest potential for safety improvements. Kittelson aggregated the results, based on their collision severity scores and via visual inspection of the results, into continuous corridors that make up the draft HIN. This is consistent with the methodology for the analysis conducted as part of the Alameda CTC Countywide Active Transportation Plan. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 607 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 4 COLLISION TRENDS Alongside the spatial analysis to identify pedestrian and bicycle high injury networks, available variables in the collision data were analyzed to identify any citywide trends. Pedestrian and bicycle collisions were analyzed separately for any trends based on the following characteristics: • Temporal characteristics (time of day, day of week, seasonal, year over year) • Lighting conditions • Location characteristics (intersection versus segment collisions) • Primary collision factors cited by reporting officers • Age and gender of people walking and biking involved in collisions Among those categories, key findings that could support further Plan update work are included below. Note that collisions involving people walking or biking are random and sparse; the relative size of each dataset-68 bicycle collisions and 81 pedestrian collisions over six years —limits the ability to find statistically valid trends. Nonetheless, the following trends may be indicative of conditions within the City. Location Table 1 and Table 2 present pedestrian and bicycle collisions based on location and severity. As with the spatial analysis, intersection collisions are defined as those reported to have occurred within a 250- foot intersection influence area; all others are considered segment collisions. A majority of both pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurred at intersections, where there are more conflicts with motor vehicle traffic than at other locations along roadways. Table 1: Pedestrian Collisions by Location and Severity Location Intersection Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions 11 Other Collisions 63 Collisi. 74 are of 91% Segment 1 6 7 9% Total Reported 12 69 81 100% Source: City of Dublin; Kittelson, 2020. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 608 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 5 Table 2: Bicycle Collisions by Location and Severity Location Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions Other Collision • otal Reporte ollisions Share of Total Reported Intersection 2 50 52 76% Segment 1 15 16 24% Total Reported 3 65 68 100% Source: City of Dublin; Kittelson, 2020. Lighting Figure 1 presents pedestrian and bicycle collisions by lighting conditions. The majority of such collisions occurred in daylight conditions. All reported bicycle fatal and severe injury collisions occurred in daylight conditions. In dark conditions, collisions primarily occurred under street lights. Figure 1: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Lighting Conditions 70 60 c 50 d c 40 i C 30 o 20 U 10 0 78% 81% ■ Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions 14% 13% II M 8% 4% 1_/0 1/0 Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dusk - Dawn Dark - No Street Dark - Street Lights Lights Not Functioning Lighting Conditions Source: City of Dublin; Kittelson, 2020. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 609 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 6 Primary Collision Factors Primary collision factors (PCFs) are aggregated and provided in the data based on the section of the California Vehicle Code the reporting officer records. Among bicycle collisions, the following primary collision factors were the most frequently cited: • Automobile right of way violation (26% of collisions): a reported PCF that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes regarding a failure to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. This PCF may be an action on the part of the bicyclist or the motorist involved. • Improper turning (16% of collisions): a reported PCF that indicates a motorist committed a hazardous violation while turning. • Other hazardous movement (12% of collisions): This is an aggregated violation category that can indicate a hazardous movement on the part of the bicyclist or the motorist involved. Among pedestrian collisions, the following PCFs were most frequently cited: • Pedestrian right-of-way violation (27% of collisions): a reported PCF that indicates a driver violated a pedestrian's right-of-way. • Other improper driving (20% of collisions): a PCF that represents an aggregation of motorist violations. • Automobile right-of-way violation (14% of collisions): a reported PCF that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes regarding a failure to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. This PCF would be an action on the part of the pedestrian or the motorist involved. • Pedestrian violation (6% of collisions): a reported PCF that indicates a pedestrian was determined to have violated the laws regarding right-of-way. Age and Gender of Parties Involved Figure 2 presents the ages of people walking or biking involved in collisions compared to the share of the City's population. Note that age data was available for 76% of pedestrians and for 63% of bicyclists involved in collisions. The comparison reveals that people between 15 to 24 years old appear overrepresented in bicycle and pedestrian collisions. They represent 25% and 18% of pedestrians and bicyclists involved in collisions, compared to eight percent of the City's population. Similarly, people between 45 and 64 years old are underrepresented among pedestrian and bicyclist collisions (12 percent each) relative to their share of Dublin's population (25 percent). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 610 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 7 Figure 2: Age of Parties Involved in Collisions 40% 35% . aln 30% a ° v 25% (13 Q20% 18% v v cc o en 15% a c 0 o E 10% co 0% 1 0% 8% 16% 29% 16% 18% 25% 8% 18% 31% 35% 25% 19% 1 4% 9% Under 5 5-14 years old 15-24 years old 25-44 years old 45-64 years old 65+ years old • Pedestrians Involved Bicyclists Involved • Dublin Population Share (63% age reported) (76% age reported) Source: City of Dublin; Kittelson, 2020. Additionally, reported gender was available for 78 percent of bicyclists involved in collisions and for 59 percent of pedestrians involved. The available data show that males represent approximately 60 percent of pedestrians involved in collisions and 83 percent of bicyclists involved in collisions. DELIVERABLES FROM THE ANALYSIS The results from HIN and collision analysis are provided in the following attachments: • Figure 3: Pedestrian Collisions • Figure 4: Pedestrian Network Screening Results • Figure 5: Pedestrian High Injury Network • Figure 6: Bicycle Collisions • Figure 7: Bicycle Network Screening Results • Figure 8: Bicycle High Injury Network • Figure 9: Collision Statistics Infographic Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 611 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 8 HIGH INJURY NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS Draft High Injury Network Extents Table 3 provides the extents of each draft high injury network. Table 3: Draft High Injury Network Roadways Pedestrian Draft High Roadway Injury Network Extents Bicycle Draft High Roadway Injury Network Extents Amador Valley Boulevard 1-680 to Burton St Amador Valley Boulevard San Ramon Rd to Penn Dr Arnold Drive 1-580 to Dublin Blvd Dublin Boulevard Silvergate Dr to Myrtle Dr Bent Tree Drive Fallon Dr to Sugar Hill Terr Village Parkwa Y Dublin Blvd to City Limits (N) Burton Street Amador Valley Blvd to Tamarack Dr Dublin Boulevard Hansen Dr to Grafton St Hacienda Drive 1-580 to Dublin Blvd Regional Street Southern extents to Amador Valley Blvd Tamarack Drive Canterbury Ln to Brighton Dr Tassajara Road Dublin Blvd to Gleason Dr Village Parkway Dublin Blvd to Davona Dr Total Mileage: 8.4 miles Total Mileage: 6.7 miles Source: City of Dublin; Kittelson, 2020. Draft High Injury Network Characteristics Sixty-two percent of the pedestrian collisions occurred on the 8.4 miles of roadway that make up the pedestrian HIN. Sixty-two percent of the bicycle collisions occurred on the 6.7 miles of roadway that make up the bicycle HIN. General road characteristics of the draft pedestrian HIN include the following: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 612 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan June 22, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 9 • Approximately 40 percent of the pedestrian HIN has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour; 32 percent of the HIN mileage consists of roads with speed limit of 40 or 45 miles per hour, and the remainder of the HIN has a speed limit of 25 or 30 miles per hour.. • Approximately 55 percent of the pedestrian HIN consists of roads classified as arterial roads, with the remainder being collector or residential streets. • Approximately 47 percent of the HIN has five or six vehicular through lanes. Another 24 percent includes four vehicular through lanes, and the remainder of the HIN has two or three lanes. General road characteristics of the draft bicycle HIN include the following: • Approximately 78 percent of the bicycle HIN mileage consists of roads with speed limit of 35 or 45 miles per hour, with the remainder of the HIN having speeds limits of 30 miles per hour. • The bicycle HIN is approximately evenly divided between arterial and collector roadways-54 and 46 percent, respectively. • Approximately 88 percent of the HIN has four or more vehicular through lanes. NEXT STEPS The pedestrian and bicycle HIN will be carried forward as inputs to the network prioritization (Task 4.1) as part of the next task, which will include other input elements upon consultation with the City not quantified here —for example, proximity to schools or demographic information. The descriptive statistics and HIN characteristics described will also be carried forward into subsequent Plan update work, including possible documentation for infrastructure design guidelines and network recommendations (Task 4.2). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 613 0 U 0 d a 0 a 0 0 U 0 0) 0) 0 Pedestrian Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain • Property Damage Only 1 Alameda County %amyl co �SpARAT70.,N 0,7y0 Q� „1‘,2 C w rP •P,FT w DUBLIN BL o_ DUBLIN IC&assoLSON CALIFORNIA TIP O Z 73 0 'Sid 0 9 z O = /,�Q 0 sC • 9 0 • " 9°RK V'� c° 9P�F� v° °a 0 ♦ �0 SIERRP�� Q' San Ramon i f e92 O °02 •9- °'VO ADR • Dougherty Hills Open Space BRI GHTON D• R • AV 113MWOND Civic Plaza DOUGHERTY RE • 7TH ST 12TH ST FCI w 8TH ST 6TH ST cc 0 HORIZON PW 0 0 0 cc cc z a DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT 1 • • • Contra Costa County 4, CReeti„ `Y BRODER BL GLEASON DR pFR CENTRAL PW • • • • 0 a w HO N z o 0 A m Emerald Glen Park • 4/O RdiSIDE DR PUSPpES DR • MADDE•WY "' Fallon OE — Sports Park 0 • 0 a 0 Pleasanton COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 I I Figure 3 Pedestrian Collisions (2014 - 2019) Dublin, California 614 xd Date: 6/21 /2020 0 0) 0 0 re 4- Pedestria Aggregated Severity Score - Percentile 90 to 100 — 75 to 90 50 to 75 0 to 50 Alameda County sus DUBLIN p KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES San Ramon Contra Costa County Z O g O 93 �''OwFRRO a O RAryGFRa �P& c r Dougherty Hills RFFrYF a Open Space �oR ,, 6 < w r� 0 2op o� 7c �o a o 0 �SI NA DR io 4, y n n BRIGHTON _ __„ cT 2 w SIERRP\''‘ O8D 7TH ST FCI m 8TH ST 6TH ST cc HORIZON PW ccc o Z cc Z DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT La - Pleasanton BRODER BL GLEASON DR ,c4 S Emerald o 2 Glen P- o a CEr TRA PW H `S5,\ \ N RQ4i 2 cr I,DES DR Q 0 2 MADDEN WY Q =O O 4 Fallon Sports Park 1 2 a 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 4 Pedestrian Network Screening Results Dublin, California 615 Pedestrian High Injury Network Alameda County T co �SpARATicwcry 0 w CrPP�T 0 4i/ s DUBLIN BL San Ramon TIP LP O Z 0 Z i e92 O 0 G 00 �n/A DR Dougherty Hills Open Space DOUGHERTY RE 0 s CORK �� �aC ct AZF� ct 9 h AV 113MWOND 0 S/ERRA\-4 Q 7TH ST 12TH ST FCI 8TH ST 6TH ST cc HORIZON PW 0 ccO z cc z a cc DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT Pleasanton Contra Costa County O � O & CReeti„ `Y pR BRODER BL GLEASON DR "ENTRAL PW II- 0 PUSPpES DR N ovgU N R,4 . vcy MADDEN WY DNS/DE DR Fallon Sports Park 0 0 0 u COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore DUBLIN IC&assoLSON CALIFORNIA 0 1 Mile 0 I I Figure 5 Pedestrian High Injury Network Dublin, California 616 re 6- Bicycle Collisio a Bicycle Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain • Property Damage Only Alameda County , ,�SQRAT0N�jOq wc Cloza rCl 4/j ,cf., DUBLINBL DUBLIN IC&assoLSON CALIFORNIA San Ramon ti9 Dougherty Hills Open Space i e92 O G 02 O O o 0 n/A DR ?' y • n 4i 0 O BRI GHTON DR • • O z O 0 o• ,r, ..-- .-k O 7 i GM S 0 y0' 0 • p�P • • L.'? s �OHKO� cF7 '0,j, �9Cct C,a w o9 O -%... O. �SIERR040 • jr-''. 0 0 0 Contra Costa County O O y /0' OwFRRO a AV 113MWOND • • Civic Plaza • 7TH ST .„2TH ST m FCI 8TH ST 6TH ST cc 0 HORIZON PW 0 0 O cc 5 w DUBLIN BL • SCARLETT CT Pleasanton BRODER BL • • GLEASON DR S Emerald = Glen Park CENTRAL PW 0 CC 0 LL ai w N 9v-' N RM z o 50 A _\ m V O Pr MADDEN WY O • • do RdiSIDE DR 4 • 17"Fallon • Sports Park • o w • • 0 a COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 I I Figure 6 Bicycle Collisions (2014 - 2019) Dublin, California 617 0 5 E 0 a) 0 0 3 0 z 0 > 0 a 0 0 0 0 0) Aggregated Severity Score - Percentile 90 to 100 — 75 to 90 50 to 75 0 to 50 Alameda County J1. San Ramon L O Z 7 C!7 fFKs/pFp o R 0 Z o 'Sid p 2j sF o S ��h oP m \�Sp\RATIOO,N C47L0 O� w CrPP�%' C¢7 r 4ij w DUBLIN„BL 04, DUBLIN p KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I&ASSOCIATESC ,001, O 0000" Rp a Dougherty Hills Open Space k( S Ci ,r , oRKp9� °r ct 'c<j>, h 0 ERRP\N Q' AV 11BMVO8D 12TH ST 8TH ST it FCI Contra Costa County BRODER BL 7TH ST ADDEN WY GLEASON DR 0 Ea'w N 9v-' N RM n z o C m IpES DR p 0 0 6TH ST o HORIZON PW 0 cccc z U' ¢ DUBLIN BL Pleasanton CEI TRA PW Emerald Glen Park RrNSIDE DR it y a 0 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 7 Bicycle Network Screening Results Dublin, California 618 re 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final.mxd a 11 Bicycle High Injury Network Alameda County DUBLIN BL DUBLIN IC&assoLSON CALIFORNIA San Ramon "?2_ O',A DR Contra Costa County O o RA�GFRO �(3 C` 0 Dougherty Hills RFFkV�F a Open Space FOR a Q H BRI GHTON DR J0� �F = 7TH ST 1.2TH ST m FCI 8TH ST °w 6TH ST 0 P J s HORIZON PW 9 F F99 0cc CORK o <F� z z V- DUBLIN BL o ,. SIERRp, BRODER BL GLEASON DR PFR a s,� 0 z CENTRAL PW SCARLETT CT 6dt Pleasanton w N 9J-' N Re n z o z A m Emerald Glen Park ti0 RrliSIDE DR MADDEN WY Fallon Sports 6 Park O 0 w Y a 0 0 OLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 I I Figure 8 Bicycle High Injury Network Dublin, California 619 7 O ofoccur bikeat collisionsan ; Ointersection � • • • THE TOP 2 CITED PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS FOR BIKE COLLISIONS ARE: ® 16% Automobile Right of Way Violation (Failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic) Improper Turning 4Opjp of bike collisions.,„ resulted in a fatality �� `, ` Oor severe injury O �f ra7 F O1fof pedestrian ��jcollisions occur at Oan intersection 1 0oof pedestriancllisions are hit 0 and run is k15% of pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury 620 Attachment A: Network Screening Results 621 24392 - Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Kittelson Associates, Inc. Pedestrian Network Screening Segments Severe Moderate Minor Fatal Injury Injury Injury PDO Total Segment Annualized FID Street Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Length EqPDO Score Rank Percentile Percentile Group 623 DUBLIN BL 0 2 2 1 0 5 0.5 5.833333333 1 0.99'11'1'1'1'14 90_100 663 DUBLIN BL 1 0 3 1 0 5 0.5 5 2 0 988888889 90_100 1335 REGIONAL ST 0 1 3 0 3 7 0.402237 4.666666667 3 0.983333333 90_100 469 DUBLIN BL 0 0 4 1 1 6 0.5 4.333333333 4 0.977777778 90_100 491 DUBLIN BL 0 0 4 1 1 6 0.5 4.333333333 5 0.972222222 90_100 573 DUBLIN BL 0 0 4 1 1 6 0.5 4.333333333 6 0.966666667 90_100 710 DUBLIN BL 0 0 4 1 1 6 0.5 4.333333333 7 0.961111111 90_100 349 DUBLIN BL 1 0 2 1 0 4 0.5 4.166666667 8 0.955555556 90_100 386 DUBLIN BL 0 2 1 0 0 3 0.5 4.166666667 9 0.95 90_100 449 DUBLIN BL 0 2 1 0 0 3 0.5 4.166666667 10 0.941111114 90_100 718 DUBLIN BL 0 1 2 0 1 4 0.5 3.5 11 0.938888889 90_100 94 ARNOLD RD 1 0 1 1 1 4 0.5 3.5 12 0.933333333 90_100 202 ARNOLD RD 1 0 1 1 1 4 0.5 3.5 13 0.927777778 90_100 282 ARNOLD RD 1 0 1 1 1 4 0.5 3.5 14 0.922222222 90_100 147 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 2 2 0 4 0.5 3.333333333 15 0.916666667 90_100 501 DUBLIN BL 1 0 1 1 0 3 0.5 3.333333333 16 0.911111111 90_100 672 DUBLIN BL 1 0 1 1 0 3 0.5 3.333333333 17 0.905555556 90_100 690 DUBLIN BL 1 0 1 1 0 3 0.5 3.333333333 18 0.9 90_100 1031 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 2 2 0 4 0.5 3.333333333 19 0.894111114 90_100 1164 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 2 2 0 4 0.5 3.333333333 20 0 888888889 90_100 1256 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 2 2 0 4 0.5 3.333333333 21 0.883333333 90_100 399 DUBLIN CT 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.1944855 3.333333333 22 0.877777778 90_100 583 DUBLIN BL 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.5 3.333333333 23 0.872222222 90_100 724 DUBLIN BL 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.5 3.333333333 24 0.866666667 90_100 1143 TRALEE VILLAGE DR 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.2343014 3.333333333 25 0.861111111 90_100 641 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 1 2 5 0.5 2.833333333 26 0.855555556 75_90 339 HACIENDA DR 1 0 1 0 1 3 0.5 2.666666667 27 0.85 75_90 477 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 1 1 4 0.5 2.666666667 28 0.841111114 75_90 485 DUBLIN BL 0 1 1 0 1 3 0.5 2.666666667 29 0 838888889 75_90 493 HACIENDA DR 1 0 1 0 1 3 0.5 2.666666667 30 0.833333333 75_90 522 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 1 1 4 0.5 2.666666667 31 0.827777778 75_90 537 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 1 1 4 0.5 2.666666667 32 0.822222222 75_90 586 DUBLIN BL 0 1 1 0 1 3 0.5 2.666666667 33 0.816666667 75_90 594 HACIENDA DR 1 0 1 0 1 3 0.5 2.666666667 34 0.811111111 75_90 631 DUBLIN BL 0 1 1 0 1 3 0.5 2.666666667 35 0.805555556 75_90 683 DUBLIN BL 0 1 1 0 1 3 0.5 2.666666667 36 0.8 75_90 1485 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 2 1 4 0.5 2.666666667 37 0.794119'1'14 75_90 97 BENT TREE DR 0 1 1 0 0 2 0.3832796 2.5 38 0 788888889 75_90 126 BURTON ST 0 0 1 2 0 3 0.0990718 2.5 39 0.783333333 75_90 740 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 2.5 40 0.777777778 75_90 750 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 2.5 41 0.772222222 75_90 1033 TWIN EAGLES LN 0 1 1 0 0 2 0.12372 2.5 42 0.766666667 75_90 1095 TAMARACK DR 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 2.5 43 0.761111111 75_90 1232 TAMARACK DR 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 2.5 44 0.755555556 75_90 1364 VILLAGE PW 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 2.5 45 0.75 75_90 1386 VILLAGE PW 0 0 3 0 0 3 0.5 2.5 46 0.741111114 75_90 1393 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 2 0 3 0.5 2.5 47 0.738888889 75_90 1398 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 2 0 3 0.5 2.5 48 0.733333333 75_90 1407 VILLAGE PW 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 2.5 49 0.727777778 75_90 133 AMADOR PLAZA RD 0 1 0 0 1 2 0.5 1.833333333 50 0.722222222 50_75 680 GLYNNIS ROSE DR 0 0 2 0 1 3 0.3829053 1.833333333 51 0.716666667 50_75 74 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 1.833333333 52 0.711111111 50_75 158 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 1.833333333 53 0.705555556 50_75 227 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 1.833333333 54 0.7 50_75 275 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 1.833333333 55 0.694111114 50_75 324 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 1.833333333 56 0 688888889 50_75 333 DUBLIN BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 1.833333333 57 0.683333333 50_75 365 DUBLIN BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 1.833333333 58 0.677777778 50_75 649 DUBLIN BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 1.833333333 59 0.672222222 50_75 972 KEEGAN ST 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.2691345 1.833333333 60 0.666666667 50_75 53 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 61 0.661111111 50_75 79 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 62 0.655555556 50_75 86 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 63 0.65 50_75 110 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 64 0.6,VVVVV'14 50_75 129 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 65 0.638888889 50_75 166 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 66 0.633333333 50_75 174 AMADOR PLAZA RD 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 1.666666667 67 0.627777778 50_75 193 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 68 0.622222222 50_75 204 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 69 0.616666667 50_75 241 ASPEN ST 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.3253174 1.666666667 70 0.611111111 50_75 278 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 71 0.605555556 50_75 284 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 72 0.6 50_75 330 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 73 0.594111114 50_75 413 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 1.666666667 74 0 588888889 50_75 433 CLARK AV 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.2139419 1.666666667 75 0.583333333 50_75 818 LOCUST PL N 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.1212688 1.666666667 76 0.577777778 50_75 907 HILLBROOK PL 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.2892606 1.666666667 77 0.572222222 50_75 1029 SAN RAMON RD 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 1.666666667 78 0.566666667 50_75 1072 ROLLING HILLS DR 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 1.666666667 79 0.561111111 50_75 1081 SAN RAMON RD 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.5 1.666666667 80 0.555555556 50_75 Page 1 of 6 622 24392 - Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Kittelson Associates, Inc. Pedestrian Network Screening Segments FID Street 1167 TYNE CT 1186 SAN RAMON RD 1266 ROLLING HILLS DR 1300 TAMARACK DR 1312 PENN DR 1320 SAN RAMON RD 1344 SIERRA CT 1355 SAN RAMON RD 1363 VOMAC RD 1426 W VOMAC RD 1465 VILLAGE PW 1467 WINDING TRAIL LN 1471 VILLAGE PW 1479 VILLAGE PW 1493 VILLAGE PW 52 BRIGHTON DR 58 CENTRALPW 105 ANTONE WY 124 CENTRALPW 128 CENTRALPW 186 BRIGHTON DR 192 CENTRALPW 251 BRIGHTON DR 317 BRIGHTON DR 323 CENTRALPW 401 HACIENDA DR 428 GRAFTON ST 429 DUBLIN BL 538 DUBLIN BL 892 MYRTLE DR 986 LEE THOMPSON ST 1024 SAINT PATRICK WY 1156 TOYOTA DR 1451 VILLAGE PW 68 AMANDA ST 80 CANTERBURY LN 98 CAMPBELL GREEN 167 CHARLTON CT 194 CAMPBELL LN 249 BRIGHTON DR 257 BRIGHTON DR 306 CANTERBURY LN 341 DUBLIN BL 346 HARTLAND LN 357 DAVONA DR 376 E CANTARA DR 380 DUBLIN BL 421 DUBLIN BL 426 CIVIC PZ 435 DUBLIN BL 447 DAVONA DR 474 DUBLIN BL 514 DUBLIN BL 547 HARTLAND CT 568 DUBLIN BL 588 DUBLIN BL 603 DUBLIN BL 614 HACIENDA DR 616 DUBLIN BL 617 FOXCROFT WY 657 DUBLIN BL 705 DUBLIN BL 734 DUBLIN BL 737 GOLDEN GATE DR 738 GROVELAND LN 779 LOCKHART ST 792 OAK BLUFF LN 805 N SPAGO DR 820 N DUBLIN RANCH DR 845 HIBERNIA DR 853 LEWIS AV 887 LOCKHART ST 913 N DUBLIN RANCH DR 925 LOCKHART ST 957 IRONHORSE PW 1001 MARTINELLI WY 1094 SIERRA CT 1099 PALERMO WY 1117 S BRIDGEPOINTE LN 1135 TAMARACK DR Severe Moderate Minor Fatal Injury Injury Injury PDO Total Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes O 1 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 0 1 1 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 0 1 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 0 1 1 O 0 0 1 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 0 1 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 1 0 1 O 0 0 1 1 O 0 0 1 1 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 1 0 0 Segment Length 1 0.03766 1 0.5 1 0.5 2 0.5 1 0.3329521 1 0.5 2 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.4393404 1 0.456675 2 0.5 1 0.027529 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.3626265 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.5 2 0.1348713 2 0.2958484 2 0.3965917 2 0.1965035 2 0.5 1 0.1037903 1 0.5 1 0.0255053 1 0.0127258 1 0.1909359 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.0431559 1 0.5 1 0.1453459 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.2322135 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.0415387 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.061691 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.2084345 1 0.0417226 1 0.5 1 0.2777243 1 0.1618169 1 0.5 1 0.3222054 1 0.0782577 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.3890455 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.2159105 1 0.5 Annualized EqPDO Score Rank 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1.666666667 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 0.833333333 Percentile Percentile Group 81 0.55 50_75 82 0.5,11199914 50_75 83 0.538888889 50_75 84 0.533333333 50_75 85 0.527777778 50_75 86 0.522222222 50_75 87 0.516666667 50_75 88 0.511111111 50_75 89 0.505555556 50_75 90 0.5 50_75 91 0.494444444 50_75 92 0 488888889 50_75 93 0.483333333 50_75 94 0.477777778 50_75 95 0.472222222 50_75 96 0.466666667 0_50 97 0.461111111 0_50 98 0.455555556 0_50 99 0.45 0_50 100 0/44411114 0_50 101 0.438888889 0_50 102 0.433333333 0_50 103 0.427777778 0_50 104 0.422222222 0_50 105 0.416666667 0_50 106 0.411111111 0_50 107 0.405555556 0_50 108 0.4 0_50 109 0.394444444 0_50 110 0 388888889 0_50 111 0.383333333 0_50 112 0.377777778 0_50 113 0.372222222 0_50 114 0.366666667 0_50 115 0.361111111 0_50 116 0.355555556 0_50 117 0.35 0_50 118 0.341111114 0_50 119 0.338888889 0_50 120 0.333333333 0_50 121 0.327777778 0_50 122 0.322222222 0_50 123 0.316666667 0_50 124 0.311111111 0_50 125 0.305555556 0_50 126 0.3 0_50 127 0.294444444 0_50 128 0 288888889 0_50 129 0.283333333 0_50 130 0.277777778 0_50 131 0.272222222 0_50 132 0.266666667 0_50 133 0.261111111 0_50 134 0.255555556 0_50 135 0.25 0_50 136 0.244411114 0_50 137 0 238888889 0_50 138 0.233333333 0_50 139 0.227777778 0_50 140 0.222222222 0_50 141 0.216666667 0_50 142 0.211111111 0_50 143 0.205555556 0_50 144 0.2 0_50 145 0.194444444 0_50 146 0 188888889 0_50 147 0.183333333 0_50 148 0.177777778 0_50 149 0.172222222 0_50 150 0.166666667 0_50 151 0.161111111 0_50 152 0.155555556 0_50 153 0.15 0_50 154 0.144411114 0_50 155 0.138888889 0_50 156 0.133333333 0_50 157 0.127777778 0_50 158 0.122222222 0_50 159 0.116666667 0_50 160 0.111111111 0_50 Page 2 of 6 623 24392 - Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Kittelson Associates, Inc. Pedestrian Network Screening Segments Severe Moderate Minor Fatal Injury Injury Injury PDO Total Segment Annualized FID Street Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Length EqPDO Score Rank Percentile Percentile Group 1136 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.833333333 161 0.105555556 0_50 1155 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.833333333 162 0.1 0_50 1192 SIERRA CT 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.833333333 163 0.091111114 0_50 1197 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.833333333 164 0.088888889 0_50 1218 TAMARACK DR 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.833333333 165 0.083333333 0_50 1260 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.833333333 166 0.077777778 0_50 1324 SUTTON LN 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.1856974 0.833333333 167 0.072222222 0_50 1422 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.833333333 168 0.066666667 0_50 1446 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.833333333 169 0.061111111 0_50 1457 UNNAMED 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.0515973 0.833333333 170 0.055555556 0_50 1484 WICKLOW LN 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.4141705 0.833333333 171 0.05 0_50 203 BRIGHTON DR 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 172 0.0111111''4 0_50 268 BROOKDALE CT 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.0938058 0.166666667 173 0.038888889 0_50 361 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 174 0.033333333 0_50 572 HACIENDA CROSSING 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.3605973 0.166666667 175 0.027777778 0_50 888 MANSFIELD AV 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2744785 0.166666667 176 0.022222222 0_50 1013 MARTINELLI WY 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 177 0.016666667 0_50 1205 SHADOW PL 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.0251716 0.166666667 178 0.011111111 0_50 1325 SHADOW DR 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.1588817 0.166666667 179 0.005555556 0_50 1487 UNNAMED 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.0811947 0.166666667 180 0 0_50 Page 3 of 6 624 24392 - Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Bicycle Network Screening Segments Kittelson Associates, Inc. Severe Moderate Minor Crash Fatal Injury Injury Injury PDO Total Segment Frequency Annualized Percentile FID Street Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Length (annual) EqPDO Score Rank Percentile Group 624 DUBLIN BL 1 1 2 2 0 6 0.5 1 6.666666667 1 0.994252874 90_100 1439 VILLAGE PW 0 1 4 1 1 7 0.5 1.166666667 6 2 0.988505747 90_100 454 DUBLIN BL 0 0 3 3 4 10 0.5 1.666666667 5.666666667 3 0.982758621 90_100 674 DUBLIN BL 0 0 3 3 3 9 0.5 1.5 5.5 4 0.977011494 90_100 461 DUBLIN BL 1 1 0 2 0 4 0.5 0.666666667 5 5 0.971264368 90_100 572 DUBLIN BL 1 1 0 2 0 4 0.5 0.666666667 5 6 0.965517241 90_100 1422 VILLAGE PW 0 1 4 0 0 5 0.5 0.833333333 5 7 0.959770115 90_100 1451 VILLAGE PW 0 1 4 0 0 5 0.5 0.833333333 5 8 0.954022989 90_100 1478 VILLAGE PW 0 1 4 0 0 5 0.5 0.833333333 5 9 0.948275862 90_100 355 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 3 2 7 0.5 1.166666667 4.5 10 0.942528736 90_100 1360 VILLAGE PW 0 0 2 3 1 6 0.5 1 4.333333333 11 0.936781609 90_100 1455 VILLAGE PW 0 0 2 3 1 6 0.5 1 4.333333333 12 0.931034483 90_100 1463 VILLAGE PW 0 0 3 2 1 6 0.5 1 4.333333333 13 0.925287356 90_100 19 ARNOLD RD 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 4.166666667 14 0.91954023 90_100 40 ARNOLD RD 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 4.166666667 15 0.913793103 90_100 215 ARNOLD RD 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 4.166666667 16 0.908045977 90_100 543 DUBLIN BL 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 4.166666667 17 0.902298851 90_100 644 DUBLIN BL 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 4.166666667 18 0.896551724 90_100 559 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 2 3 7 0.5 1.166666667 3.833333333 19 0.890804598 75_90 745 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 2 3 7 0.5 1.166666667 3.833333333 20 0.885057471 75_90 1470 VILLAGE PW 0 0 2 2 2 6 0.5 1 3.666666667 21 0.879310345 75_90 1380 VILLAGE PW 0 1 2 0 0 3 0.5 0.5 3.333333333 22 0.873563218 75_90 89 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 2 1 1 4 0.5 0.666666667 2.666666667 23 0.867816092 75_90 182 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 2 1 1 4 0.5 0.666666667 2.666666667 24 0.862068966 75_90 1366 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 2 1 4 0.5 0.666666667 2.666666667 25 0.856321839 75_90 54 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 2.5 26 0.850574713 75_90 251 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 2.5 27 0.844827586 75_90 363 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 2.5 28 0.83908046 75_90 533 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.5 0.5 2.5 29 0.833333333 75_90 1387 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 2 0 3 0.5 0.5 2.5 30 0.827586207 75_90 507 DUBLIN BL 0 0 1 1 4 6 0.5 1 2.333333333 31 0.82183908 75_90 723 DUBLIN BL 0 0 1 1 4 6 0.5 1 2.333333333 32 0.816091954 75_90 1412 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 1 2 4 0.5 0.666666667 2 33 0.810344828 75_90 440 HACIENDA DR 0 0 2 0 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 34 0.804597701 75_90 524 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 35 0.798850575 75_90 550 HACIENDA DR 0 0 2 0 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 36 0.793103448 75_90 555 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 37 0.787356322 75_90 592 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 38 0.781609195 75_90 602 HACIENDA DR 0 0 2 0 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 39 0.775862069 75_90 610 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 40 0.770114943 75_90 639 HACIENDA DR 0 0 2 0 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 41 0.764367816 75_90 683 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 2 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 42 0.75862069 75_90 136 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 43 0.752873563 75_90 224 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 44 0.747126437 75_90 331 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 45 0.74137931 75_90 1075 TAMARACK DR 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 46 0.735632184 75_90 1090 TAMARACK DR 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 47 0.729885057 75_90 1097 TAMARACK DR 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 48 0.724137931 75_90 1113 TAMARACK DR 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 49 0.718390805 75_90 1235 TAMARACK DR 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.5 0.5 1.833333333 50 0.712643678 75_90 2 BRIGHTON DR 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 51 0.706896552 50_75 41 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 52 0.701149425 50_75 44 BRIGHTON DR 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 53 0.695402299 50_75 58 BRIGHTON DR 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 54 0.689655172 50_75 72 BRIGHTON DR 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 55 0.683908046 50_75 97 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 56 0.67816092 50_75 189 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 57 0.672413793 50_75 217 BRIGHTON DR 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 58 0.666666667 50_75 292 BRIGHTON DR 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 59 0.66091954 50_75 329 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 60 0.655172414 50_75 346 FALLON RD 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 61 0.649425287 50_75 424 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 62 0.643678161 50_75 464 DUBLIN BL 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 63 0.637931034 50_75 598 FALLON RD 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 64 0.632183908 50_75 754 FALLON RD 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 65 0.626436782 50_75 782 HIBERNIA DR 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.3222054 0.333333333 1.666666667 66 0.620689655 50_75 1287 REGIONAL ST 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.402237 0.333333333 1.666666667 67 0.614942529 50_75 1445 VILLAGE PW 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.5 0.333333333 1.666666667 68 0.609195402 50_75 731 DUBLIN BL 0 0 1 0 3 4 0.5 0.666666667 1.333333333 69 0.603448276 50_75 133 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 0 2 3 0.5 0.5 1.166666667 70 0.597701149 50_75 194 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 0 2 3 0.5 0.5 1.166666667 71 0.591954023 50_75 235 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 0 2 3 0.5 0.5 1.166666667 72 0.586206897 50_75 334 GRAFTON ST 0 0 0 1 2 3 0.5 0.5 1.166666667 73 0.58045977 50_75 446 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 2 3 0.5 0.5 1.166666667 74 0.574712644 50_75 613 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 2 3 0.5 0.5 1.166666667 75 0.568965517 50_75 43 BRANNIGAN ST 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 76 0.563218391 50_75 80 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 77 0.557471264 50_75 111 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 78 0.551724138 50_75 156 BRANNIGAN ST 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 79 0.545977011 50_75 237 BRANNIGAN ST 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 80 0.540229885 50_75 625 24392 - Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Bicycle Network Screening Segments Kittelson Associates, Inc. Severe Moderate Minor Crash Fatal Injury Injury Injury PDO Total Segment Frequency Annualized Percentile FID Street Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Length (annual) EqPDO Score Rank Percentile Group 264 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 81 0.534482759 50_75 311 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 82 0.528735632 50_75 328 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 83 0.522988506 50_75 337 GLEASON DR 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 84 0.517241379 50_75 383 GLEASON DR 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 85 0.511494253 50_75 410 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 86 0.505747126 50_75 416 HACIENDA DR 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 87 0.5 50_75 451 GLEASON DR 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 88 0.494252874 50_75 480 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 89 0.488505747 50_75 482 GRAFTON ST 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 90 0.482758621 50_75 509 GLEASON DR 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 91 0.477011494 50_75 513 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 92 0.471264368 50_75 539 GRAFTON ST 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 93 0.465517241 50_75 553 GLEASON DR 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 94 0.459770115 50_75 585 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 95 0.454022989 50_75 650 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 96 0.448275862 50_75 1039 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 97 0.442528736 50_75 1189 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.5 0.333333333 1 98 0.436781609 50_75 49 CENTRAL PW 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 99 0.431034483 0_50 50 ASPEN ST 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3253174 0.166666667 0.833333333 100 0.425287356 0_50 105 ASTERWOOD DR 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.2313162 0.166666667 0.833333333 101 0.41954023 0_50 117 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 102 0.413793103 0_50 225 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 103 0.408045977 0_50 267 BENT TREE DR 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3832796 0.166666667 0.833333333 104 0.402298851 0_50 291 CENTRAL PW 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 105 0.396551724 0_50 304 CENTRAL PW 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 106 0.390804598 0_50 336 HASTINGS WY 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.0315332 0.166666667 0.833333333 107 0.385057471 0_50 360 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 108 0.379310345 0_50 397 FALLON RD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 109 0.373563218 0_50 435 FALLON RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 110 0.367816092 0_50 436 FORINO DR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 111 0.362068966 0_50 473 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 112 0.356321839 0_50 519 FALLON RD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 113 0.350574713 0_50 536 FORINO DR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 114 0.344827586 0_50 563 FALLON RD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 115 0.33908046 0_50 618 CROAK RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.330384 0.166666667 0.833333333 116 0.333333333 0_50 627 FALLON RD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 117 0.327586207 0_50 649 FALLON RD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 118 0.32183908 0_50 682 CLARK AV 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.2139419 0.166666667 0.833333333 119 0.316091954 0_50 710 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 120 0.310344828 0_50 730 DUBLIN BL 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 121 0.304597701 0_50 740 DAVONA DR 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 122 0.298850575 0_50 879 IRONHORSE PW 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3890455 0.166666667 0.833333333 123 0.293103448 0_50 1047 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 124 0.287356322 0_50 1053 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 125 0.281609195 0_50 1086 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 126 0.275862069 0_50 1103 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 127 0.270114943 0_50 1122 POSITANO PW 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 128 0.264367816 0_50 1125 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 129 0.25862069 0_50 1152 SUMMER GLEN DR 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.4586498 0.166666667 0.833333333 130 0.252873563 0_50 1219 REDWOOD AV 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.1709642 0.166666667 0.833333333 131 0.247126437 0_50 1253 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 132 0.24137931 0_50 1254 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 133 0.235632184 0_50 1276 TWIN EAGLES LN 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.12372 0.166666667 0.833333333 134 0.229885057 0_50 1296 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 135 0.224137931 0_50 1307 SCARLETT DR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.2489757 0.166666667 0.833333333 136 0.218390805 0_50 1323 SAN RAMON RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 137 0.212643678 0_50 1354 TASSAJARA RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 138 0.206896552 0_50 1372 VOMAC RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.4393404 0.166666667 0.833333333 139 0.201149425 0_50 1397 VALENTANO DR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 140 0.195402299 0_50 1497 W VOMAC RD 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.456675 0.166666667 0.833333333 141 0.189655172 0_50 1498 VALENTANO DR 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.833333333 142 0.183908046 0_50 231 AMADOR PLAZA RD 0 0 0 0 3 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 143 0.17816092 0_50 606 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 3 3 0.5 0.5 0.5 144 0.172413793 0_50 101 AMADOR PLAZA RD 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.5 0.333333333 0.333333333 145 0.166666667 0_50 341 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.5 0.333333333 0.333333333 146 0.16091954 0_50 396 DOUGHERTY RD 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.5 0.333333333 0.333333333 147 0.155172414 0_50 406 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.5 0.333333333 0.333333333 148 0.149425287 0_50 411 DOUGHERTY RD 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.5 0.333333333 0.333333333 149 0.143678161 0_50 444 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.5 0.333333333 0.333333333 150 0.137931034 0_50 694 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.5 0.333333333 0.333333333 151 0.132183908 0_50 750 DOUGHERTY RD 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.5 0.333333333 0.333333333 152 0.126436782 0_50 1012 LANCASTER RD 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.2953148 0.333333333 0.333333333 153 0.120689655 0_50 257 BRIGHTON DR 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 154 0.114942529 0_50 283 AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 155 0.109195402 0_50 295 CAPOTERRA WY 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.3317445 0.166666667 0.166666667 156 0.103448276 0_50 393 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 157 0.097701149 0_50 455 DOUGHERTY RD 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 158 0.091954023 0_50 462 CLARINBRIDGE CI 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.0359862 0.166666667 0.166666667 159 0.086206897 0_50 548 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 160 0.08045977 0_50 626 24392 - Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Kittelson Associates, Inc. Bicycle Network Screening Segments Severe Moderate Minor Crash Fatal Injury Injury Injury PDO Total Segment Frequency Annualized Percentile FID Street Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Crashes Length (annual) EqPDO Score Rank Percentile Group 637 CIVIC PZ 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2322135 0.166666667 0.166666667 161 0.074712644 0_50 668 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 162 0.068965517 0_50 736 DUBLIN BL 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 163 0.063218391 0_50 849 KOHNEN WY 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2406822 0.166666667 0.166666667 164 0.057471264 0_50 995 MARIPOSA CI 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.1274 0.166666667 0.166666667 165 0.051724138 0_50 1026 SIERRA CT 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 166 0.045977011 0_50 1182 PENN DR 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.3329521 0.166666667 0.166666667 167 0.040229885 0_50 1200 STAGECOACH RD 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 168 0.034482759 0_50 1282 STAGECOACH RD 