HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Bikewy Connectivety Studyor
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
November 19, 2013
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'
Downtown Dublin Bikeway Connectivity Study Presentation
Prepared by Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
CITY CLERK
File #930 -30
The City is currently undertaking an update of the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan and developing a
Pedestrian Plan with emphasis on the Downtown area. In conjunction with the update of the
Plan, a bikeway connectivity study on Dublin Boulevard through Downtown was conducted and
presented to the public at several workshops for input. Staff will present the results of the study
to the City Council for action, which will then be incorporated in the update of the Bikeways and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no cost associated with the selection of the preferred alternative. The incorporation of
the preferred alternative in the update of the Bikeways Master Plan is for planning and
development purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff presentation and select a preferred
alternative for inclusion in the update of the Bikeways and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Submitted By
Director of Public Works
DESCRIPTION:
Background.
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
The first comprehensive Citywide Bikeways Master Plan (Plan) was approved by the City
Council in 2007 with a purpose of making Dublin a city with many safe and pleasant bicycle
facilities that provide access to parks, trails, open space, schools, jobs, and community facilities.
Since that time, the City has completed many bikeways projects. In July 2012, the City Council
directed staff to update the Bikeways Plan and to include the development of a Pedestrian Plan
Page 1 of 7 ITEM NO. 7.1
with emphasis on the Downtown area. In addition, the City Council directed staff to study the
Dublin Boulevard corridor to evaluate bikeway alternatives and connectivity through Downtown
with the goal of including the preferred bikeway improvements in the update of the Plan.
Dublin Boulevard is the City's primary and only east -west arterial which runs the full length of
the community — from the western hills to Fallon Road (see Attachment 1). In the Downtown
area, Dublin Boulevard carries an average of 29,000 vehicles per day on 6 travel lanes (3 lanes
each direction) with a raised median and 8 -foot wide sidewalks. The segment of the arterial
from San Ramon Road to Village Parkway was widened in 1997 from four to six lanes to reduce
congestion in the Downtown area. Bike lanes do not exist in the section of roadway between
San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail. Dublin Boulevard also serves LAVTA's Tri- Valley
Rapid buses which run the length of Dublin Boulevard every 15 minutes on weekdays between
San Ramon Road and Fallon Road with key stops in the Downtown area, including stops near
the West Dublin BART Station.
In February 2011, the City Council adopted the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan consisting of a
comprehensive set of guiding principles to create a more pedestrian - friendly and aesthetically
pleasing environment in the Downtown. The Specific Plan has identified several transportation
focused guiding principles which includes the following:
• Create a pedestrian - friendly Downtown that minimizes potential conflicts between
vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Accept increased traffic congestion in the Downtown as a result of concentrating
development near BART and major transportation facilities, reducing vehicle miles
traveled, and increasing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
• Enhance the multi -modal circulation network to better accommodate alternative
transportation choices including BART, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation.
In December 2012, the City Council adopted a Complete Street Policy to improve the safety and
convenience of all users with a particular goal of creating a connected network of facilities
accommodating each category of street users. With the City Council's vision of a pedestrian
and bicycle friendly Downtown, staff has established an overall goal of creating a richly
connected network of bikeways and pedestrian improvements that will encourage and increase
bicycling and walking in the Downtown area.
Bikeways, as discussed in this staff report, are classified as follows:
■ Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) — A completely separated right -of -way for the exclusive use
of bicycles and pedestrians.
• Class I IA Bikeway (Bike lane) — A striped lane for one -way bike travel on a street or a
highway.
• Class I I Bikeway (Buffered Bike Lane) — A striped lane for one -way bike travel, which
includes extra separation (buffer) from designated motor vehicle areas.
• Class I I IA Bicycle Route with Sharrows — Shared use with motor vehicle traffic with signs
and shared road bicycle marking that alert road users of the location a bicyclist may
occupy within the traveled way.
• Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard — Shared use bike route with priority given to bicyclists and
often include signs, pavement markings, and traffic calming improvements to reduce
speeds and volumes.
Page 2 of 7
Public Input/Outreach:
As part of the update and development of the Bikeways and Pedestrian Master Plan, several
public meetings were held to solicit input. In October 2012, the first public workshop was held to
discuss priority bicycling and pedestrian issues and a follow -up workshop was held in February
2013 wherein priority projects and the Downtown study alternatives were presented and
discussed.
One alternative which formed a series of discussions was a lane reduction alternative with
buffered bicycle lanes on Dublin Boulevard. This alternative would require the removal of a
travel lane in each direction, which would be restriped as a seven -foot bicycle lane with a four -
foot wide buffered area to provide separation between vehicles and bicyclists. Staff indicated
that this alternative would significantly increase traffic congestion in Downtown as a result of the
removal of two travel lanes. Some participants suggested that staff perform additional analysis
on travel time delay and review the economic impacts of the alternative. On March 25, 2013, a
letter was received from the East Bay Bicycle Coalition (EBBC) supporting the lane reduction
alternative. EBBC later suggested a proposal to initiate a three -month pilot project to remove
the travel lanes and to install buffered bike lanes on Dublin Boulevard.
As suggested by the stakeholders, the City's consultant performed a micro - simulation of the
lane reduction alternative to determine the extent of travel time delay and congestion in the
Downtown with only 4 travel lanes available to vehicular traffic on Dublin Boulevard. On June
12, 2013, the bikeway corridor study was presented to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce Board
of Directors for input. The Chamber Directors expressed concerns on likely economic effects of
reducing the number of travel lanes on Dublin Boulevard, as their customers may avoid
Downtown Dublin and shop elsewhere if Dublin Boulevard and the side streets become heavily
congested. They also mentioned that, with the City population rising, congestion will get worst
and removing the lanes is going backwards with respect to the 1997 Dublin Boulevard widening,
which was constructed to reduce Downtown congestion. The Board of Directors
overwhelmingly stated their opposition to the lane reduction alternative and sent letters to the
City Council opposing the lane reduction alternative and opposing the EBBC proposed three -
month pilot project.
On July 31, 2013, another community meeting was conducted to present the various bikeway
connectivity improvements being proposed in the Downtown and to convey the results of the
Dublin Boulevard travel time delay study of the lane reduction alternative. Some attendees who
are experienced bicyclists suggested making Dublin Boulevard a Class III bike route with
sharrows through Downtown (if lane reduction is not feasible) as bicycling on the travel lane is
their preference versus the Class I shared -use path on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. In
addition to the comments received during the workshops, several emails and letters were also
received from the public either supporting bike lanes on Dublin Boulevard or opposing the lane
reduction alternative (see Attachment 2).
Proposed Downtown Bikeway Connectivity Improvements:
With the vision desired by the City Council for the Downtown, and considering the suggestions,
comments and concerns received from various stakeholders, businesses, and residents, an
overall plan to create a richly connected network of bikeways was developed to encourage and
increase bicycling in the Downtown area. These include:
• Continuous, dedicated bikeways connecting to West Dublin BART Station
Page 3 of 7
• Continuous, dedicated bikeways connecting Downtown businesses
• Access for new Downtown residents to Downtown stores, to schools, and to the regional
trail network
• Connection between the off - street regional trail network and the West Dublin BART
Station
In order to accomplish the overall plan, several Downtown Bikeway Connectivity projects are
being proposed (Attachment 3). These include the following projects:
1. Amador Valley Boulevard buffered bike lanes from San Ramon Road to Village Parkway
2. Regional Street Class I I bike lanes from Amador Valley Boulevard to St. Patrick Way
3. Amador Plaza Road Class II bike lanes from Amador Valley Boulevard to St. Patrick Way
(as part of a Complete Streets project)
4. St. Patrick Way Class 11 bike lanes from Amador Plaza Road to Regional Street (as part
of a development project on St. Patrick Way)
5. Village Parkway and Clark Avenue Class 11 bike lanes from Amador Valley Boulevard to
Dublin Boulevard
6. Bike path underneath the 1 -680 freeway between Amador Plaza Road and Village
Parkway and bike bridge /path connection to the Alamo Canal Trail from Clark Avenue
Subject to availability of funds, implementation of these projects will be reviewed and prioritized,
along with other projects outside of the Downtown area, as part of the update of the Bikeways
Master Plan.