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 169 0.028735632 0_50 1290 SIERRA LN 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.3366714 0.166666667 0.166666667 170 0.022988506 0_50 1341 S MARIPOSA LN 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.159664 0.166666667 0.166666667 171 0.017241379 0_50 1347 STAGECOACH RD 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.5 0.166666667 0.166666667 172 0.011494253 0_50 1362 WHITWORTH DR 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.2065178 0.166666667 0.166666667 173 0.005747126 0_50 1490 UTICA CT 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.0663647 0.166666667 0.166666667 174 0 0_50 627 Attachment B: Collision Database 628 Dublin Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan Collision Database Comparison Kittelson Associates, Inc. City -provided database TIMS Download Involved With Bicycle BICYCLE_ACCIDENT Y Count of Report No Column Labels Row Labels 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grand Total Count of CASE_ID Row Labels Column Labels 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grand Total Fatal/Sev 1 2 3 Fatal/Sev 1 2 3 Other 16 12 9 11 8 9 65 Other 9 11 9 12 8 10 59 Grand Total 17 12 11 11 8 9 68 Grand Total 10 11 11 12 8 10 62 Involved With Pedestrian PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT Y Count of Report No Column Labels Row Labels 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grand Total Fatal/Sev 4 1 2 2 2 1 12 Other 8 12 8 11 16 14 69 Grand Total 12 13 10 13 18 15 81 Count of CASE_ID Row Labels Fatal/Sev Other Column Labels 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Grand Total 3 1 1 2 1 8 7 7 6 10 8 6 44 Grand Total 10 8 7 12 9 6 52 629 Dublin Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan Pedestrian Collisions Kittelson Associates, Inc. Report No Collision date Collision Ti Day Location D14-00306 D14-00318 D14-00769 D14-00980 D14-01226 D14-02675 D14-02703 D14-02791 D14-02824 D14-02883 D14-03027 D14-03410 D1500341 D1500799 D1500864 D1501259 D1501579 D1501650 D1501739 D1501807 D1502220 D1502301 D1502700 D1502752 D1503346 D1601088 D1601144 D1601267 D1601647 D1601861 D1601956 D1602786 D1602817 D1603327 D1603835 D1700553 D1701856 D1702023 D1702661 D1702791 D1702823 D1702941 D1703065 D1703166 D1703403 D1703793 D1703974 KAI1 D1800044 D1800114 D1800168 D1800901 D1800993 D1801748 D1802496 D1802655 D1802760 D1802763 D1802975 D1803146 D1803168 D1803740 D1803965 D1803967 D1804307 D1804497 D1900808 D1900852 2014-01-29 08:33 2014-01-30 16:36 2014-03-13 12:17 2014-04-02 13:33 2014-04-23 10:06 2014-09-15 07:58 2014-09-17 09:54 2014-09-26 10:42 2014-09-29 15:38 2014-10-04 00:10 2014-10-17 11:37 2014-11-22 21:09 2015-02-04 18:20 2015-03-20 08:44 2015-03-25 14:51 2015-05-02 14:00 2015-06-05 11:41 2015-06-12 15:50 2015-06-21 19:42 2015-06-29 08:50 2015-08-07 09:16 2015-08-15 13:04 2015-09-23 08:25 2015-09-27 11:37 2015-11-22 15:46 2016-04-19 13:31 2016-04-25 22:59 2016-05-08 01:04 2016-06-13 12:29 2016-07-01 23:31 2016-07-13 10:10 2016-09-21 14:07 2016-09-24 17:24 2016-11-06 17:00 2016-12-16 17:50 2017-02-17 15:49 2017-06-13 09:06 2017-06-28 12:13 2017-08-19 16:19 2017-08-30 18:58 2017-09-02 18:39 2017-09-12 08:03 2017-09-20 19:55 2017-09-28 17:58 2017-10-18 09:32 2017-11-21 13:40 2017-12-04 15:50 Wednesda TAMARACK DR - BURTON ST Thursday AMADOR VALLEY BL - BURTON ST Thursday TOYOTA DR - DUBLIN BL Wednesda DUBLIN BL- DUBLIN CT Wednesda TASSAJARA RD - DUBLIN BL Monday VILLAGE PW - BRIGHTON DR Wednesda LOCUST PL N - WINEBERRY WY Friday BENT TREE DR - TWIN EAGLES LN Monday VILLAGE PW - LEWIS AV Saturday ARNOLD RD - DUBLIN BL Friday AMADOR VALLEY BL - REGIONAL ST Saturday DUBLIN BL- REGIONAL ST Wednesda SAN RAMON RD - VOMAC RD Friday TAMARACK DR - AMANDA ST Wednesda VILLAGE PW - BRIGHTON DR Saturday BRIDGEPOINTE LN - HARTLAND LN Friday SAN RAMON RD - DUBLIN BL Friday VILLAGE PW - DUBLIN BL Sunday DUBLIN BL- GLYNNIS ROSE DR Monday DUBLIN RANCH DR - OAK BLUFF LN Friday CHARLTON CT - FOXCROFT WY Saturday REGIONAL ST - AMADOR VALLEY BL Wednesda VILLAGE PW - AMADOR VALLEY BL Sunday REGIONAL ST - SAINT PATRICK WY Sunday VILLAGE PW -TAMARACK DR Tuesday DUBLIN BL- CLARK AV Monday DUBLIN BL - ARNOLD RD Sunday PENN DR - TYNE CT Monday DUBLIN BL- SIERRA CT Friday ARNOLD RD - DUBLIN BL Wednesda DUBLIN BL- REGIONAL ST Wednesda CANTARA DR - SPAGO DR (N) Saturday HACIENDA CROSSING - HACIENDA DR Sunday DUBLIN BL- TASSAJARA RD Friday AMADOR PLAZA RD - AMADOR VALLEY BL Friday SHADOW DR - SHADOW PL Tuesday HACIENDA DR - DUBLIN BL Wednesda CAMPBELL LN - DUBLIN BL Saturday SUTTON LN - CANTERBURY LN (E) Wednesda ROLLING HILLS DR - WINDING TRAIL LN Saturday VILLAGE PW - AMADOR VALLEY BL Tuesday CENTRAL PW - ASPEN ST Wednesda IN PARKING LOT OF 4100 GRAFTON - NULL Thursday ANTONE WY - GRAFTON ST Wednesda CENTRAL PW - ASPEN ST Tuesday DUBLIN BL - GOLDEN GATE DR Monday BRIGHTON DR - CALLAN ST 2017-12-20 20:40 HACIENDA & 580, DUBLIN, CA 2018-01-05 06:11 2018-01-10 12:15 2018-01-12 16:56 2018-03-05 08:18 2018-03-10 17:34 2018-05-09 14:35 2018-07-10 12:47 2018-07-21 17:36 2018-07-29 13:19 2018-07-29 14:02 2018-08-15 11:59 2018-08-27 17:14 2018-08-29 14:13 2018-10-11 08:00 2018-10-31 08:44 2018-10-31 08:52 2018-11-29 15:12 2018-12-13 15:28 2019-03-02 18:34 2019-03-05 23:16 Friday TWIN EAGLES LN - BENT TREE DR Wednesda HILLBROOK PL- NULL Friday DUBLIN BL- GLYNNIS ROSE DR Monday PALERMO WY - LOCKHART ST Saturday 5200 DUBLIN BLVD-PARKING LOT - NULL Wednesda CENTRAL PW - LEE THOMPSON ST Tuesday DUBLIN BL- CLARK AV Saturday BROOKDALE CT - MANSFIELD AV Sunday LAZY DOG P/LOT - NULL Sunday PANDA EXPRESS P/LOT - NULL Wednesda REGIONAL ST - SAINT PATRICK WY Monday TASSAJARA RD - DUBLIN BL Wednesda ARNOLD RD - MARTINELLI WY Thursday ANTONE WY - GRAFTON ST Wednesda DUBLIN BL- DUBLIN CT Wednesda DUBLIN BL- GLYNNIS ROSE DR Thursday DAVONA DR - WICKLOW LN (N) Thursday AMADOR VALLEY BL - BURTON ST Saturday HIBERNIA DR - DUBLIN BL Tuesday SIERRA CT - PRIVATE PROPERTY Distance Direction 100' Direction: 0' Direction: 6' Direction: 242' Direction: 14' Direction: 3' Direction: 336' Direction: 10' Direction: 50' Direction: 0' Direction: 348' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 83' Direction: 660' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 46' Direction: 13' Direction: 229' Direction: 0' Direction: 30' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 26' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 12' Direction: 0' Direction: 150' Direction: 0' Direction: 12' Direction: 102' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 11' Direction: 13' Direction: 0' Direction: 342' Direction: 86' 9' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 8' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 708' Direction: 250' Direction: 11' Direction: 0' Direction: 0' Direction: 446' Direction: 10' Direction: 243' Direction: 0' Direction: Lighting Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Weather Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Dark - Street Lights Not F Cloudy Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dusk - Dawn Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dusk - Dawn Daylight Daylight Daylight Direction: North Dark - Street Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dusk - Dawn Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Dark - Street Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Raining Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Lights Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Lights Raining Lights Cloudy Collision Type Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Vehicle - Pedestrian Rear -End Involved With PCF Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Improper Turning Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Not Stated Pedestrian Not Stated Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Not Stated Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Unsafe Starting or Backing Pedestrian Improper Passing Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Auto R/W Violation Pedestrian Unsafe Speed Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation Pedestrian Unsafe Speed Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Unsafe Speed Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Unsafe Starting or Backing Pedestrian Pedestrian Violatoin Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Other Hazardous Movement Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Traffic Signals and Signs Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Unknown Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Not Stated Pedestrian Unsafe Starting or Backing Pedestrian Other Hazardous Movement Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Ped R/W Violation Pedestrian Other Improper Driving Hit and Ru Injury Deg' severity Injured Killed Year InjuredNur KilledNumk Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Severe Inji 2 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Severe Inji 2 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 0 0 Hit & Run: Severe Inji 2 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 1 0 Hit & Run: Severe Inji 2 # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 2014 2 0 Hit & Run: Severe Inji 2 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 2015 2 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2015 0 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2015 0 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2015 0 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 1 0 Hit & Run: Fatal 1 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 1 2016 1 1 Hit & Run: Severe Inji 2 # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 2016 2 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 1 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2016 0 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 1 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2016 0 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 1 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2016 0 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2017 0 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 1 0 Hit & Run: Severe Inji 2 # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 2017 2 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 2017 2 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 1 0 Hit & Run: Property IJ 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2017 0 0 Fatal 1# Inj: 0 # Killed: 1 2017 0 1 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Fatal 1 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 1 2018 0 1 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 2018 2 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Property IJ 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2018 0 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2018 0 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Property IJ 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2018 0 0 Hit & Run: Property D 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2018 0 0 Hit & Run: Severe Inji 2 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 1 0 Hit & Run: Other Visik 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 1 0 Hit & Run: Complaint 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 1 0 630 Dublin Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan Bicycle Collisions Kittelson Associates, Inc. Collision Collision Involved Hit and InjuredNu KilledNum Report No Collision date Time Day Location Distance Direction Lighting Weather Type With PCF Run Injury Degree severity Injured Killed Year Streetl Street2 Address mber ber D14-00229 2014-01-22 18:21 Wednesday DUBLIN BL - DOUGHERTY RD 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Other Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL DOUGHER DUBLIN BL 0 0 D14-00842 2014-03-17 10:15 Monday DUBLIN BL - TASSAJARA RD 365' Direction: West Dark - Street Lights Clear Other Bicycle Unknown Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL TASSAJAR, DUBLIN BL 0 0 D14-01146 2014-04-16 15:35 Wednesday HACIENDA DR - CENTRAL PW 464' Direction: North Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Unsafe Sp( Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 HACIENDA CENTRAL I HACIENDA 1 0 D14-01364 2014-05-08 10:30 Thursday DUBLIN BL - SIERRA CT 201' Direction: East Daylight Cloudy Other Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL SIERRA CT DUBLIN BL 0 0 D14-01373 2014-05-08 19:00 Thursday DUBLIN BL - CLARINBRIDGE CI 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL CLARINBR DUBLIN BL 0 0 D14-01900 2014-06-25 15:08 Wednesday DUBLIN BL - SCARLETT DR 0' Direction: West Daylight Clear Broadside Bicycle Unknown Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL SCARLETT DUBLIN BL 1 0 D14-02193 2014-07-23 19:24 Wednesday DUBLIN BL - SAN RAMON RD 10' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL SAN RAM( DUBLIN BL 0 0 D14-02228 2014-07-26 16:56 Saturday DUBLIN BL - HIBERNIA DR 16' Direction: East Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL HIBERNIA DUBLIN BL 1 0 D14-02255 2014-07-30 06:51 Wednesday DUBLIN BL - ARNOLD RD 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Fatal 1 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 1 2014 DUBLIN BL ARNOLD R DUBLIN BL 0 1 D14-02634 2014-09-10 17:26 Wednesday DUBLIN BL - SAN RAMON RD 100' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Unsafe Sta Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL SAN RAM( DUBLIN BL 1 0 D14-02645 2014-09-11 15:23 Thursday LANCASTER RD - UTICA CT 40' Direction: East Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Other Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 LANCASTEI UTICA CT LANCASTEI 0 0 D14-02674 2014-09-15 07:23 Monday VILLAGE PW - BRIGHTON DR 464' Direction: North Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 VILLAGE P\ BRIGHTOF' VILLAGE P\ 1 0 D14-02867 2014-10-03 08:23 Friday BRIGHTON DR - AMADOR VALLEY BL 11' Direction: North Daylight Cloudy Other Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 BRIGHTON AMADOR' BRIGHTON 0 0 D14-03065 2014-10-21 07:25 Tuesday DUBLIN BL - VILLAGE PW 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Unknown Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL VILLAGE P DUBLIN BL 0 0 D14-03230 2014-11-07 08:07 Friday BENT TREE DR - TWIN EAGLES LN 7' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 BENT TREE TWIN EAG BENT TREE 1 0 D14-03634 2014-12-16 17:19 Tuesday AMADOR PLAZA RD - AMADOR VALLEY BL 0' Direction: Not Stated Dark - Street Lights Raining Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2014 AMADOR F AMADOR' AMADOR F 0 0 D14-03679 2014-12-20 11:01 Saturday DUBLIN BL - CLARK AV 256' Direction: East Daylight Cloudy Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2014 DUBLIN BL CLARK AV DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1500727 2015-03-13 16:47 Friday BRANNIGAN ST - WHITWORTH DR 125' Direction: South Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Improper F Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2015 BRANNIGA WHITWOF BRANNIGA 0 0 D1500839 2015-03-23 12:14 Monday VILLAGE PW - TAMARACK DR 16' Direction: South Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Other Nazi' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 VILLAGE P\ TAMARAC VILLAGE P\ 1 0 D1500979 2015-04-06 06:48 Monday DUBLIN BL - HIBERNIA DR 10' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 DUBLIN BL HIBERNIA DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1501144 2015-04-23 12:02 Thursday SIERRA LN - DOUGHERTY RD 2' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2015 SIERRA LN DOUGHER SIERRA LN 0 0 D1501277 2015-05-07 11:23 Thursday CENTRAL PW - BRANNIGAN ST 13' Direction: East Daylight Cloudy Other Bicycle Traffic Sigr Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 CENTRAL P BRANNIGF CENTRAL P 1 0 D1502206 2015-08-05 16:54 Wednesday REGIONAL ST - AMADOR VALLEY BL 0' Direction: South Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 REGIONAL AMADOR' REGIONAL 1 0 D1502258 2015-08-11 12:29 Tuesday ARNOLD RD - DUBLIN BL 10' Direction: North Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 ARNOLD RI DUBLIN Bl ARNOLD RI 1 0 D1502360 2015-08-21 19:12 Friday CENTRAL PW- TASSAJARA RD 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Unsafe Sta Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 CENTRAL P TASSAJAR, CENTRAL P 1 0 D1502467 2015-08-31 15:59 Monday VILLAGE PW - BRIGHTON DR 0' Direction: North Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 2 # Killed: 0 2015 VILLAGE P\ BRIGHTOF' VILLAGE P\ 2 0 D1502478 2015-09-01 11:07 Tuesday DUBLIN BL - AMADOR PLAZA RD 226' Direction: East Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2015 DUBLIN BL AMADOR DUBLIN BL 0 0 D1502560 2015-09-09 07:57 Wednesday GRAFTON ST - GLEASON DR 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Broadside Bicycle Other Han' Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2015 GRAFTON : GLEASON GRAFTON : 1 0 D1503570 2015-12-14 15:10 Monday GRAFTON ST - CAPOTERRA WY 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2015 GRAFTON : CAPOTERF GRAFTON : 0 0 D1600257 2016-01-27 08:28 Wednesday KOHNEN WY - SHELTON ST 255' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2016 KOHNEN V SHELTON : KOHNEN V 0 0 D1600466 2016-02-17 07:51 Wednesday VILLAGE PW - BRIGHTON DR 667' Direction: North Daylight Cloudy Broadside Bicycle Ped R/W V Hit & Run: Severe Injury 2 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 VILLAGE P\ BRIGHTOP VILLAGE P\ 1 0 D1600987 2016-04-09 15:07 Saturday ARNOLD RD - DUBLIN BL 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Cloudy Broadside Bicycle Other Han' Hit & Run: Severe Injury 2 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 ARNOLD RI DUBLIN Bl ARNOLD RI 1 0 D1601081 2016-04-18 17:54 Monday VILLAGE PW - DUBLIN BL 181' Direction: North Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Other Nazi' Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 VILLAGE P\ DUBLIN Bl VILLAGE P\ 1 0 D1601453 2016-05-27 08:06 Friday DUBLIN BL - CLARK AV 413' Direction: East Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 DUBLIN BL CLARK AV DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1602413 2016-08-23 19:48 Tuesday CENTRAL PW - HACIENDA DR 0' Direction: Not Stated Dusk - Dawn Clear Other Bicycle Other Nazi' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2016 CENTRAL P HACIENDA CENTRAL P 0 0 D1602435 2016-08-25 20:55 Thursday CENTRAL PW - HACIENDA DR 0' Direction: Not Stated Dark - Street Lights Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 CENTRAL P HACIENDA CENTRAL P 1 0 D1602575 2016-09-07 13:18 Wednesday HASTINGS WY - VILLAGE PW 5' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 HASTINGS VILLAGE P HASTINGS 1 0 D1603410 2016-11-14 17:54 Monday DUBLIN BL - FALLON RD 0' Direction: Not Stated Dusk - Dawn Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 DUBLIN BL FALLON RI DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1603859 2016-12-18 18:56 Sunday AMADOR VALLEY BL - VILLAGE PW 262' Direction: East Dark - No Street Lights Clear Other Bicycle Unsafe Lar Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2016 AMADOR \ VILLAGE P AMADOR \ 1 0 D1603961 2016-12-27 11:35 Tuesday MARIPOSA CI - MARIPOSA LN (N) 16' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2016 MARIPOSA MARIPOS) MARIPOSA 0 0 D1701223 2017-04-14 07:24 Friday PENN DR - LANCASTER RD 87' Direction: North Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2017 PENN DR LANCASTE PENN DR 8 0 0 D1701352 2017-04-27 07:31 Thursday STAGECOACH RD - AMADOR VALLEY BL 11' Direction: South Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2017 STAGECOA AMADOR' STAGECOA 0 0 D1701386 2017-04-29 10:58 Saturday DUBLIN BL - SIERRA CT 775' Direction: East Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2017 DUBLIN BL SIERRA CT DUBLIN BL 0 0 D1701587 2017-05-19 08:52 Friday VILLAGE PW - BRIGHTON DR 200' Direction: North Daylight Clear Rear -End Bicycle Brakes Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 VILLAGE P\ BRIGHTOF' VILLAGE P\ 1 0 D1701708 2017-05-30 16:20 Tuesday VILLAGE PW - DAVONA DR 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Broadside Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 VILLAGE P\ DAVONA [ VILLAGE P\ 1 0 D1701872 2017-06-14 10:04 Wednesday DUBLIN BL - GLYNNIS ROSE DR 257' Direction: East Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # In]: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 DUBLIN BL GLYNNIS F DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1701951 2017-06-22 09:11 Thursday DUBLIN BL - SIERRA CT 520' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 DUBLIN BL SIERRA CT DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1702185 2017-07-11 18:17 Tuesday CLARK AV - DUBLIN BL 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 CLARK AV DUBLIN Bl CLARK AV 4 1 0 D1703245 2017-10-05 08:30 Thursday ASPEN ST - SUMMER GLEN DR 5' Direction: South Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Unsafe Sp( Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 ASPEN ST SUMMER ASPEN ST [ 1 0 D1704003 2017-12-06 15:31 Wednesday AMADOR VALLEY BL - VILLAGE PW 115' Direction: East Dusk - Dawn Clear Other Bicycle Other Han' Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # In]: 1 # Killed: 0 2017 AMADOR \ VILLAGE P AMADOR \ 1 0 D1704208 2017-12-21 09:58 Thursday DUBLIN BL - CLARK AV 560' Direction: East Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2017 DUBLIN BL CLARK AV DUBLIN BL 0 0 D1800712 2018-02-19 07:44 Monday AMADOR VALLEY BL - REGIONAL ST 18' Direction: West Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Other Han' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 AMADOR \ REGIONAL AMADOR \ 1 0 D1801394 2018-04-11 21:30 Wednesday DUBLIN BL - AMADOR PLAZA RD 26' Direction: East Dark - Street Lights Raining Other Bicycle Traffic Sigr Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2018 DUBLIN BL AMADOR DUBLIN BL 0 0 D1801564 2018-04-25 15:34 Wednesday VILLAGE PW - DUBLIN BL 193' Direction: North Daylight Clear Head -On Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2018 VILLAGE P\ DUBLIN Bl VILLAGE P\ 0 0 D1802458 2018-07-06 21:54 Friday DUBLIN BL - SAN RAMON RD 363' Direction: West Dark - Street Lights Clear Rear -End Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 DUBLIN BL SAN RAM( DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1802730 2018-07-27 16:44 Friday DUBLIN BL - HACIENDA DR 303' Direction: West Daylight Clear Sideswipe Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 DUBLIN BL HACIENDA DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1803532 2018-09-26 15:19 Wednesday VOMAC RD - SAN RAMON RD 2' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Broadside Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 VOMAC RE SAN RAM( VOMAC RE 1 0 D1803553 2018-09-28 08:01 Friday GLEASON DR - GRAFTON ST 7' Direction: East Daylight Clear Broadside Bicycle Traffic Sigr Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # Inj: 0 # Killed: 0 2018 GLEASON [ GRAFTON GLEASON [ 0 0 D1804463 2018-12-11 08:19 Tuesday VALENTANO DR - FORINO DR 6' Direction: East Daylight Clear Broadside Bicycle Traffic Sigr Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2018 VALENTAN FORINO D VALENTAN 1 0 D1900667 2019-02-20 13:13 Wednesday VILLAGE PW - TAMARACK DR 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Cloudy Broadside Bicycle Other Han' Hit & Run: Property Damage Only 0 # In]: 0 # Killed: 0 2019 VILLAGE P\ TAMARAC VILLAGE P\ 0 0 D1901126 2019-03-24 12:16 Sunday AMADOR VALLEY BL - VILLAGE PW 212' Direction: West Daylight Clear Broadside Bicycle Improper 1 Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 AMADOR \ VILLAGE P AMADOR \ 1 0 D1901652 2019-05-04 18:13 Saturday VILLAGE PW - TAMARACK DR 0' Direction: Not Stated Daylight Clear Other Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # In]: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 VILLAGE P\ TAMARAC VILLAGE P\ 1 0 D1902063 2019-06-06 21:55 Thursday ASTERWOOD DR - REDWOOD AV 0' Direction: Not Stated Dark - Street Lights Clear Broadside Bicycle Ped R/W V Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 ASTERWO( REDWOOE ASTERWO( 1 0 D1903850 2019-10-24 07:23 Thursday IRONHORSE PW - DUBLIN BL 329' Direction: South Daylight Clear Broadside Bicycle Ped R/W V Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 IRONHORS DUBLIN Bl IRONHORS 1 0 D1904425 2019-12-08 18:10 Sunday FALLON RD - POSITANO PW 210' Direction: South Dark - Street Lights Clear Sideswipe Bicycle Unknown Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 FALLON RE POSITANC FALLON RE 1 0 D1904431 2019-12-09 08:17 Monday AMADOR VALLEY BL - STAGECOACH RD 480' Direction: West Daylight Fog Sideswipe Bicycle Auto R/W' Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 AMADOR \ STAGECO/ AMADOR \ 1 0 D1904502 2019-12-13 18:11 Friday DUBLIN BL - VILLAGE 0' Direction: Not Stated Dark - Street Lights Raining Broadside Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Other Visible Injury 3 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 DUBLIN BL VILLAGE DUBLIN BL 1 0 D1904624 2019-12-23 19:00 Monday DUBLIN BL - FALLON GATEWAY 0' Direction: Not Stated Dark - Street Lights Clear Broadside Bicycle Not Stated Hit & Run: Complaint of Pain 4 # Inj: 1 # Killed: 0 2019 DUBLIN BL FALLON G, DUBLIN BL 1 0 631 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan TIMS Collision Database Kittelson Associates, Inc. REPORT! ACCIDENT_YEA COLLISION DAT COLLISIONT1 OFFICER_ NG_015T DAY_O CASE_ID R PROC_DATE JURIS E ME ID RICT _WEEK 6363339 2014 6/11/2014 100 1/30/2014 1636 203174 322 6397006 2014 10/13/2015 100 1/29/2014 833 203240 304 6423660 2014 6/24/2014 100 3/20/2014 1712 1 6460407 2014 7/10/2014 100 4/2/2014 1333 202219 207 6475283 2014 7/24/2014 100 4/16/2014 1535 202219 406 6475287 2014 7/24/2014 100 4/23/2014 1006 100411 501 6541933 2014 8/28/2014 100 7/26/2014 1656 202219 410 6606255 2014 10/7/2014 100 7/30/2014 651 201242 408 6646294 2014 10/10/2014 100 9/17/2014 954 202219 325 6646298 2014 10/10/2014 100 9/15/2014 723 100411 301 6669800 2014 11/7/2014 100 9/26/2014 1042 201242 507 6679695 2014 1/28/2015 100 9/15/2014 758 203240 301 6684186 2014 12/19/2014 100 10/16/2014 1531 202219 0 6684190 2014 12/19/2014 100 10/17/2014 1137 201242 207 6684194 2014 12/19/2014 100 10/4/2014 10 202085 408 6691789 2014 11/20/2014 100 9/11/2014 1523 202219 322 6713339 2014 1/9/2015 100 11/7/2014 807 203633 507 6718683 2017 4/8/2019 100 12/20/2017 2040 224 6748044 2014 1/26/2015 100 11/22/2014 2109 203263 208 6759034 2014 1/26/2015 100 11/26/2014 1049 201242 308 6776929 2014 2/12/2015 100 12/20/2014 1101 101974 0 6858267 2015 4/2/2015 100 2/4/2015 1820 202219 0 6877336 2015 4/15/2015 100 3/25/2015 1451 201242 301 6892456 2015 4/30/2015 100 3/13/2015 1647 203271 1 6892458 2015 4/30/2015 100 3/23/2015 1214 100411 310 6895862 2015 5/22/2015 100 3/20/2015 844 202219 316 6896523 2015 5/15/2015 100 4/6/2015 648 100411 410 6896535 2015 5/15/2015 100 4/23/2015 1202 201242 411 6926041 2015 6/1/2015 100 5/7/2015 1123 201242 504 6978936 2015 7/7/2015 100 6/5/2015 1141 201242 210 7002092 2015 7/22/2015 100 6/29/2015 850 202964 510 7038764 2015 9/3/2015 100 8/5/2015 1654 202219 207 7045238 2015 9/9/2015 100 8/15/2015 1304 206359 207 7047085 2015 9/19/2015 100 8/31/2015 1559 202219 301 7057301 2015 11/13/2015 100 9/9/2015 757 100411 517 7064786 2015 9/22/2015 100 9/1/2015 1107 201242 207 7066429 2015 9/23/2015 100 8/21/2015 1912 201721 501 7123085 2015 12/2/2015 100 9/23/2015 825 100411 312 7132019 2015 12/9/2015 100 11/22/2015 1546 202964 310 7148992 2015 2/3/2016 100 12/14/2015 1510 202964 516 7187881 2016 2/22/2016 100 1/27/2016 828 100411 515 7199634 2016 9/25/2018 100 4/25/2016 2259 202219 408 7207981 2016 3/21/2016 100 2/17/2016 751 202219 301 8000919 2016 3/30/2016 100 2/27/2016 1112 203271 207 8026971 2016 4/27/2016 100 4/19/2016 1331 202219 318 8038919 2016 5/16/2016 100 4/9/2016 1507 202219 408 8040489 2016 5/19/2016 100 4/18/2016 1754 202964 312 8057436 2016 6/13/2016 100 5/27/2016 806 202219 320 8082082 2016 7/15/2016 100 6/29/2016 2051 202219 0 8089931 2016 10/20/2016 100 8/25/2016 2055 201730 412 8091427 2016 7/29/2016 100 7/13/2016 1010 202219 208 8092200 2016 8/3/2016 100 6/26/2016 948 201236 212 8097043 2016 8/12/2016 100 7/1/2016 2331 201730 408 8113234 2016 9/7/2016 100 8/13/2016 852 202219 207 8148040 2016 10/18/2016 100 9/21/2016 1407 202219 0 8165468 2016 11/14/2016 100 11/6/2016 1700 203438 0 8191866 2016 12/21/2016 100 11/14/2016 1754 202964 519 8205673 2016 1/13/2017 100 12/18/2016 1856 202964 313 8316684 2017 3/6/2017 100 2/17/2017 1549 202219 203 8358065 2017 5/2/2017 100 4/14/2017 724 202219 0 8363793 2017 5/18/2017 100 4/29/2017 1058 202219 321 8363809 2017 5/18/2017 100 4/27/2017 731 202219 314 8386199 2017 7/11/2017 100 5/31/2017 1900 206805 0 8391055 2017 6/28/2017 100 5/30/2017 1620 203264 310 8391063 2017 6/28/2017 100 5/19/2017 852 203264 301 8399630 2017 7/31/2017 100 6/14/2017 1004 202219 0 8400056 2017 8/15/2017 100 6/13/2017 906 100411 412 8402990 2017 7/12/2017 100 6/22/2017 911 206730 321 8403328 2017 7/12/2017 100 6/28/2017 1213 202219 416 8429817 2017 8/24/2017 100 7/11/2017 1817 207824 318 8436902 2017 9/21/2017 100 9/2/2017 1839 206403 313 8457978 2017 10/9/2017 100 9/12/2017 803 100411 413 8466761 2017 10/13/2017 100 8/30/2017 1858 202219 0 8469845 2017 11/9/2017 100 8/19/2017 1619 207824 330 8477284 2017 10/24/2017 100 10/5/2017 830 203264 400 8489136 2017 12/4/2017 100 10/18/2017 932 100411 413 8494507 2017 11/27/2017 100 9/28/2017 1758 207353 511 8508852 2017 12/12/2017 100 11/21/2017 1340 202219 208 8512807 2017 1/29/2018 100 12/6/2017 1531 202219 313 8538927 2017 1/30/2018 100 12/4/2017 1550 100411 301 8539371 2018 2/1/2018 100 1/5/2018 611 207519 507 8540665 2017 1/27/2018 100 12/21/2017 958 100411 324 8542669 2018 2/5/2018 100 1/12/2018 1656 203253 414 8560839 2018 3/13/2018 100 2/10/2018 1247 202219 0 8584261 2018 3/29/2018 100 2/19/2018 744 103202 207 8584284 2018 4/5/2018 100 3/5/2018 818 400411 0 8613829 2018 4/24/2018 100 4/3/2018 1653 203628 0 8621657 2018 5/29/2018 100 4/25/2018 1534 203264 312 8625261 2018 5/30/2018 100 5/9/2018 1435 202219 0 8668416 2018 8/7/2018 100 7/10/2018 1247 100411 318 8679053 2018 8/30/2018 100 7/27/2018 1644 202219 410 8690884 2018 9/25/2018 100 8/27/2018 1714 104423 8719717 2018 10/23/2018 100 9/26/2018 1519 202219 212 8733346 2018 12/4/2018 100 10/31/2018 844 202219 0 8735999 2019 4/15/2019 100 3/2/2019 1834 207524 410 8741775 2018 11/30/2018 100 11/15/2018 826 100411 0 8753320 2018 1/28/2019 100 12/13/2018 1528 202219 322 8757540 2018 12/20/2018 100 11/29/2018 1512 100411 305 8763057 2018 12/27/2018 100 12/11/2018 819 201242 507 8810265 2019 3/18/2019 100 2/20/2019 1313 201242 320 8831308 2019 4/4/2019 100 3/24/2019 1216 201242 221 8834345 2019 4/12/2019 100 3/27/2019 654 100411 416 8870236 2019 6/5/2019 100 5/4/2019 1813 210672 8888013 2019 7/16/2019 100 6/6/2019 2155 207525 0 8950388 2019 11/7/2019 100 9/23/2019 646 100411 509 8951142 2019 11/6/2019 100 9/21/2019 1939 207519 410 8971125 2019 11/14/2019 100 10/24/2019 723 203264 8991040 2019 1/15/2020 100 11/21/2019 926 203264 0 9010818 2019 2/15/2020 100 12/13/2019 1811 209766 320 9010822 2019 2/15/2020 100 12/8/2019 1810 202964 502 9010826 2019 2/15/2020 100 12/2/2019 1051 211122 9010867 2019 2/14/2020 100 12/9/2019 817 201242 9028077 2019 2/5/2020 100 12/23/2019 1900 201998 CHP_SHI CITV_DIVI CALTRAN CALTRAN RAMP_IN COLLISIO NUMBER POPULAT CNTY CIT SPECIAL BEAT TY CHP BEA SION LA CHP BEA BEAT NU DISTANC DIRECTIO INTERSEC WEATHE WEATHE STATE_H 5_COUNT S DISTRI STATER ROUTES POSTMIL POSTMIL LOCATIO TERSECT1 SIDE_OF_ TOW_AW N SEVERI NUMBER _INJURE ION Y_LOC COND PE T_TYPE PO T_CLASS MBER PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD E N ION R_1 R_2 WY_IND Y CT OUTS UFFIX E_PREFIX E N_TYPE ON HWY AY TY _KILLED D 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL BURTON ST 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NOVALU TAMARACK DR BURTON ST 100 W A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 BRODER BL MADIGAN RD 750 W A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL AMADOR PLAZA RD 4 W e - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 HACIENDA DR CENTRALPKWY 464 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 TASSAJARA RD DUBLIN BL 14 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL HIBERNIA DR 16 E A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL ARNOLD RD 0 A - N Y 1 1 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 LOCUST PL WINEBERRYWY 336 N A - N N 2 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY BRIGHTON DR 464 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 BENT TREE DR TWIN EAGLES LN 105 A - N N 2 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL VILLAGE PW BRIGHTON DR 3 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 BRANNIGANST GLEASON DR 8 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL REGIONAL ST 348 E A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 ARNOLD RD DUBLIN BL 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 LANCASTER RD UTICA CT 40 E A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 BENT TREE DR TWIN EAGLES LN 7 W A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 HACIENDA DR RT580 86 N A - Y ALA 4 580 - - 18.001 R 4 W Y 1 1 4 198 0 0 0 0 NOVALU DUBLIN BL REGIONAL ST 0 B - N N 2 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DARIAN CT BRIGHTON DR 7 W A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NOVALU DUBLIN BL CLARKAV 256 E B - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 SAN RAMON RD VOMAC RD 0 A - N N 2 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PW BRIGHTON DR 660 N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 BRAN NIGANST WHITWORTH DR 1255 A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY TAMARACK DR 165 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 TAMARACK DR AMANDA ST 83 E A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL HIBERNIA DR 10 W A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 SIERRA LN DOUGHERTY RD 2 W A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 CENTRAL PKWY BRANNIGAN ST 13 E B - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 SAN RAMON RD DUBLIN BL 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 N DUBLIN RANCH DR OAK BLUFF LN 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL ST AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 5 - A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL ST AMADOR VALLEY BL 13 S N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY BRIGHTON DR O N N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 GRAFTON ST GLEASON DR 0 0 A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL AMADOR PLAZA RD 226 E N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 CENTRAL PKWY TASSAJARA RD 0 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PW AMADOR VALLEY BL 2295 N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PW TAMARACK DR 30 E N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 GRAFTON ST CAPOTERRA WY 0 Y A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 KOHNEN WY SHELTONST 255 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL DUBLIN BL ARNOLD RD 0 0 A - N Y 1 1 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PW BRIGHTON DR 667 N N B - N N 2 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL AMADOR PLAZA RD 223 E N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL CLARK AV 0 V A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 ARNOLD RD DUBLIN BL 0 v A - N Y 2 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY DUBLIN BL 181 N N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NOVALU DUBLIN BL CLARK AV 413 E N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VOMAC RD LANDALE AV 90 N N A - N Y 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 CENTRAL PKWY HACIENDA DR 0 Y A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL REGIONAL ST 26 W N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 SAN RAMON RD VOMAC RD 0 Y A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 ARNOLD RD DUBLIN BL 0 V A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL STARWARD DR 81 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NOVALU ECANTANA DR SSPAGEDR 0 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL DUBLIN BL TASSAJARA RD 12 W N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL FALLON RD 0 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL VILLAGE PW 262 E N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 SHADOW DR SHADOW PL 150 W N C - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 PENN DR LANCASTER RD 87 N N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL SIERRA CT 775 E N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 STAGECOACH RD AMADOR VALLEY BL 115 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 CENTRALPKWY TASSAJARACREEKTRL 0 0 A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY DAVONA DR 0 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PW BRIGHTON DR 200 N N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL GLVNNIS ROSE DR 257 E N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL HACIENDA DR DUBLIN BL 0 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL SIERRA CT 520 W N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 CAMPBELL LN DUBLIN BL 125 N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL CLARK AV 0 V A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY AMADOR VALLEY BL 0 0 A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 CENTRAL PKWY ASPEN ST 0 V A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 ROLLING HILLS DR WINDING TRAIL LN 0 0 A - N Y 2 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 SUTTONLA CANTERBURV LN 102 5 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 ASPEN ST SUMMER GLEN DR 5 5 N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 CENTRALPKWY ASPEN ST 0 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 ANTONE WY GRAFTON ST 11 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL GOLDEN GATE DR 0 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL VILLAGE PW 115 E N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 BRIGHTON DR CALLAN ST 342 E N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 TWIN EAGLES WAYS BENT TREE DR 9 N N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL CLARK AV 560 E N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NOVALU DUBLIN BL GLVNNIS ROSE DR 0 0 A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NOVALU FALLON RD DUBLIN BL 5445 N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL REGIONAL ST 18 W N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 PALERMO WY LOCKHART ST 8 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL DUBLIN BL GOLDEN GATE DR 498 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PW DUBLIN BL 193 N N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL CENTRALPKWY LEE THOMPSON WY 0 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL DUBLIN BL CLARK AV 0 0 A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL HACIENDA DR 303 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NOVALE TASSAJARA RD DUBLIN BL 708 N N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 W VOMAC RD SAN RAMON RD 2 W N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL DUBLIN CT 0 0 A - N N 2 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 HIBERNIA DR DUBLIN BL 2435 N C - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL GLEASON DR FALLON RD 175 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL BURTON ST 10 W N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DAVONA DR DAVONALN 446 E N B - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VALENTANO DR URBINO ST 6 E N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY TAMARACK DR 0 0 B - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL VILLAGE PW 212 W N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 NO VAL DEMARCUS BL DUBLIN BL 3565 N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY TAMARACK DR 0 0 A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 ASTERWOOD DR REDWOOD AV 0 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 CENTRALPKWY LEE THOMPSON ST 0 0 A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL MYRTLE DR 39 W N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 IRON HORSE PKWY DUBLIN BL 329 5 N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 GOLDEN GATE DR ST PATRICK DR 376 5 N A - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL VILLAGE PKWY 0 0 B C N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 FALLON RD POSITANO PKWY 2105 N A - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 IRON HORSE PKWY MARTINELLI 715 N C - N N 3 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 AMADOR VALLEY BL STAGECOACH RD 480 W N E - N N 4 0 4 198 0 0 0 0 DUBLIN BL FALLON GATEWAY 0 0 A - N N 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 Page or 632 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan TIMS Collision Database Kittelson Associates, Inc. PRIMARY PCF_COD PCF_VIOL PCF_VIOL ACCIDENT_YEA COLLISION DAT COLLISIONTI PARTY_C _COLL_FA E_OF_VI _CATEGO PCF_VIOL SUBSEC HIT_AND CASE_ID R PROC_DATE JURIS E ME OUNT CTOR OL RY ATION TION _RUN 6363339 2014 6/11/2014 100 1/30/2014 1636 A - 1 21950 A N 6397006 2014 10/13/2015 100 1/29/2014 833 A - 1 21952 M 6423660 2014 6/24/2014 100 3/20/2014 1712 A - 2 22106 N 6460407 2014 7/10/2014 100 4/2/2014 1333 A - 1 21952 N 6475283 2014 7/24/2014 100 4/16/2014 1535 A - 1 22450 A N 6475287 2014 7/24/2014 100 4/23/2014 1006 A - 1 21950 A N 6541933 2014 8/28/2014 100 7/26/2014 1656 A - 1 21453 A N 6606255 2014 10/7/2014 100 7/30/2014 651 A - 1 21453 A N 6646294 2014 10/10/2014 100 9/17/2014 954 A - 1 21950 8 N 6646298 2014 10/10/2014 100 9/15/2014 723 A - 22107 N 6669800 2014 11/7/2014 100 9/26/2014 1042 A - 1 21950 A N 6679695 2014 1/28/2015 100 9/15/2014 758 A - 1 21950 C F 6684186 2014 12/19/2014 100 10/16/2014 1531 8 - 2 N 6684190 2014 12/19/2014 100 10/17/2014 1137 A - 21804 A N 6684194 2014 12/19/2014 100 10/4/2014 10 A - 1 21950 A N 6691789 2014 11/20/2014 100 9/11/2014 1523 A - 21804 A N 6713339 2014 1/9/2015 100 11/7/2014 807 A - 22107 N 6718683 2017 4/8/2019 100 12/20/2017 2040 A - 1 21955 N 6748044 2014 1/26/2015 100 11/22/2014 2109 A - 1 21950 A N 6759034 2014 1/26/2015 100 11/26/2014 1049 A - 22350 N 6776929 2014 2/12/2015 100 12/20/2014 1101 A - 21804 A N 6858267 2015 4/2/2015 100 2/4/2015 1820 A - 2818 N 6877336 2015 4/15/2015 100 3/25/2015 1451 A - 21804 A N 6892456 2015 4/30/2015 100 3/13/2015 1647 A - 21750 N 6892458 2015 4/30/2015 100 3/23/2015 1214 A - 21202 A N 6895862 2015 5/22/2015 100 3/20/2015 844 D - N 6896523 2015 5/15/2015 100 4/6/2015 648 A - 22107 N 6896535 2015 5/15/2015 100 4/23/2015 1202 A - 21650 1 N 6926041 2015 6/1/2015 100 5/7/2015 1123 A - 1 21453 A N 6978936 2015 7/7/2015 100 6/5/2015 1141 A - 21453 B N 7002092 2015 7/22/2015 100 6/29/2015 850 A - 1 21950 A N 7038764 2015 9/3/2015 100 8/5/2015 1654 A - 21804 A N 7045238 2015 9/9/2015 100 8/15/2015 1304 A - 1 21950 A N 7047085 2015 9/19/2015 100 8/31/2015 1559 A - 21804 A M 7057301 2015 11/13/2015 100 9/9/2015 757 A - 1 21451 A N 7064786 2015 9/22/2015 100 9/1/2015 1107 A - 21804 A N 7066429 2015 9/23/2015 100 8/21/2015 1912 A - 2 22106 A N 7123085 2015 12/2/2015 100 9/23/2015 825 A - 21804 A N 7132019 2015 12/9/2015 100 11/22/2015 1546 A - 1 21950 A N 7148992 2015 2/3/2016 100 12/14/2015 1510 A - 21804 N 7187881 2016 2/22/2016 100 1/27/2016 828 A - 21804 A N 7199634 2016 9/25/2018 100 4/25/2016 2259 A - 21456 1 N 7207981 2016 3/21/2016 100 2/17/2016 751 A - 1 21952 N 8000919 2016 3/30/2016 100 2/27/2016 1112 A - 21717 N 8026971 2016 4/27/2016 100 4/19/2016 1331 A - 1 21950 A N 8038919 2016 5/16/2016 100 4/9/2016 1507 A - 1 21451 A N 8040489 2016 5/19/2016 100 4/18/2016 1754 A - 21804 A N 8057436 2016 6/13/2016 100 5/27/2016 806 A - 21801 A N 8082082 2016 7/15/2016 100 6/29/2016 2051 A - 22107 F 8089931 2016 10/20/2016 100 8/25/2016 2055 A - 21453 B N 8091427 2016 7/29/2016 100 7/13/2016 1010 A - 1 21950 A N 8092200 2016 8/3/2016 100 6/26/2016 948 A - 23250 N 8097043 2016 8/12/2016 100 7/1/2016 2331 A - 21456 1 N 8113234 2016 9/7/2016 100 8/13/2016 852 A - 22350 N 8148040 2016 10/18/2016 100 9/21/2016 1407 D - N 8165468 2016 11/14/2016 100 11/6/2016 1700 A - 1 21950 A F 8191866 2016 12/21/2016 100 11/14/2016 1754 A - 21804 A N 8205673 2016 1/13/2017 100 12/18/2016 1856 A - 21658 A N 8316684 2017 3/6/2017 100 2/17/2017 1549 A - 2 22106 N 8358065 2017 5/2/2017 100 4/14/2017 724 A - 22107 N 8363793 2017 5/18/2017 100 4/29/2017 1058 A - 22107 N 8363809 2017 5/18/2017 100 4/27/2017 731 A - 21650 1 N 8386199 2017 7/11/2017 100 5/31/2017 1900 D - N 8391055 2017 6/28/2017 100 5/30/2017 1620 A - 21453 C N 8391063 2017 6/28/2017 100 5/19/2017 852 A - 22350 N 8399630 2017 7/31/2017 100 6/14/2017 1004 A - 21650 1 N 8400056 2017 8/15/2017 100 6/13/2017 906 A - 21951 F 8402990 2017 7/12/2017 100 6/22/2017 911 A - 21804 A N 8403328 2017 7/12/2017 100 6/28/2017 1213 A - 1 21950 A N 8429817 2017 8/24/2017 100 7/11/2017 1817 A - 21804 A N 8436902 2017 9/21/2017 100 9/2/2017 1839 A - 1 21950 8 N 8457978 2017 10/9/2017 100 9/12/2017 803 A - 22350 N 8466761 2017 10/13/2017 100 8/30/2017 1858 A - 22350 N 8469845 2017 11/9/2017 100 8/19/2017 1619 A - 21804 A N 8477284 2017 10/24/2017 100 10/5/2017 830 A - 22350 N 8489136 2017 12/4/2017 100 10/18/2017 932 A - 1 21950 B N 8494507 2017 11/27/2017 100 9/28/2017 1758 A - 22350 N 8508852 2017 12/12/2017 100 11/21/2017 1340 A - 1 21950 A N 8512807 2017 1/29/2018 100 12/6/2017 1531 A - 21202 A N 8538927 2017 1/30/2018 100 12/4/2017 1550 A - 2 22106 N 8539371 2018 2/1/2018 100 1/5/2018 611 A - 1 21950 A N 8540665 2017 1/27/2018 100 12/21/2017 958 A - 21804 A N 8542669 2018 2/5/2018 100 1/12/2018 1656 A - 1 21950 A N 8560839 2018 3/13/2018 100 2/10/2018 1247 C - 1 N 8584261 2018 3/29/2018 100 2/19/2018 744 A - 