Results of the Downtown Connectivity Study:
Throughout the 2013 update process of the Bikeways Master Plan, additional bicycle facility
types are proposed to be added to the citywide network in response to new best practice
guidance issued by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). Considering
these new facility type options, five options were considered when looking at Dublin Boulevard
specifically in the downtown area. These included:
1. Class I Shared -Use Path Option — Shared Path along south side of Dublin Boulevard
from San Ramon Road to Alamo Canal Trail
2. Lane Reduction Option — Buffered Bicycle Lanes from San Ramon Road to Sierra
Court/Civic Plaza
3. Sidewalk Riding Option - Permit Bicycles on Sidewalk
4. Class III Bike Route Option — Install sharrows in 14' Outside Travel Lane and signs as
appropriate.
Class II Bike Lanes Option through roadway widening
Alternative 5, the Class II Bicycle Lanes Option through roadway widening, was dismissed at the
initial stage because of high costs and pedestrian impacts. The remaining four bikeway
alternatives were developed conceptually and are summarized below:
Page 4 of 7
Alternative 1 — Class I Shared -Use Path: Sidewalk on the south side of Dublin Boulevard would
be replaced with an eight -foot shared path and a five -foot landscaped buffer between the
roadway and the path. Signals at street crossings would be modified to include an actuated
bicycle phase.
Alternative 2 — Lane Reduction Alternative with Buffered Bicycle Lanes. A travel lane would be
removed from Dublin Boulevard in each direction and the pavement would be restriped as a
seven -foot bicycle lane with a four -foot wide buffered area to provide separation between
vehicles and bicyclists.
Alternative 3 — Sidewalk Riding and Wayfinding: Sidewalk riding is already allowed in Dublin,
therefore this option would reinforce the legitimacy of sidewalk riding with signage. Wayfinding
signs would provide guidance to alternative and nearby on- street bicycle routes and directions
to key destinations.
Alternative 4 — Class III Bike Route with Sharrows: Designate Class III Bike Route on Dublin
Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Alamo Canal Trail, including installation of sharrows
and signs where appropriate.
Companion Pedestrian Enhancements
Several pedestrian safety and accessibility enhancements are proposed for Dublin Boulevard as
a companion to all bikeway alternatives. These projects address the community's desire to
create a walkable Downtown Dublin through treatments such as reduced crossing distances,
directional curb ramps, and striped crosswalks, as appropriate. These improvements are
recommended regardless of the preferred alternative and include treatments at Dublin
Boulevard's intersections with:
San Ramon Road
Amador Plaza Road
Village Parkway
Clark Avenue
Page 5 of 7
Below is a summary of the alternative analysis including estimated costs of the alternatives plus
the companion enhancements.
Considerations
Design
Level of Traffic
Stress for Bicyclists
Key Considerations
Cost'
Phasing/Vision
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Companion
Pedestrian
Enhancements
• Curb extensions and
reduced curb radii
• Signal modifications
to provide improve
pedestrian signal
phasing
• San Ramon Road
improvements on SE
corner require right -
of -way acquisition
• Signal modification
necessary to
improve walkability
$2,117,200
Near -Term/ Mid -Term
Alternative 1-
Shared Use
Path
• 8' shared path
for bicyclists and
pedestrians
•
5' landscaped
buffer separating
roadway and
path
• Lowest Stress
Facility
• Good for All
Ages and
Abilities
• Requires Right -
of -Way
Acquisition to
Accommodate
Sidewalk
Widening
• Signal
Modification
Necessary to
Introduce Bicycle
Signals
$7,176,600
Alternative 2 -
Lane Reduction
with Buffered
Bicycle Lane
• 7' Bicycle Lane In
Each Direction
• 4' Striped Buffer
between Bicycle
and Travel Lanes
• Low Stress
Facility
• Good for Many
Ages and
Abilities
Alternative 3 -
Sidewalk
Riding &
Wayfinding
• No change to
existing sidewalk
dimensions
• Reinforce that
bicycles are
allowed on
sidewalk
Alternative 4-
Class III Bike
Route with
Sharrows
• Sharrows and
signs where
appropriate
• Limited Change • Limited Change
from Existing from Existing
• Converts Travel
Improves Bicycle
Lane to Buffered
Safety at
Bicycle Lane
Intersections
• Provides
• Limited
continuous
Additional
bicycle lanes for
Changes
almost 5 miles
• Suggests
preferred
bicyclist
positioning
• Highlights
presence of
bicyclists on the
corridor
• Limited Changes
from Existing
$2,730,00 $2,277,200 $2,158,300
Possible Long -Term Possible Long -Term
Vision Vision
Not Preferred
Near -Term
1. Costs represents planning -level cost estimates associated with the conceptual designs for each alternative. Costs for each alternative include
the companion enhancement treatments. Striping and curb works costs at Village Parkway and Amador Plaza Road are assumed under the
Village Parkway and Amador Plaza Road priority project improvements, respectively.
2. Bicycle signals are assumed under Alternative 1.
Results of Travel Time Delay Study for Alternative 2 — Lane Reduction:
Traffic operations analysis, including micro - simulation analysis using SimTraffic software, was
completed for the Lane Reduction alternative to study the effects of reducing the number of
travel lanes from 6 to 4 lanes under existing conditions and assuming no changes in travel
patterns for motorists. The analysis found that, during off -peak hours, intersections would
operate at level of service (LOS) F with queues largely contained within each block. However,
during peak periods several intersections on Dublin Boulevard were adversely impacted by
vehicle queues backing up from adjacent intersections. The analysis also found that projected
left -turn movements in and out of side streets were causing much of the travel time delay and
contributed substantially to backlogs at several intersections including Village Parkway, Amador
Plaza Road, and Regional Street.
Page 6 of 7
While these findings suggest congestion would worsen if travel patterns do not change, under
the City's General Plan, LOS F is acceptable at Downtown intersections as long as safety for
pedestrians and bicyclist is not degraded and impacts to transit travel speeds are minimized.
However, travel delay due to severe congestion on Dublin Boulevard, and its cross streets, may
frustrate and discourage motorists to drive on Dublin Boulevard and to simply avoid going to and
through Downtown Dublin. The lane reduction will also impact the LAVTA's Tri- Valley Rapid
bus service. Overall functionality of the corridor would be impaired for most all modes of travel.
Details of the Study can be found in Attachment 4.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS:
Weighing the pros and cons associated with each alternative, Alternative 4 — Class III Bike
Route with Sharrows appears to offer the best alternative for implementation along with the
other proposed Downtown Bikeway Connectivity improvements. An overall plan to combine
these bikeway connectivity projects would create a well- connected network of bikeways
purposely to increase and encourage bicycling in the Downtown area. For example, the
proposed Class II bike lanes on St. Patrick Way, which is parallel and alternate route to Dublin
Boulevard, will provide dedicated bicycle access to the BART Station when St. Patrick Way is
extended to Regional Street and Amador Plaza Road. The St. Patrick Way bike lanes will also
connect to the network of proposed Downtown bikeways and will also provide an option for the
recreational rider who may not have the confidence to use the sharrows on Dublin Blvd. that an
experienced rider might have.
The City currently has plans of overlaying Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road to Village
Parkway in 2015. If the Class III Bike Route alternative is chosen, its implementation could be
incorporated in the 2015 overlay project. Other projects, listed under Companion Pedestrian
Enhancements, could also move forward to preliminary design (as funding allows) to improve
the walking and bicycling environment of Downtown.