21804 A N 8584284 2018 4/5/2018 100 3/5/2018 818 A - - N 8613829 2018 4/24/2018 100 4/3/2018 1653 8 - 2 N 8621657 2018 5/29/2018 100 4/25/2018 1534 A - 21650 1 N 8625261 2018 5/30/2018 100 5/9/2018 1435 A - 1 21453 A F 8668416 2018 8/7/2018 100 7/10/2018 1247 A - 1 21950 A N 8679053 2018 8/30/2018 100 7/27/2018 1644 A - 22107 N 8690884 2018 9/25/2018 100 8/27/2018 1714 A - 1 21950 B N 8719717 2018 10/23/2018 100 9/26/2018 1519 A - 21453 8 N 8733346 2018 12/4/2018 100 10/31/2018 844 A - 1 21950 A N 8735999 2019 4/15/2019 100 3/2/2019 1834 A - 1 21950 A N 8741775 2018 11/30/2018 100 11/15/2018 826 B - 2 N 8753320 2018 1/28/2019 100 12/13/2018 1528 A - 1 21950 A N 8757540 2018 12/20/2018 100 11/29/2018 1512 A - 1 21954 A N 8763057 2018 12/27/2018 100 12/11/2018 819 A - 1 22450 A N 8810265 2019 3/18/2019 100 2/20/2019 1313 A - 21202 A N 8831308 2019 4/4/2019 100 3/24/2019 1216 A - 22107 N 8834345 2019 4/12/2019 100 3/27/2019 654 A - 1 21952 N 8870236 2019 6/5/2019 100 5/4/2019 1813 A - 1 21950 N 8888013 2019 7/16/2019 100 6/6/2019 2155 A - 1 21950 A N 8950388 2019 11/7/2019 100 9/23/2019 646 A - 1 21950 A N 8951142 2019 11/6/2019 100 9/21/2019 1939 A - 1 21955 N 8971125 2019 11/14/2019 100 10/24/2019 723 A - 1 21950 A N 8991040 2019 1/15/2020 100 11/21/2019 926 A - 21651 B N 9010818 2019 2/15/2020 100 12/13/2019 1811 A - 21650 1 N 9010822 2019 2/15/2020 100 12/8/2019 1810 D - F 9010826 2019 2/15/2020 100 12/2/2019 1051 D - F 9010867 2019 2/14/2020 100 12/9/2019 817 A - 21801 A N 9028077 2019 2/5/2020 100 12/23/2019 1900 A - 20001 A N TYPE_OF COLLIS! PED_ACTI ROAD SU N MVIW ON RFACE B 8 A B A A B F A B F A G A A B B A G A A G A A B D A G A A B 8 A B B A I A A B F A B 8 A G A A G A A B E A B 8 A I A A G A A B E A B F A G A A G A A B A G A A G A A G A A B B A B 8 A G A A B 8 A G A A G A A G A A G A A B F A B 8 A G A A G A A B B A G A A G A A B 8 A G A A G A A G A A I F A G A A B 8 A A A B 8 A C A A B 8 A B B A G A A G A A B E B G A A G A A G A A G A A G A A G A A G A A B 8 A G A A B 8 A G A A B 8 A B B A B D A B D A G A A B C A B 8 A B B A G A A B A B 8 A G A A B 8 A A A A G A A B B A I A A G A A B 8 A B B A G A A B B A G A A B B A B 8 B A A A B 8 A B D B G A A G A A G A A 1 A G 8 A G A A B 8 A B 0 A G A A C A A G A B G A A B 8 B G A A G A A OAD_C ROAD_C ND_1 OND_2 PEDESTRI BICYCLE_ MOTORC NOT_PRI ALCOHOL STWD_VE CHP_VEH COUNT_S COUNT_V COUNT_C COUNT_P COUNT_P COUNT_B COUNT_B COUNT_ COUNT_ SECONDA CONTROL CHP_ROA AN_ACCI ACCIDEN YCLE_AC TRUCK_A VATE_PR _INVOLV HTYPE_A TYPE_AT EVERE IN ISIBLE IN OMPLAIN ED_KILLE ED_INJU (CYCLIST_ (CYCLIST_ MC_KILLE MC_INJU PRIMARY RY_RAM LONGITU GHTING _DEVICE D_TYPE DENT T CIDENT CCIDENT OPERTY ED T_FAULT _FAULT 1 1 T_PAIN D RED KILLED INJURED D RED _RAMP P LATITUDE DE COUNTY CITY POINT_X POINT_Y D 00 Y Y D 22 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.921 37.71352 A Y Y 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.923 37.71467 D 0 Y Y D 22 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - 37.7159 -121.806 ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.886 37.71591 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.928 37.70488 D 0 Y Y - 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.888 37.70993 A 0 Y Y A 7 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.872 37.70579 D 0 Y Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.885 37.7063 A 0O Y V Y L 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.893 37.70623 D Y N 60 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.926 37.72436 D 0 V Y A 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71979 A 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.853 37.71639 A 0 Y Y - 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71853 D 0 Y Y - - 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.869 37.71264 D 0 Y Y A 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.934 37.70671 A 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.893 37.70623 D 0 V Y 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.92 37.71208 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.853 37.71639 A 0 Y Y N 60 0 1 0 0 0 0 0- WF ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.873 37.7016 A 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.934 37.70292 D 0 V Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.922 37.71821 A 0 Y Y D 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.919 37.70517 A 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.941 37.71728 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN-121,927 37.72033 D 0 V Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.869 37.70884 A 0 Y Y L 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71485 D 00 Y Y - - 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.923 37.71466 A Y Y A 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN-121.885 37.7063 A 0 V Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.91 37.70654 A 0 Y Y A 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN-121,869 37.70978 A 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.936 37.70206 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN-121.865 37.71994 D 0 V Y A 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.935 37.7061 A 0 Y Y A 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.935 37.70607 D 0 V Y A 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71852 A 0 Y Y A 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.864 37.71365 D 0 V Y A 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.70511 A 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.872 37.70981 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.70964 A 0 Y Y A 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71489 D 0 V Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN D 0 Y Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.867 37.71489 A 0 Y Y N 60 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.893 37.70623 D 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.72035 D 0 V Y A 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.93 37.70927 A 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.92 37.70537 A 0 V Y A 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.893 37.70623 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.924 37.70644 D 0 V Y A 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.919 37.70504 D O0 Y Y A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.936 37.71334 A V Y A 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.888 37.70866 A 00 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.934 37.7029 A V Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.941 37.71728 A 00 Y Y N 60 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.893 37.70623 A V Y A 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.934 37.70763 D 0 Y Y - - 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN A 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.872 37.70575 A 0 Y Y L 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN-121.851 37.70677 D 0 V Y L 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.926 37.71048 D O Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN-121,941 37.70442 D 0 V Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.919 37.71333 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.914 37.70381 A 0 V Y 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.916 37.71677 A 0 Y Y - - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN A 0 V Y 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.72194 D 0 Y Y 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71907 D 0 V Y 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.874 37.70574 A O Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN-121,888 37.70617 D 0 V Y D 22 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.918 37.70484 D O0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.902 37.70576 A V Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.92 37.70537 A 0 Y Y N 60 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71021 D 0 Y Y 0 22 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.883 37.70865 D 0 Y Y A 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.947 37.70687 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN A 0 Y Y A 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.883 37.71085 D 0 Y Y N 60 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.883 37.70865 D 0 Y Y A 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.864 37.71789 A 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.929 37.70425 D 0 Y Y 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71033 D 0 Y Y A 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.924 37.7184 D 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.853 37.71642 D 0 V Y A 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.918 37.70492 A O Y Y A 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.875 37.70574 D 0 V Y - - 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.851 37.70528 A 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.935 37.70608 D 0 Y Y A 7 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.857 37.71305 D 0 Y Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.931 37.70374 D 0 V Y l 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.924 37.70647 A 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.86 37.70851 A 0 Y Y A 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.92 37.70537 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.889 37.70618 A 0 Y Y N 60 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.872 37.7077 A 0 Y Y A 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.941 37.71725 A 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.912 37.70372 D 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.885 37.70563 D 0 V Y 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.857 37.71582 D 0 Y Y A 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.921 37.7135 D 0 Y Y N 60 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.937 37.72307 A 0 Y Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.848 37.72421 A 0 V Y L 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71489 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.928 37.71001 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.9 37.70481 A 0 Y Y Y A 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.927 37.71489 D 0 V Y A 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.883 37.7127 A 0 Y Y A 8 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.86 37.70851 A 0 Y Y N 60 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.882 37.70603 D 0 Y Y A 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.897 37.70541 D 0 V Y L 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.928 37.70161 A 0 Y Y 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.924 37.70603 D 0 V Y - - 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.852 37.71346 D 0 Y Y - - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.897 37.70403 D 0 V Y A 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.917 37.71602 A 0 Y Y A 0 0 0 0 1 0 0- - ALAMEDA DUBLIN -121.851 37.70677 Page 5 or 5 633 Attachment C: Descriptive Statistics Tables 634 Bicycle Collision Descriptive Statistics Kittelson Associates, Inc. Dublin Bike Collisions -- 2014-2019 Collisions by Year Year Count Percent 2014 17 25% 2015 12 18% 2016 11 16% 2017 11 16% 2018 8 12% 2019 9 13% Collisions by Day of Week Day Count Percent Monday 11 72% Tuesday 9 Wednesday 17 Thursday 12 Friday 11 28% Saturday 5 Sunday 3 Collisions by Time of Day Time Count Percent 6AM to 10AM 21 31% 10AM to 4PM 23 34% 4PM to 8PM 20 29% 8PM to 6AM 4 6% Collisions by Severity Severity Count Percent Fatal 1 1% Severe Injury 2 3% Other Visible Injury 23 34% Complaint of Pain 18 26% Property Damage Only 24 35% Collisions by Liahtina and Severit Lighting Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Grand Total Dark - No Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dusk - Dawn 1 2 1 3 18 1 3 14 1 3 20 1 1 9 55 3 Grand Total 1 2 23 18 24 68 Hit and Run Collisions Type Felony Misdemanor (Count 3 IPercent 4% Not Hit and Run 65 96% ......... Injury Degree y.. . ..... .. ..., Intersection Segment Grand Total Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only 1 1 1 16 7 14 4 20 4 1 2 23 18 24 Grand Total 52 16 68 Share of Total 4%---- Prima Collision Factor and Collision Severit PCF Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Grand Total Auto R/W Violation 1 8 2 7 18 Not Stated 2 6 3 11 Improper Turning 4 2 5 11 Other Hazardous Movement 1 2 3 2 8 Unknown 2 2 4 Traffic Signals and Signs 2 2 4 Ped RJW Violation 1 2 3 Unsafe Speed 2 2 Unsafe Starting or Back ng 1 1 2 Other 2 2 Unsafe Lane Change 1 1 Brakes 1 1 Improper Passing 1 1 Grand Total 1 2 23 18 24 68 Age and Severity Fatal Under 5 5-14 years old 15-24 years old 25-44 years old 45-64 years old 65, years old Not Reported Total Gender and Severity Gender Fatal Share of Total 1% 13% 81% 4% 100% Share of Total 26% 16% 16% 12% 6% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 100% Dublin Share among Population Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Injury Property Damage Only Total Reported Share 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 8% 0 1 5 3 6 15 29% 16% 0 0 9 2 2 13 25% 8% 1 0 6 6 3 16 31% 35% 0 1 2 3 0 6 12% 25% 0 0 1 0 1 2 4% 9% 0 0 0 4 12 16 - 1 2 23 18 24 68 Severe Injury Female Male Not Stated Grand Total Complaint of Pain Share among Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Grand Total Reported 2 9 11 5 1 2 9 17% 18 13 11 44 83% 2 2 4 2 23 18 24 68 Reported: 635 Pedestrian Collision Descriptive Statistics Kittelson Associates, Inc. Dublin Pedestrian Collisions -- 2014-2019 Crashes by Year Year Count Percent 2014 12 15% 2015 13 16% 2016 10 12% 2017 13 16% 2018 18 22% 2019 15 19% Collisions by Day of Week Day Count Percent Monday 13 58% Tuesday 7 Wednesday 20 Thursday 6 Friday 13 43% Saturday 12 Sunday 9 Collisions by Time of Day Time Count Percent 6AM to 10AM 16 20% 10AM to 4PM 38 47% 4PM to 8PM 20 25% 8PM to6AM 7 9% Collisions by Severity Severity Count Percent Fatal 3 4% Severe Injury 9 11% Other Visible Injury 31 38% Complaint of Pain 20 25% Property Damage Onla 18 22% Collisions b Lighting and Severity Lighting Fatal Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning Daylight Dusk - Dawn (blank) Grand Total 3 Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only 2 4 2 9 5 2 26 31 16 152 2 20 18 Grand Total 11 626 1 81 Collisions b Injury Degree Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage On!), y Grand Total Intersection/Segment and Severity Segment Grand Total 3 3 8 1 9 ntersection Share of Total 30 17 16 74 91% 3 9% 31 20 18 81 Collisions by Primary Collision Factor and Severity Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Ped RNV Violation 2 13 2 5 PCF Other Improper Drivinc Unknown Auto RIW Violation Pedestrian Violation Not Stated Unsafe Speed Unsafe Starting or Backing Other Hazardous Movement Traffic Signals and Signs Improper Turning Improper Passing Pedestrian Violatoin 6 2 6 4 4 2 4 4 4 1 Grand Total 22 16 11 5 4 3 3 2 Grand Total 3 31 20 18 Collisions by Age and Severity Fatal Under 5 5-14 years old 15-24 years old 25-44 years old 45-64 years old 65+ years old Not Reported/other Total Severe Injury 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 Collisions by Gender and Severity Gender Fatal F M Grand Total Severe Inju 1 3 ry 3 3 10 81 Other Visible Injury Other Visible InJu 2 5 2 9 ry Share of Total 14% 1% 77% 7% 1% 100% Share of Total 27% 20% 14% 14% 6% 5% 4% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 100% Dublin Share among Population Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Grand Total reported Share 2 3 4 10 18% 8% 5 3 0 9 16% 16% 3 5 1 10 18% 8% 6 1 1 10 18% 35% 3 1 2 7 12% 25% 4 3 1 11 19% 9% 10 7 13 34 33 22 91 Complaint of Pain 10 8 13 31 Property Damage Only 7 13 3 2 10 3 20 18 Grand Total 33 19 29 81 Reported 63% Share among reported 40% 60% Reported 59% 636 APPENDIX B EXISTING ITI TAFFI NA YSI Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 637 ICKITTELSON I� &ASSOCIATES 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 900 OAKLAND, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 F 510.839.0871 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Level of Traffic Stress Methodology, Assumptions, and Results Date: July 15, 2020 Project #: 24392 To: Sai Midididdi, TE From: Mike Alston, RSP; Amanda Leahy, AICP; Erin Ferguson, PE, RSP; Michael Sahimi, AICP The City of Dublin (City) is updating the 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan). The Plan will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. As part of the baseline conditions and needs assessment, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) is analyzing the bicyclist level of traffic stress (LTS) on the City's existing roadway network ("on -street LTS")and on the Class I path network ("path LTS"). This memorandum (memo) details the methodology and assumptions used in the on -street LTS analysis for the existing roadway network and the results of the on -street LTS and path LTS analyses. The path LTS methodology and assumptions are included as Attachment A. The memo is organized into the following sections: • Background • Methodology • Available Data and Assumptions • Existing Conditions LTS Results • Map Results • Attachment A: Class I Path LTS Methodology BACKGROUND The on -street LTS methodology used was developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) and documented in the Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity report published in 2012;1 it was further refined by Dr. Peter Furth of Northeastern University in 2017.2 The on -street LTS measure is a rating given to a road segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it imposes on bicyclists. It classifies road segments and intersections as one of four levels of traffic stress: • LTS 1: Requires little attention to surroundings; suitable for most children 1 Mekuria, Mazza C., "Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity" (2012). All Mineta Transportation Institute Publications. Book 4. http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/mti_all/4 2 The methodology is posted at http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/. This methodology is "Version 2.0," published in June 2017. H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\Task 3 - Baseline Conditions & Needs Assessment0.3.3 LTS Analysis\Methodology Memo\Draft 3 to City\24392_LTS Methodology Assumptions and Results Memo_20200715.docx 638 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 2 • LTS 2: Low traffic stress; suitable for most adults • LTS 3: Moderate traffic stress for all bicyclists • LTS 4: High stress; only suitable for experienced bicyclists The on -street LTS methodology has recently been used by agencies such as Alameda CTC and the City of Oakland to assess bicycling conditions and is a best practice methodology for assessing these conditions in the transportation planning profession. This memo describes the on -street LTS methodology implemented based on the versions developed in 2012 and updated in 2017. METHODOLOGY The on -street LTS methodology includes criteria for establishing the score along roadway segments as well as at intersections and crossings, since the features of a signalized or unsignalized intersection can also have an impact on bicyclist comfort along a path or roadway. This section outlines the methodologies and criteria for both facilities. Roadway Segment LTS Methodology The on -street LTS methodology for roadway segments provides criteria for the following three bicycle facility types:3 • Bike lanes alongside a parking lane • Bike lanes not alongside a parking lane • Mixed traffic (i.e., no bike lanes present). Note that under this methodology, Class III bicycle routes are analyzed under the criteria for mixed traffic. In addition, physically separated Class I and Class IV bikeway segments (including parking - separated bike lanes) are always scored the lowest level of traffic stress between intersections, LTS 1. Under the Furth on -street methodology, Class I and IV bikeways are assumed to have the lowest level of stress since bicyclists are separated from interacting with vehicles. This analysis instead applies path LTS scores based on separate evaluation metrics for Class I paths. (See the next section, Path LTS, for discussion of Class I path LTS within the City.) The methodology evaluation criteria for each of the three facility types are shown in Table 1 through Table 3. These criteria operate following the "weakest link" principle, where the criterion with the 3 Bikeways can generally be classified as: Class I: off-street bicycle -only or multi -use path Class II: on -street bicycle lanes (can also include painted buffer) Class III: signed on -street bicycle route Class IV: physically -separated or protected on -street bike lanes Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 639 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 3 highest (worst) LTS determines the stress level of the segment. For example, if the bike lane width matches the values associated with LTS 1 but the speed limit indicates LTS 3, the segment would be considered to be LTS 3. Table 1: Roadway Segment Criteria for Bike Lanes Alongside a Parking Lane Number of Vehicle Lanes 1 lane per direction Bike Lane Reach (Bike plus parking lane width) 15+ ft 5 25 mph Prevailing Speed 30 mph LTS 2 35 mph LTS 3 LTS 1 12-14 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 2 lanes per direction (2- way) 15+ ft LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 2-3 lanes per direction (1-way) LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 other multilane LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 Notes: 1. Bike lane reach = Bike + Parking Lane Width. 2. If bike lane is frequently blocked, use mixed traffic criteria. 3. Qualifying bike lane must have reach (bike lane width + parking lane width) >_ 12 ft. 4. Bike lane width includes any marked buffer next to the bike lane. Source: Peter Furth, Northeastern University, http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/ Table 2: Road Segment Criteria for Bike Lanes and Shoulders Not Adjacent to a Parking Lane Number of Vehicle Lanes Bike Lane Width mph 30 mph LTS 2 Prevailing 35 mph LTS 2 Speed 40 mph LTS 3 45 mph LTS3 mph LTS 3 1 thru lane per direction, or no striped centerline 6+ ft LTS 1 4 or 5 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 2 thru lanes per direction 6+ ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 4 or 5 ft LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 3+ lanes per direction Any width LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Notes: 1. If bike lane / shoulder is frequently blocked, used mixed traffic criteria. 2. Qualifying bike lane / shoulder should extend at least 4 ft from a curb and at least 3.5 ft from a pavement edge or discontinuous gutter pan seam. 3. Bike lane width includes any marked buffer next to the bike lane. Source: Peter Furth, Northeastern University, http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/ Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 640 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 4 Table 3: Road Segment Criteria for Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic Number of Lanes 2-way street with no striped centerline Effective Average Da 0-750 ii 25 mph Prevailing 30 mph LTS 2 Speed 35 mph LTS 2 40 mph LTS 3 45 mph LTS 3 50+ mph LTS 3 LTS 1 LTS 1 751-1500 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 1501-3000 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 3000+ LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 1 thru lane per direction (1-way, 1-lane street or 2-way street with centerline) 0-750 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 751-1500 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 1501-3000 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 3000+ LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 2 thru lanes per direction 0-8000 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 8001+ LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 3+ thru lanes per direction Any ADT LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Note: Effective ADT = ADT for two-way roads; Effective ADT = 1.5*ADT for one-way roads. Source: Peter Furth, Northeastern University, http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/ Crossing LTS Methodology Kittelson conducted LTS intersection crossing analysis for street or path intersections that are located along a link that is scored LTS 3 or 4 (i.e., high -stress facilities), since it is likely that the characteristics of a high -stress segment can affect the bicyclist experience when crossing from a low -stress street. The crossing methodology analyzes intersections and crossings for the following situations: • Intersection approaches for pocket bike lanes (defined as a bike lane that is to the left of a dedicated right -turn vehicle lane) • Intersection approaches for mixed traffic in the presence of right -turn lanes • Intersection crossings for unsignalized crossings without a median refuge • Intersection crossings for unsignalized crossings with a median refuge The list above is provided by the Furth methodology and does not describe all circumstances. In Dublin, many Class I facilities cross at signalized intersections. See the next section, Path LTS, for a discussion of this topic. Under the Furth methodology, the LTS at an approach is graded from LTS 1 through LTS 4 based on the criteria outlined in Table 4 through Table 7. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 641 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 5 Table 4: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Pocket Bike Lanes Configuration Single right -turn lane up to 150 ft. long, starting abruptly while the bike lane continues straight, and having an intersection angle and curb radius such that turning speed is < 15 mph. Level of Traffic Stress LTS >_ 2 Single right -turn lane longer than 150 ft. starting abruptly while the bike lane continues straight, and having an intersection angle and curb radius such that vehicle turning speed is < 20 mph. LTS >_ 3 Single right -turn lane in which the bike lane shifts to the left, but the intersection angle and curb radius are such that turning speed is < 15 mph. LTS >_ 3 Single right -turn lane with any other configuration; dual right -turn lanes; or right -turn lane along with an option (through -right) lane. LTS >_ 4 Source: Mekuria, Maaza. Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012. Table 5: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Mixed Traffic in the Presence of a Right -Turn Lane Configuration Level of Traffic Stress Single right -turn lane with length < 75 ft. and intersection angle and curb radius limit turning speed to 15 mph. Single right -turn lane with length between 75 and 150 ft., and intersection angle and curb radius limit turning speed to 15 mph. Otherwise. (no effect on LTS) LTS > 3 LTS>_4 ource: Mekuria, Maaza. Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012. Table 6: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Unsignalized Crossings Without a Median Refuge Speed Limit of Street Being Crossed Up to 25 mph Width of Street Being Crossed Up to 3 lanes 4-5 lanes 6+ lanes LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2 30 mph LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 4 35 mph LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 40+ mph LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 Source: Mekuria, Maaza. Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 642 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 6 Table 7: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Unsignalized Crossings with a Median Refuge at Least Six Feet Wide Width Speed Limit of Street Being Crossed Up to 3 lanea._ of Street Being Crossed 4-5 lanes LTS 1 6+ lanes LTS 2 Up to 25 mph LTS 1 30 mph LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 35 mph LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 40+ mph LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 Source: Mekuria, Maaza. Low -Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute, 2012. Path LTS The on -street LTS methodology employed does not include a detailed path segment or crossing methodology to account for the various design factors that affect quality of service and user stress on Class I paths like those across the City. Thus, Kittelson created a parallel evaluation of path LTS that accounts for path segments and crossings to accompany the on -street LTS methodology. The intent of the path LTS methodology is to account for the varying qualities of service on paths throughout the City and to be able to carry forward the path analysis into prioritization and plan recommendations alongside the on -street LTS analysis. The details of the path LTS analysis are presented in Attachment A: Class I Path LTS Methodology. The results maps of the path LTS evaluation are included alongside the on -street LTS results in this memo. AVAILABLE DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS Kittelson obtained data from the City and compiled it in a spatial database to conduct the on -street and path LTS analyses. Where GIS data were not available, Kittelson combined field review, Google Earth aerial review, City input, and assumptions to build out necessary inputs. The data used in the analysis are shown in Table 8. Table 8: Data Requirements and Assumptions Data Requirement Data Availability/Assumptions Existing dedicated bicycle facilities (Class I, II, II buffered, and IV) in the City Digitized the City's existing bicycle facilities. See Figure 1. Presence of parking lanes adjacent to bike lanes This attribute only applies where Class II facilities exist alongside parking (Table 1). Kittelson conducted field review of Class II locations and mapped the presence or absence of parking. See Figure 2. Number of vehicle lanes Kittelson used City -provided data, which was reviewed and confirmed. Kittelson reviewed missing locations to obtain complete network coverage. See Figure 3. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 643 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 7 Data Requirement Data Availability/Assumptions Speed Limit Kittelson utilized speed limit data provided by the City in shapefile format. On residential roads without speed limit data or posted speeds, speed limit of 25 mph was applied based on the City's prima facie speed limits.4 See Figure 4. Bike lane width Kittelson conducted field reviews to determine bike lane widths where the methodology required them. Bike lane buffer width Kittelson conducted field reviews to determine bike lane buffer widths where the methodology required them. Width of bike lane and adjacent parking lane Kittelson conducted field reviews to determine parking lane widths adjacent to bike lanes where the methodology required this information. Frequency of bicycle lane blockage This attribute is a binary variable (i.e., whether the bicycle lane is frequently blocked or not) used to reassign facilities with a bike lane to be evaluated as mixed traffic facilities (see note, Table 2). Kittelson assumed that bike lanes next to driveways for large parking lots (such as retail centers) are frequently blocked and applied the mixed traffic criteria for those segments. Average Daily Traffic Kittelson used the ADT provided by City in shapefile and/or spreadsheet format. Where ADT was not available, ADT categories were estimated based on downstream volumes, adjacent roadways, or the general land use context around a facility. These generally included facilities that were clearly in the highest ADT category for analysis (8,001 +) Centerline presence Kittelson assumed collector streets are striped with centerlines and local/neighborhood streets were not. The functional classification designations came from the City's 2013 General Plan Circulation Element and from 2012 functional classification designation forms submitted to Caltrans. Where inconsistencies were present, Kittelson assumed a street to be the higher order designation between the two. Presence of right turn lanes and features (e.g., number of lanes and length, and curb radius) This attribute is required for intersection crossing analysis. Kittelson applied these manually based on Google Earth review on an as -needed basis. Presence of pocket bike lanes and features (e.g., number of lanes and length, and curb radius) This attribute is required for intersection crossing analysis. Kittelson applied these manually based on Google Earth review on an as -needed basis. Median presence and width This attribute is required for intersection crossing analysis. Kittelson applied these manually based on Google Earth review on an as -needed basis. 4 https://dublin.ca.gov/2094/Speed-Surveys Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 644 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 8 EXISTING CONDITIONS LTS RESULTS On -Street LTS The available GIS data, field reviews, Google Earth review, and other assumptions documented above were applied using the methodologies outlined in this memo. The results of the on -street LTS analysis are shown in Figure 7. • On -street LTS scores were first calculated for bidirectional segments utilizing the segment criteria outlined in Table 1 through Table 3 (with off-street paths receiving a score of LTS 1). • For locations where low -stress facilities crossed high -stress facilities, the crossing LTS methodologies were applied as outlined in Table 4 through Table 7. For signalized intersections, locations with dedicated right turn lanes and/or pocket bike lanes were reviewed and the approach's LTS score was updated if intersection conditions would result in an increased level of stress. Likewise, for unsignalized intersections, LTS scores were updated as needed. As shown in Figure 7, low -stress on -street facilities in the City generally consist of local residential roads without dedicated bicycle facilities. Arterial roads, such as Dublin Boulevard generally consist of higher - stress segments for bicyclists, due to features such as vehicular speeds, traffic volumes, and the number of travel lanes, regardless of the inclusion of bike lanes. In addition, low -stress roads are assessed as higher stress (i.e., downgraded to LTS 3 or 4) where they cross high stress facilities, meaning that some low -stress areas are "islands" isolated by high -stress segments and crossings. Figure 8 presents the City's network of low -stress facilities, which helps to highlight where gaps exist. For example, Fallon Road, Tassajara Road, San Ramon Road, and Dublin Boulevard create low -stress gaps in the on -street network. Path LTS As shown in Figure 12, Class IA multi -use paths most frequently score a path LTS of 2 given their width, shoulder, and wayfinding presence. Class IB sidepaths frequently score a path LTS of 3 given no wayfinding present along their segments. The path crossings vary but rarely exceed LTS 3 except at intersection crossings with high speeds, no horizontal/vertical elements, and no crossing markings or signage. Although path LTS values were assessed for every path crossing location, only the crossings with lower scores than the connecting path segments are shown in the mapped results. In other words, the only mapped crossings are those which degrade the segment path LTS score. Combined Results The on -street and path LTS results are presented together in Figure 13 to provide a full picture of connectivity citywide. Note that the directionality of the on -street LTS has been suppressed in order to simplify the level of detail shown; each on -street segment is displaying its highest (i.e., worst) LTS value in Figure 13 rather than directional LTS values. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 645 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 9 NEXT STEPS After City review and associated revisions to the results, these on -street and path LTS results will be carried forward to inform subsequent Task 3 latent demand analysis and Task 4 network prioritization processes. MAP RESULTS On -Street LTS Maps Figure la: Existing Dedicated Bicycle Facilities (On -Street) Figure lb: Existing Dedicated Bicycle Facilities (Off -Street) Figure lc: Existing Dedicated Bicycle Facilities (Combined) Figure 2: Presence of Parking Adjacent to Bike Lanes Figure 3: Number of Vehicle Lanes Figure 4: Speed Limits Figure 5: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Figure 6: Roadway Functional Classifications Figure 7: Level of Traffic Stress Figure 8: Level of Traffic Stress (Low -Stress Facilities) Class I Path LTS Maps Figure 9: Existing Path Widths Figure 10: Existing Shoulder and Roadway Separation/Buffer Figure 11: Existing Path Wayfinding Figure 12: Path LTS (Segment and Intersection) Combined Figure 13: On -Street and Path LTS Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 646 H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Ol a Class IIA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Constructio Class IIB Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction Alameda County San Ramon fA•Z1� APO z sFo 4,fi O = C\Sp\RATI.y QI ���.� o PP�?), i% u74I 4/0 .DUB.LIN_B.L� KITTELSON C A L I F O R N I A IC &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN FO Dougherty Hills Open Space O 200 o� ➢m 0 �On A DR 9 yNm n v. z O -- BRIGHTON08 it � c, i (PcI'/ o��.D, 7TH ST70,. ,,- y9RKD- p �Q �, �0- c I � 9 :MI I I I HI �` Q S/ERRAI I ' Civic Plaza sgoorg 0 a � • /'' wFR AV 113MWON7 RI) 8TH ST 6T 0 ❑ FCI H ST HORIZON PW z1I DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT Pleasanton Contra Costa County BRODER BL eO CRFF��/e„. OR NO\sgUNR4_, z I i co r IPQES DR 0 Q' MADDEN W> G,LEASG.N DR I- _� L' Fallon RS' ¢ Sports Emerald =Glen P__oPark LLo NTRAL PW �y i- -Ir rrs its/DE DR H z w 0 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 Figure l a Existing Dedicated Bicycle Facilities (On -Street) Dublin, California 647 H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Ol b Class IA Multi -use Path 00007) Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Constructio Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Alameda County Co. SpARATI0gy�/1-14 0 <t- cu Qij w J DUBLIN BL 0 cc DUBLIN KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I<&ASSOCIATES San Ramon I i DNA DR 9 BRI GHTON DR AOk DR 0 OO CL \�P i P°RKCf 119�'l` �O0 O OF Rgl,Ge Rp 12TH ST 8TH ST 6.1 = 7TH ST 0 Ise D 6TH ST o HORIZON PW BB \F- ZIII a cc a ___-E I O NII DUBLIN BL 0 BB FCI . UVIC rIQCQ SCARLETT CT �%y:� Pleasanton Contra Costa County �P CRFFK�/F„. BRODER BL GLEASON DR CENTRAL PW 0 0 0 11 �N z 0 /1/0 4, NSIDE DR 0 0 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 1 b Existing Dedicated Bicycle Facilities (Off -Street) Dublin, California 648 Date: 7/13/2020 E E 0 U N a 0 0 a 0 H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\01 Class I IA Bicycle Lane Class IIA Bicycle Lane - Under Constructio Class IIB Bicycle Lane ••••• Class IIB Bicycle Lane, Under Construction Class III Bikeway Class III Bikeway - Under Construction Alameda County Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon /° o 0 0 /'75.1 wfRRO 7TH ST 0 FCI 8TH ST 6TH ST HORIZON PW 4.J I�•• 9lF y 1 511 S/ERRN- DUBLIN B Civic Plaza SCARLETT CT Pleasanton Contra Costa County BRODER BL GLEASON DR s. fRs eO CRff4-/fGG 0R ^ CENTRAL PW �i- " spES DR �� QP Z QI c _ ICsONR \\\y 1 I ADDEN WY 0 0 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure l c Existing Dedicated Bicycle Facilities (Combined) Dublin, California 649 Bike Lanes.mxd Date: 7/7/2020 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\02 Parking Adjacent to Bike Lanes No Yes San Ramon °v2 - \ �,A Alameda \ --,...0 �o a Gm NA DR % v County IIBR1GHToNo,a ( 2It 2> �R F'3/ 114o JP�/ L ' \V' oIIy o �''=�.0� r\SP\RAi- NO �/[/ Qi z� g it dp 1 `-0, �� ` 2 \�5e ` O £ L BLI.N_BL'- DUBLIN p KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES Contra Costa County 0 korg O yr = O Q �o� ''�OweR a /7 Ra R �y Q� 1 O q GFRQ � C F� ¢II Dougherty Hills RFFK�j Open Space oq ,net I N 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 w FCI HORIZON PW OF ORK0cC � g°1 SIERRA\- 21 BL� DUN ft• Civic Plaza / SCARLETT CT Pleasanton BRODER BL N'°' z o 00 1` GLSON r-71 EA�P Emerald = Glen Park 0 IT„RAL�W�z s+ 14O RT R/S/DE DR PpEs DR IMADDEN WY a •tr mama w FFallon Sports Park • 0 u COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 2 Presence of Parking Adjacent to Bike Lanes Dublin, California 650 H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\03 Number of V Vehicle Lanes per Direction 1 2 3 4 Alameda County DUBLIN k KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES Contra Costa County w I 8TH ST BRODER BL 7TH sr spi .141iiE MADDEN WY GLEASONgR� ��VV Cf�! ��� !II BTH sr C 1 ��;� �.�lsy'� ' Fallon ,_s HORIZON 9 Emeral. =Sports u Park �e i l 09' e< C7 a Glen Pnr. TOP ¢ CENTRAL PW r I � - ^', J ERRP ��� DUBLIN BL��„�,_I ��d���" Civic Plaza �7 �� �� _ ARLETT CT �y� r l �Rj Ida r hS/DE DR `` Pleasanton it COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 I I Figure 3 Number of Vehicle Lanes Dublin, California 651 0) 0 a a H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Tas 25 MPH Speed Limit 30 MPH Speed Limit 35 MPH Speed Limit 40 MPH Speed Limit 45 MPH Speed Limit Alameda County D BLIN BL KITTELSON CALIFORNIA \a &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon BRIGHTEN; g % 1-1 I 7TH YT Civic Plaza SCARLETT CT Contra Costa County BRODER BL GLEASON 6TH ST DU �L�.• •L� ' ---\\\\\\\` Io6 A2 Pleasanton )o Emerald = Glen Park O T=EDR COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 Figure 4 Speed Limits Dublin, California 652 ic.mxd Date: 7/7/2020 H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\05 Average Dail ADT Category 0 - 750 751 - 1500 1501 - 3000 3001 - 8000 >8000 Alameda County ,ORATIO. N C f DUBLIN BL DUBLIN ATES CALIFORNIAI�&AssoL150N San Ramon BRIGHTONOR yb\, w 8TH ST - .4. •! m..11:1/ P\\"' =U 7TH ST Pe + o ; 6TH ST o ce s 1 HORIZON PW c • U 9 Pc I L FOR K �� 7 P<F�r z L 09 z S1ERRA� DUBLIN BL Civic Plaza Pleasanton Contra Costa County BRODER BL GLEASON[DR cc 0 V 0 -LLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 5 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Dublin, California 653 H:\24\24392 -Dublin ATP\gis\Tas Arterials Class I Collector Streets Class 11 Collector Streets Residential Streets Freeways and Ramps Alameda County KITTELSON CALIFORNIA Na &ASSOCIATES 11 DUBLIN Pleasanton Contra Costa County OLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 Figure 6 Roadway Functional Classifications Dublin, California 654 LTS Score 1 2 3 II DUBLINK<&ASSOCIATES KITTELSON CALIFORNIA 0 OLLIER CANYON RD 1 Mile (r) Figure 7 Level of Traffic Stress Dublin, California 655 3\LTS Analysis a 0) 0 LTS Score 2 KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN Dougherty Hil Open Space Emerald a Glen Park 0 OLLIER CANYON RD 1 Mile (r) Figure 8 Level of Traffic Stress - Low Stress Facilities Dublin, California 656 Date: 7/14/2020 co 0 0) 0' Class IA Paths by Width Less than 8 Feet 8 - 9 Feet 10 Feet or Greater Class IB Paths by Width Less than 8 Feet 8 - 9 Feet 10 Feet or Greater Alameda County DUBLIN BL DUBLIN„BL bog 9�s 16 o sus DUBLIN p KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES San Ramon Contra Costa County s o 0 0 o cr 23 Gtit lure O 3 o RgNGeRO 0 �P��O� Dougherty Hills a o o Open Space A ES F m O a Civic Plaza 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST BRODER BL GLEASON DR 6TH ST 6TH ST 0 pe / Fallon HORIZON PW o Rsmerald = Sports r r�`�z = Glen Park o rc Park T Al p ° z �0 0 ccCENTRAL PWcc a - dZ DUBLIN BL a $ eRFFKp/ 1s, OR cc 0 0 0 1- rye( (g ay. a � o a � z LL d0 7OSITANC) pwv W cc rnP ALLEY VISTA DR Pleasanton do RT 1S/DE DR 0 cc 0 0 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 9 Existing Path Widths Dublin, California 657 Date: 7/14/2020 H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\10 Class IA Paths by Shoulder 2 Feet or Greater Less than 2 Feet No Shoulder Class IB Paths by Buffer/Roadway Separation No Roadway Separation Roadway Separation Alameda County co �SpARATRaive ,. 04- • 4ijw DUBLIN BL DUBLIN-BL sus DUBLIN p KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES San Ramon Contra Costa County s 0 0 0 cc /olgit4FNRRO a GF I a Ra O 3 o RAryGFRO o P&' O Dougherty Hills ; o o CRFFR�/F a ° go'� cC Open Space F m oR a a o e92 A IQ / O 0O o➢D ♦ o -> i p pLo • •�- �oIVA DR �' 1.-00 � 12TA/ s Q qr• • • o� 12TNSt w m N9' NRgpctii • RIGHT 0 • B O• ND z Y L• \0R1 ♦FCIco G8TH ST BRODER BL CZ 7TH 8T DDEN WY GLEASONDRTTORIA L Fallon 6THST6THSTO s HORIZON PW O emerald _aSports °Pm 7 CORK p� p Q �9��Foc cc a° Glen Park o Park Ao `�C GOr �"�°9 s CENTRAL PW ::::L•.... r„ Lu .♦ O� SIERRA�N DUBLIN BL ?• � �''►y •z { •♦ Civic Plaza SCARLETT Pleasanton •• .• • •t: w. % ♦i r •.•. • .. •• �♦ do RrNSIDE DR d0 7OSITANO p oc • • ��VALLEY VISTA DR 4 0 RAL 0 pity 0 a COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 10 Path Shoulder and Buffer/Roadway Separation Presence Dublin, California 658 it 0 H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\11 CREk-Ksio Fp Class IA Paths by Wayfinding No Wayfinding Signage Class IB Paths by Wayfinding No Wayfinding Signage Alameda County sekrtiertw tIv./4 DUBLIN BL DUBLIN„BL DUBLIN p KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I&ASSOCIATESC Contra Costa County IpES DR p San Ramon s %� o 2 N t/pw /�� R9 ,67RO 9� �GFRp �/ • Fq! C a R �O ~` •. �On. 4ryGeRp Yo P,�� cRFF cr ¢ •• `. ° O Pie, i v p m R cr. Z. 0 o c s z O• • 72_ 2 • • 11/A DR �2TN ST m a OJg1.1Nzzl O ,: BRIGHTON o w N d D PG � z o_ O • L o R � o t., w % 9 yz ♦FCI '• ..... ` rt .v Li D FO ��.� Oa • D LEA �RqQK DR z J�� 8TH ST BRODER BL i� ,Q- Z ALLEY VISTA D d�� 7TH8T ADDEN WY o R o O OQ GLEASON DR f� a p0 ,/ �P� q :HH:R:::W ORIALR+CL • Emeraldfel AU • ports ��� m 7 i CORK o� a� o Q so`�cc = Glen Park Park s ��4�I TRAL �9C �Q � O,➢ CENTRAL PW .i a .•a" .0~ • Y ldS" i/• T tea►::. �O SIERRP�� DUBLIN BL T..................... .. •�� . • •�'. �� •. ..i:..:a;...1:. ... .. is irgt ' } T:E' ii h s▪ 0 Z S � Civic Plaza Pleasanton vO RrNSIDE DR 0 2 0 pOSITANO pw Q COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 11 Existing Wayfinding on Paths Dublin, California 659 Path LTS Scores Class IA Segment Class IB Segment Crossing LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Alameda County SCHAEF 4, co \\�Sp\RATION �LL'QO �'.. DUBLIN BL DUBLIN-BL sus DUBLIN p KITTELSON CALIFORNIA IC &ASSOCIATES San Ramon �� e920 O 0 0 Oq/A DR •'9iyFRRO GFRO 0 p 3 RAryGFRO Dougherty Hills a o zm Open Space e BRI GHTON OR o p 0 0 Y • v 9Li n • "9R,gOkD z < J 8TH ST o R 7TH ST • Z a V • p J w �P .0p 6TH ST 6TH ST 0 •• o ti/ a P F (• Y90J, Z Q HORZONp •oP 7 PORK o� soar\` � C9(F�O • •• O • cc • ' 6 w.• IERR DUBLIN 133 Civic Plaza SCARLETT CT 0 m LFCI Pleasanton Contra Costa County •ov,/-<.. 1 O D cc • a < P O G�O� 0 o° �P cRFFrLIC /F� AC ¢ . z OR m a a H BRODER BL GLEASON DR CENTRAL PW x �d2 z N \)J IpES DR • Os • Q• p0 ITANO pwll` • cc w �.: ;MADDEN WY • m O +•VALLEYVISTA• w 4� \�ORIA (P'• Fallon »¢ Sports Y Park• • O • •�::• y ti0 SIDE DR COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 Figure 12 Path LTS - Segment and Crossing Dublin, California 660 \\ Path LTS Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 E 0 U a 0) 0' LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 SCNAEFER LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Alameda County LTS 3 LTS 4 DUBLIN BL DUBLIN BL LTS 3 • LTS 4 San Ramon Dougherty Hil Open Space Civic Plaza a SCARLET!" Cl" HORIZO Pleasanton 0 Contra Costa County BRODER BL G LEASO N CENTRA Emerald Glen Park ADDEN WY VALLE re) liFfra54 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore DUBLIN KITTELSON CALIFORNIA La &ASSOCIATES 0 1 Mile 0 Figure 13 On -Street and Path LTS Dublin, California 661 ATTACHMENT A: CLASS I PATH LTS MEMORANDUM 662 Imo'KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 900 OAKLAND, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 F 510.839.0871 Date: July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 To: Sai Midididdi, TE City of Dublin From: Mike Alston, RSP; Amanda Leahy, AICP; & Michael Sahimi, AICP Project: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Subject: Class I Path LTS Methodology INTRODUCTION The following memorandum presents a methodology for evaluating a level of stress along the City of Dublin's (City's) Class I path network. The City has an extensive network of designated Class I paths, provided as an alternative to on -street facilities, that vary in width, intersection treatments, and other features. In order to identify whether adequate service quality is provided on this network, these paths will be evaluated alongside the on -street level of traffic stress (LTS) methodology. The custom methodology, referred to as path LTS, will include four levels comparable to the typical level of traffic stress methodology: • LTS 1: Requires little attention to surroundings; suitable for most children • LTS 2: Low traffic stress; suitable for most adults • LTS 3: Moderate traffic stress for all bicyclists • LTS 4: High stress; only suitable for experienced bicyclists. The City's Class I network consists of two relevant facility types: • Class IA Paths: Multiuse paths along a separate alignment. Examples include the Iron Horse Trail and the Martin Creek Trail. • Class IB Sidepaths: Sidepaths along the side of a roadway, which double as sidewalks. Examples include segments along the north side of Dublin Boulevard or the west side of San Ramon Road. The 2012 Bicycle Master Plan did not subclassify Class I paths, but the distinction is necessary to evaluate the quality of service they provide. There are distinct elements of each (e.g., buffer between Class IB sidepaths and the roadway) that determine to the quality of service provided, so they are accounted for separately for this analysis. We will account for these elements to score Class IA and IB paths within the City of Dublin on a 1 to 4 path LTS rubric alongside the on -street LTS analysis. Note FILENAME: H.• 124124392 - DUBLIN ATPI TASK3 - BASELINE CONDITIONS & NEEDS ASSESSMENTI3.3.3 LTS ANAL YSISI PATH L TS124392 CLASS I PATH LTS METHODOLOGY 20200714 FINAL. DOCX 663 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 2 that all of the Class I facilities within the City are multiuse paths (i.e., serve bicyclists and pedestrians), given that they are either off-street connections or provided along the roadside such as the only off- street accommodation. Elements of the evaluation include the following: • Segment characteristics • Width • Path shoulder and roadway separation/buffer • Wayfinding and path indication • Intersection/crossing elements • Control strategy and crossing distance • Signal treatments • Horizontal or vertical geometric treatments • Marking and signs Segments are defined as homogenous connections between street crossings: when any of the segment input characteristics along a Class I path change, the resulting segments will be split and evaluated separately for the resulting homogeneous components. Appendix A provides an inventory of Class I facilities including their widths. SEGMENT CHARACTERISTICS Width The Class I paths within the City are intended to serve two-way bicycle travel. The width requirements to allow for two-way bicycle travel are greater than for one-way bicycle travel. Additionally, the HDM recommends that "Development of a one-way bike path should be undertaken only in rare situations where there is a need for only one direction of travel." • The Caltrans Highway Design Manual cites a minimum paved width of 8 feet for two-way bicycle travel, with 10 feet preferred. (Section 1003.1 (1)(a)) • For locations with "heavy bicycle volumes ... and/or significant pedestrian traffic ... expected," the HDM states that the path "should be" greater than 10 feet wide (preferably 12 feet). (Section 1003.1 (1)(a)) • Class IA multiuse paths would expect less significant pedestrian traffic than Class IB sidepaths would because Class IB sidepaths typically also serve the purpose of a sidewalk. • According to the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, "Conflicts between path users are a primary source of injuries and can result in a degraded experience for all users where paths are not wide enough to handle the mixture and volume of diverse users."1 1 The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide is available online at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa 18077.pdf. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 664 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 3 • The MassDOT Separated Bicycle Lane Planning & Design Guide provides guidance for separated bike lanes; it allows for a minimum of 8 feet (10 feet recommended) of width for bidirectional separated bike lanes to allow for two-way bicycle travel with fewer than 150 bidirectional bicyclists per hour. This does not account for pedestrian use.' Width as a criteria for path LTS is combined with shoulder and roadway separation/barrier. See below and refer to Table 1. Path Shoulder and Roadway Separation/Buffer Shoulder: Per Section 1003.1(1)(b), The HDM requires a minimum 2-foot-wide shoulder for Class I bike paths to serve as a recovery zone and to reduce conflicts with pedestrians. The shoulder should be composed of the same material as the path or should at least be free of vegetation: "adequate clearance from fixed objects is needed regardless of the paved width." Roadway Buffer: Per Section 1003.1(7), the HDM recommends one of the following forms of separation for paths adjacent to the traveled way: • A minimum separation between the edge of pavement of a bicycle path and the edge of traveled way: at least 5 feet plus shoulder widths. • For separation less than 10 feet, landscaping or other features that form a continuous barrier should be provided. Landscaping buffers form an adequate continuous barrier along most Class IB sidepaths in the City. 2 Although this guidance is written for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, it is recognized as relevant best practice guidance. It is available online at https://www.mass.gov/lists/separated-bike-lane-planning-design- guide. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 665 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 4 Table 1: Path LTS Score based on Width/Buffer/Shoulder Path LTS Score LTS 1 Class IA Multiuse Path width 8 ft <_ x < 10 ft >_2 ft shoulder provided Path Path Width n.0ft Shoulder provided (any width) Class IB Path Width 8ft5x<10ft n/a Sidepath Path Width >_10 ft Roadway buffer provided (continuous barrier or 10 ft separation) LTS 2 <2 ft shoulder provided No shoulder provided Roadway buffer provided (continuous barrier or 10 ft separation) n/a LTS 3 No shoulder provided n/a n/a No roadway buffer provided LTS 4 n/a n/a No roadway buffer provided n/a Source: Kitte son & Associates, Inc. Figure 1: Example Class IB sidepath along the east side of Brannigan Street south of Gleason Drive. The path is between 8 and 10 feet wide and continuous separation from the roadway is provided by landscaping. The path would be eligible for LTS 2 based on the width/buffer/shoulder criterion. Source: Google Earth Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 666 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 5 Wayfinding and Path Indication Designated path segments should be clearly marked as such, especially including Class IB sidepaths given that they double as sidewalks. The Caltrans HDM states the following regarding mixing bicyclists and pedestrians: Sidewalks are not to be designated for bicycle travel. Wide sidewalks that do not meet design standards for bicycle paths or bicycle routes also may not meet the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists. Wide sidewalks can encourage higher speed bicycle use and can increase the potential for conflicts with turning traffic at intersections as well as with pedestrians and fixed objects. In residential areas, sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. It is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways because it may lead bicyclists to think it is designed to meet their safety and mobility needs. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to ride their bicycles on facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel. - Section 1003.3(2) Sidewalks are thus discouraged from designation as bicycle paths. However, provided that the other criteria can be met to provide for comfortable travel (i.e., the path is "designed to meet their safety and mobility needs"), pavement or signage indications of the facility should give pedestrians an expectation that they may encounter bicyclists (and vice versa). All users should be informed that the segment is in fact designated for use as a path and not a sidewalk. Signage and wayfinding alone are therefore necessary but not sufficient to provide a low -stress path facility. This is consistent with the "weakest link" approach for path LTS evaluation. Wayfinding alone will not lower an otherwise high path LTS score but it can degrade the score of an otherwise low path LTS score facility. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 667 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 6 Table 2: Path LTS Score based on Segment Wayfinding/Indication Path LTS Score Class IA Multiuse Path or Class IB Sidepath LTS 1 Pavement markings (see Figure 2) and wayfinding signage along trail LTS 2 Wayfinding signage along path LTS 3 None provided LTS 4 n/a Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Figure 2: Example pavement markings delineating road user space along a path in San Francisco, CA and (left) and indicating status as shared -use in Emeryville, CA (right) Source: Flickr (left) and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (right) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 668 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 7 INTERSECTION/CROSSING ELEMENTS Paths are reintroduced to motor vehicle conflicts at crossings, which can be a significant source of stress. Class IA and IB paths will be treated uniformly at intersections/crossings. According to the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (Guide), "Care should be taken at intersections and driveways ... Crash patterns consistently show contra -flow movement of bicyclists are a main factor in crashes due to motorists failing to yield or look for approaching bicyclists." The Guide suggests the following to mitigate these conflicts: • Application of separate phases at signals • Reduced corner radii or raised crossings to slow drivers • Improved sight lines • Marked crossings and regulatory signs to improve driver awareness The HDM cites two particular design elements for attention at crossings (1003.1(5)): • Crossing control: Grade separation is desirable, followed by signalization. Where traffic is "not heavy," STOP or YIELD signs may be used for the path or for the cross street. • Crossing location: "When crossing an arterial street, the crossing should either occur at the pedestrian crossing, where vehicles can be expected to stop, or at a location completely out of the influence of any intersection to permit adequate opportunity for bicyclists to see turning vehicles....Even when crossing within or adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, "STOP" or "YIELD" signs for bicyclists should be placed to minimize potential for conflict resulting from turning autos....In some cases, Bike Xing signs may be placed in advance of the crossing to alert motorists." Based on these sources, the three elements to be incorporated in the Class I Path LTS will include: • Control, geometry, and crossing distance • Markings and signs • Horizontal or vertical treatments Because crossings at intersections deal with turning traffic but perpendicular trail crossings do not, separate criteria are appropriate for each, termed intersection crossings and perpendicular crossings. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 669 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 8 Figure 3: Intersection Class IB Sidepath Crossing along Lockhart Street at Central Parkway (left) and Class IA Perpendicular Crossing along Tassajara Creek Trail at Central Parkway (right). Source: Google Control, Geometry, and Crossing Distance Depending on the characteristics of the crossing, different control strategies and geometric design characteristics may be appropriate. Intersection Crossings Intersection crossings require path users to interact with turning vehicles and conflict points from all intersection approach legs. Because of this, crossing control and geometry can be used to affect conflicts in time (e.g., separate control phases) and space (e.g., separation or driver deflection). Consistent with the recommendations in the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, physical design elements that slow drivers, enhance visibility, or both, can enhance a path's service quality. The following elements are included that would greatly improve the bicyclist' experience at crossings: • A "bend -out" design (see Figure 4) or a protected intersection -style corner safety island that offsets the crossing from vehicle turning movements (only applicable at intersections).. Although this design treatment is most applicable to a Class II or Class IV bicycle lane, the separation benefit applies for intersection or driveway crossings along a Class IB sidepath. • A bulb -out which reduces the curb return radius and turning movement speeds. This treatment is most effective when the lane geometry of the turning and receiving roadways force a driver to adhere to the reduced radius. • A raised crossing, which includes vertical deflection and reduces driver speeds. • A right -turn pocket or channelized vehicle turn lane with sufficient sight distance and geometry to encourage a comfortable provide a path crossing. The dedicated right -turn pocket or lane provides drivers the opportunity to yield without through traffic behind them. • Signal phasing solutions including a separated bicycle signal phase or a leading pedestrian interval/leading bicycle interval, which provide separation in time between motor vehicles and path users. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 670 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 9 Figure 4: "Bend Out" concept that pulls a bicycle crossing back from the curb to improve visibility to drivers In applying this criterion, the geometric treatments are referred to as horizontal or vertical treatments and may be considered interchangeably. Intersection Applicability The criterion presented in Table 3 applies to path crossings either at a signalized intersection or along an uncontrolled roadway at an unsignalized crossing (i.e., the major street). For Class IB sidepaths crossing alongside a stop -controlled intersection, the criteria in Table 4 apply. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 671 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan —Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 10 Table 3: Intersection Crossing LTS Score based on Control Strategy and Crossing Distance Path LTS Score LTS 1 I 2-1. , e to Control Strategy and road s) Unsignalized Intersection All -way Stop Control, parallel speed <_ 25 mph Crossing Distance >2-lane cross-section Signalized Intersection Separated bicycle signal phase (Either roadway) Unsignalized Intersection n/a Signalized Intersection Leading bicycle interval, separated signal phase, or horizontal/vertical elements LTS 2 Parallel speeds <40 m h p All -way Stop Control, parallel speed > 25 mph; OR Parallel speeds <_ 25 mph or with p vertical/horizontal elements Leading bicycle interval or horizontal/vertical elements All -way Stop Control; OR Parallel speeds <25 mph or with vertical/horizontal elements LTS 3 Parallel speeds >_40 mph p Parallel speeds <40 mph Parallel speeds <40 mph Parallel speeds <40 mph LTS 4 a n/a >_4 Parallel speeds 0 mph Parallel mp se >_40 ph Parallel speeds >_40 mph Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 672 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 11 Perpendicular Crossings As discussed above, the control strategy appropriate for perpendicular crossings depends on the characteristics of the road being crossed: speed, volume, and crossing distance. For a simplified approach, the number of lanes provides a measure of crossing distance and a proxy for vehicle volume. Table 4: Perpendicular Crossing LTS Score based on Control Strategy and Crossing Distance Path LTS Score LTS 1 Perpendicular Crossing Control Strategy 2-lane total cross-section RRFB, PHB, or signal control; OR Raised crossing with yield control and Crossing Distance >2-lane cross-section Signal control LTS 2 Stop or yield control, Cross street speed < 40 mph RRFB, PHB OR Stop or yield control; cross street <_ 25 mph LTS 3 Stop or yield control; Cross street speed 40 mph Stop or yield control; cross street speed > 25 mph LTS 4 n/a Stop or yield control; cross street speed >_ 40 mph Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Markings and Signs This criterion only applies for intersection crossings, where drivers may not be expecting two-way or same -direction Class IB sidepath bicycle travel as they approach a crossing. (This includes all crossings at unsignalized intersections.) Thus, indication of a path crossing is helpful to reduce the stress of a facility. As previously described, the HDM (Section 1003.1(5)) recommends that crossing signs may be placed in advance of a crossing to alert motorists. Example signs include the combination of the MUTCD W11-15 and W11-15P signs, depicted in Figure 5, and described in Section 9B.18 of the California MUTCD. Figure 5 also depicts crossing markings already applied at various intersection crossings in the City. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 673 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 12 Figure 5: W11-15 (left), Supplementary W11-15P (middle), and Path Pavement Markings in Dublin (right) TRAIL I X-ING Source: CA-MUTCD; Google Table 5: LTS Score based on Markings and Signage ath 116 Markings and Signage LTS 1 Signage and pavement markings indicating path crossing LTS 2 Signage or pavement markings indicating path crossing LTS 3 No signage or pavement markings indicating a path crossing LTS 4 n/a Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 674 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan — Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 13 Table 6: Combined Path LTS Criteria. Methodology observes a "weakest link" application whereby the highest score for any single criterion governs the overall path LTS score. Criteria Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Width / Buffer / Shoulder Path Width: 8ft<_x<10ft >_2 ft shoulder provided <2 ft shoulder provided No shoulder provided n/a Path Width: >_10 ft Shoulder provided (any width) No Shoulder provided n/a n/a Wayfinding / Indication Pavement markings (see Figure 2); Wayfinding signage along path Wayfinding signage along path None provided n/a Class IB Width / Buffer 8ft<_x<10ft n/a Roadway buffer provided (continuous barrier or 10 ft separation)1 n/a No separation provided >_10 ft Roadway buffer provided (continuous barrier or 10 ft separation)1 n/a No separation provided n/a Wayfinding / Indication Pavement markings designating space for path users (see Figure 2); Wayfinding signage Wayfinding signage along path None provided n/a Crossing Intersection Crossing Control, Geometry, Crossing Distance 2-lane Total Cross -Section (both roadways) Signalized Leading bicycle interval, separated bicycle signal phase, or horizontal/vertical elements Parallel speeds <40 mph Parallel speeds >_40 mph n/a Unsignalized All -way stop control, parallel speeds <_25 mph All -way stop control, parallel speeds >25 mph OR Parallel speeds <_25 mph or with vertical/horizontal elements Parallel speeds <40 mph Parallel speeds >_40 mph >2-lane Total Cross Section (either roadway) Signalized Separated bicycle signal phase Leading bicycle interval or horizontal/vertical elements Parallel speeds <40 mph Parallel speeds >_40 mph Unsignalized n/a All -way stop control OR Parallel speeds 525 mph or vertical/horizontal elements Parallel speeds <40 mph Parallel speeds >_40 mph Markings / Signs* Signage and pavement markings indicating path crossing* Signage or pavement markings indicating path crossing* No signage or pavement markings indicating a path crossing* n/a Perpendicular Crossing Control, Geometry, Crossing Distance 2-lane Total Cross - Section RRFB, PHB, or signal control, OR Raised crossing with yield control Stop or yield control, speed < 40 mph Stop or yield control, speed >_ 40 mph n/a >2-lane Total Cross Section Signal control RRFB or PHB; OR Stop or yield control, cross street <_ 25 mph Stop or yield control, cross street > 25 mph Stop or yield control, cross street speed >_ 40 mph *Criterion does not apply to all -way stop control crossings. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 675 ATTACHMENT A: CLASS I FACILITIES - WIDTH INVENTORY 676 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan —Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 15 Table 7: Class I Facility— Width Inventory Path Type Location Width Martin Creek Canyon Trail Class IA Bidirectional - one side only 7' Dublin Boulevard Class IA N side --- west of Silvergate 4.5' San Ramon Road sidepath Class IB West side of roadway 10' Unnamed trail branching west off of San Ramon Road Class IA Connection to Mape Memorial Park Varies; 7-8' Alamo Canal Trail Class IA Continuous >_10' Iron Horse Trail Class IA Continuous >_10' Dougherty Road Class IB E Side — Scarlett to N City Limits 9 to 14' from Scarlett to Fall Creek; 8' Fall Creek to N. City Limits Dublin Boulevard Class IB N side -- Iron Horse Trail to Tassajara Creek 12' Dublin Boulevard Class IB S side - Hacienda Drive to Tassajara Road 8' Martinelli Way Class IB N side b/w Arnold and Hacienda 8.5' Brannigan Street Class IB East side - Dublin to Fallon Middle School 8' Brannigan Street Class IA West side - Gleason to Fallon Middle school 8' Horizon Parkway (In Progress) Class IB N side - Scarlett to Arnold 10' Sterling Road (In Progress) Class IB Both sides - Dublin to Horizon 10' Iron Horse Parkway (In Progress) Class IB E Side — Dublin to Horizon 10' Arnold Way Class IB W Side — Dublin to Gleason >10' Central Parkway Class IB N side - Brannigan to Lockhart 8' Central Parkway Class IB S side - Brannigan to Lockhart Varies; 5-8' Dublin Boulevard Class IB S side - Brannigan to Grafton 8' Dublin Boulevard Class IB N side - Brannigan to Finnian Way 8' Dublin Boulevard Class IB N side — Finnian Way to Grafton 7' Tassajara Creek Trail Class IA Continuous >_10' Finnian Way Class IB S side - Brannigan St to Bray Commons 8' Finnian Way Class IB N side - Brannigan St to Bray Commons 8' Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 677 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan —Class 1 Path LTS Methodology July 14, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 16 I Grafton Street Path Type Class IB L• W side - Central to Fairfield Park Width 12' Grafton Street Class IB E side - Central to Fairfield Park 8' Lockhart Street Class IB E side - N of Dublin to Gleason 12' Positano Pkwy Class IB S side - Fallon to school 8' Positano Pkwy Class IB N side - Fallon to school 8' Antone Way Class IB N side - Dublin Ranch to Fallon 40' Fallon Road Class IB W side - Gleason to Tassajara 12' Sterling Street Class IB Dublin to Central 8' Central Parkway Class IB Fallon to eastern extents 8' Central Parkway Class IB Fallon to eastern extents 8' Wallis Ranch Drive Class IB W side between Tassajara Creek and Stags Leap 8' Rutherford Drive Class IB E side from Tassajara to trail connection 8' Trail parallel to Croak Road/Volterra Drive Class IB S. Terracina to N extents of Volterra Varies; 9 - 10' Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 678 APPENDIX B EXISTING CiN tITI IN N Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 679 V KITTELSON Ida &ASSOCIATES 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 505 OAKLAND, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 F 510.839.0871 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update Draft Demand Analysis Results - Bicycle Access Date: May 10, 2021 To: Sai Midididdi, TE From: Mike Alston, RSP; Amanda Leahy, AICP cc: Pratyush Bhatia Project #: 24392 The City of Dublin (City) is updating its 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Plan). The Plan will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. Per the scope of work, the demand analysis task (Task 3.3.4) identifies baseline levels of walking and biking around existing activity nodes and assesses latent bicycle and pedestrian demand that could be realized through improved infrastructure recommended in the Plan. The intent of this task to indicate the magnitude of potential latent demand for walking and biking based on a set of assumptions about the known relationship between infrastructure and mode choice. There are a number of other factors that influence mode choice decisions and could provide a more precise estimate of mode share which are beyond the intent and scope of this task. Mode share estimates based on existing infrastructure will be compared to estimates for a future recommended network to determine potential mode shift. This potential for mode shift associated with latent demand will be presented in the Plan. The outputs from this analysis will also serve as inputs for network prioritization as part of Plan development. This memorandum (memo) is organized as follows: • Summary o Assumptions and Methodology o Results o Next Steps • Biking and Walking Typologies for Dublin • Mode Share Data • Detailed Results • Map Figures • Appendices A through F FILENAME: H.:124124392 - DUBLIN ATPITASK3 - BASELINE CONDITIONS & NEEDSASSESSMENTI3.3.4 DEMAND ANALYSISI RESULTS MEMO 15-2021124392 DEMAND ANALYSIS DRAFT RESULTS MEMO 20210510 CLEAN.DOCX 680 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 2 SUMMARY This latent demand analysis presents mode share estimates for Dublin residents to access four categories of activity centers: schools, BART stations, job centers, and parks. These results will be compared to access for a recommended improved network that will show the potential for an improved biking and walking network to unlock latent demand for biking and walking. The Plan will present the potential for mode shift associated with recommended improvements. Assumptions and Methodology For both biking and walking, the existing network is compared to a future network by modeling mode choice sensitivity to changes in the built environment, including presence and quality of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. For biking, potential mode shift indicative of latent demand is assessed through the availability of low -stress bicycle routes as measured by bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) scores. For walking, potential mode shift is assessed through modeling uncontrolled crossings along major roadways in the City as crossing barriers. Kittelson used available land use and demographic data to model residential locations and their network distance (i.e., distance along available paths) to activity centers. The path of travel for Dublin residents was blocked or impeded at identified barriers, with the resulting perceived network distances increased. Propensity to walk or bike is estimated based on perceived travel distance to destinations. More detail on the analysis methodology is presented in the methodology memo in Appendix A. Results How to interpret these results For each activity center, a mode share point estimate is presented that represents the share of the Dublin population that could be expected walk or bike to a given destination given their natural propensity to walk or bike, their distance to the destination, and the quality of the infrastructure available. These estimates were determined by four inputs: 1. Demographic data: Dublin residents are grouped into differing walking and biking typology groups based on age; these groups are assumed to exhibit different propensities to walk or bike and responsiveness to supportive infrastructure (explained in the Biking and Walking Typologies in Dublin section). 2. Network distance to destination: The actual network distance between residential parcels in the City and each activity center is determined based on the shortest available route. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 681 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 3 3. Barriers or impediments: For walking, uncontrolled crossings of major roads either block or impede an available walking route.' For biking, a high LTS score (3 or 4) similarly blocks or impedes available routes. Barriers block access and require a different route; impediments increase the perceived travel distance which in turn decreases likelihood of walking or biking. 4. Available mode share data: Kittelson used data from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), BART station profile surveys, the American Community Survey (ACS), and Safe Routes to School (SRTS) mode share surveys to estimate the percentage of people walking and biking and the relationship between mode share and distance from destination. Kittelson constructed a lookup table (shared in the Mode Share Data section of this memorandum) to estimate percentage of the population to walk or bike for a given perceived distance to destination (e.g., a higher share of people would walk for a 0.5-mile trip compared to a 1-mile trip). An example of the mode share estimation procedure is provided in Appendix G. Existing Network — Bicycle Access The analysis produces the following results based on the existing bicycle network: • Schools: Walk and bike share estimates are provided for each school. Biking estimates range between 0 percent and 14 percent, and walking estimates range between 13 and 37 percent. The availability of low -stress bicycle routes (i.e., comprised exclusively of LTS 1 or 2 facilities) on routes to school varies depending on the school location. • For two elementary schools, a low -stress biking route is available to over half of students. Six schools are located with a low -stress biking route available to 10 percent or fewer of students. • In general, elementary schools serve a more localized population of students and have a natural opportunity for higher biking or walking shares than the middle or high schools, which serve a broader geographic area with longer travel distances. • BART: A mode share estimate is provided for access to either the West Dublin/Pleasanton or Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The biking mode share estimate among Dublin residents is 6 percent overall, and the walking mode share estimate is 11 percent overall. • These mode share estimates should be interpreted with caution, as they do not account for trip type and origin -destination pairs (e.g., which residents have job locations that make BART a feasible option). Rather, they represent estimated propensity to walk or bike to BART for Dublin residents based on distance and infrastructure availability. • Approximately 40 percent of Dublin residents are able to access the closest BART station using a low -stress biking route. 1 Major roads were determined collaboratively with the City, using the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossings as a reference point. More details are provided in Appendix A. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 682 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 4 • Job Centers: A mode share estimate is provided for each of the seven job centers identified. Biking mode share estimates range between 1 and 3 percent, and walking mode share estimates range between 4 and 9 percent. • These mode share estimates should be interpreted with caution, as they do not represent true home and job location combinations but instead represent estimated propensity for Dublin residents to walk or bike to each job center based on distance and infrastructure availability. • The availability of low -stress bike routes varies depending on job center location. The share of Dublin residents with a low -stress bicycle route available to each job center ranges from approximately 19 percent to 37 percent.2 • Parks: A mode share estimate is provided for access to any park for each resident. Bike mode share is estimated to be 3 percent overall, and walking share is estimated to be 62 percent. • These mode share estimates should be interpreted with caution, as they do not represent all park trips but instead represent estimated propensity to walk or bike for Dublin residents to their nearest available park (i.e., walking- or biking -accessible parks to residents). • Overall, 41 percent of Dublin residents have a low -stress biking route to their nearest City park. Next Steps The mode share estimates and the summary of residents with low -stress biking access to activity centers will be included in the Plan and available to the City to demonstrate the potential benefit of infrastructure improvements in the future. The maps and descriptions displaying biking and walking perceived distances provide an indication of the availability of low -stress biking routes and of direct walking routes that promote walking and biking. As a next step, Kittelson will work with the City to identify roadway and path network segments that impede or prevent walking and biking access to highlight for the Task 4 prioritization. The following Plan goals are relevant to the findings of this analysis: • Goal 3: Improve Connectivity — Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well- connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities. • Goal 5: Prioritize Investments — Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs; including supporting programs, operations, and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities. The results of this analysis, especially the mapped results illustrating barriers to low -stress biking routes and walking routes, allow the project team to address both goals through this and subsequent tasks. 2 "Bicycle route available" indicates that a feasible route exists between origin and destination based on LTS rules (e.g., the Interested but Concerned population only rides on LTS 1 or 2 facilities) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 683 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 5 BIKING AND WALKING TYPOLOGIES FOR DUBLIN For this analysis, the Dublin population was grouped into biking and walking typologies based on age. The typologies represent varying propensities to walk and bike and varying sensitivities to infrastructure quality. Table 1 presents the estimated distribution of bicyclist types by age group in Dublin, and Table 2 presents the effect calculated LTS score has on biking access as modeled in this analysis. More details of the bicyclist type definitions and determinations are included in the methodology memo, which is attached as Appendix A. Table 1: Bike Group Typology — Assumed Share of Biker Type by Age Group Bike Under 5 ge Group (Columns 18 - 34 Sum to 100%) A 35 — 54 Strong and Fearless 0% 0% 11% 2% 0% Enthused and Confident 0% 0% 7% 12% 7% Interested but Concerned 0% 100% 61% 59% 46% No Way, No How 100% 0% 21% 27% 47% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Table developed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from data presented by Dill and McNeil Table 2: Impedance Factors for Bike Network LTS Value of Roadway LTS 1 / 2 _ No Way, No How No Access Impedance Effect for Biking Groups Interested but Enthused and Strong and Concerned Confident Fearless No effect LTS 3 No Access Absolute Impedance: Cannot use segment Relative impedance: 1.5 distance multiplier along segment 1 No effect LTS 4 No Access Absolute Impedance: Cannot use segment Absolute Impedance: Cannot use segment No effect 'This impedance factor is based on research by Broach, Gliebe, and Dill "Bicycle Route Choice Model Developed Using Revealed Preference GPS Data" indicating how far riders will diverge from the shortest path to avoid higher stress facilities Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 684 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 6 Table 3 presents the modeled walking population types by age and the effect infrastructure has on their walking routes as modeled in this analysis. More details of the walking type definitions and determinations are included in the methodology memo, which is attached as Appendix A. Table 3: Proposed Impedance Factors for Walking Network Infrastructure condition Known Sidewalk gap' Uncontrolled crossing of high - volume roads Youth (514) Impedance Effect for Walking Group Teenage and Working Age Adults Aging (56 +) (15-55) Absolute impedance: Breaks network; inaccessible route Absolute impedance: Breaks network; inaccessible route Relative Impedance: Adds 2.5 minutes to journey2 Absolute impedance: Breaks network; inaccessible route Comprehensive sidewalk gaps were not available, but sidewalk gaps were observed and modeled along major roadways. 'For this population, the route is available but is given the additional time penalty to approximate travel delay and general undesirability of crossing. Source: Table developed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. MODE SHARE DATA The mode share values used to estimate biking mode share are derived from a number of sources: • City of Dublin and Alameda County Transportation Commission Safe Routes to School reports, including comparison among reported mode share data from assessments for Dougherty Elementary School, for Dublin Elementary School, and countywide. Detailed information is included in Appendix B. • BART station profile access surveys. These surveys produce mode share estimates for each BART station, available online.' Kittelson worked with BART to identify home -based travel mode share to Dublin BART stations based on respondents' home location and distance to the nearest station. Detailed information is included in Appendix C. • 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data, conducted by the Federal Highway Administration with assigned travel dates from April 19, 2016 through April 25, 2017. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) participated in an add -on program to purchase extra household samples, resulting in 26,095 household samples statewide. The results presented below are based on a query within the 26,095 samples to reduce trips to those in Alameda and Contra 3 https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/profile Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 685 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 7 Costa Counties, with place type defined "Suburban." Appendix D includes a memo describing the place typology development; Figure 3 in that memo shows an overlay of place type which includes Dublin in the suburban neighborhood category. • 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data, which includes data on residents' commute mode share and is available at the Census block group level and at higher spatial resolutions. DETAILED RESULTS Mode share estimates for existing conditions are presented by activity center and are organized as follows: • Schools: All public K-12 schools within Dublin Unified School District • BART: West Dublin/Pleasanton station and Dublin/Pleasanton station • Job Centers: A number of job centers within Dublin identified with City staff • Parks: Neighborhood and community parks in Dublin, as identified in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan and confirmed with City staff. Mode share estimates vary by destination because people have different mode selection choices based on trip type and the characteristics of their destinations. Discussion of each activity center includes a table or chart illustrating the distribution of the relevant Dublin population by perceived travel distance as well as mode share estimates. Accompanying maps provide visual representation of available routes to activity centers. The mode share estimates should be interpreted with caution, as they are point estimates indicating estimated propensity for Dublin residents to walk or bike based on home location and distance to activity centers. However, they do not account for the remaining multitude of variables that impact mode share— including for example parking availability, household vehicle access, income and wealth level, disability status, trip chaining, and other infrastructure factors not collected, and many other factors. Constructing precise mode share estimates including those factors is beyond the scope of this task. Table 4 presents the lookup values used for biking and walking estimates based on perceived distance. These lookup values are estimates based on the best available data for this task. An example illustrates how this table was used: • The top row, "0 -1/8 miles," indicates 79 percent walking and 5 percent biking to parks. • This is the percent of the population estimated to have a perceived travel distance in that range to their nearest park. • This process was repeated at every distance range listed. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 686 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 8 Table 4: Biking and Walking Mode Share by Activity Center Type and Distance Distance (Miles) Activity Center Type Job Centers3 School' Walk BART2 Bik Walk Bike alk Bike 0 — 1/8 55% 25% 85% 10% 75% 0% 79% 5% 1/8 —1/4 55% 30% 85% 10% 75% 0% 79% 5% 1/4 — 3/8 40% 30% 80% 10% 45% 1% 67% 9% 3/8 —1/2 40% 25% 80% 10% 45% 1% 67% 9% 1/2-5/8 16% 20% 66% 14% 13% 6% 42% 9% 5/8 —3/4 16% 20% 66% 14% 13% 6% 42% 9% 3/4-7/8 16% 15% 50% 12% 13% 6% 42% 9% 7/8-1 16% 15% 50% 12% 13% 6% " 42% 9% 1-1-1/8 10% 10% 29% 8% 6% 9% 22% 9% 1-1/8 —1-1/4 10% 10% 29% 8% 6% 9% 22% 9% 1-1/4 —1-3/8 10% 10% 12% 8% 6% 9% 22% 9% 1-3/8 —1-1/2 10% 10% 12% 8% 6% 6% 22% 9% 1-1/2 —1-5/8 0% 1% 7% 8% 3% 14% 10% 4% 1-5/8 —1-3/4 l 0% 1% 7% 8% 3% 14% 10% 4% 1-3/4 —1-7/8 0% 1% 5% 8% 3% 14% 10% 4% 1-7/8-2 0% 1% 5% 8% 3% 14% 10% 4% 2+ 0% 1% 2% 7% 1% 10% 6% 3% 'Data are based on comparison among reported mode share data from Safe Routes to School Assessments at Dougherty Elementary School, at Dublin Elementary School, and countywide. 2Data are based on BART's 2015 Station Access Profiles, available at https://www.bart.gov/about/reports/profile. 3Data are based on NHTS work -based trips from the above -described sample. 4Data are based on NHTS recreational trips from the above -described sample. 3Biking and walking mode share would taper off further at distances greatly exceeding 2 miles, but residents' access distance as modeled here never greatly exceeds 2 or 3 miles given the size of Dublin. Hence, for simplicity, the outer distance band for this analysis is "2+ miles." Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 687 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 9 Schools The school analysis was conducted based on residential location and school enrollment information provided by the Dublin Unified School District. The data used to calibrate the mode share estimates are provided in Table 4 and Appendix B. The estimated walking and biking mode share by school is presented in Table 5. The perceived walking and biking distances for students at each school, along with mode share estimates, are provided in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Table 5: Mode Share Estimates by School School Amador Elementary Walking 28% Biking 14% Share of student population with bicycle route available' 55% Cottonwood Creek K-8 35% 7% 27% Dougherty Elementary 36% 10% 35% Dublin Elementary 23% 1% 5% Dublin High 13% 0% 0% Fallon Middle 23% 2% 8% Frederiksen Elementary 24% 0% 1% Green Elementary 31% 6% 22% Kolb Elementary 37% 14% 53% Murray Elementary 24% 0% 0% Wells Middle 16% 0% 0% 'This statistic measures the portion of the population who have a bicycle route available based on LTS rules (e.g. the Interested but Concerned population only rides on LTS 1 or 2 facilities but the Strong and Fearless population rides on all facilities) Source: Prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 688 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 10 Walking For elementary and middle schools all students are modeled as youth: they do not cross at uncontrolled crossings along major roads. All high school students are modeled as teenage and working age adults: uncontrolled crossings along major roads are modeled as impediments that increase perceived travel distance but do not fully block access. Dougherty Elementary exhibits the highest estimated walk share at 36 percent, which is close to the available mode share survey data of 39 percent (see Appendix B). Other elementary schools similarly exhibit high estimated walk shares, due in part to the localized nature of their student population compared to middle and high schools. The perceived walking distances for students at each school, along with mode share estimates, are provided in Figure 1. Walking access for each school is mapped in Figure W.S.1 through Figure W.S.11 (presented in the Map Figures section). Biking All students are assumed to be Interested but Concerned bicyclists because of their age range: the do not ride on LTS 3 or 4 segments. Mode share estimates for each school range between 0 percent and 14 percent. The percentage of students with a complete low -stress biking route from home to school ranged between 0 and 55 percent by school. The analysis results in a 0 percent biking mode share estimate for Dublin High, Frederiksen Elementary, Murray Elementary, and Wells Middle School. As described already in this memo, this estimate is not intended to claim that zero students ride to school; it is a point estimate based on propensity to bike as a result of infrastructure availability and quality. Biking access to both schools is provided along roadways that have LTS scores of 3 or 4, resulting in a barrier to low -stress access. Reducing LTS along roadways providing access to these two schools has the potential to result in a substantial bicycle access mode shift. The perceived biking distances for students at each school, along with mode share estimates, are provided in Figure 2. Biking access for each school is mapped in Figure B.S. through B.S.11. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 689 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 11 Figure 1: Share of School Population by Perceived Walking Distance and Estimated Walking Mode Share 90% 80% 70% u 28% ♦ ca Q 60% 36% 35% • • 31% • 37% • 2 ° 24% > 23% 23/° •• • 50% • a co 0 +� 40% ca 0 0 a 0 30% 0 a� L s 20% 10% 0% i 111 i i Lk. Ilk a60.c0� o°acteems ���\et� , re _oc� 13% Jam\\0 ��\ao O 0o 16% • gild Ili Ilk hhh1 dl <<ce 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Estimated Walk Share • 0-1/8 mi • 1/8-1/4 mi • 1/4-3/8 mi • 3/8-1/2 mi • 1/2-5/8 mi • 5/8-3/4 mi 3/4-7/8 mi 7/8-1 mi >1 mi • Estimated Walk Share Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 690 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 12 Figure 2: Share of School Population by Perceived Biking Distance and Estimated Biking Mode Share Share of Population at Perceived Distance 120% 100% 14% ♦ 14% ♦ 80% 10% ♦ 60% 40% 2 7% ♦ 0% 1% • o°i° 1I IL . 1111I.. IL 1. ■1■. . ♦ II 11 ♦ • ♦ t�\ec� Gtee� �\e� <<'e.ck se.`por �`aa\e e �'e.`c\ e �'e.� <<., aJ1 �aa�e PO' N. �44 JpOret�� O0� OJ��� O°� be' ice �° act p5 a e �` .C� N. 6% • 2% • 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Estimated Bike Share ■ 0-1/8 mi • 1/8-1/4 mi • 1/4-3/8 mi • 3/8-1/2 mi • 1/2-5/8 mi • 5/8-3/4 mi • 3/4-7/8 mi ■ 7/8-1 mi • No Low -Stress Bike Route • Estimated Bike Share Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 691 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 13 BART The estimated walking and biking mode shares are presented in Table 6,which shows an estimated 6 percent biking share and 11 percent walking share. BART mode share was estimated for all Dublin adults (16 and above). Access for each resident is determined by the nearest station (West Dublin/Pleasanton or Dublin/Pleasanton); in other words, the analysis measures perceived distance to either station for each resident rather than a specific station. The mode share data used to calibrate estimates are provided in Table 4 and Appendix D. Table 6: BART Access by Perceived Distance and Bicyclist Type and Estimated Mode Share Estimate Walking Share of Population 11% Biking No Way, No How 0% Interested but Concerned <1% Enthused and Confident 36% Strong and Fearless 52% Total across all Biker Types 6% Share of Population with Bicycle Route Available' 31% 'This statistic measures the portion of the population who have a bicycle route available based on LTS rules (e.g., the Interested but Concerned population only rides on LTS 1 or 2 facilities but the Strong and Fearless population rides on all facilities) Note: Population for Analysis includes all Dublin adults (43,491) Source: Prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Walking Walking analysis was conducted separately for the population between 16 and 55 years old and the population above 56 years and older, with walking barriers modeled differently (as explained in Table 3). The perceived distance to the nearest BART station for Dublin residents is presented in Figure 3. The figure demonstrates that the available walking route for most Dublin residents is outside of a conventional half -mile walk shed. Walking access to BART is mapped in Figures W.B.1 and W.B.2. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 692 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 14 Biking The perceived distance to the nearest BART station for Dublin residents is presented in Figure 4. The figure demonstrates that barriers dissuade the assumed Interested but Concerned and Enthused and Confident populations from biking to BART. Among the assumed Strong and Fearless population, 58 percent are within two miles of a BART station. By contrast, LTS 4 facilities are barriers for Enthused and Confident riders, resulting in 72 percent of this population with an available biking route to BART. For Interested but Concerned riders who are blocked by LTS 3 and 4 facilities, 1 percent have an available biking route to BART. Improving a few key barriers would improve the availability of bicycle routes for these portions of the Dublin population and unlock latent demand. For example, because both BART stations are south of Dublin Boulevard, people biking need to cross or travel along Dublin Boulevard and other nearby arterial segments. Biking access to BART is mapped in B.B.1 through B.B.3. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 693 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 15 Figure 3: Share of Population by Perceived Walking Distance to BART 45% 40% 35% 10% 5% 0% E E E E 00 r1 00 L\fl M 00 N 00 Lrl ■ 00 `TI 00 00 N 00 V 00 el I� c-1 ci M c-I Lfl M I� 00 V ^ c-1 ci ci ci ci ci ci m c-1 00 00 N 00 c-1 1 1/ Perceived Distance 1 1/ 1 3/ 1 1/ 1 5/ 1 3/ E N A Kittelson & Associates, Inc. akland, California 694 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 16 Figure 4: Share of Population by Perceived Biking Distance to BART Share of Population by Perceived Distance 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Interested but Concerned Enthused and Confident Perceived Distance by Bicyclist Type Strong and Fearless ■ 0-1/8 mi ■ 1/8-1/4 mi ■ 1/4-3/8 mi ■ 3/8-1/2 mi ■ 1/2-5/8 mi ■ 5/8-3/4 mi ■ 3/4-7/8 mi ■ 7/8-1 mi ■ 1-11/8mi ■ 1 1/8 - 1 1/4 mi ■ 1 1/4 - 1 3/8 mi ■ 1 3/8 - 1 1/2 mi ■ 11/2-15/8mi ■ 1 5/8 - 1 3/4 mi ■ 1 3/4 - 1 7/8 mi 1 7/8 - 2 mi >2 mi ■ No low -stress bike route Kittelson & Associates, Inc. akland, California 695 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 17 Job Centers Job center mode share estimates are presented for each job center in Table 7. Job center mode share was estimated for all Dublin adults (16 and above). Access to multiple job centers is not a concern for all Dublin residents; each worker typically only commutes to one of these job centers, to another job in Dublin, or to a job outside Dublin. However, access to each job center is analyzed because it is potentially relevant for each Dublin resident or worker (whereas access to job centers in aggregate would not be relevant to any resident or worker). The mode share data used to calibrate estimates are provided Table 4 and are substantiated by citywide commute mode shares based on ACS data as discussed in the June 22 Demographic Analysis memorandum. A map excerpt from that memorandum is shared in Appendix E. The job centers are identified A through G, with each representing the following employers (based on data provided by the City's Economic Development Department): • Job Center A: Dublin Blvd & Fallon Rd (Target, Kaiser Permanente, and others) • Job Center B: Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd (NCM Demolition and Remediation, North Star Group, Park West, Gold Metal Press, Touch Place, and others) • Job Center C: Dublin Corporate Center (Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd) • Job Center D: Gleason Dr/Central Pkwy at Arnold Dr (Ross, Carl Zeiss Meditec, DTI Dental Technologies) • Job Center E: Dublin Blvd & San Ramon Rd (DeSilva Gates, Hexcel Corporation, Challenge Dairy HQ, Graybar Electric, 580 Executive Center) • Job Center F: Central Pkwy/Dublin Blvd at Arnold Dr (AEye, Patelco Credit Union, TriNet, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Zeiss Innovation Center) • Job Center G: Hacienda Crossings The walking share estimates range between 4 and 9 percent per job center, and the bike share estimates range from between 1 and 3 percent. The variability among job centers can be attributed to their locations relative to residential locations within Dublin and the infrastructure immediately surrounding them. For example, Job Center E is located in the western portion of Dublin away from the bulk of residential locations and is accessible via Dublin Boulevard, which includes portions with LTS scores of 3 or 4. The portion of Dublin residents with a low -stress bicycle route available varies between 16 percent (Job Center E) and 37 percent (Job Center B).4 The perceived walking and biking distances for each job center are provided in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Walking access and routes to job centers are presented in Figures W.J.1 through W.J.16. Biking access and routes to job centers are presented in B.J.1 through B.J.7. 4 "Bicycle route available" indicates that a feasible route exists between origin and destination based on LTS rules (e.g., the Interested but Concerned population only rides on LTS 1 or 2 facilities) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 696 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 18 Table 7: Mode Share Estimates by Job Center School Job Center A: Dublin Blvd & Fallon Rd (Target, Kaiser Permanente, and others) Walking 8% Biking 2% Share of population with bicycle route available' 18% Job Center B: Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd (NCM Demolition and Remediation, North Star Group, Park West, Gold Metal Press, Touch Place, and others) 8% 3% 37% Job Center C: Dublin Corporate Center (Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd) 6% 2% 20% Job Center D: Gleason Dr/Central Pkwy at Arnold Dr (Ross, Carl Zeiss Meditec, DTI Dental Technologies) 9% 3% 32% Job Center E: Dublin Blvd & San Ramon Rd (DeSilva Gates, Hexcel Corporation, Challenge Dairy HQ, Graybar Electric, 580 Executive Center) 4% 1% 16% Job Center F: Central Pkwy/Dublin Blvd at Arnold Dr (AEye, Patelco Credit Union, TriNet, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Zeiss Innovation Center) 9% 2% 20% Job Center G: Hacienda Crossings 9% 2% 19% 'This statistic measures the portion of the population who have a bicycle route available based on LTS rules (e.g., the Interested but Concerned population only rides on LTS 1 or 2 facilities but the Strong and Fearless population rides on all facilities) Note: Population for analysis includes all Dublin adults (43,491) Source: Prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 697 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 19 Figure 5: Share of Population by Perceived Walking Distance to Job Centers 80% 9/ 10% ♦ 70% - 8% • 60% a) U -o 50% v U a ro 40% 0 cc 0 a 30% s 20% 10% 0% 8% • 9% • 9% • 6% • 4% • 1J111111111101. 1111.IIIII�II� 1.����II�1...1 11111..1111111 _H.11111111111 Job Center A Job Center B Job Center C Job Center D Job Center E Job Center F Job Center G 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Estimated Walk Share ■ 0-1/8 mi • 1/8-1/4 mi • 1/4-3/8 mi ■ 3/8-1/2 mi • 1/2-5/8 mi ■ 5/8-3/4 mi ■ 3/4-7/8 mi ■ 7/8-1 mi ■ 1-11/8mi • 1 1/8 - 1 1/4 mi ■ 1 1/4 - 13/8 mi • 1 3/8 - 1 1/2 mi • 1 1/2 - 1 5/8 mi • 1 5/8 - 1 3/4 mi ■ 1 3/4 - 1 7/8 mi ■ 17/8-2mi ■ >2 mi • Estimated Walk Share Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 698 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 20 Figure 6: Share of Population by Perceived Biking Distance to Job Centers 60% - 5% 5O% v U N 40% a) Zr) 30% 0 co 0 0 a 4- 0 a) 20% co t v7 10% 0% Job Center A Job Center B 3% 3% Job Center C Job Center D 2% 3% 2% N L ■ 16 ■ Job Center E Job Center F Job Center G 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% Estimated Bike Share ■ 0-1/8 mi • 1/8-1/4 mi • 1/4-3/8 mi • 3/8-1/2 mi • 1/2-5/8 mi • 5/8-3/4 mi • 3/4-7/8 mi • 7/8-1 mi ■ 1-11/8mi • 1 1/8 - 1 1/4 mi ■ 1 1/4 - 1 3/8 mi • 1 3/8 - 1 1/2 mi • 1 1/2 - 1 5/8 mi • 1 5/8 - 1 3/4 mi • 1 3/4 - 1 7/8 mi ■ 17/8-2mi ■ >2 mi • No Low -Stress Bike Route • No Way, No How (Would not bike) Bike Mode Share Estimate Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 699 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 21 Parks Park access and mode share estimates were conducted for all Dublin residents. Access for each resident is determined by the nearest City park; in other words, the analysis measures perceived distance to any park for each resident rather than for a specific one. The mode share data used to calibrate estimates are provided in Table 4 and Appendix D. The estimated walking and biking mode shares are presented in Table 8, which shows an estimated 3 percent biking share and 62 percent walking share. As the results indicate, the ubiquity of parks provides a relatively close park to most Dublin residents. However, low -stress bicycle routes are not abundant which prevents some residents from having an appropriately low -stress bicycle route to their nearest park. The perceived walking and biking distances by population are presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. The comparative perceived distances illustrate the difference in available walking routes compared to available low -stress bicycle routes. Table 8:Park Mode Share Estimates Estimate Walking Biking Share of Population with Bicycle Route Available' Share of Population 62% 3% 42% 'This statistic measures the portion of the population who have a bicycle route available based on LTS rules (e.g., the Interested but Concerned population only rides on LTS 1 or 2 facilities but the Strong and Fearless population rides on all facilities) Note: Population for Analysis includes all Dublin residents (59, 274) Source: Prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Walking access to parks is mapped in Figures W.P.1 and W.P.2. Biking access to parks is mapped in B.P.1 through B.P.3. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 700 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 22 Figure 7: Share of Population by Perceived Walking Distance to Nearest Park 30% 25% a.) co 20% a a 15% c 0 co a 0 a 10% 4- 0 (13 s N 5% 0% 1 INN 0-1/8 mi 1/8-1/4 1/4-3/8 3/8-1/2 1/2-5/8 5/8-3/4 3/4-7/8 7/8-1 mi 1- 1 1/8 1 1/8 - 1 1 1/4 - 1 1 3/8 - 1 1 1/2 - 1 1 5/8 - 1 1 3/4 - 1 1 7/8 - 2 >2 mi mi mi mi mi mi mi mi 1/4 mi 3/8 mi 1/2 mi 5/8 mi 3/4 mi 7/8 mi mi Perceived Distance Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 701 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 23 Figure 8: Share of Population by Perceived Biking Distance to Nearest Park 45% 40% v U 03 35% v 30% 0) U aL 25% co +� 0 20% co +-� 1!- 1O% (13 v7 5% 0% E co O E E E E E E E E E 0'71' 00 .-i 0 ,—I CO. --I V1 m N , i %-i ob - ob !V ob - N ci c-I x\-I .1 m c\-I if m ci 00 c\i ci 1 1/4 - 1 3/8 mi 1 3/8 - 1 1/2 mi Perceived Distance E CO Lf1 N ci 1 5/8 - 1 3/4 mi 1 3/4 - 1 7/8 mi N N A 00 N ci No Low -Stress .w O Y 7 = La o O a+ Z O N . C 1 T-O m N O O >) Z Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 702 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update May 10, 2021 Project #: 24392 Page 24 MAP FIGURES Schools Walking: Figures W.S.1-W.S.11 - Each figure illustrates the relevant walking typology group for each school Biking: Figures W.B. 1-W.S.11 - Each figure illustrates the relevant walking typology group for each school BART Walking: Figures W.B.1-W.B.2 -- Each figure illustrates access for one walking age typology group. Biking: Figures B.B.1-B.B.2 -- Each figure illustrates access for one biking typology group. The No way, no how group is not shown, given that they are assumed not to bike. Job Centers Walking: Figures W.J.1-W.J.16 -- Each figure illustrates access for one walking age typology groups and one job center. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate Job Center A, 3 and 4 illustrate Job Center B, and so forth. Biking: Figures B.J.1-B.B.7 -- Each figure illustrates access for one biking typology group and one job center. Figures B.J.1a through B.J.1c illustrate Job Center A, B.J.2a through B.J.2c illustrate Job Center B, and so forth. Parks Walking: Figures W.P.1-W.P.2 -- Each figure illustrates access for one walking age typology group. Biking: Figures B.P.1-B.P.3 -- Each figure illustrates access for one biking typology group. The No way, no how group is not shown, given that they are assumed not to bike. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 703 Contra Costa County 0 r AFRO 0 E 0 0 E 0 0 0 0) 0 a 0 U cc N J a CO w 0o v� FCI 0 0 n 0 ":ON PW 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 'E- 0 :\24\24392 - Dublin ATP ARNOLD RD o cRFF�ilF� Q �R Q N Q BRODER BL GLEASON DR m *NA�Rs� 17 , Emerald Glen Park 0 0 CENTRAL PW Pleasanton 111� DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES cc 0 _ LOWER CANYON RD Alameda County Parks School Access Points 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles School Site Livermore Figure W.S.1 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Amador Elem Dublin, California 704 'aTH ST FCI `a 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 HORIZON PW dc5% 3z eJ Ucc 0N N BL 0 0 1 CT e a 0 0 CC J V) AR O ON' cc cRFF�/F� Q O,Q Q Q BRODER BL GLEASON DR 0 0 CENTRAL PW 111� DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES 1 ii COLLIER CANYON RD Parks School Access Points 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles Alameda 1-1/2 - 2 miles County 2+ Miles Livermore School Site Figure W.S.2 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Cottonwood Creek Dublin, California 705 San Ramon <99 o 1� O I N �A DR 1' BRIGHTON DR 1RxiOKDR Dougherty Hills Open Space Dublin Sports Grounds (J0,FR RO r7LTIH S'T NORIZO Pleasanton DlaDDDIER Cad F47141/ cG ox) 0 z O M4ADDEN WY cC Fallon = Sports Park - • Parks School Access Points 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles School Site 0 v Alameda County COLLIER CAN Livermore DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES n Figure W.S.3 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Dougherty Elem Dublin, California 706 y and middle_5 Irian demand results maps \5-202I update a 0 e 2 0 0 a 0 41,06 cc W w Q Alameda County 4704,2 co \�SQ\RATI O/v 04.11) DUBLIN BL DUBLIN I&ASSOCIATES KITTELSON C A L I F O R N I A San Ramon <992 sn O O0 o- �m 7L 2 1- On, DR 1' Q%CD BRIGHTON D8 Dougherty Hills Open Space Dublin Sports Grounds AV 113 Mw 021J Contra Cos Parks Cour , School Access Points 0 0 0 - 1/4 miles cc Tp1/1/� - 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 1 mile SRO 0`' 1 - 1-1/2 miles <<Y. C� 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 9p�<>,T O,p w F— V) DUBLIN BL 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles School Site FCI HORIZON PW 0 CC LLJ CO w BRODER BL GLEASON DR CENTRAL PW n Figure W.S.4 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Dublin Elem Dublin, California 707 0 a E a a a 0 0 0) 0 a IE a 0 E a 0 0 Alameda County CREkirsi_ op olimuis444.11...iNe:/../>;? c �SQ\RATION C9�%O �(' PST 0 J iP DUBLIN BL DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I. &ASSOCIATES San Ramon Contra Costa County R,14/GFRO 12THST 1118TH ST 6TH ST cc z F- DUBLIN BL FCI HORIZON PW Pleasanton CC w LLJ CO c, 0 O z s Parks 0 ° School Access Points 0 cc( MI0 - 1/4 miles rn ° - 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles r/O 2+ Miles �' School Site BRODER BL GLEASON DR 411114'13,FR<, 0 CENTRAL PW TASSAJARA RD 4/ORTysIDE n Figure W.S.5 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Frederiksen Elem Dublin, California 708 Sian Ramon a Wougherty dills Open g Space )m O 0 a m SiERR \ ❑ Dublin Sports Grounds 9 AVT3M Contra Costa County to 40°16.11 7TH ST Rp R,14/GFRO 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST CC w J ca FCI cc HORIZON PW 9 0 O cc cc _Z J cc W 1- DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT S 0 0 cc 0 0 0 a Q BRODER BL GLEADG3 CENTRAL PW Pleasanton 111� DUBLIN I&ASSOCIATES KITTELSON C A L I F O R N I A cRFF���F�L 04, dra Parks School Access Points 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 0 cc 0 cc 0 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles School Site COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Figure W.S.6 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Green Elem Dublin, California 709 Contra Costa C ty/0v San TOpfrFRRO RamoniW 0 )ougherty Dills Open Space 0 0 0I 0 0) 0 d U a 0 r •P� 5 n _LtRN 0 \a Dublin °Sports AV 7TH ST R,14/GF Rp 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 cc "%,/,‘T -5, W 1-- DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT FCI HORIZON PW CC w J uJ Q O �P0\' cRFCC Frile, Q OQ ,� V) V) Q BRODER BL ■i elGLEASOM DR tun 1 p ��= / Fpso // Emer(Y, , , �/4 O I s CENTRAL P 111� DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES COLLIER CANYON RD Parks School Access Points 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles School Site Livermore Figure W.S.7 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Kolb Elem Dublin, California 710 y and middle_5 0 0) 0 8 3 0 r Irian demand results maps \5-2021 update 3\3.3.4 Latent Demon Alameda County d CREEKS/O FO j‘114711111:\ '�i C• W Cjee* C�7 T 4,/ w 7 zil y-72 6'O J+ 20 c2 P co 73 DUBLIN I&ASSOCIATES KITTELSON C A L I F O R N I A San Ramon Dougherty Hills Open Space Dublin Sports Grounds AV TIPAW 020 7TH ST Parks School Access Points 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles School Site R'4 V G' 12THST FCI 8TH ST 6TH ST HORIZON PW cc z cc H DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT Pleasanton 0 CC w J CO V) BRODER BL GLEASON DR `pFRs�� CENTRAL PW A Emerald Glen Park n Figure W.S.8 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Murray Elem Dublin, California 711 San Ramon Dougherty i= Hills Open Space a 7 E a1rrk O 0 s E �ij 70 '0'0 Q°J 08 E a a Dublin Sports Grounds 7`r� >- cc w 0 0 op Contra Costa County 7TH ST R'4/liGF Rp 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST r DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT CC LLJ CO A s 0 0 cc 0 0 0 rr m Q SO 0 cRF<Yr-///F Pleasanton - • Parks School Access Points 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles School Site Lounry IER CANYON RD Livermore DUBLIN FCI HORIZON PW I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES n Figure W.S.9 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Fallon Middle Dublin, California 712 y and middle_5 0 0) 0 U a °o a a a Alameda County CR�eks/oe �SQ\RATIpNci i'O Q� W w 7 DUBLIN BL ti-7 "O 2 \5 DUBLIN IKITTELSON CALIFORNIA I\X] &ASSOCIATES San Ramon Dougherty Hills Open Space r Contra Costa County, cr o TO Q Parks �FR RO "� School Access Points R4NGFR0 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles 12TH ST - School Site m lk I•LLH ST ui N Mr :111�6TH ST wai 0 cc z cc 1- DUBLIN BL Pleasanton FCI HORIZON PW NCO BRODER BL j FRs 0 J 27 Emerald O O Glen Park z z Q GLEASON DR CENTRAL PW 4/O ..Rr-SIDE DR n Figure W.S.10 Elementary And Middle School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Wells Middle Dublin, California 713 San Ramon 0 a E a) LE, 0) 0 3 Alameda ° County ugherty Hills pace a ' CREEKS/p E Fph, a a a a 1 4� >� n o \�SQ\RATI ON C4f7`0� 0 144 1 CAP Q PST •°'- r Z a 1. c �0 2 \�P vo \5 DUBLIN BL N CH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 cc Lu J DUBLIN BL SCARLETT CT Pleasanton FCI HORIZON PW Contra Costa County CC 0 LLJ CO V) 0 0 O z 0 0 Parks School Access Points School Site Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance BRODER BL 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles GLEASON DR m CC g�� N o�Rq� Emerald zii Glen Park CENTRAL PW / S/ E DR sus DUBLIN I&ASSOCIATES KITTELSON C A L I F O R N I A n Figure W.S.11 High School Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Dublin High Dublin, California 714 ❑ far E 0 0) 0 d U Contra iLTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 0 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 sO Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Pleasanton Path Crossings LTS 1 F I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN LTS 2 r� LTS 3 LTS 4 ' nLLIER CANYON RD Alameda County School Access Points School Site Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore Figure B.S.1 Amador Elem Network Service Area Dublin, California 715 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 2T��---.r 8TH ST Lo-' 6TH ST o„� HORIZO IPA ;W CT E a a o.. 1 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BRODER BL _� Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 KU Path Crossings LTS 1 I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Alameda County COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore School Access Points School Site Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Figure B.S.2 Cottonwood Creek Network Service Area Dublin, California 716 LTS Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 —^ LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 lYH U K E 0 E 73 0) 0 BRIGHTON Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 S/ERRP Dublin Sports Grounds Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN 7TH ST 12114 ST 6TH ST SCARLETT CT 0 Pleasanton BRODER BL so cc * School Access Points School Site Access Distance • • • 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore gOLLIER CAN n Figure B.S.3 Dougherty Elem Network Service Area Dublin, California 717 0 a E 0 0) 0 d esults maps\24 mand\bike demand anal 0 a 0 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Alameda County Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 DUBLIN BL KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I i\ &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon BRIGHTO Dublin Sports Grounds Pleasanton Contra Costa County 6TH ST SCARLETT CT HORIZON PW School Access Points School Site Access Distance • • IN 0: cc z: Q? 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles BRODER BL G LEASO N CENTRAL n .71 Figure B.S.4 Dublin Elem Network Service Area Dublin, California 718 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 a E 0 0) 0 d Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Alameda County Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 DUBLIN BL ,1 Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 San Ramon BRIGHT() Dougherty Hills Open Space m 0 S/ERRP\'' Dublin Sports Grounds Contra Costa County 6TH ST SCARLETT CT Pleasanton 0 -o BRODER BL G LEAS O N School Access Points School Site Access Distance - {- 1/4 - 1/2 miles - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles 3 RTf/S/DE DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES n Figure B.S.5 Frederiksen Elem Network Service Area Dublin, California 719 LTS Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 ba LTS 3 — LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Doughen Hills Ope a Space 0 0 rn m r t S�ERRP�'� �S ` i''3Dublin Sports �. Grounds 12TH ST �I �w FCI �rr 8TrST 7TH ST�..L Q 6TH ST BRODER BL HORIZO P O -J CC LLI Ln D U BIL--I'NLB Cj SCARLETT CT� a 9 O' z cc GLEASON DR al I, rita ser 1 elA° CENTRAL; Poi kiro a AV r ll* %co at11,„1Z; Ili Fallon ieriariviiSports Park ea g 1 I II: mtrz;631 1 1 Milf 11. too' di 1 O 0 Emerald Glen Park 111� DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I. &ASSOCIATES Pleasanton L RT /SIDE DR LU 0 cc 0 cc v School Access Points School Site Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles Alame Coun. 2+ miles COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Figure B.S.6 Green Elem Network Service Area Dublin, California 720 Contra Costa County LTS Scores On -Street LTS Open .c� C7 �Dubli� ,Sports a a 0 2 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 12TH ST 7TH S.T. 8TH SjT -0- 6TH ST Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 FCI HORIZON PAW cc SCARLETT CT • CC J J m LLJ 0 z. Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 FF�I,iFj2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BRODER BL GLEASO N DR CENTRAL A, P�W CO CC .0 1!hi( th, Nft Jr 111%t(3p 111 Emerald Glen Park MADDEN • ODE DR W Y 4. av o�� 1...) IIIV ►�,\„szap� jpc�, aliN ifi -''‘' MO' cC FallonIMMO Sports Park 1 w W L Pleasanton I i� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN • cc 0 cc v Alameda County COLLIER CANYON RD School Access Points School Site Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore Figure B.S.7 Kolb Elem Network Service Area Dublin, California 721 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 errand\bike demand anal Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Alameda County Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 Dublin Sports Grounds SCARLETT CT Contrc Costa County F School Access Points School Site Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES n Figure B.S.8 Murray Elem Network Service Area Dublin, California 722 1-3 Tr a 0 0) a LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Dougherty Hills Open Space Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Dublin Sports Grounds Is Contra Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 7TH ST LTS 4 2Th ST 6TH ST ,,SCARLETT CT 1 Ae Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 CC LLJ �J J CO W I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN BRODER BL GLEASON DR IL CENTRAL-L I Pleasanton kk0,9 cc 0 * School Access Points School Site Access Distance • - Alarm' Cour COLLIER CANYON RD 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore n Figure B.S.9 Fallon Middle Network Service Area Dublin, California 723 0 ❑ a E 0 0) 0 r R 0 a 0 0) 0 LTS Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 • LTS 4 Alameda County DUBLIN BI DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I. &ASSOCIATES San Ramon BRIGHTON Dublin Sports Grounds Contra Costa County' 6TH ST .SCARLETT CT Pleasanton HORIZON of J BRODER BL G LEAS O N CENTRAL School Access Points School Site Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Emerald Glen Park (27 n cr Figure B.S.10 Wells Middle Network Service Area Dublin, California 724 0 a E 0 0) 0 0 d esults maps\24 0 0 a 0 E 0 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Alameda County Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Path Crossings LTS 1 \\4`'�AT' ®4%�7 DUBLIN BL LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA i\ &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon Dougherty Hills Open Space Dublin Sports Grounds 8TH ST 6TH ST SCARLETT CT HORIZON' Contra Costa County 0 ('v BRODER BL G LEAS O N CENTRAL * School Access Points School Site Access Distance • 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles I20 Q V) Emerald Glen Park SIDE DR n Figure B.S.1 1 Dublin High Network Service Area Dublin, California 725 orking age.mxd Date:5/10/2021 0 d a 0 E d a E a a 0 0 E E N d 0 0 8 Alameda County •i ,o0RATIDNc", �2 DUBLIN BL San Ramon e9 0 OA/ADR RI GHTON 0 ❑ O > m TOwFRRD RA�Gf Rp 8TH ST Pleasanton Contra Costa County DER BL 0 cc cc 0 rAADDEN WY Parks CIE BART Access Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance - • 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles z 0 O u COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES n Figure W.B.1 BART Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances BART Access - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 726 youth and eldery.mxd Dat Alameda ° County 3 0 i EE a 7p�irl ,o0RATION c" �,2 a Cr d San Ramon e92 `^a 0 OO 0- 7m �O 20 0 n 0 NA DR RI GHTON 08 4j 0 12TH ST Pleasanton 0 FCI Contra Costa County s 0 0 23 BRODER BL 4P CRFFk�/e`L ti z 0 0 0 l7 Parks CIE BART Access Sidewalk gap on major road • Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance ePUSPpES DR - • 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles K O u COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES Figure W.B.2 BART Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances BART Access - Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 727 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Alameda County LTS 3 LTS 4 Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 San Ramon Pleasanton Contra Costa County Emeralc Glen Par. * Bart access points Access Distance • - - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles LII COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES n Figure B.B.1 BART Access - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 728 LTS Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 a 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0) 0' LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 • LTS 4 Alameda County San Ramon Ir �CRfEKs Z r' Oq � 1=4 „z4N, -�F 7 PP _ 'C7- ■ DUBLIN BL p�e�ag�he ty Hills Open Space Pleasanton Contra Costa County * Bart access points Access Distance • - - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles LII COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES n Figure B.B.2 BART Access - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 729 \\ LTS Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 3 LTS 4 Alameda County Class IB Segment Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS4 LTS4 San Ramon es:(14.4:41:6"e I 47a \se\RATI .�-'44,�o DUBLIN BL • DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES BRI GHTO Sports ORIZO' srq z . cc v~ SCARLETT Pleasanton Contra Costa County BRODER BL GLEASON CENTRA Emeral.. Glen Par: * Bart access points Access Distance • - - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles OLLIER CANYON RD Livermore n Figure B.B.3 BART Access - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 730 Dougherty Hills Open Space DOUGH a E i0 0 2 o ERNE 0 �u Alin Sports it"G, rn,mi► 0 a0 0 E a 0 E a0 0 0 a 0 a 0 E 0 0 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 cc <5, Op cc W DUBLIN BL SCAR LETT CT FCI HORIZON PW kid 0 w w AR <1 1 Q C) < cc z m cc m BRODER BL GLEASON au vsis 41. CENTRALP Pleasanton mera GI z Glen Park cc 0 cc COLLIER CANYON RD Alar Co' Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance • • 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Livermore sus I&ASSOCIATES DU6LIN KITTELSON CALIFORNIA Figure W.J.la Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center A Access - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 731 Dougherty Hills Open Space a 0 `o ERN N 10 D uu ilin q Sports SCAR LETT CT 0 n 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST 6TH ST 0 cc <5, Op cc w DUBLIN BL E a a E a0 a 0 a 0 a a E 0 0 0) FCI HORIZON PW 0 w w ARNOL BRODER BL GLEASON DR CENTRAL PW Pleasanton <1 1 Q C) < cc z yr cc 0 cc COLLIER CANYON RD Alar Co' Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance • • 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Livermore sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES Figure W.J.l b Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center A Access - Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 732 a 0) 0 /17 c, \\SoRATI ON c4/›.1,0/2 DUBLIN BL Alameda County 4.1 I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon O 00 On, DR Dougherty HfI Open Space4 �- A Dougherty ? �� Hills Open p O Space . ,G" A Contra Costa Ct►y— T OI1f/ ,70 HOMO c4 / Pleasanton cc cRFF/r,F - �p cr BRODER BL GLEASON DR Emeraia Glin Park 0 Glen Park CENTRAL PWo Parks Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance Nu 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles 4/0 4, 1-11SIDE DR Q`• Y / Park Figure W.J.2a Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center B Access - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 733 a 0 0 E a_ 0) 3 5 n a 0) 0 CREEKS/ Fp /17 c, \\SoRATI oN C�hyO/2 DUBLIN BL Alameda County sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES San Ramon O 00 ONA DR Dougherty F fI Open Space4 �- A Dougherty ? �� Hills Open p o Space . ,G" A Contra Costa Ct►y— TO4/FRR0 RQNGF Rp HOMO / kg Pleasanton 6 cc j L.RODER BL Parks eo CIE Job Access Points cRFF�� Job Center Polygons yk/. oR Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance s• 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles GLEASON DR 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Emeraia Gl!n Park Glen Park CENTRAL PW 4 O� 'iSIDE DR Y / Park Figure W.J.2b Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center B Access - Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 734 San Ramc>.. Open Space o n O n o BRIGHTONDi? 0) 0 a d U 0 0) 0 Dougherty Hills Open Spac 7TH ST 1ZTN ST 8TH ST 6TH ST D l&1'BWING L SCARLETT CT CC J CO - J V) FCI Pleasanton BRODER BL LEAS® �v0 Err 0 cr 0 Q Fallon Sports Park Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance • - 0 0 cc v Alameda County 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES Figure W.J.3a Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center C Access - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 735 San Ramc>.. Open Space 02 �-3 v� 0 0 rn n o BRIGHTONDR 9R4C( DR Dougherty Hills Open Spac 7TH ST FCI 8TH ST 6TH ST HORIZON PV�A cc L7 cc D'BLfNliBL LLJ CO w Pleasanton BRODER BL LEAS® V) 0 z 0 fig ' w - [EroRT •• r` NS/DE DR Fallon Sports Park Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance • - 0 0 v Alameda County 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES Figure W.J.3b Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center C Access - Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 736 San Ramon r 0 0 0) Dougherty Hills Open Space Contra Costa County r// T ok/FR RO U B'L141uBL SCAR LETf Pleasan ton 0 0 c m ODD CAR OIL COON D Gr Gle n Park 0 cr 011r Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance • - its Park Fallon Q Sports Park 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Livermore DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES Figure W.J.4a Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center D Access - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 737 a E a n' 9�o a d Q (7 w Q 7 _ ti9 2J� E 2 a a � 0 a ro 0 0 0 0 0) San Ramon Dougherty Hills Open Space 69 2 0 72- 0o DNA DR /' "ICKDR I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN Contra Costa County oIvFR RO U B'L141uBL SCAR LETf Pleasanton 0 0 c m ODD CAR OIL GLEASON DA 0 cc cc V) G! 0 cr Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance - • its Park Zrc Fallon Sports Park 90.01'1 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Livermore Figure W.J.4b Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center D Access - Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 738 0 a 0 0 0) 0 emand\pedestrian demand results maps\5-2021 update \24392_job walk 0 0) allaN Alameda Q c County W W i 1 Hayward Sc \t _ NA'CIR ' BRIGHTON OR Dougherty Hills Open Space Civic Plaza Sports Grounds Pleasanton Parks CIE Job Access Points - Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road CODER Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance se - 0 - 1/4 miles 9 1/4 - 1/2 miles 111 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles SCARLETT CT sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES Figure W.J.5a Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center E Access - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 739 a a E a 0 0 0 emand\pedestrian demand results maps\5-2021 update \24392_job walk 0 0) Alameda Q c County W W i 1 Hayward sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES Sal. ��� O,vA"DR" , j///i'��o o "- 680 _ Qom7. BRIGHTON c if 1RxicKOR Dougherty Hills Open Space Pleasanton Parks CIE Job Access Points - Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road CODER Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance 1.1 0 - 1/4 miles 9 1/4 - 1/2 miles El 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles SCARLETT CT Figure W.J.5b Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center E Access - Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 740 San Ramon 1O DNA DR 1' Date: 5/10/2021 40 0 a 0) 0 9 ,1R4CK DR Dougherty Hills Open Space !. �o 7 Dougherty m Hills Open O Space v n 4,- 0 BRIGHTON DR I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN PI R,C14/GFRO INOZIZO easanton i cRFF47,/F, 1- Emerald cc cc V) oj?,v N Rq,L cy era Park 0 0 cc MADDEN WY Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance • - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Alameda County cc 0 cc v Livermore Figure W.J.6a Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center F Access - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 741 San Ramon <9 �O ONA DR 1 9 %RX1CK DR Dougherty Hills Open Space !. o �7 Dougherty m Hills Open O Space v n 4,- 0 BRIGHTON NR PI easanton ODER Cad cRFF���F4L o? cc cc V) Emerald GI Gle oj?,v N R4,, cy 0 cr Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Access Distance • - .00KI 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles 1 cc 0 cc v Alameda County Livermore DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES Figure W.J.6b Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center F Access - Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 742 orking age_5-2021.mxd D emand\pedestrian dem 0 0) 0 San Ramon NA 94, DR /3 9 R"JCK DR uuuy ICI ty nm.) Open Space Dougherty Hills Open Space BRIGHTON pR Lrow^a.— I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN _Ail 8TH.9T, 7TH ST NORRO Pleasanton LEAS® V) V) co cr Emerald E Gle CC O erald Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) 4)Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles O Q. 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile W 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Alameda County Livermore COLLIER CANYON Figure W.J.7a Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center G Access - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 743 San Ramon a O E emand\pedestrian der 0 0) 0 NA 94, DR /3 9 R"JCK DR uuuyICI ty nm.) Open Space BRIGHTON pR Dougherty Hills Open Space row ^ .— I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST NORRO Pleasanton BR BL LEAS® co 1- w cr Emerald E Gle CC O erald Parks CIE Job Access Points Job Center Polygons Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) 4)Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles O 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile W 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles Alameda County Livermore COLLIER CANYON Figure W.J.7b Job Center Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Job Center G Access - Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 744 rLTScores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment �� LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 u LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS3 LTS3 LTS3 LTS 4 i LTS 4 LTS 4 M 0 4RRP� 0 Dublin iGrounds -Cnn a E d a 0 a a E a0 0 a a E 0 6TH ST LH ST GL O,Q Path LTS Crossings Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 Pleasanton merald tri 110E DR, OLLIER CANYON RD Alameda County Livermore * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance • - - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES n Figure B.J.I a Job Center Polygon A Access - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 745 "LW Dou HiI R r LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 — LTS 3 jig 5 cgRR ?Sports _rounds emand\bike demand analysis results maps \24392job se 0 0) LTS 4 I I I Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 18TH ST� 6TH ST Class IS Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BRODER BL Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 GLEASON DR • CENTRAL-P"W Pleasanton ymerald en Park i OLLIER CANYON RD Alameda County Livermore * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance • - - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles DUBLIN I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES n Figure B.J.I b Job Center Polygon A Access - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 746 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 0 eRRP Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 I I I 1 1 w�LT -i 71 rSport (rounds 04 LTS 4 18TH STJ aI 6TH ST Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 v 0: HORIZON'IPiV1% : �•Z \o� cc w D U B' INIB L•--1 CARLETT • CT RODER BL v/\ Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 GLEASON DR CENTRAL Ni-1 • CO w CO merald Glen Park Pleasanton cc 4 $ vf 0 ANS%. .. ,„,,,.t v,N8,4 c}. 