The preferred alternative chosen by the City Council, along with the other proposed bikeway
and pedestrian connectivity projects mentioned above, would be integrated in the update of the
Bikeways and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Bikeways and Pedestrian Master Plan will be
presented to the Parks and Community Services Commission and to the Planning Commission
before returning to the City Council for approval and final adoption.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Copies of the report were sent to East Bay Bicycle Coalition and Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
The Bikeways Master Plan workshop participants, community meeting participants, and the
Bikeways "Notify Me" subscribers were notified of the City Council meeting and of the availability
of the staff report on the City website.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Location Map
2. Correspondence received from EBBC, Chamber of Commerce and
others
3. Proposed Downtown Bikeway Connectivity Projects
4. Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor Study Memorandum
Page 7 of 7
March 25, 2013
EAST BAY BICYCLE COALITION
Wor king for safe, convenient and ei oyable bicycling for all people in the East Ray
Ferd del Rosario
Senior Civil Engineer
Public Works Department, City of Dublin
Dublin CA 99568
RE: Request for Bike Lanes on Dublin Blvd
Dear Mr. del Rosario:
The East Bay Bicycle Coalition strongly supports bike
lanes on Dublin Blvd as part of the city's update to its
Bicycle Master Plan. Specifically, we request that you
evaluate how to remove a travel lane in each direction in
order to provide space for a buffered bike lane. The
graphic to the right is an illustration from the NACTO
Urban Bikeway Design Guide, which has technical
specifications for designing buffered bike lanes on arterial
streets.
http: / /nacto.oirg/cities- for- cclin design- ug idel
The area of Dublin, between San Ranson Rd and City Hall Mi. AN 7
is part of Dublin's new downtown, with a goal of making
this community a thriving walking and bicycling community
served by good transit. New in -fill housing in under construction. To do this, the main road through
the new downtown has to have a safe and comfortable place for people to walk and bike.
Fortunately, Dublin Blvd has plenty of travel lanes -6, plus a turn lane. Removing one lane in each
direction leaves two lanes in each direction for traffic and the center turn lane. We are aware of the
freeway cut -thr1l traffic that Dublin Blvd suffers from. However, the city has no obligation to
encourage this cut -thin traffic and discourage bicycling and walking, by keeping 3 travel lanes in
each direction. In essence, you can't have a downtown and a 6 -lanc major arterial. No city in the Bay
Area has achieved this yet and we don't foresee any city doing so in the near future. 6 -lane arterials
with heavy traffic are not walkable and not bikeable, because people are overwhelmed by cars and
discouraged from getting out of their cars in the first place. You need to commit to making Dublin
Blvd a smaller, more neighborhood commercial street that people want to come to and enjoy Dublin.
In addition, all of the new homes going into the downtown are going to be filled with residents that
will want to be able to walk and bicycle in their new communities. In fact, this is the goal of the One
Bay Area Grant Program, which Dublin is seeking funding from for new in -fill development and
P.O. BOX 1736 OAKLAND, CA 94604 • BERKELEY BIKE+ STATION, 2208 SHATTUCK AVE,
www.ebbe.orL, (510) R45 -RTD1i
EAST BAY BICYCLE COALITION
Working for safe, convenient and er joyable bicycling for all people in the East Bay
support. Dublin should be commended for taking a lead in this area by designating an area for in -fill
development in order to encourage less sprawl development. Dublin is setting a good example for its
neighbors. Yet this good example requires Dublin to take another important step forward and that is
to make its new development walkable and bikeable. The two go hand in hand.
We are also encouraged that the City of Dublin has approved a `complete streets' policy and was one
of the first cities in the County to do so. This new policy requires that the city make a good faith
effort to design comfortable and inviting bikeways all around the City so that its residents,
employers and visitors all have the option of bicycling as a viable means of transportation. The idea
proposed at the February 28 public workshop on the Bicycle Plan, of having bicyclists ride on the
sidewalk on Dublin Blvd, does not satisfy this new policy and certainly is not going to encourage
many new people to try bicycling. It also makes it much more inconvenient and dangerous as well to
walk on a sidewalk when people are bicycling there.
In connection with our request for new bike lanes on Dublin Blvd, we also request that Amador
Plaza and Village Parkway also receive well- designed bike lanes their entire length. These two
streets are important parts of Dublin's new downtown connectivity. If it takes a more thorough
analysis of parking needs, we would like to see the City of Dublin starts this process as soon as the
Bicycle Plan is approved. It should be the first action item in the Bicycle Plan -a parking analysis.
We realize making the downtown area of Dublin will involve some tough decisions, and perhaps this
is one of the early such tough decisions and priority setting you will have to do. You have our
support making these types of decisions and we will be reaching out to the community to further
gather their support for you to make Dublin a more walkable and more bikeable city. Thank you
again for improving the Bicycle Plan by making all important streets walkable and bikeable.
Cordially yours,
Advocacy Director
East Bay Bicycle Coalition
(0) 510.845.7433 ext 4
dave r ,ebbc.org
cc: Mayor Tim Sabranti
Vice Mayor Don Biddle
Congressman Eric Swahvell
Rosie Marterhazy, Safe Routes to School Alameda County
P.O. Box 1736 OAKLAND, CA 94604 + BERKELEY BIKE STATION, 2208 SHATTUCK AVE.
wwwxbbc.ore (510) 845 -RIDE
DA
-bun
July 9):2013'
Honorable Mayor Sbranti,
Members -of the City Council
City, of Dublin
100 Civi& azail:.
Dubin, California 94568
Dear Mayor Seranti. &_Members of the Council:
VON truly yours
Nancy Feel
PresidentlCEO
Copy` Joni Pattillo, City`Manager
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
September 24, 2013
Honorable Mayor Sbrantl
Members of the City Council
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Dear Mayor Sbranti & Members of the Council:
On July 9, 2013 the Dublin Chamber of Commerce sent the Dublin City Council a letter opposing the Bikeways
Master Plan "Lane Reduction" alternative on Dublin Boulevard from six lanes to four lanes.
Representatives of the Fast Bay Bicycle Coalition made a presentation at the August 14, 2013 Board of
Directors meeting asking the Chamber to support a three month trial period whereby the City would reduce
the traffic lanes from six to four during the summer of 2014, evaluating the impact at the end of the trial
period,
The Board of Directors has evaluated the request from last Bay Bicycle Coalition for a trial three month lane
reduction on Dublin Boulevard. The Board continues to oppose any forth of lane reduction, permanent or
temporary and does not feel a trial period would be relevant any time of the year. Dublin Boulevard was
designed to move automobiles In a timely manner and any reduction In lanes would cause congestion and
delays.
The Dublin Chamber of Commerce supports alternative bike routes for Dublin and is willing to work with City
Staff to support and emphasize alternative routes within Dublin.
S' rely your
Gam`
NANCY FEE Y
President /CFO
Cc:/on! Patillo, City Manager
David Campbell, East Bay Bicycle Coalition
7080 DONLON WAY, SUITF I10 - DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568
California Association of Bicycling Organizations, PO Box 2684 - Dublin, CA 94568
I'm writing to you on behalf of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO) which has been working since
1972 to protect cyclists' interests statewide. Thank you for holding the community meeting on July 31 and listening to all
the input. We appreciate the time and effort involved. The constraints on Dublin Blvd make it difficult to please everybody.
One of the key goals of CABO is to support the full spectrum of cycling behavior. Cyclists are not a monolithic
group. At any given time and place, some cyclists will prefer to use pedestrian behavior on a sidewalk or sidepath, while
others will use edge behavior or driver behavior on the roadway.
Given our goal of supporting a wide range of cyclists, we are asking for some minor modifications to the proposed bikeway
options on Dublin Blvd.