1, VV. 1 j mola tv DE r tikaz almtig FIr 4/O rtim. SIDE DR 1- N I— Fallon 2 Sports Park 0 immow • cc cc 0 cc OLLIER CANYON RD Alameda County * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance • - - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore DUBLIN IF KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES 0 Figure B.J.I c Job Center Polygon A Access - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 747 E a 0 a a E 0 0 0 0) 1 x LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 DUBLIN BL Alameda County \\ Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Path LTS Crossings Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN Dougherty Hills Open ace Contra Costa Co 6TH ST 6TH HORIZO a C .• • Z Pleasanton CD ODER BL GLEASON DR Glen Park - Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance 4 - 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Qs WEN plollt \ IN - n Figure B.J.2a Job Center Polygon B Access - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 748 5 a to. 0 0 d 0 emand\bike d LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 Dougherty LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 Hills Open Space %EA t LTS3 LTS3 LTS3 �9,y �� o LTS 4 LTS 4 • LTS 4o �� ti Q +�, DNA DR �' I �� 680 ��� BRIGHTONpR ` • DUBLIN BL Alameda County ?amon Path Crossings I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN I7m ports Grounds Contra Costa Co 7 DUBLIN DM, Pleasanton k.N.qCT ce- Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance C MI 1 BRODER BL ADDEN GLEASON CENTRAL 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles n Figure B.J.2b Job Center Polygon B Access - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 749 0 a E 0 0) 0 0 U 2 0 0 a emand\bike d \\ LTS Scores tamon On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 • SQ\RATI p. DUBLIN BL Alameda County 0 0) sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES LTS2 - LTS 3 o O g� LTS 4 �_ N. o A 'i%.=-i, DNA DR s� 680 ��� BRIGHTO-s o O, Dougherty Hills Open Space Contra Costa Co COG303OM /n co Pleasanton Job access points - Job Center Polygons Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles C1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile RIR 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles G LEAS O N n Figure B.J.2c Job Center Polygon B Access - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 750 \ �o` � \ Douaherdv 11\1 q LTS LTS Scores On -Street LTS I M E leRgt 0 E 0) 0 0) 0 a 0 a a a a E a0 0 cu a a E o 0 0) 0 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 580 Dublin Sports Grounds r I ' Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Path LTS Crossings Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 HORIrZON D CILLOfM I O. WAOI,ETT I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN o P Pleasanton LEAS® Emerald Glen Park tg oYrQ , J � ::1".41. AV�^,„�FORINODR v���PoA��1 V O o f#•S cFt�ti p��AOILL - gvlNnsT W U GALLEY VISTA DR .nld e D��� L KOHN w 1N� E �. a Fallon Sports Park Alameda County * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance • - - COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles n Figure B.J.3a Job Center Polygon C Access - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 751 San Ramon Dougherty \ \ \ \ ` Hills Open I / / v2,..LTS Scores 'O) On -Street LTS Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 — LTS 3 LTS 4 tQ 0 E 0 t 0 0) 0 d 4) emand\bike demand analysis results m LTS 4 447 41°7/ P \ QQ 41.3/„RiA Dublin Sports Grounds 580 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 Ia CC LLJ `-J FCI 1 7TH ST Q 6TH ST 11--I I IQ HORIZONIP/W` 1 0 �9� cc z \TT z J Q ce UJ DU`BiLCFJ1BL-J cc BRODER BL `CARLETT CT' I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN SILEASOM Pleasanton Id k j R, 4101 L Fallon Q Sports Park vA 1c cc K 0 cc U * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance • - - rOLLIER CANYON RD 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Alameda County Livermore n Figure B.J.3b Job Center Polygon C Access - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 752 0n�`Ra on �c7N _..., ,LTS Scores O On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 9RgcK pl 1 emand\bike demand analysis results m 0 0) 0csi Douaherli Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 SIERRA Dublin Sports Grounds 7TH S.T. I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 Q i w J J cTo FCI Pleasanton BRODER BL G LEASO N CENTRAL-! $ Emerald Glen Park V) N i * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance • - - COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Alameda County 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles n Figure B.J.3c Job Center Polygon C Access - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 753 0 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 NiA DR Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BRIGHTON Contra Costa County Path LTS Crossings Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 -O I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN Dublin Sports Grounds Pleasanton g rg o 1 GLEASON DR Hiram A merald GIe 1 1 DIANMIS'! 4Tys/DE DR N I- Fallon cc Sports Park * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access - 0 K U Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore LOLL n Figure B.J.4a Job Center Polygon D Access - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 754 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 n 0 o 46, a� a 0 0) Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BRIGHTONpR Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 580 I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN SIERRP Dublin Sports Grounds Contra Costa County �ISCARLETT Pleasanton Li BRODER BL 0 Access - Job access points Job Center Polygons Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore ;COLLI n Figure B.J.4b Job Center Polygon D Access - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 755 hoc 0 0 0) LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 DNA DR BRIGHTON Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 58 rcl O I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN Dublin Sports Grounds Contra Costa County 6TH ST Pleasanton BRODER BL GLEASON DR rald Park cc tfc V) 1- I— Fallon = Sports Park O * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access - Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore LOLL n Figure B.J.4c Job Center Polygon D Access - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 756 emand\bike demand analysis results maps\5-2021 LTS Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Hayward Path LTS Crossings Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES CUBLIN Alameda County San R@Ift OE 74N4 DR .0111111.1110 580 Dublin Sports Grounds Pleasanton 7TH ST 2TH ST * Job access points _' Job Center Polygons Access Distance 8TH Stir - 0 - 1/4 miles 1=1- 6TH ST - I I Io HOR I cc • z w H DU B'11:6IBL1 SCARLETT C 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles n Figure B.J.5a Job Center Polygon E Access - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 757 emand\bike demand analysis results maps\24392job service polyg LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 ex - cc u Alameda zCounty Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Hayward Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN DUBLIN BL San Ramon \ r » +• 40`'NA DR I.; BRIGHTON Doughed'f47 Hills Spac, SIERRA Dublin Sports Grounds Pleasanton 1.2-rIA ST _' Job Center Polygons * Job access points Access 8TH SjT - 7TH ST--.L Q 1 I r— Fj, 6TH ST Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles n Figure B.J.5b Job Center Polygon E Access - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 758 emand\bike demand analysis results maps\24392job service polygon jnte LTS Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 • LTS 4 4r 4r W W Hayward sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES ni'RI IN RI Alameda County San Re DNA DR ay". O s 73 Doug Hills '.. BRIGHTOI�QR Spa 4100 N4 151- w O � S/ERRP�: 580 Dublin Sports Grounds Pleasanton 12TH ST Job Center Polygons 7TH ST * Job access points Access 8TI1 Stir - 6TH ST - IOR w H OUR 11.3 Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles n Figure B.J.5c Job Center Polygon E Access - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 759 E a 0 Zu 0 0 Is 0 0) 0 csi \\ LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS4 01 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 —J Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 \1GZ1; 0 Path LTS Crossings Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 Duin por Grounds I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN Pleasanton ODC 3 [3L Glen Park MADDEN WY Alameda County * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance - 0 - 1/4 miles - 1/4 - 1/2 miles - 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore L. n Figure B.J.6a Job Center Polygon F Access - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 760 0 emand\bike d 0 0) 0 \\ LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BRI G HTON OR Air Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 C LTS 3 • LTS 4 Dublin Sports Grounds I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN +ma PI Pleasanton BRODER BL Emerald Glen Park kr Alameda County * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance - 0 - 1/4 miles - 1/4 - 1/2 miles - 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore n Figure B.J.6b Job Center Polygon F Access - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 761 E d 0 emand\bike d 0 0) 0 \\ LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 BRIGHTON Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 Dublin Sports Grounds I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN l C7 3 0 n 0 12TH� 7TH ST SCARLETT CT Pleasanton 0 cc BRODER BL G LEAS O N CENTRAL O,Q * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access Distance - 0 - 1/4 miles - 1/4 - 1/2 miles - 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles Livermore Alameda County n Figure B.J.6c Job Center Polygon F Access - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 762 \\LTS Scores ° iN E emand\bike d On -Street LTS 1 i LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 o 0 0) 0 ✓J, Dougherty -.� ti7_ Hills Open Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 O� O m Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 580 Path LTS Crossings Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 Dublin Spo Grounds I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN 2TH ST yIPUI chi g EM Q cg NOO MO0 a O Q c� MEM Et 1 scaRkEworNicgi Pleasanton o DaDDIE,12 OIL ■ euvisom DR ■ f14! sCM n, Emerald rk ©SEAL hillion1A11112‘ RANevA ADDEN WY aMOD,E DR, so .44 a° 'woe., 1, 1- Fallon Q Sports Park D 1 0 0 cc U * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access - - Alameda County Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles II COLLIER CANYON Livermore n Figure B.J.7a Job Center Polygon G Access - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 763 \LTS Scores emand\bike d o 0 0) 0 On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Dougherty l ,(Q\ Hills Open \ Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 580 Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 4 Iw C7 Dublin Sports Grounds I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN 7TH ST 12THST 6TH ST J CC W 1— DU B'IZLNX Pleasanton BRODER BL * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access cc 0 cc U Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles ICOLLIER CANYON Livermore Alameda County n Figure B.J.7b Job Center Polygon G Access - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 764 \\LTS Scores 0 a 0 On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 t • LTS 4 emand\bike d Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Dougherty Hills Open Class IB Segment Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 fit7 %*:0 LTS 4 ,P* 580 580 • Dublin Sports Grounds I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN LTS2 LTS 3 LTS 4 o < j, 12THST 7TH ST 8TIII4T 6TH ST HORIZON� -J w V)' D U B� zcr x �L—J• • 0 cc J Lu FCI BRODER BL cc PAW O' cc Pleasanton G LEASO N CENTRAL • P�W 0 V) 1- CC G�l ia:ril 111 cc 111 o p ao 41 1701Iva iiewg tax.ww uoieflf ar ■s S/< Efil ys/DE DR 0 cc 0 cc U * Job access points Job Center Polygons Access - - Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles II COLLIER CANYON Livermore Alameda County n Figure B.J.7c Job Center Polygon G Access - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 765 orking age_5-2021.mxd Date:5/10/2021 0 0) 0 d Alameda County DUBLIN DI I KITTELSON CALIFORNIA b &ASSOCIATES DUBLIN San Ramon Pleasanton 0 Contra Costa County PJs pES DR e CIE Park Access Points Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Parks Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Figure W.P.1 Park Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Neighborhood and Community Parks - 14 to 55 Years Old Dublin, California 766 and eldedy_5 0) 0 d Alameda County DUBLIN CA sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES San Ramon Contra Costa County KPOSir 0 0 0 ,ETT CT Pleasanton CIE Park Access Points Sidewalk gap on major road Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Parks oop,DES DR Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile aine '■1. 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ Miles COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore Figure W.P.2 Park Network Service Areas: Walking Perceived Distances Neighborhood and Community Parks - Under 14 and Over 55 Years Old Dublin, California 767 1 subs maps \5-2021 upd 0 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 :tor •• .SF\R�RTI'OORL• ,... San Ramon s1kE1 got44 or sus DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA &ASSOCIATES ,e. Pleasanton Contra Costa County Ira BART Stations Park Access Points Parks 'OLDER CANYON RD Livermore Figure B.P.1 Parks - "Strong and Fearless" Network Service Area Dublin, California 768 1 LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Pleasanton DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I. &ASSOCIATES Contra Costa County Ira BART Stations Park Access Points Parks COLLIER CANYON RD Figure B.P.2 Parks - "Enthused and Confident" Network Service Area Dublin, California 769 11 a a E. a m 0 a 0 a 0) LTS Scores On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IA Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 Path Crossings LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 • LTS 4 Alameda County `: "�•- DUBLIN BL cc cr w w .) DUBLIN I� KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I. &ASSOCIATES San Ramon Pleasanton Contra Costa County ll BART Stations * Park Access Points Parks Livermore n Figure B.P.3 Parks - "Interested but Concerned" Network Service Area Dublin, California 770 APPENDIX NET REC DATI N PRI i RITIZATI N FRAMEK Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 771 V KITTELSON Ida &ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM 155 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 505 OAKLAND, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 F 510.839.0871 Date: May 20, 2021 Project #: 24392 To: Sai Midididdi, TE City of Dublin From: Amanda Leahy, AICP; Mike Alston, RSP, Camilla Dartnell Project: Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Subject: Draft Prioritization Framework INTRODUCTION The City of Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update (Plan) will provide recommendations and an implementation framework to support the maintenance and improvement of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, policies, and programs in the City. Planned infrastructure improvements should connect users with key destinations — schools, transit connections, parks, trails, and commercial destinations including job centers —within the City and in adjacent jurisdictions. A spatial evaluation and prioritization of roads and paths in the City can determine which can provide the greatest potential benefit to help meet Plan goals. This memorandum outlines the process for this prioritization. This memorandum includes the following sections: • Prioritization Process • Proposed Factors and Variables • Public Input • Factor Weights • Criteria Scaling • Criteria Methodology The process outlined in this memorandum will produce evaluation scores for roadway segments for each variable identified. The factor weights outlined in this memorandum will then be applied and each segment will receive one combined evaluation score, allowing for comparison of every roadway and path segment in the City. FILENAME: H.• 124124392 - DUBLIN ATPITASK 4 - NETWORKRECS & IMPLEMENTATION PLANI4.1 DEVELOP PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORKI24392 DUBLIN BPMP PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK 20210202.DOCX 772 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 2 The evaluation scores will provide an understanding of the priority of each segment based on the selected factors but will not consider feasibility or constructability. During post processing, the team will identify general trends in the prioritization scores and consider context to "smooth" the results into project corridors. Feasibility and constructability will be considered in subsequent Tasks 4.2, Identify Network Recommendations and 4.4, Develop Implementation Plan, during the project creation process. PRIORITIZATION PROCESS The proposed evaluation process is informed by the framework from NCHRP Report 803: ActiveTrans Priority Tool' (APT), the result of a national research effort. The APT methodology was based on an extensive review of existing prioritization processes being used by agencies across the country at the state, regional, and local level. It uses a standard set of terms and definitions to describe the different steps in the process. The following definitions apply within the APT: • Factors are the categories used to express community or agency values considered in the prioritization process and contain groups of variables with similar characteristics. The APT has selected nine primary factors commonly used by agencies across the country that are particularly suited for prioritization of active transportation needs. • Weights are the numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors based on community or agency values. In order to increase transparency and legibility in the weighting step, weights are applied to factors, not to variables (which are often much more technical in nature). • Variables are characteristics of roadways, households, neighborhood areas, and other features that can be measured, organized under each factor. The terms variables and evaluation criteria may be used interchangeably. • Scaling is the process of making two variables comparable to one another (e.g., number of collisions versus population density.) The APT outlines the 10-step process (described below) in two phases: • Scoping, (steps 1-6) in which the prioritization purpose is established, factors and variables are selected, and data resources are assessed; and • Prioritization, (steps 7-10) in which data is organized, scaling is applied, and prioritization scores are calculated. 1 Lagerwey, Peter A., et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook. NCHRP Report 803. Project No. 07-17. 2015. Available online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp rpt 803.pdf Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 773 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 3 The process is often iterative, as agencies may find a need to substitute variables if they find a lack of data availability. The Steps are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Prioritization Steps Phase Scoping Step Step 1: Define Purpose Step 2: Select Factors Step 3: Establish Weights Step 4: Select Variables Step 5: Assess Data Availability Step 6: Assess Technical Resources Prioritization Step 7: Set up Prioritization Tool Step 8: Input Data Step 9: Scale the Variables Step 10: Calculate Priority Scores Source: NCHRP Report 803 Although all steps in this 10-step process will be performed, this memorandum focuses on Step 2: Selecting Factors, Step 3: Establishing Weights, Step 4: Selecting Variables, and Step 9: Scaling the Variables. The team has already completed Step 1: Define Purpose through plan scoping, and the team has completed Step 5: Assess Data Availability and Step 6: Assess Resources through other plan development efforts so far. The recommended factors and variables have been chosen with consideration of available data and resources. Steps 7, 8, and 10 are straightforward spreadsheet exercises that implement the decisions documented in this memorandum in the spreadsheet. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 774 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 4 Step 1: Define Purpose An agency first determines the purpose of the prioritization. In this step, an agency selects the mode they would like to prioritize; decides whether they are prioritizing specific projects, generalized needs, or something between the two; and defines the extent and number of the improvement locations. For the Plan, the process will be applied separately for bicycle and pedestrian modes along roadway segments and off-street segments like paths. Paths will be included in both bicycle and pedestrian modes. The process prioritizes generalized needs, which will result in each segment receiving its own score. The team will use that score to inform selection of corridors for improvement during post processing. Step 2: Select Factors An agency next selects the factors to be used in prioritization that align with their goals for the prioritization process. The factors included in the APT are as follows: 1. Stakeholder input; 2. Costs and/or legal constraints; 3. Opportunities; 4. Safety; 5. Existing conditions; 6. Demand; 7. Connectivity; 8. Equity; and 9. Compliance with standards/plans. Agencies can select anywhere from one to nine factors in their prioritization. Depending on their prioritization purpose, some factors may be less relevant or not relevant. This evaluation will utilize a subset of the APT factors. Recommended factors are included in Table 2 of this document. Step 3: Establish Weights Each factor is weighted on a scale of 1 to 10 to indicate its relative importance to other factors. The selected weights are ultimately used in calculating the prioritization score. Agencies can revisit the weights at any point in the process. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 775 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 5 For this plan, weights are recommended to be established through a process of input from the project management team, Technical Advisory Committee, and stakeholders. Step 4: Select Variables For each selected factor, agencies can select one or more variables. Each selected factor must have at least one variable by which it is measured. Using multiple variables will decrease the relative impact of each variable for that factor in the prioritization process unless the factor weighting is also increased. This memorandum recommends variables in Table 2 of this document. Step 5: Assess Data Availability The availability of data is a critical consideration in determining what variables to include in a prioritization exercise, and data availability varies substantially across cities, towns, counties, MPOs, and state DOTs. Through the variable selection process and methodology creation, the team simultaneously performed step 5, assessing data availability, to ensure each criterion could be evaluated as proposed. Step 6: Assess Technical Resources Agencies assess their existing technical resources and capabilities to determine if existing resources are sufficient, or if new resources will be needed to complete their intended prioritization with the selected variables. In step 6, agencies also select their technological platform for performing the calculations — using the APT spreadsheet tool, a different spreadsheet, a GIS database, manual tabulation, or other method(s). The Plan's process will use the APT spreadsheet tool, informed by GIS-based calculations for each evaluation criterion. Step 7: Set up Prioritization Tool Having established the purpose, factors, variables and required data, the next step is to set up a tool to implement the prioritization method. The Plan will use the APT pre-programmed spreadsheet tool, with separate versions for each mode.2The raw version of the spreadsheet will be provided with this memorandum. 2 The spreadsheet tool is available online at http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/172459.aspx. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 776 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 6 Step 8: Input Data Next, agencies input data into the prioritization tool. Depending on the variables, agencies may need to do additional calculations or assessments outside the prioritization spreadsheet tool to calculate or measure the correct value for each improvement location. The Plan's process will conduct a GIS-based spatial analysis to calculate values for each variable prior to inputting the data into the spreadsheet tool. Step 9: Scale the Variables Scaling involves selecting a common numeric scale and adjusting raw values to fit the common scale. Scaling should not be confused with weighting. Scaling is a more objective, technical function, while weighting is based on community/agency values. Scaling is necessary so that variables have a comparable impact on the prioritization score in the absence of weighting. Different scaling methods, such as proportional and rank order, can produce different results. Scaling methods should be chosen carefully depending on the distribution and range of the data points. The proposed scaling method for each variable will ultimately depend on the variable's range of calculated values, but an initial recommendation is provided for each variable in this document. Step 10: Calculate Priority Scores Finally, agencies sum the weighted values for each factor to derive a total score for each segment. The segments can then be ranked based on the prioritization score. In some cases, agencies may wish to revisit factors, variables, and/or weighting, and make adjustments to their prioritization based on additional input or evolving prioritization purposes. Although all steps in this 10-step process will be performed through the development of this Plan, this memorandum focuses on selecting factors, selecting variables, establishing weights, and scaling the variables. Through the variable selection process and methodology creation, the team simultaneously performed step 5, assessing data availability, to ensure each criterion could be evaluated as proposed. PROPOSED FACTORS AND VARIABLES To select prioritization factors and variables, the team reviewed NCHRP Report 803 and this Plan's goals. Table 2Table 2: Proposed Prioritization Factors and provides a summary of the selected factors and criteria, includes brief notes, and indicates to which mode each criterion can be applied. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 777 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 7 Table 2: Proposed Prioritization Factors and Variables Factor Safety Variable High- Injury Corridors Notes This criterion will prioritize locations based on network screening analysis of bicycle- and pedestrian -related collisions. The network screening was conducted in Task 2 of the project. This variable aligns with the goal enhance safety. Pedestrian X Bicycle X Social Equity Youth population and senior population Use variables from Census data at the block group level as indicators. This variable aligns with the goals improve connectivity and enhance accessibility. X X Connectivity Demand Analysis Identify top bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure elements that would unlock latent demand (results of demand analysis). This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. X X Proximity to Schools Identify roadways within 1 mile of schools to provide increased opportunities to bike and walk to school. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. X X Quality of Service Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Prioritize locations based on the presence of existing high -stress riding facilities. This variable aligns with the goal increase walking and biking. X Sidewalk gaps Identify locations with sidewalk gaps that may create barriers for those walking. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. X Major Barriers Freeway crossings Prioritize improving safety and quality of service for ramp terminal intersection and freeway crossings. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. X X Consistency with Past Planning Previously identified projects Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle projects that were identified in the previous plan. This variable aligns with the goal prioritize investments. X X Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 778 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 8 PUBLIC INPUT Understanding and addressing the needs and concerns of the public is a key step in creating a successful plan representative of the needs and values of the community. The nature of the public feedback requires qualitative integration into the project. After the quantitative analysis is complete through the application of the evaluation criteria identified above, the team will perform a "smoothing" process to identify the overall future walking and biking corridors that form the basis for project identification. During this process, the team will refer to the public input and the quantitative evaluation in determining which areas are priority corridors and where those corridors start and end. FACTOR WEIGHTS Factor weights allow different factors to be given different emphasis in the prioritization process. Factors that are deemed to be more important may be given higher weight than other factors to create this emphasis in the scoring process. Scaled variable scores are averaged for each factor and multiplied by the factor weight to get the final prioritization score for each segment. For this plan, weights are recommended to be established through a process of input from the Technical Advisory Committee and the public. Input received from each group will be averaged to get a recommended set of weights for each group (Project Management Team, Technical Advisory Committee, and the public). These will then be averaged to determine the overall final weighting to be applied. Table 3: Example Factor Weights Factor Safety Variables High -Injury Corridors Equal Weights 10 Other Options Averaged weights from Project Management Team, Technical Advisory Committee, and the public Social Equity Youth and senior populations 10 Connectivity Demand Analysis 10 Proximity to Schools 10 Quality of Service Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 10 Sidewalk Gaps Major Barriers Freeway crossings 10 Consistency with Past Planning Previously identified projects 10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 779 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 9 SCALING NCHRP Report 803 provides guidance on adjusting raw values for a given variable (criterion) to fit a common scale. There are multiple ways to adjust the values to fit the scale, depending on the distribution of the data and relative importance of the values. NCHRP Report 803 distinguishes the adjustment methods based on their appropriateness for addressing outliers. Two primary methods will be used in this project to adjust raw values to fit the selected common scale of 0 to 10. Each is described below. Scaling should be refined when evaluation scores are received depending on the range of scores, but a preliminary recommendation for scoring each criterion is included in the Proposed Methodologies section of this document. Each scaling mechanism has an associated inverse scaling mechanism, where the same scoring method is applied but the scaling considers lower scores as having a higher scaled value. An example of when this may be applied is when a roadway segment near an essential destination should be prioritized over one far from an essential destination, and the evaluation is being performed based on distance to the destination. An inverse scaling mechanism can be used to provide higher scaled values to those with shorter distances and lower raw input values than those farther away. Proportionate and Inverse Proportionate Scaling ■ Appropriate for data without outliers. ■ Raw values are adjusted proportionately to fit the common scale. ■ The highest value in the common scale is assigned to the highest raw value and the lowest value in the common scale is assigned to the lowest raw value. The raw values in between are scaled proportionately based on their relationship to the highest and lowest raw values. ■ Y = (X - MIN)/(MAX - MIN) x S, where Y is the scaled value, X is the raw value, MIN is the minimum raw value, MAX is the maximum raw value, and S is the scale. ■ Zero values may be excluded and assigned a value of zero or included in the calculation and scaled. Rank Order Scaling and Inverse Rank Order Scaling ■ Appropriate for data with outliers. ■ Raw values are ranked and then scaled proportionately to fit the selected scale. ■ Zero values may be excluded and assigned a value of zero or included in the calculation and scaled. ■ Example from NCHRP 803: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 780 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 10 Table 29. Example of rank scaling. Raw Value Rank Scaled Value 0 0 0 0 5 7 9 10 32 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Note: In this example, the minimum raw value is 0 and the maximum raw value is 32. 32 is also an outlier, since it is more than three times larger than the next highest raw value. To address this, the values are ranked from low to high (i.e. the lowest value gets a rank of 1, next lowest value gets a rank of 2, and so on). The ranked values are then scaled proportionately. Quantile Scaling and Inverse Quantile Scaling ■ Appropriate for data with outliers. ■ Raw values are grouped into equal groups with the same number of values and then those groups, or quantiles, are scaled proportionately to fit the selected scale Non -Linear Scaling and Inverse Non -Linear Scaling ■ Not appropriate for data with outliers. ■ Appropriate when the importance of raw numeric values increases in a non -linear fashion Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 781 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 11 PROPOSED METHODOLOGIES This section provides details and outlines the methodologies and recommended scaling for applying each evaluation criterion. Safety: High -Injury Corridors Variable High -Injury Corridors Factor Safety Description The team conducted a collision analysis in Task 3 of this plan production to identify the high injury network based on collision history and trends. The team evaluated bicycle and pedestrian involved crash data from 2014 through 2019 on public streets within the city, excluding freeways, using an Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) analysis. This EPDO analysis considered fatal and severe injury collisions to be worth 10 equivalent PDOs, moderate and minor injury collisions to be worth 5 equivalent PDOs, and PDO collisions to be worth 1 equivalent PDO. The team then selected approximately the top 10 percent of roadways to be included in the high injury network as high injury corridors. Data Needs Bicycle and pedestrian high injury network results Same method for pedestrian and bicycle? The same methodology will be used for the bicycle and pedestrian analysis, but due to different pedestrian and bicycle equivalent PDO scores, results for each mode may be different. Proposed Methodology The EPDO analysis scores will be applied to each roadway segment in the City. For paths that intersect roadways, each path will be given the score equivalent to the intersecting roadway, for a half mile segments around the intersection. Limitations Bicycle and pedestrian crashes may be lower or not reported on shared use paths. The methodology applies the intersecting roadway score to the segments on the path within one half mile of the intersection to try to account for this and the crashes that may occur at the intersection of the path and road, but for path segments not near an intersection, the maximum score a path can receive is lower than the maximum score for roadway segments. Recommended Scaling Proportionate Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 782 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 12 Social Equity: Youth and Senior Population Variable Youth and Senior Populations Factor Social Equity Description This criterion identifies areas with higher concentrations of youth and senior populations, designed to help prioritize improvements on highway segments that serve areas with populations with higher propensity to bike and walk and of greater need for comfortable infrastructure. Data Needs Most recent available American Community Survey data at the block group level for the following attributes: ■ Elderly populations (65 and older) ■ Youth populations (under 18) Same method for pedestrian and bicycle? The same methodology will be used for the bicycle and pedestrian analysis, and because the data used will not vary by mode, the results of this criterion will be the same for each mode. Proposed Methodology This criterion will be calculated at the census block group level as the sum of people 65 and older and 17 and younger divided by total block group population. The equation used to develop the segment score is shown below: (Eld + Yth) Youth and senior populations = Pop where: Eld = # of residents over 65 Yth = # of residents under 18 Pop = Total population Limitations This criterion does not include other available indicators of transportation disadvantage, including but not limited to income or poverty status, disability status, English proficiency, car ownership, or race. Through the demographic analysis conducted in Task 3 and subsequent discussion with the City, it was determined that such trends do not show substantial spatial variation within the City, so they are not incorporated into this prioritization. Recommended Scaling Proportionate Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 783 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 13 Connectivity: Demand Analysis Variable Demand Analysis Factor Connectivity Description The team performed a demand analysis in Task 3 of Plan production. This demand analysis identifies baseline levels of walking and biking around existing activity nodes and assesses latent bicycle and pedestrian demand that could be realized through the Plan. Data Needs Same method for pedestrian and bicycle? Proposed Methodology Task 3 Demand Analysis results The same methodology will be used for the bicycle and pedestrian analysis, but due to different pedestrian and bicycle demand scores, results for each mode may be different. The team will conduct a work session with the City to consider the results of the demand analysis and determine the most high -leverage segments or intersections to improve to provide better connectivity. Segments identified as priority demand segments will receive 1 point, while all other segments will receive 0 points. Limitations Simplifying the results of the demand analysis can allow for an easy to understand application, but it does not differentiate between areas that provide moderate but different levels of connectivity. Recommended Proportionate (binary) Scaling Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 784 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 14 Connectivity: Proximity to Schools Variable Proximity to Schools Factor Connectivity Description Schools are an essential destination and are especially important for providing low stress biking and walking facilities. School districts are generally determined by location, increasing the opportunity for many students to bike and walk to school, but because most students are youth, they require less stressful facilities to bike and walk safely and comfortably. Data Needs School locations Same method for pedestrian and bicycle? The same methodology will be used for the bicycle and pedestrian analysis, and because the data used will not vary by mode, the results of this criterion will be the same for each mode. Proposed Methodology The team will create a 1-mile buffer around each school. Segments within the buffer will receive 1 point, while all other segments will receive 0 points. Segments may receive more than 1 point if they are within 1 mile of multiple schools Limitations This will prioritize all schools equally; smaller schools that may have less walking and biking demand will receive the same priority as schools with more students. Recommended Scaling Proportionate (binary) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 785 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 15 Quality of Service: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Variabl Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Factor Quality of Service Description Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a measure originally developed at the Mineta Transportation Institute to estimate the level of stress a bicyclist may feel while riding along a particular roadway. In general, higher vehicle speeds, higher vehicle volumes, and lower levels of separation between bicyclists and vehicles lead to higher levels of traffic stress. In Task 3 of this Plan production, the team performed an on -street LTS analysis for the City and a corresponding path LTS evaluation to provide scores for off-street segments. Data Needs Task 3 LTS analysis results Same method for pedestrian and bicycle? Proposed Methodology This criterion only applies to the bicycling mode. Low stress facilities (LTS 1 and 2) will receive 0 points, and high stress facilities (LTS 3 and 4) will receive 1 point. Limitations Level of traffic stress has been emerging as an analysis approach and metric that is widely applicable, intuitive, and easy to understand. It can also help inform the type of design that will provide "low -stress" facilities that are attractive to all users. However, some risk factors that may affect bicyclist comfort are not included in the Level of Traffic Stress assessment (e.g., driveway density and presence of signals). Recommended Proportionate (binary) Scaling Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 786 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 16 Quality of Service: Sidewalk Gaps Variable Sidewalk Gaps Factor Quality of Service Description Existing sidewalk gaps can create barriers to walking. If people walking do not know to expect a sidewalk gap, they may choose to walk that route and need to cross to avoid the sidewalk gap or may choose to walk in the road. Both of these options increase their exposure to motor vehicles. Others may plan their trip to avoid the sidewalk gap, which can add time and distance to the trip and in some circumstances may encourage the individual to take a different mode or not take the trip. Identifying and prioritizing locations where there are sidewalk gaps can lead to improvements in these locations, which can ultimately increase the safety and comfort for pedestrians. Data Needs Same method for pedestrian and bicycle? Proposed Methodology Geolocated sidewalk gap data This criterion only applies to the pedestrian mode. Locations with no sidewalk gap will receive 0 points, while locations with a sidewalk gap will receive 1 point. Limitations Pedestrian safety and comfort can be affected by other characteristics not captured in this variable, like presence of a barrier, type of barrier, presence of street trees, speeds, number of lanes, and sidewalk width. Recommended Proportionate (binary) Scaling Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 787 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 17 Major Barriers: Freeway Crossings Variable Freeway Crossings Factor Major Barriers Description Freeway ramps and crossings can create barriers for people biking and walking. Sometimes the crossing infrastructure over or under freeways is uncomfortable to bike and walk on, and intersections with freeway ramps may include high motor vehicle design speeds and volumes. This criterion will prioritize improving safety and quality of service for ramp terminal intersection and freeway crossings. Data Needs Locations of ramp terminals Same method for pedestrian and bicycle? The same methodology will be used for the bicycle and pedestrian analysis, and because the data used will not vary by mode, the results of this criterion will be the same for each mode. Proposed Methodology Segments within 250 feet of a ramp terminal will receive a score of 1 and all other segments will receive a score of 0. Limitations This evaluation may not include all major barriers to biking and walking in the City, which may also include short segments of bridge, guardrail, or poor roadway or sidewalk conditions. Recommended Scaling Proportionate (binary) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 788 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan February 1, 2020 Project #: 24392 Page 18 Consistency with Past Planning: Previously Identified Projects Variable Previously Identified Projects Factor Description Consistency with Past Planning This criterion will prioritize locations identified as needing improvements through the 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Plan included a ranking of priority projects. Those are as follows: - Tier Zero: Designed and planned, under -construction, scheduled, - Tier One: Highest priority projects for grant funding with initial feasibility analysis and concept development in the Plan update - Tier Two: High priority projects for grant funding that may require additional feasibility analysis Tier Three: All other projects Those project tiers were based on feasibility of project delivery rather than project need. Data Needs Spatial priority project data from the 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Same method for pedestrian and bicycle? Proposed Methodology Limitations Recommended Scaling The same methodology will be used for pedestrian and bicycle modes. Many projects include both bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Locations where there is a project and it has not yet been implemented will receive 1 point, while all other segments receive 0 points. Because the 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan did not consider project need in the tiering process, all projects will be scored the same. Proportionate (binary) Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California 789 APPENDIX NET REC I•MMENDAT1 N PRiJECT LIST AN STI MATES Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 790 ■ Project ID Tier 2014 Plan Project Number Project Description Project Location From To Miles Cost- High Cost - Low Bicycle Project Type Segment Projects St- Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street 5.139639 5.14 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Class III 5-2 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan Street 1.357487 1.36 $ 239,000 $ 239,000 Class IIB 5-3 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Gleason Drive 0.6 0.60 $ 106,000 $ 106,000 Class IIB S-4 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road 1.3 1.30 $ 229,000 $ 229,000 Class IIB S-5 Tier I Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit; if speeds are not lowered, as a future phase provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV) Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Altamirano Ave 0.3 0.30 $ 53,000 $ 53,000 Class IIB S-6 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping Grafton Street Kohnen Way Antone Way 0.235965 0.24 $ 42,000 $ 42,000 Class IIB S-7 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the 1-580 overcrossings Tassajara Road, Dougherty Road, and Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Dublin Boulveard 0.84877 0.85 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Class IIB S-8 Tier 1 Restripe to add buffer to the Class 11 facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class 1 or Class IV) Tassajara Road North Dublin Ranch Drive Rutherford Drive 0.521904 0.52 $ 2,784,000 $ 138,000 Class IIB 5-9 rer I Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Village Parkway Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits 0.857586 0.86 $ 4,803,000 $ 945,000 Class IV/Class I 5-10 Tier 11 Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street 0 0 5.139639 5.14 $ 691,000 $ 691,000 Class III 5-11 Tier 11 Restripe to add buffer to the Class 11 facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide a Class IV or Class 1 facility Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard 0.342414 0.34 $ 1,826,000 $ 91,000 Class IIB; reduced speed S-12 Tier 11 Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin Ranch Drive 0.719841 0.72 $ 18,000 $ 18,000 Reduced speed 5-13 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits 0 0.25 $ 1,393,000 $ 274,000 Class IV/Class I S-14 Tier 11 Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class 1 or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Amador Valley Boulevard Stagecoach Road Dougherty Road 0.3 0.30 $ 1,680,000 $ 331,000 Class IV/Class 1 S-15 Tier 11 Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the 1-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class 1 or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in 5-7. Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern City Limits but not the bridge upgrades 0.458282 0.46 $ 2,567,000 $ 505,000 Class IV/Class 1 S-16 Tier 11 Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class 1 or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive San Ramon Road 1.1 1.10 $ 6,161,000 $ 1,212,000 Class IV/Class 1 5-17 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive Western extent 1.5 1.50 $ 8,401,000 $ 1,653,000 Class IV/Class I 5-18 Tier II Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the 1-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern city limits but not the bridge upgrades 1.2 1.20 $ 6,721,000 $ 1,322,000 Class IV/Class I 791 S-19 Tier II Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara Road 0 1.58 $ 1,583,000 $ 238,000 Class IB 5-20 Tier II Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits 0 0.98 $ 5,334,000 $ 259,000 Class IIB 5-21 Tier II Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive Northern City Limits 1584 1.584992 0.30 $ 1,640,000 $ 80,000 Class IIB 5-22 Tier 11 1-2A/1-2B As recommended in the 2014 plan, upgrade to separated Class I facilities providing sufficient space to reduce conflicts between people walking and biking; evaluate opportunities to improve walkability by reducing obstructions; enhance median and lighting along Dublin Boulevard under 1-680; improve sidewalk connection across commercial driveway and at bus stop (east of Regional Street); add pedestrian- scale lighting under 1-680 Overpass. Install barrier in median underneath overcrossing to prohibit pedestrian crossings. Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Dougherty Road 1.5 1.5 $ 4,956,000 $ 4,956,000 Class IB 5-23 Tier II Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive 0.3 0.45 $ 1,974,000 $ 497,000 Class IV/Class I 5-24 Tier 11 Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class 1 or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Fallon Road 1.20 $ 6,887,457 $ 1,322,083 Class IV/Class 1 5-25 Tier II Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Central Parkway Tassajara Road Fallon Road 1.126547 1.13 $ 5,135,000 $ 227,000 Class IIB; reduced speed S-26 Tier III Study opportunities, create designs, and implement traffic calming and signs to create Class III Bikeways along the identified roadways Various locations: N Dublin Ranch Drive, S Dublin Ranch Drive, Hansen Drive, Starward Drive, San Sabana Road, Southwick Drive, Hibernia Drive, Donohue Drive, Keegan Street, Peppertree Road, Madden Way, Kohnen Way, York Drive, Maple Drive, Inspiration Drive, and Vomac Road 0 0 7.302099 7.30 $ 982,000 $ 982,000 Class III S-27 Tier III Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Lockhart Street Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.5 0.30 $ 1,507,000 $ 66,000 Class IIA 5-28 Tier III Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists John Monego Court Dublin Boulevard Southern extent 0.3 0.30 $ 1,507,000 $ 66,000 Class IIA S-29 Tier III Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Sierra Lane Sierra Court Dougherty Road 0.367522 0.37 $ 1,846,000 $ 81,000 Class IIA S-30 Tier III Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists York Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Poplar Way 0.4 0.40 $ 2,009,000 $ 88,000 Class IIA S-31 Tier III Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Hibernia Drive Dublin Boulevard Summer Glen Drive 0.4 0.40 $ 2,009,000 $ 88,000 Class IIA 5-32 Tier III Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Shannon Avenue Vomac Road Peppertree Road 0.4 0.40 $ 2,009,000 $ 88,000 Class IIA 5-33 Tier III Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Glynnis Rose Drive Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard 0.3 0.30 $ 1,507,000 $ 66,000 Class IIA 5-34 Tier III Extend bike lanes and sidepaths along Central Parkway to Croak Road Central Parkway 500' west of Croak Road Croak Road 0.087884 0.09 $ 697,000 $ 697,000 Class IIA 5-35 Tier III If Croak Road is improved south of S Terracina Drive, add low stress bicycle facilities based on anticipated speeds, volumes, and FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommendations Croak Road/Volterra Drive Volterra Court Dublin Boulevard 1 1.10 $ 2,860,000 $ 2,860,000 Class IIA 5-36 Tier III Restripe to add buffer to the Class 11 facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Central Parkway Iron Horse Parkway Tassajara Road 1.545072 1.40 $ 223,000 $ 223,000 Class IIB; reduced speed 5-37 Tier III Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Gleason Drive Fallon Road Brannigan Road 0.742513 0.74 $ 3,384,000 $ 150,000 Class IIB; reduced speed 5-38 Tier III Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Amador Plaza Road Southern Extent Amador Valley Boulevard 0.6 0.60 $ 2,720,000 $ 106,000 Class IIB; reduced speed 5-39 Tier III Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class 1 facility Silvergate Drive San Ramon Road Peppertree Road 0.2 0.20 $ 907,000 $ 35,000 Class IIB; reduced speed S-40 Tier III Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits 0 0.30 $ 1,600,000 $ 80,000 Class IIB; reduced speed S-41 Tier III Improve wayfinding and signage for parallel path on east side; restripe to upgrade Class IIA facilities to Class IIB facilities Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive Northern City Limits improve wayfindi ng 1.4 1.40 $ 284,000 $ 284,000 Class IIB S-42 Tier III Add a Class IIB bike lane where no bike lane currently exists or improve adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. Lockhart Street Central Parkway Gleason Drive 0.5 0.50 $ 499,000 $ 75,000 Class IIB S-43 Tier III Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Stagecoach Road Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits lower speed limit -- need a study? 0.9 0.90 $ 4,800,000 $ 239,000 Class IIB 5-44 Tier III Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Sierra Ct Dublin Boulevard Northern extent 0.7 0.70 $ 3,734,000 $ 186,000 Class IIB S-45 Tier III Upgrade from Class IIA to Class IIB Bicycle Lane Amador Valley Boulevard Village Parkway Stagecoach Road 0.8 0.80 $ 3,626,000 $ 141,000 Class IIB 792 S-46 Tier III Restripe to a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Bent Tree Drive Fallon Road East Sugar Hill Terrace 0.4 0.40 $ 106,000 $ 106,000 Class IIB S-47 Tier III Asa follow up to 5-3, evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Hacienda Drive Gleason Road Dublin Boulevard 0 0.60 $ 2,735,000 $ 121,000 Reduced speed S-48 Tier III Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive 0.45123 0.45123 $ 1,974,000 $ 497,000 Class IV/Class I S-49 Tier III Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the 1-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7. Hacienda Drive Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits not bridge 0 0.30 $ 1,680,000 $ 331,000 Class IV/Class I S-50 Tier III Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the 1-580 overcrossing, and conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits not bridge 0.251646 0.30 $ 1,680,000 $ 331,000 Class IV/Class I S-51 Tier III Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed. Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road 1.77 1.77 $ 1,768,000 $ 266,000 Class IB S-52 Tier III Upgrade from Class IIB to Class IV Bicycle Lane Clark Ave/Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard 0.3 0.50 $ 2,227,000 $ 320,000 Class IV/Class I 5-53 Tier III Add Class I facilities on both sides of the road on Martinelli Way and support the Class I facilities by adding signage, wayfinding, and crossing improvements at the intersections; connect to the BART Station by providing continuous Class I or Class IIA facilities along Iron Horse Parkway. Martinelli Way and Iron Horse Parkway BART Station on Iron Horse Parkway Hacienda Drive 0.683253 1.50 $ 3,900,000 $ 3,900,000 Class IV/Class I 5-54 Tier III Add bike lanes with the implementation of the Golden Gate extension project Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley Boulevard 0.350907 0.350907 $ 1,806,000 $ 77,000 Class IIA Trail Projects T-1 Tier I Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to create park space and trail access and connectivity improvements Iron Horse Regional Trail $ 11,560,000 $ 11,560,000.00 Trail T-2 Tier II Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road 0.35 $ 764,767 $ 764,767.34 Trail T-3 Tier II With development, add Class I connection between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road East of Tassajara approximately 500 ft Dublin Boulevard Central Parkway 0.284090909 $ 620,753 $ 620,752.71 Trail T-4 Tier III Add trail connection along Dublin Creek along the Zone 7 channel, to connect at San Ramon Road Dublin Creek Trail Amador Plaza Road San Ramon Road 0.706325758 $ 1,543,357 $ 1,543,356.78 Trail T-5 Tier III Create connection to Shannon Community Center from the San Ramon Bike Path San Ramon Bike Path Shannon Community Center 0 0.01 $ 21,850 $ 21,319.04 Trail T-6 Tier III Add Class I facility along east side of Village to connect to the Alamo Canal Trail Alamo Canal Trail Dublin High School and Village Parkway Alamo Canal Trail between Cedar Lane and Ebensburg Lane 1.06 $ 2,316,153 $ 2,259,818.03 Trail T-7 Tier III As recommended in the 2014 plan, widen existing sidewalk and add signing and striping treatments to create a shared use path on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road Village Parkway 0.22 $ 586,257 $ 586,256.72 Trail T-8 Tier III Add a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the canal to create Class I connection between Village Parkway/Clark Avenue at Alamo Canal Trail at the Dublin Public Safety Complex Site Alamo Canal Trail/Civic Plaza Village Parkway/Cla rk Avenue Alamo Canal Trail 0.1 $ 6,318,000 $ 6,318,000.00 Trail T-9 Tier III Create Class I connection along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension corridor from Fallon Road to Collier Canyon Parkway (Livermore) Dublin Boulevard Extension Fallon Road Collier Canyon Park (Livermore) 0.98 $ 6,475,500 $ 6,475,500.00 Trail T-10 Tier III Through development, add Class I facility on the west side of Brannigan St. from Central Parkway to Gleason Boulevard Brannigan Street Central Parkway Gleason Boulevard 0.19 $ 506,313 $ 506,312.62 Trail T-11 Tier III Add Class I connection and street crossing enhancements on the north side of Central Parkway from Emerald Glen Park/Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street Central Parkway Emerald Glen Park/Tassaja ra Road Brannigan Street 0.18 $ 606,187 $ 606,187.23 Trail T-12 Tier III Add Class I connection along the south side of the school grounds and Dublin Swin Center from Iron Horse Trail to Village Parkway Dublin High School Iron Horse Trail Village Parkway 0.59 $ 1,289,179 $ 1,257,823.24 Trail T-13 Tier III Study options for gap closure to provide a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing and shared use path from Tassajara Creek at Dublin Boulevard south over 1-580 into Pleasanton Tassajara Creek Dublin Boulevard Pleasanton 0.27 $ 250,000 $ 250,000.00 Trail T-14 Tier III Add Class I connection along the southern edge of Nielson Elementary to connect Amarillo Road with the existing path along Mape Memorial Park to san Ramon Road Nielson Elementary School Amarillo Road Mape Memorial Park Path 0.17 $ 371,458 $ 362,423.65 Trail T-15 Tier III Add Class I connection along Altamirano Street between the Dublin BART station and Martinelli Way Altamirano Street Dublin BART station Martinelli Way 0.71 $ 1,892,010 $ 1,892,010.33 Trail T-16 Tier III Add Class I connections along Croak Road from Dublin Boulevard to Positano Parkway Croak Road Dublin Boulevard Positano Parkway 0.9 $ 2,398,323 $ 2,398,322.96 Trail 793 T-17 Tier III Add or improve trails along Positano Parkway to connect to the trail on Croak Road Positano Parkway Croak Road La Strada Drive 0.76 $ 2,025,250 $ 2,025,250.50 Trail T-18 Tier III Add Class I connection between the existing Tassajara Creek trailhead on Tassajara Road and trails in the Wallis Ranch development Tassajara Creek Trail Tassajara Road Trailhead Wallis Ranch development trails 0.46 $ 1,005,123 $ 980,675.75 Trail Freeway Crossing Projects FC-1 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings San Ramon Road at southbound 1-580 westbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-2 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings San Ramon Road at northbound 1-580 westbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-3 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings San Ramon Road at 1-580 westbound ramp terminal $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-4 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings St. Patrick Way at 1-580 ramp terminal and entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-5 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Dougherty Road at 1-580 westbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-6 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Dougherty Road at 1-580 westbound ramp terminal $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-7 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Dougherty Road at 1-580 eastbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-8 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Hacienda Drive at 1-580 westbound ramp terminal $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-9 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Hacienda Drive at 1-580 eastbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-10 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Hacienda Drive at 1-580 westbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-11 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Tassajara Road at 1-580 westbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-12 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Tassajara Road at 1-580 westbound ramp terminal $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-13 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Tassajara Road at 1-580 eastbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-14 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Fallon Road at 1-580 westbound ramp terminal and entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-15 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Fallon Road at 1-580 eastbound ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing FC-16 Tier III Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Village Parkway at 1-680 NB ramp entrance $ 1,115,000 $ 1,115,000.00 Freeway Crossing Crossing Projects C-1 Provide mid -block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment) Regional Street between Dublin Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard $ 320,000 $ 320,000.00 Crossing C-2 Existing Iron Horse Trail Crossing project Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing to connect to Don Biddle Community Park Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Trail $ 6,318,000 $ 6,318,000.00 Crossing C-3 Tier II Add connection from Sierra Court to the Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network Sierra Court cul-de-sac $ 2,132,000 $ 2,132,000.00 Trail C-4 Tier III Study the feasibility of improving the crossing of Tassajara Creek Trail at Dublin Boulevard by providing better connections to the existing crossing at John Monego Court. Provide wayfinding and signs to direct people biking and walking between the trail and the intersection. Tassajara Creek Trail and Dublin Boulevard Impleme nt signal timing, $ 123,000 $ 123,000.00 Crossing C-5 Tier III Improve connections to nearby crossings or add crossing at Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek Trail (south of Rutherford Drive) to provide access to the trailhead; improve general access to and connectivity from the trail to Tassajara Road and local destinations Tassajara Creek Trail and Tassajara Road $ 627,000 $ 627,000.00 Crossing $ - $ Intersection Projects $ - $ - 1-1 r Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Central Parkway/Aspen Street $ 320,000 $ 320,000.00 Intersection 1-2 Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Grafton Street/Antone Way $ 320,000 $ 320,000.00 Intersection 1-3 Tier I Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Amador Valley Boulevard/Burton Street $ 320,000 $ 320,000.00 Intersection 1-4 Tier II 2-2H As recommended in the 2014 plan, improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Remove slip lanes; reduce curb radii on all corners; install curb extensions on the SE and SW corners; install directional curb ramps. Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-5 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Village Parkway/Tamarack Drive $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-6 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Village Parkway/Brighton Drive $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 794 1-7 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/Hibernia Drive $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-8 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-9 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-10 Tier II 1-2F As recommended in the 2014 plan, improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce width of SB right -turn lane and reduce turning radii; remove NB right -turn slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks. Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-11 Tier III Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school Grafton Street/Madden Way/Kohnen Way $ 320,000 $ 627,000.00 Intersection 1-12 Tier III Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school Antone Way/Bridgepointe Lane $ 320,000 $ 4,000.00 Intersection 1-13 Tier III Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school 5 Dublin Ranch Drive/Woodshire Lane $ 320,000 $ 4,000.00 Intersection 1-14 Tier III Add Class I signage, striping, and signal changes to create visibility of people walking and biking across the existing Tassajara Road and Palisades Drive signalized crossing Tassajara Road and Palisades Drive $ 123,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-15 Tier III Provide Class I facilities on the west side of Silvergate Drive and make intersection changes at Hansen Drive and Bay Laurel Street to provide comfortable connectivity to the existing stop controlled intersection at Hansen Drive Martin Canyon Creek Trail at Silvergate Drive $ 2,600,000 $ 2,600,000.00 Intersection 1-16 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Gleason Drive/Grafton Street $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-17 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Gleason Drive/Brannigan street $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-18 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Central Parkway/Brannigan street $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-19 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/Brannigan street $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-20 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Central Parkway/Hibernia Drive $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-21 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Central Parkway/Hacienda Drive $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-22 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/Regional Street $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-23 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-24 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Fallon Road /Central Parkway $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-25 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-26 Tier III Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-27 Tier III 1-2E As recommended in the 2014 plan, reduce curb radii on all corners; install directional curb ramps at all corners Subject to further analysis, remove NB overlap phase; install pedestrian countdown signals and audible warning signs Stripe crosswalk on south leg subject to further analysis Dublin Boulevard/San Ramon Road $ 972,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-28 Tier III 2-2G/2-2E/2-2F As recommended in the 2014 plan, consider adding leading pedestrian intervals for all approaches; Consider removing slip lanes on NW and NE corners and add curb extensions on SW, NW, and NE corners pending additional engineering analysis; Consider striping crosswalk on south leg pending additional engineering analysis San Ramon Road/Amador Valley Boulevard $ 548,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-29 Tier III 2-2D As recommended in the 2014 plan, consider modifying signal to include leading pedestrian interval on EB and WB approaches; Consider protected left -turn phasing for NB and SB traffic. Regional Street/Amador Valley Boulevard $ 123,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-30 Tier III 1-1E As recommended in the 2014 plan, mark crosswalk on east leg of intersection; Widen median and add median tips as feasible to provide 6' pedestrian refuge; Reduce curb radii Amador Valley Boulevard/Amador Plaza $ 123,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-31 Tier III 1-2C As recommended in the 2014 plan, improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce curb radii on all corners and install directional curb ramps. Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road $ 123,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-32 Tier III 2-1A/2-1B As recommended in the 2014 plan, install wayfinding signage to West Dublin BART; install bulb -outs at all corners; construct directional curb ramps St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate Drive $ 123,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 1-33 Tier III 2-2B As recommended in the 2014 plan, reduce curb radii on all corners; widen medians and add median tips; install directional curb ramps on all corners Amador Valley Boulevard/Donohue Drive $ 123,000 $ 123,000.00 Intersection 795 APPENDIX D EING AN DESIG GUIDE Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 796 e --4 INTR;1 DUCTI i N This guide was developed as a reference document for best practices in planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It first provides resources relevant to planning and designing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a list of specific design topics and guidance document recommendations to consult. It then provides specific planning and design recommendations for several key topics relevant to developing Dublin's biking and walking infrastructure. In applying this design guidance, the responsible engineer should use professional judgment and document design decisions. Decisions should be made based on location specific context and the obligation to protect the life, health, and property of the public. 14 16 26 28 I RESOURCES 3 DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE 4 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE 13 SIDEWALK WIDTH RECOMMENDATIONS BIKEWAY SELECTION ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS CROSSING SELECTION BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH INTERSECTIONS 32 2 City of Dublin DRA T 798 RESOURCES The following resources should be used as references for best practices in planning and design for pedestrian facilities. KEY RESOURCES SUPPLEMENTAL • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Fourth Edition (2012) — likely to be replaced by the Fifth Edition in 2022 • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition (2014) • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (2018) • CalTrans Highway Design Manual (2018) • FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) • FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009) • California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 6 (2021) RESOURCES • TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington D.C.: TCRP and NCHRP, 2006. • Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Available: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/A-08 RES-3765 complete streets.pdf 2006. • Complete Streets Checklist Guidance Resolution 4493, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Available: https://mtc. ca.gov/sites /default/files/documents/2022-05 /MTC- Administrative-Guidance-CS-Checklist.pdf (2022) DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 3 799 DESIGN T PICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE 800 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Sidewalks and Sidewalk Zones NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004) https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/ docs/NCHRP20-07(263) FR.pdf Pages 37— 44; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/street-design-elements/sidewalks/ Chapter 3.2; Pages 54 - 70 Pedestrian Wayfinding Seamless Seattle Pedestrian Wayfinding Strategy (2019) Global Street Design Guide (2016) Global Street Design Guide I Global Designing Cities Initiative Wayfinding Strategy Ju1y2019 SDOT Edit.pdf (seattle.gov) 6.3.9; Page 91; https://globaldesigningcities.org/wp-content/uploads/ guides/global-street-design-guide-lowres.pdf Street Furniture Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-way (2013) haps://www.access-board.gov/ prowag/preamble-prowag/ Page 70; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/ preamble-prowag/#r212-street-furniture Pedestrian Scale Lighting FHWA Pedestrian Lighting Primer (2022) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway dept/night visib/ docs/Pedestrian Lighting Primer Final.pdf FHWA Lighting Handbook (2012) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway dept/night visib/ lighting handbook/pdf/fhwa handbook2012.pdf Street Design Manual: Lighting Update (2016) https://www. sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/street design manual - lighting update 2016 2.pdf Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/ docs/NCHRP20-07(263) FR.pdf Entire document Pages 75-78 Pages 2-3 Chapter 3.2.11, Page 65 DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 5 801 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Crosswalk Markings Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/ part3/part3b.htm#section3B18 Uncontrolled Crossing Enhancements NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013):" https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ FHWA Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (2005) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ research/safety/04100/04100.pdf https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street- design-guide/intersection-design-elements/ crosswalks-and-crossings/midblock-crosswalks/ Pages 49 - 61 Special Paving Treatments FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (2013) http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/ countermeasures detail.cfm?CM NUM=39 Crossing Islands NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Page 116; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/ crosswalks-and-crossings/pedestrian-safety-islands/ In -Street Pedestrian Crossings Signs Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/ part2/part2b.htm#section2B12 Reduced Radii and NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https:// Sidewalk Corners nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Curb Extensions, Including Chicanes Pages 117-118/ https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-street-design-guide/intersection- design-elements/corner-radii/ NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https:// nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/ docs/NCHRP20-07(263) FR.pdf Pages 45- 50; https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-street-design-guide/street-design- elements/curb-extensions/ Chapter 2.6.2 Page - 43 6 City of Dublin DRAFT 802 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Curb Ramps Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-way https://www.access-board.gov/ prowag/preamble-prowag/ Pages 36 — 37; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/preamble- prowag/#r304-curb-ramps-and-blended-transitions Right -Turn FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/ Slip Lane Selection System (2013) countermeasures detail.cfm?CM NUM=24 http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm Advanced Yield Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/ Markings (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ part2/part2b.htm#section2B11 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2014) https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ ca-mutcd/rev6/camutcd2014-rev6.pdf Section 2B.11 Advanced Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Sign R1-5a Warning Signs (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ Crossing Types: RRFB, PHB, Grade Separated Crossings, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Sections 4C.05, 4C.06, 4F.01, 4L.03 (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 7 803 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Pedestrian Signal Timing NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: https://nacto. org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepub s/nchrp/ docs/NCHRP20-07(263) FR.pdf Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ NACTO pages 125 — 134; https://nacto. org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ intersection-design-elements/traffic-signals/ Chapter 4.1.2 — Page 101 4E.06; https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ htm/2009/part4/part4e.htm Leading Pedestrian Intervals NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: https://nacto. org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Page 128; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/ traffic-signals/leading-pedestrian-interval/ Signal Phasing - Protected Left Turns and Split Phasing FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (2013) http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/ countermeasures detail.cfm?CM NUM=51 Bus Stop Accessibility Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety (2 https://www.nadtc. org/wp-content/uploads/NADTC Toolkit-for- the-Assessment-of-Bus-Stop-Accessibility.pdf ADA Accessibility Guidelines (2002): Adaag 1991 2002 (access-board.gov) Page 10 Section 10.2; https://www.access-board. gov/adaag-1991-2002.html#tranfac 8 City of Dublin DRAFT 804 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Bikeway selection FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped bike/ tools solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf Also see supplemental guidance pages XYZ Pages 22-23 Class I Shared Use Path & Shared Use Path Features Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2021) Chapter 3.4 Grade Separation Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2021) Section 3.6.4.6 Curb Ramps Crossing Treatments Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) (2013) https://www.access-board.gov/ files/prowag/PROW-SUP-SNPRM-2013.pdf Guide for the Planning Design and Operations of Pedestrian Facilities (2021) R304; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/ chapter-r3-technical-requirements/#r304- curb-ramps-and-blended-transitions Section 3.6.4.5 Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2021) Chapter 3.6 Bicycle Signal Heads NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto. org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Page 91; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/ Unsignalized Intersections NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto. org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Page 105; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/ DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 9 805 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Sidepaths AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) Chapter 5, Page 8 Sidepath Intersection Design Considerations AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) Chapter 5, Page 42 Class IIA Bicycle Lanes California Highway Design Manual https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/ design/documents/hdm-complete-12312020a11y.pdf AASHTO 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities https://nacto.or_g/references/aashto-guide-for- the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Urban Bicycle Design Guide https://nacto.org/ publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Section 301.2 Chapter 4, Pages 11 -22 Pages 1 — 21/https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/ Bicycle Facility Design California Highway Design Manual https://dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/ documents/hdm-complete-12312020a11y.pdf NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto. org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Sections 301 & 1000 Page 119/https://nacto.org/publication/urban- bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/ Chapter 4 Page 77; Chapter 5 Page 8; Chapter 6 Page 7; Chapter 9 Page 156 10 City of Dublin DRAFT 806 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Bicycle Parking AASHTO 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for- the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Transit Street Design Guide https://nacto.org/ publication/transit-street-design-guide/transit-streets/ Chapter 6 Chapter 4 Page 105 Bicycle Facility AASHTO 2012 Guide for the Maintenance Development of Bicycle Facilities https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for- the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Chapter 7 Bicycle Signals AASHTO 2012 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities: https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for- the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto. org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ Chapter 4 Page 43 MUTCD Figure 9C-7 (bicycle detector pavement markings); Section 4D.08 through 4D.16 (signal placement) Pages 91 — 111; https://nacto.org/publication/ urban-bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/ DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 11 807 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Restriping to Add Bicycle Facilities FHWA: Incorporating On -Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects, 2016 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ bicycle pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/ resurfacing workbook.pdf Entire document Stormwater NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto. Pages 65 — 70; https://nacto.org/publication/ Management org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ urban-street-design-guide/street-design- elements/stormwater-management/ LA Model for Living Streets Design Manual (2011) https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/ resources/resources/la-living-streets-design- manual/download.htmlChapter 11 12 City of Dublin DRAFT 808 SIDEWALK WIDTH RECOMMENDATIONS Streets and sidewalks should support the activities and pedestrian levels along the street. 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. See Table 1 for recommended sidewalk widths by context. In addition to Table 1, if a specific area plan with recommended cross section widths exists for a project location, refer to the specific area plan guidance. ADA sidewalk regulations specify that routes with less than 60 inches, or five feet of clear width must provide passing spaces, or wider areas that can accommodate two wheelchairs passing, 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. If a sidewalk is directly adjacent to moving traffic, 2 feet should be added to the absolute minimum clear path width to provide buffer and space for street furniture and utilities. Based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the minimum width of a sidewalk should be 8 feet between a curb and building when in urban and rural main street place types, 6 feet in all other locations when continuous to a curb, or 5 feet when separated by a planting strip. In addition to the typical sidewalk widths, the context should dictate other design feature as well, identified below: • 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 Table 1: Recommended Sidewalk Widths by Context LAND USE CONTEXT RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED SIDEWALK GREENSCAPE/ WIDTH FURNISHING ZONE WIDTH Residential and industrial areas 8 feet — 5 feet 6 feet — 3 feet Downtown or commercial areas 12 feet — 8 feet 8 feet — 3 feet Schools 10 feet — 8 feet 8 feet — 3 feet be planted, and benches should be located. Any sidewalk amenities should be located within this area and should not interfere with the throughway zone. A furnishing zone must be a minimum of 3 feet to have the opportunity to include street trees or landscaping. The landscape buffer should increase in width as speeds increase: four feet is the recommended minimum buffer for areas that are 25 mph and the buffer should increase 1 foot for every 5 mph increase in speed. • Throughway zone — This area acts as the sidewalk clear zone. See Table 1 for recommended sidewalk widths for the throughway zones. • Frontage Zone - This area borders the building facade 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. 14 City of Dublin DRAFT 810 BIKEWAY SELECTION CLASS IA: BIKE PATHS OR SHARED USE PATHS DESCRIPTION: Bike paths provide a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with minimal or no conflicting motor vehicle traffic. Generally, these corridors are not served by streets, and the path may be along a river, converted rail right-of-way, or powerline, or other car -free corridors. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Class IA paths may provide connectivity between neighborhoods or communities, to parks or recreational areas, along or to rivers or streams, or to other destinations without travelling along a roadway corridor. COST ESTIMATE: $2.2M per mile, including design and construction for the path, assuming the inclusion of two high visibility actuated crossings DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: • The width of a shared -use path may vary based on expected bicyclist and pedestrian volume and right-of-way constraints. For accessibility purposes, trails should be limited to 5% grade. • Where right-of-way or other physical constraints exist, sidepaths may be provided adjacent to the roadway. Information about these facilities, Class IB facilities, are provided on the next page. Iron Horse Regional Trail, Dublin, California Source.• Kittelson & Associates, Inc. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 15 811 PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: • A 10 ft wide path with 2 ft shoulders on each side is preferable (14 ft total). The higher the anticipated volumes of users, the greater the width should be to accommodate these users comfortably. • Pedestrian -scale lighting improves visibility, particularly at intersection crossings, tunnels, underpasses, trail heads, and rest areas. • A shy distance of at least one foot allows adequate lateral clearance for the placement of signs or other vertical objects. If objects are shorter than 3 feet tall, they may not present an obstruction for cyclists. 3' shoulder preferred (paved or other all weather surface); 2' minimum unless path is wider than the minimum REQUIRED ELEMENTS: • While the width may vary along a path, a path should be at least 10 feet wide except in rare cases and for short distances. • Path must include at least 2 feet (3 feet preferred) horizontal clearance between the paved edge of path and obstructions. • Path crossings may be designed with yield, signal, or stop control for either motorists or path users depending on path volume and traffic volume on the crossing street. 10' travelway (not including shoulders) is preferred; minimum 8' Exhibit 1: Class 1A—Shared Use Path 3' horizontal clearance from the paved edge of bike path should be provided; minimum 2' 16 City of Dublin DRAFT 812 CLASS IB: SIDEPATHS DESCRIPTION: Sidepaths are shared use paths that exist within a roadway corridor. They provide dedicated space for bidirectional travel for people walking, biking, using mobility devices, or using scooters or other micromobility devices. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Sidepaths are applicable in areas with few motor vehicle driveways or access points on roadways with operating speeds above 35 miles per hour and serving above 6,500 vehicles per day, but other treatments (generally sidewalks and Class IV facilities) are typically preferred for safety and comfort. Sidepaths can be used along high speed and/or volume roadways to provide a completely separated space outside of the roadway for people walking and biking. COST ESTIMATE: $2.6M per mile , including design and construction for the path and a planted buffer DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: • In many situations, especially urban areas or denser or destination focused suburban areas, providing dedicated walking and biking facilities that are separate from each other is preferred to combining these modes on a sidepath. • As motor vehicle speeds and volumes increase, providing more separation between the roadway and the path will provide higher comfort for those using the path. Dougherty Road, Dublin, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc • One key concern with providing sidepaths instead of directional bicycle facilities is the lack of driver awareness about contraflow bicycle traffic (higher speed traffic than pedestrians, which are expected to travel bidirectionally) at intersections and access points. If a motor vehicle is turning left, they are more likely to be aware of or look for traffic traveling toward them. Skip striping and signs that indicate two-way bicycle travel through crossings at intersections is key to creating awareness of the birdirectional DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 17 813 traffic. Exhibit 2 shows a sign used by Colorado DOT to increase awareness of sidepath users. At signalized intersections, consider detection that activates No Right Turn On Red signs and/or Yield To Pedestrians In Crosswalk signs when sidepath users are present. • At intersections, treatments like leading pedestrian and bicycle intervals can also help increase the visibility of crossings bicyclists. Sidepaths must be appropriately designed at access points or intersections. • At intersections, divert the sidepath away from the parallel roadway at conflict points so that it functions as a mid -block crossing and there is enough space (25 feet) for at least one vehicle to queue between the crossing and roadway intersection. • When providing sidepaths, a critical consideration is the connection to other biking facilities. If a sidepath connects to a uni-directional bike lane at an intersection, the design of the intersection should consider the efficiency and safety of connecting bicyclists to the Exhibit 2: CDOT Sidepath Sign Note: This sign is not included in the CA MUTCD but may be considered as a candidate to apply for a request for experimentation. infrastructure they will need to use to continue on their path. Diagonal crossings can reduce the need for two -stage crossings, which can slow bicyclists and increase crossing exposure. Pavement markings and signs can also be effective in guiding bicyclists for how to make the connection and provide continuity and clarity to these transitions, which can otherwise be uncomfortable or unclear, and may encourage crossing in ways or locations that increase exposure or the number of potential conflict points. Striping on the ground to encourage separation between people walking and biking in different directions, especially at intersections or areas with higher volumes can create clarity and decrease conflicts between these modes. The maximum grade of a side path should be 5%, but the grade should generally match the grade of the roadway. Where the roadway grade exceeds 5%, the sidepath grade may as well but it must be less than or equal to the roadway grade. PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: • A 10 ft wide path with 2 ft shoulders on each side is preferable (14 ft total). The higher the anticipated volumes of users, the greater the width should be to accommodate these users comfortably. Curb ramps should be as wide as the path travelway to allow people walking and biking to use the ramps simultaneously. • Pedestrian -scale lighting improves visibility for and of the users, and is particularly important at intersection crossings and in areas with access points or driveways. • A 2 ft or greater shoulder on both sides of the path should be provided. An additional foot of lateral clearance is required by the CAMUTCD for the installation of signage or other furnishings. If objects are shorter than 3 feet tall, they may not present an obstruction for cyclists. • Biking and walking facilities should be provided on both sides of the street to provide access to destinations along both sides of 18 City of Dublin DRAFT 814 a street. Walking facilities should be bi-directional on each side of the street. Bike lanes may be one-way, but a one-way bike path should only be provided in rare situations where there is only need for one direction of travel. If a one-way bike path is provided, adequate signage and striping is necessary to ensure it is used appropriately. A one-way bike path should be at least 5 feet in width and has the same shoulder requirements as a bi-directional path. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: • While the width may vary along a path, a path should have at least an 8 feet paved travelway with 2 feet paved or all weather surface shoulders on each side except in rare cases and for short distances. 3' shoulder preferred (paved or other all weather surface); 2' minimum unless path is wider than the minimum Exhibit 3: Class IB — Shared Use Path • A wide separation should be provided between a two-way sidepath and the adjacent roadway to demonstrate to both the bicyclist and the motorist that the path functions as an independent facility for bicyclists and other users. The minimum recommended distance between a path and the roadway curb (i.e., face of curb) or edge of traveled way (where there is no curb) is 5 feet. • Path crossings may be designed with yield, signal, or stop control for either motorists or path users depending on path volume and traffic volume on the crossing street. 10' travelway (not including shoulders) is preferred; minimum 8' The minimum separation between the edge of a street and bicycle path travelway should be 5'. Separation less than 10' should include landscaping or other continuous barriers DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 19 815 CLASS IIA AND CLASS IIB FACILITIES: BIKE LANES AND BUFFERED BIKE LANES DESCRIPTION: Bike lanes are on -street bikeways that provide a designated right- of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited, but vehicle parking may be allowed on either side of the bikeway, and drivers may cross through for turning movements. Class IIA facilities are bike lanes without a buffer, while Class IIB facilities include a buffer between motor vehicle traffic and the dedicated bike lane. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Bike lanes are appropriate on streets with moderate traffic volumes and speeds: typically between 25-35 mph and 3,000 to 6,500 vehicles per day. Class IIB facilities are preferred for these conditions, but if constraints do not allow for a buffer to be added, Class IIA facilities can be provided. COST ESTIMATE: $225,000 — $5,500,000 per mile including design and construction; the lower end of the estimate is based on the ability to restripe existing roadway to add bicycle lanes, while the high end of the estimate is based on the need to widen the roadway to add facilities, including a full reconstruction of a planter strip and sidewalk. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: A buffer provides a more comfortable facility, so if space is available, a buffer should be provided. A buffer becomes more necessary when speeds and volumes are at the high end of the ranges provided in the "typical application" above. San Ramon Road, Dublin, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc 20 City of Dublin DRAFT 816 PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: When a bike lane is placed next to active street parking, a parking -side buffer is preferred. When steep grades are present, consider providing the next level of separation uphill (i.e., add a buffer, or physically separate the bike lane). It may be appropriate to mix facilities for opposite directions along a steep grade. The desired minimum width of a bike lane is 6 feet. When adjacent to parking, the recommended width from curb face to the far edge of the bike lane is 14.5 feet (12 feet minimum). With high bike volumes, a 7-foot travel area width is recommended. Storm drain catch basin grates along a Class II facility can cause a hazards for people biking. Inlets at the curb instead of on the street -surface are preferred. Grates should have rails perpendicular to the movement of bicycle traffic to keep tires from being caught 14.5' preferred parking lane and bike lane combined width; 13' minimum For class IIB facilities: minimum 2' buffer Exhibit 4: Class II Bike Lanes in the grates. In addition, the slope of the roadway leading to the inlet must not be too severe, and the inlet and accompanying concrete box must not extend far into the bicycle lane. At intersections with right -turn vehicle lanes, it is recommended that the bike lane transitioned to the left of the lane using dotted white lines, appropriate signage, and colored pavement. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: When buffers are used, they shall be marked with 2 solid parallel white lines, at least 18 inches apart. If the buffer is at least 3 feet wide, use diagonal or chevron hatching inside. See CAMUTCD Section 9C.04 for more information. 7' - 6' preferred bike lane width; 4' minimum without parking (and at least 3' from gutter joint), 5' minimum adjacent to parking, and 6' minimum on streets with 40 mph or greater speed limits DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 21 817 CLASS III BIKE ROUTES/BICYCLE BOULEVARDS DESCRIPTION: Bike routes or bicycle boulevards provide a shared travel lane with motorists. They are designated by signs or permanent markings, which may include shared -lane markings ("sharrows") to alert drivers of the shared roadway environment. Because the right- of-way is shared, vehicle speeds on Class III bikeways should be managed through the use of traffic calming or traffic diversion. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Bike routes are appropriate only in the presence of low speeds and low traffic volumes: typically below 25 miles per hour and 3,000 vehicles per day. They are most applicable on streets where no striped centerline is present. Outside of these circumstances, a designated lane or other facility is appropriate. COST ESTIMATE: $40,000 — $135,000 per mile including design and construction, depending on the need to add traffic calming elements. BENEFITS: On streets that are already low speed and volume, bike routes can provide bike connectivity for people of all ages and abilities at a relatively low cost. Sharrow pavement markings should be placed every 250 feet and after each intersection. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: To ensure the selected facility retains its low speed and low -volume character, bicycle boulevards should be supported with traffic calming measures and volume management measures (e.g., restricting vehicle access). Shafter Avenue, Oakland, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Exhibit 5: California MUTCD (Figure 9C-9) 22 City of Dublin DRAFT 818 The level of stress of bicycle boulevards are typically determined by major street crossings, which should be designed to promote the desired level of traffic stress (i.e., controlled). PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: Bike routes should be direct, as bicyclists are unlikely to adhere to a path that requires significant out -of -direction travel. Ideally a bicycle boulevard would be parallel and proximate to a major vehicle route. Signs and pavement markings should be used to identify the bike route. Wayfinding signs are recommended to guide bicyclists to destinations and through any turns in the route (refer to CAMUTCD 9B.20). Chevron pavement markings can guide bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel side -by -side within the same traffic lane, and alert road users of their presence. To create a shared street environment, it is most appropriate to use roadways that do not have a striped centerline as neighborhood bikeways. The effective width indicates the width of the pavement available after subtracting the width of the parked vehicle and the door zone from the distance of the lane line/centerline to the face of curb. Typically, minor streets along the bicycle boulevard should be controlled to minimize delay for bicyclists and encourage use of the bicycle boulevard. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: Place sharrow pavement markings at least every 250 feet and after each intersection. SHARED LANE MARKING WHEN EFFECTIVE LANE WIDTH > 14' Where street parking is present: lane markings should be or at least 13' from the curb if the effective lane width is at least 14 feet or should be centered within the effective lane where the effective lane width is less than 14'. Sharrow pavement markings should be placed every 250' and after each intersection. Where street parking is not present: lane markings should be or at least 4' from the face of curb if the effective lane width is at least 14 feet or should be centered within the effective lane where the effective lane width is less than 14'. Exhibit 6: Class III Bike Routes NOT TO SCALE Plucave lane width ti 13' (.— — Placement of Shared Lane Marking SHARED LANE MARKING WHEN EFFECTIVE LANE WIDTH < 14' Eflewee wine.+,dh <14 I� Placement of Shared Lane Marking NOT TO SCALE Lateral reference pant (g. edge of pavement, curb or edgeline located whin 1' of the curb) Lateral (ebrel reference pav point mee curb edge elpavement. with of eof the c located within ratnewirb) Exhibit 7: California MUTCD 9C-108(CA) DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 23 819 CLASS IV: SEPARATED BIKEWAY/CYCLE TRACK DESCRIPTION: Separated bikeways provide physical separation from vehicular traffic. This separation may include grade separation, flexible posts, planters or other inflexible physical barriers, or on -street parking. These bikeways provide bicyclists a greater sense of comfort and security, especially in the context of high-speed roadways. Separated facilities can provide one-way or two-way travel and may be located on either side of a one-way roadway. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Separated bikeways are appropriate for higher volume and speed settings including above 35 miles per hour and serving 6,500 or more vehicles per day. COST ESTIMATE: $1,100,000 — $5,700,000 per mile including design and construction; the lower end of the estimate is based on the ability to reorganize existing roadway to add separated bike lanes, while the high end of the estimate is based on the need to widen the roadway to add facilities, including a full reconstruction of a planter strip and sidewalk. San Diego, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Village Parkway, Dublin, California Source: City of Dublin 24 City of Dublin DRAFT 820 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: Separated bikeways are appropriate at speeds and volumes where bike lanes or buffered bike lanes do not adequately address the comfort needs of the Interested but Concerned biking population per the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide. These facilities are more appropriate than shared -use paths if pedestrian and bicyclist volumes are expected to be relatively high or there are significant access points or driveways along a road. Two-way separated bikeways are appropriate along routes with many destinations on only one -side of the road, incidences of wrong -way riding, along one-way streets, or in locations where they facilitate connection to a shared -use path. PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: The type of separator can impact the comfort of bicyclists along a separated bikeway. Elements with higher mass and height can provide higher comfort. Planted separators can also improve the aesthetics along a corridor. 7' preferred bike lane; minimum 5' 3' preferred buffer; minimum 2' Exhibit 8: Class IV Cycle Track Along separated bikeways, intersections may provide the most exposure to cyclists. Including protected intersection treatments can improve the comfort along the entire route and make the facility more appropriate for people of all ages and abilities. REQUIRED ELEMENTS: Physical separation may be provided by flexible delineators, parked cars, bollards, planters, or parking stops. When parked cars provide separation, a buffer width of at least 3 feet should be provided for bicyclists to avoid the "door zone." Delineation should be intentional to discourage people driving from entering the bikeway and to indicate the location of the parking lane. The riding area for one-way lanes should be at least 5 feet wide (7 feet if along an uphill grade). For two-way bikeways, the preferred width is 12 feet (10 feet minimum). In constrained environments, consider removing a travel lane, reducing the bike lane width, or reducing the sidewalk buffer width. Sidewalk accessibility requirements must be maintained, and adequate street buffer is essential for the safety of bicyclists. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 25 821 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS DESCRIPTION: An accessible pedestrian signal (APS) is a pedestrian signal that uses audible tones or messages and/or vibrotactile surfaces to communicate crossing information (e.g., WALK and DON'T WALK intervals) to those walking who are vision impaired or blind. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires newly constructed and reconstructed public facilities to be accessible to all members of the public. APS should be installed wherever pedestrian signals are installed. TYPICAL APPLICATION: The factors that make crossing at a signalized location difficult for pedestrians who have visual disabilities include: quiet car technology including through electric vehicles, high right turn on red or continuous right -turn movements, complex signal operations, traffic circles, wide streets, or low traffic volumes that make it difficult to discern signal phase changes. APS should be provided everywhere a signalized crossing opportunity is provided, but should be provided in particular at signalized intersections that may present difficulties for pedestrians who have visual disabilities, including those listed above. Greater consistency can provide more expectations. COST ESTIMATE: Costs range from $550 to $1,150 per signal in locations where pedestrian signal poles already exist; up to eight APS units are needed per intersection. BENEFITS: Without APS, those with visual disabilities generally determine if they're able to cross a street by initiating a crossing when they hear traffic stop and traffic perpendicular to them move, but this does not always provide sufficient information needed to safely or efficiently cross. When it does provide accurate information, it may require the pedestrian to need to wait an additional signal cycle. APS has been shown to reduce the number of crossings during a DON'T WALK phase, provide more accurate judgements of the WALK phase, and reduce delay of crossing. It can also reduce delay and reduce conflicts due to a misunderstanding of crossing opportunities. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: When APS cannot be implemented everywhere, it should be prioritized in areas with the following characteristics: • Very wide crossings, • Crossings of major streets where minor streets have minimal or intermittent traffic, • Complex or uncommon intersection types, • Low volumes of through vehicles, • High volumes of turning vehicles, • Split phase signal timing, • Exclusive pedestrian phasing, Leading pedestrian intervals, and Proximity to major pedestrian destinations like BART stations, parks, downtown, etc. 26 City of Dublin DRAFT 822 PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS: An alert tone may be used to alert pedestrians to the beginning of the walk interval. Locator tones should help those with visual impairment find pushbuttons, and APS should be clear to which crossing leg the audible signal is associated. It is preferred for APS pushbutton poles to be at least 10 feet apart to improve clarity for which crossing leg is associated with each audible signal. Including the name of the street to be crossed in an accessible format, such as Braille or raised print on the pushbutton, can help provide clarity for which crossing the APS is associated. Pushbuttons for accessible pedestrian signals should be located as close as possible to the crosswalk line furthest from the center of the intersection and as close as possible to the curb ramp. In addition to being more useful, the closer to the crossing that it is located, the quieter it can be. It should be within 5 feet of the crosswalk extended or 10 feet of the edge of curb, shoulder, or pavement. REQUIRED ELEMENTS*: • Where two accessible pedestrian signals are separated by a distance of at least 10 feet, the audible walk indication shall be a percussive tone. Where two accessible pedestrian signals on one corner are not separated by a distance of at least 10 feet, the audible walk indication shall be a speech walk message. • If speech walk messages are used to communicate the walk interval, they shall provide a clear message that the walk interval is in effect, as well as to which crossing it applies. Speech walk messages shall be used only at intersections where it is technically infeasible to install two accessible pedestrian signals at one corner separated by a distance of at least 10 feet. * Check the California MUTCD Part 4 for current guidance • If two accessible pedestrian pushbuttons are placed less than 10 feet apart or on the same pole, each accessible pedestrian pushbutton shall be provided with the following features: Pushbutton locator tone, tactile arrow, speech walk message, speech pushbutton information message • If the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only to cross from the curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait and accessible pedestrian detectors are used, an additional accessible pedestrian detector shall be provided in the median. FOR MORE INFORMATION: NCHRP Web -Only Document 150: Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/164696.aspx California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 4E.09 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety- programs/documents/ca-mutcd/rev6/camutcd2014-rev6.pdf DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 27 823 CROSSING SELECTION DESCRIPTION: Providing visible pedestrian crossings is critical to allowing those who travel by foot or mobility device to have access to their destinations. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations generally correspond to higher pedestrian crash rates than controlled locations, often due to inadequate pedestrian crossing accommodations (FHWA, 2018). The type of crossing provided should be appropriate for the context of the roadway that is being crossed. The higher the speeds, volumes, and number of lanes on the roadway, the greater the need for higher visibility crossing elements. Providing regular crossings with the correct crossing features based on the roadway context supports a safe, convenient, and comfortable walking environment, leading to more people walking to meet everyday needs and thus contributing to the health, sustainability, and vibrancy of a community. In addition to the crossing countermeasures provided, curb ramps should be provided at all crossings. At intersections, directional curb ramps should be provided, which means providing dual curb ramps at most intersections. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Mid -block and unsignalized intersections; crossings should be provided with regular spacing and should especially be provided to access key destinations like transit stops, schools, trailheads, parks, and grocery stores. Different crossing types and countermeasures are appropriate based on the roadway context. Exhibit 9 provides the appropriate crash countermeasures by roadway feature. Exhibit 9: Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature Roadway Configuration Posted Speed Limit and AADT Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000-15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000 s30 mph 35 mph >_40 mph s30 mph 35 mph >_40 mph _<30 mph 35 mph >_40 mph 2 lanes 0 2 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 (1 lane in each direction) 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 9 0 0 7 9 0 0 7 9 7 9 0 0230 00 00 30 00 00 00 00 0 3 lanes with raised median 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 (1 lane in each direction) 7 90 07 90 00 07 90 0 0 3 lanes w/o raised median 0 2 3 0 00 00 3 0 00 00 00 00 0 (1 lane in each direction with a 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 two-way left -turn lane) 7 9 7 9 0 7 9 0 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 00 0O 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 4+ lanes with raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 0 7 8 9 0 8 0 8 0 0 8 0 80 80 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 ©O ©O 4+ lanes w/o raised median 5 6 5 0 5 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 (2 or more lanes in each direction) 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 0 7 8 9 0 8 0, 8 0 0 8 0 80 80 Given the set of conditions in a cell, 1 High -visibility crosswalk ma kings, parking restric ions on # Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. and crossing warning signs 2 Raised crosswalk • Signifies that the countermeasure should always be 3 Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign considered, but not mandated or required, based upon engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled yield (stop) line and yield (stop) crossing location. 4 In -Street Pedestrian Crossing sign O Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should 5 Curb extension always occur in conjunction with other identified 6 Pedestrian refuge island countermeasures.* 7 Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacon (RRFB)** The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure 8 Road Diet is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may 9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)** be considered following engineering judgment. 'Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures. "It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location. This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safely effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-700, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2072). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http//www.cmfciearinghouse.org/ FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://wvnv.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/ Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sandstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safely practitioners. Source: FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations 28 City of Dublin DRAFT 824 HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS, PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE CROSSWALK APPROACH, ADEQUATE NIGHTTIME LIGHTING LEVELS, AND CROSSING WARNING SIGNS HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK Iron Horse Trail and Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc RAISED CROSSWALK Source: Federal Highway Administration PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road Dublin, California. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc RECTANGULAR RAPID -FLASHING BEACON Amador Valley Boulevard and Wlildwood Road, Dublin, California Source: City of Dublin DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 29 825 ADVANCE YIELD HERE TO (STOP HERE FOR) PEDESTRIANS SIGN AND YIELD/STOP HERE • hero -A IR1-S F11-5a STATE LAW YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS R1•s * The legend STATE LAW is cplicnal. A lluoresoenl yellow -green b'aagroUnd color may be used imitead ca yellow ice !his sign, STATE LAW WITHIN CROSSWALK Nt Source: MUTCD IN STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN Alcosta Boulevard, San Ramon, California Source: Google Streetview ROAD DIET (REALLOCATING SPACE WITHIN THE ROADWAY FOR OTHER USES) 4' 1 I Alk BEFORE Source: Federal Highway Administration 30 City of Dublin DRAFT 826 PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON Source: NACTO CURB EXTENSION Amador Talley Boulevard and Wildwood Road, Dublin, California. Source: City of Dublin DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 31 827 BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH INTERSE In locations where there is dedicated space for bicyclists along a roadway, it is important to maintain the bicycle facility through the intersection to clearly provide the intended use of the space, enhance bicyclist comfort, increase motorist yielding behavior, and highlight conflict zones. There are several elements that can support bicyclist movements through intersections including bicycle lane markings, skip striping, green paint, bike boxes, two - stage left turn boxes, protected intersection elements , intersection approach considerations, and traffic control considerations. 2ndAvenue, Seattle, Washington. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 32 City of Dublin DRAFT 828 INTERSECTION CROSSINGS MARKINGS DESCRIPTION: Intersection crossing markings indicate where a bicyclist will be travelling through an intersection to clearly mark the intended use, enhance cyclist comfort, increase motorist yielding behavior, and highlight conflict zones. They are generally made up of green "skip striping" paint, green bike lane paint, and/or bicycle lane markings. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Through intersections or across driveways COST ESTIMATE: $1,500 - $4,000 per approach DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: When colored paint is used for bicycle facilities, it should be green to avoid confusion with other traffic control markings. For more information, see CA MUTCD Section 9C.04 Figure 9C-103(A). , MUTCD Section 3B.08, or https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ intersection-treatments/intersection-crossing-markings/. Green pavement is not currently allowed in the extension area through the intersection by MUTCD. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/safety-programs/documents/ctcdc/ ctcdc-agenda-item-21-22-a1ly.pdf Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Example of application where parking is prohibited R81(CA) Detail 39 Detail 39A Dotted white line 3�BY1 ,3nMIB R8-3 R3- Detail 39A for bus stops immediately beyond the intersection is optional; otherwise use Detail 39 • Example of application where parking is permitted Normal width solid white line (optional) BRIE LANE R7 series sign (as appropriate) Dotted white line _ Detail 39A 50 ft to 200 ft R81(CA) Exhibit 10: CA Traffic Control Devices Committee Editorial Changes to the CA MUTCD Source: NACTO DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 33 829 BIKE BOXES DESCRIPTION: A bike box is a dedicated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Signalized intersections with higher volumes of bicyclists and right - turning vehicles, typically along Class II or Class III facilities. COST ESTIMATE: $1,000 each DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: • "Wait Here" pavement markings can be placed in advance of the bike box as reinforcement for drivers not to impede the bike box • A STOP HERE ON RED (MUTCD R10-6 or R10- 6a) sign can be used at the advance stop bar, with an EXCEPT BICYCLES (MUTCD R3-7bp) plaque below. • Green paint highlights bike boxes for visibility. • Right turn on red and bike boxes are not compatible. Use approved MUTCD "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" signs shall be used (R10-11). • A bike box shall include an advance stop line at least 10 feet in advance of the intersection stop line, with at least one bicycle pavement marking in the box. Flanders Street, Portland, Oregon. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. FOR MORE INFORMATION: FHWA's Interim Approval for Optional Use of an Intersection Bicycle Box (IA-18) 34 City of Dublin DRAFT 830 TWO STAGE BICYCLE TURN BOXES DESCRIPTION: Two -stage bicycle turn boxes offer bicyclists a dedicated space to make left turns at multi -lane signalized intersections from a right side cycle track or bike lane or right turns from a left side cycle track or bike lane. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Two -stage bicycle turn boxes are commonly used to facilitate a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic at a signalized intersection. They may also be used for turns at midblock crossing locations, for right turns from a left -side bike lane, or to facilitate a proper angle across tracks (streetcar, train, etc.) COST ESTIMATE: $1,000 each DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: The turn box should be sized to provide room for waiting cyclists, up to 10 feet wide and 6.5 feet deep but not less than 3 feet deep. Appropriate signage may be used to indicate the two - stage turn is provided (MUTCD D11-20L or D11-20R). The bicycle symbol and left -turn arrow marking shall be provided within the box, which shall be bounded by solid white lines on all sides. FOR MORE INFORMATION: FWHA's Interim Approval for Option Use of Two -Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes (IA-20) Meade Avenue, San Diego, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 35 831 PROTECTED INTERSECTION TREATMENT DESCRIPTION: A protected intersection provides physical separation for bicyclists and pedestrians up to and through an intersection and provides bicyclists and pedestrians with the right of way over turning vehicles. The physical separation between people driving and people biking or walking creates a setback, which is intended to control speeds, promote visibility, and reduce conflicts among motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Protected intersections generally also provide shorter crossing distances for people walking and biking. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Intersections with higher speeds and volumes, especially at intersections where Class IV bikeways are present, or a high incidence of bicycle or pedestrian crashes. COST ESTIMATE: $1,000,000 per intersection DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: • Intersection crossing markings for bicyclists and pedestrians provide directional guidance for where each should cross. Green cross bike or skip striping and/or bike markings can provide clear guidance to people biking and allow drivers to anticipate bicyclists in this space. • Tighter curb return radii (10 feet to 15 feet) should be used to discourage fast turning movements. CAD YIELD TO PEDS Meade Avenue, San Diego, California. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. • Wider pedestrian islands support higher volumes of people walking and biking. Pedestrian crossing islands should be at least 6 feet wide to provide an accessible waiting area. • A modified "Turning Vehicles Yield to Bikes and Pedestrians" sign (R10-15) is recommended where a signalized intersection allows right turns with bicycle and pedestrian movements. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Reference the following NACTO guidance: https://nacto.org/ publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/protected-intersections 36 City of Dublin DRAFT 832 INTERSECTION APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS DESCRIPTION: A bicycle lane approach to intersections can take different forms depending on the type of lane, existence of turn lanes, and other roadway features. In locations where a right turn lane is added, the roadway can include a mixing zone in the approach to keep bicyclists to the left of the right -turning vehicles. Depending on the geometry of the roadway, the bicycle lane may maintain as a straight line or may transition with a diagonal at the beginning of the turn lane. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Intersections with right turn lanes adjacent to a bike lane. COST ESTIMATE: $1,500 - $4,000 per approach DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: • The merge/conflict area can be highlighted with markings, including green paint and skip striping. • The right turn lane should be as short as practical to encourage slow vehicle speeds when merging across the bike lane. The merge area should also be no more than 100 feet long for the same reasons. • A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right of a right -turn lane (MUTCD 9C.04) unless the movements are separated by different traffic signal phases. • Use "BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES" (MUTCD R4-4) at the beginning of the right turn lane and merge area. Source: NACTO • In cases where space is especially constrained (13 feet is not available for both a right turn lane and bike lane), a shared right turn/through bike lane may be provided. FOR MORE INFORMATION: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012, pgs 422 - 427 DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 37 833 FFIC SIGNAL CONSIDERATIONS DESCRIPTION: Bicycle signals offer a bicycle -exclusive phase at signalized intersections. Bicycle signals can improve safety and operations at intersections by removing bicycle and vehicle time conflicts in time or defining different needs from other road users. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Bicycle signals are most appropriate at locations with high bicycle and right -turning vehicle volumes, and often is used to provide a through phase for bicyclists separate from the right -turn phase for motorists. A bicycle signal can be triggered by loop detection, push -buttons, or video detection. Automatic bike detection discourages red-light running. COST ESTIMATE: $27,000 - $78,000 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: • At intersections with right -turning vehicles, right - turns on red should also be prohibited to prevent conflict with the bicycle movement. • MUTCD Figure 9C-7 provides guidance on bicycle detector pavement markings. • Some existing bicycle signal designs shields the bicycle signal from drivers' line of sight to avoid potential confusion. • A bicycle signal face should be separated vertically or horizontally from the nearest motor vehicle traffic signal Source: NACTO face for the same approach by at least 3 feet. (IA-16) • Section 4D.105(CA) Bicycle/Motorcycle Detection Standard: 01 All new limit line detector installations and modifications to the existing limit line detection on a public or private road or driveway intersecting a public road shall either provide a Limit Line Detection Zone in which the Reference Bicycle Rider is detected or be placed on permanent recall or fixed time operation. Refer to CVC 21450.5. FOR MORE INFORMATION: • FHWA's Interim Approval for Optional Use of Bicycle Signal Faces (IA-16) 38 City of Dublin DRAFT 834 BICYCLE PARKING DESCRIPTION: Short-term and long-term bicycle parking is an essential part of a successful bicycle system. A lack of secure and convenient bicycle storage can discourage cycling. CONTEXT: Short-term bicycle parking is intended to be used for a few hours at most and is provided in public space. Often this is provided along the curb or furniture zone of a street. - Long-term bicycle parking is intended to be used for longer than several hours. It should be sheltered or indoors to provide greater security.- A bike corral, or multiple bike parking spaces on the street along the curb, can be an efficient use of space. Bike corrals can store up to 12 bicycles in a single vehicle parking space. TYPICAL APPLICATION: Bicycle parking should be provided at or near all destinations to allow people to bike to access those destinations. The amount and type of bicycle parking should be dependent upon the type of destination. COST ESTIMATE: $27,000 - $78,000 Bike Parking at Dublin Library, Dublin, California. Source: City of Dublin DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 39 835 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS: • Bike racks should be securely fastened to the ground to prevent a bike from being stolen by removing the rack. Adding a crossbar below where the bike would likely be fastened to reduce the ability to remove the bike rack from the ground to slip a lock off and including internal cabling to make it more challenging to cut through can further reduce theft and increase the security of the bike parking system. • Bike racks should accommodate U-shaped locks and support the bicycle at two points above its center of gravity to allow the frame and both wheels to be locked. • Long-term parking should be included as a requirement in all buildings where people travel to spend more than several hours, including multi -family housing, places of work, schools, hospitals, and other destinations. • Long-term parking requirements should be based on household units, trip generation, employees per square footage, and visitation rates. It should be easy to find, direct, and accessible without stairs. It is preferred that it can also be accessed by use of automatic doorways and entryways to limit the need for someone to open a door and hold their bike, which may not be possible. Long term bicycle parking (BikeLink bike lockers) at the Wiest Dublin BART Station, Dublin, California. Source: City of Dublin • Long-term parking should consider accommodating e-bike charging by locating electrical outlets near the parking spots and should include spaces for longer bicycles, including cargo bikes or bike trailers. If mounted bicycle parking is provided, there should also be horizontal floor parking available for larger bikes or those that can not lift their bike. For double-decker bicycle racks, a lift - assisted mechanism should be provided to access the upper tier. 40 City of Dublin DRAFT 836 DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 41 837 Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. 22-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AND FIND THE PLAN EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council adopted the Bikeways Master Plan and associated amendments to the Dublin General Plan and various Specific Plans for consistency with the Bikeways Master Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014 Plan) that combined the update to the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan and the City's first Pedestrian Plan into a comprehensive document that provides policies, network plans, prioritized project lists, support programs and best practice design guidelines for bicycling and walking in Dublin; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the City Council also adopted amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and Dublin Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the text and maps remain consistent with the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Policy 1-3 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends an update every five years to reflect best practices in bicycle and pedestrian policy and design, changing community interests and needs, and to remain eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding; and WHEREAS, the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan updates and replaces the 2014 Plan by building upon the 2014 Plan's goals and recommendations and by using new guidance documents. The update results in infrastructure, program, and policy recommendations that support walking and biking in Dublin; and WHEREAS, it was determined that no further amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Specific Plans are required at this time; and WHEREAS, the update to the 2014 Plan has been renamed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain projects require review for environmental impacts and, when applicable, environmental documents to be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was examined to determine if the environmental review is required. The analysis concluded that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is exempt from CEQA review as follows (Exhibit B CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum, dated October 2022): Reso. No. 22-15, Item 6.1, Adopted 11/08/2022 Page 1 of 3 839 • The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan qualifies for the statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.20 Bicycle Transportation Plans because it consists of bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements for the urbanized City of Dublin. • Some of the implementation measures and projects identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are also statutorily exempt under Public Resources Codes section 21080.25. • In addition, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and some implementation projects under the Plan qualify for the following categorical exemptions and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 8, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference, was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending City Council approval of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and CEQA exemption; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and CEQA exemption on November 8, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and CEQA exemption and related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and testimony at the hearing; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is the City of Dublin Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on the basis of the findings above and the record as a whole (including Exhibit B CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo), the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council find that the project is exempt from CEQA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council adopt the Resolution (Exhibit A) and the attached Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Exhibit C). PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Grier, Qaadri, Thalblum, Tyler, Wright NOES: ABSENT: Reso. No. 22-15, Item 6.1, Adopted 11/08/2022 Page 2 of 3 840 ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ,-DoocuSiigLgn��ed Iby: A�,,,,,Q,,,, AssiigKet Mhiunity Development Director Reso. No. 22-15, Item 6.1, Adopted 11/08/2022 Page 3 of 3 ,-DocuSigned by: Exs�� �arsu Planning "Lommission Chair 841