Options 1 and 3 are currently designed to encourage only pedestrian behavior. A bikeway on just the south side of the road
is going to be slow and inconvenient for westbound cyclists, and for access to destinations on the north side. For option 3,
there are many obstacles, including signal poles, trees, signposts, fire hydrants, benches, transit shelters, trash cans, and
newsracks.
Therefore, we ask that Options 1 and 3 be modified to accommodate a wider range of cycling behavior by adding
frequent shared lane marking (sharrow) symbols to the center of the outside lane. There are already some good
examples of frequent, centered sharrows on westbound Dublin Blvd approaching Dougherty. Simply add more of those
sharrows from Dougherty to San Ramon Road in both directions, along with frequent R4 -11 signs ( "Bikes May Use
Full Lane). This is an easy, low -cost fix that can be implemented right away.
For Option 2, the proposed design has some legal and operational problems created by the buffer on the left side. We ask
that you put the buffer on the right side which turns it into an ordinary shoulder. This simple modification supports both
driver behavior and edge behavior, letting cyclists choose any lateral position in the bike lane or the shoulder. Option 2,
modified with right -side buffers, supports the widest range of cycling behavior. The right -side buffer should be
dropped at bus stops and before intersections to accommodate transit vehicles and right - turning traffic.
Finally, we would like to see further study of the (motor) traffic effects for Option 2. The current studies assumed the
same ADT, and same peak motor traffic, which is unrealistic. Also, the #3 lane will continue to be used for right turns, even
after conversion to a bike lane, something which is not reflected in the 4 -lane simulation. Right - turning traffic can merge into
the bike lane up to 200 feet before turning.
We note that Dublin Blvd already has just two through lanes westbound between Dougherty and Sierra, and just two
through lanes eastbound between Amador Plaza and Village Parkway. Those would be excellent locations to run a
limited trial of a right - buffered bike lane, continuing the same two through lanes westbound from Sierra, and eastbound
from Village Parkway.
Thank you for considering our input.
Michael Graff
District 4 East Bay Director
California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO)
May 3, 201`3
Mr. Ferd del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer
Public Works Department, City qf.D Dublin
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Request for Rike Lanes on Dublin Blvd
Dear Mr,:d.el Rosario*
10Y 0 Y ?01.3
vniuluc IPIORKS
TroisForm-strongl supports adding bike lanes on Dublin 91 . 0
y Blvd, AtAAO r Plaza,,and Village.Pokway`a.s
part of the City of Dublin's: update to its Bicycle Master Man, Tr aims to create world-cl
%S
pqblic transportation and--walkable communities in the Bay Area and Beyond., We build diverse
coalitions;_ Infl . uence policy, anddevptop� innovative programs to improve the lives -of all people and
Pro me - 6f-cibilars and grouhdbreaking�p.ollc!6s.in'suppor.t
tect theenviron. nt. We've won literally billions
of public transportation, smart growth, affbedable houslhg, and bicycl6/peclostrian safety, Since 2006, our
o rgahizAt on has assisted the Alameda Ttaosportation COMMKSion With its tS 0
,,the gr und
coordination -of -Sa - fe Routes to S . c Koo. 1. 5. ($ R-2 S)programsat over 10.0 -schools. throughout Alameda
County, inclUding'five Dublin schools,
Our feedback from school staff and faWlies attending Murray Elementary, Dougherty Elem6ntaryj Gtden
Elementary, Kolb Elementary and 'Igh Dublin School suggests the need for dedicate
Dublin H -0 -bike laije;3, as
opposed to having - bicyeWts ride on sidewalks. In particular, Dublin Nigh School would benefit-d-Irectly
from the addition of a bike .lane on Village parkway; since the school is adjacent.to this road.
Thanks in, part -to :tho City of Dublin's efforts to pro . mote SR2S ptograrnming.throughout. Dublin, we
have -seen a significant, Increasein.sluoport and enthusiasm for bicycling to schools, "In order to sustain
this momentum, we 'Must ensure tlIaif the grow! ng.n um ber of children choosing to bicycle to school are
supported by a complete bikeway network.. We. are learning that even abalf-block gap in a safe bikeway
discourages parents from allowing their children to bike to school. Continuous and complete bike lan-
es
Will also help families more easily access many of Dublin's destinations and recrotional.opportunities.
We applaud the City of Dublin for being one of the first cities in the County wapprove a 'complete
.streets' policy and thank you for considering adding bike lanes to help make: bicycling a viable
transportation option for Dublin's future generations.
Sincerely,
Jeff Hobson
Deputy Director, TransForm
Ferd Del Rosario
From: Greg Lingenfelder <gregl819 @sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:55 PM
To: Ferd Del Rosario, Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: Bike lanes on Dublin Blvd
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Please consider bike lanes on Dublin Blvd. I work on Siena Ct. and ride my bike every day to
work. I run errands at lunch on my bike on Dublin blvd. I fear for my life in some areas, like
680 underpass for example.
I ride the bus too and it is very narrow for bikes with all of the bus traffic also,
thanks
Greg Lingenfelder
Ferd Del Rosario
From: Kristi Marleau <kraarleau @gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 9:05 PM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: Dublin Blvd bike lanes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Ferd,
I'm writing to express my very strong support for the option for the Bikeways Master Plan that would include
reducing the number of car traffic lanes on Dublin Blvd. and replacing them with buffered bike lanes. For the
six and a half years we've lived in Dublin, I've heard from so many fellow residents and visitors that Dublin
needs a real downtown. Making the western end of Dublin Blvd bike and pedestrian friendly, by reducing car
traffic lanes and slowing things down, will go a long way toward giving that part of town a true downtown feel.
With the new residential areas being built near the West Dublin BART station, this seems like the perfect
opportunity to create a very walkable, bikeable area. Many other cities have found that taking these measures
really stimulates the local economy
(bttp:/hvww.americabikes.org/nrc - study _finds rotected_bicycle lanes boost local business) and it would be
so nice to see that happen in Dublin too. I hope that serious consideration will be given to that option for the
Bikeways Master Plan.
Thanks,
Kristi Marleau
Ferd Del Rosario
From:
Kevin Lee <Kevin.Lee @NavmanWireless.com>
Sent:
Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:57 PM
To:
Ferd Del Rosario
Subject:
Please add bike lane to dublin blvd
Dear Mr. del Rosario,
Please add bike lanes to Dublin blvd.
It would make biking so much safer.
Thank you
J NAVMAN
+»t 11VIikiO1..SSS CERTAINTY DELIVERED
Kevin Lee
Senior Software Engineer
4341 Hacienda Drive, Suite 400, Pleasanton, California 94588, United States
T: +1 (925) 701 -2959 I F: +1 (925) 701 -2959 1 Kevin.Lee@NavmanWireless.com I NavrnanWireless.com
Navnran Wireless is honored to have been named for the first time to Forbes Magazine America's Most Promising Companies list as well as tyinning the
2011 Chicago Innovation Award for the Qtanhim 3f10.
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete /destroy the original message and any copy of it from
your computer or paper files.
Ferd Del Rosario
From: Lisa and Curtis Potter <potter.curtis @comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 5:17 PM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: Bike Lanes on Dublin Blvd.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Mr. del Rosio,
It is my understanding that Dublin Blvd. is being updated and wanted to ensure I shared with you my concern about
bicycle safety on the stretch of Dublin from Hacienda to San Ramon Valley. This is a treacherous bit of road to ride on a
bicycle, there is absolutely no consideration for a cyclist on this road, not even a bit of shoulder. Bicycles are forced to
take the right lane which creates animosity from uneducated drivers (they have no idea this is legal). Rather than rely on
the kindness of drivers for safety, I am asking that you make bicycles a legitimate part of the traffic pattern along Dublin
and provide bike lanes. Thank you.
Curtis Potter
7717 Cottonwood Ln.
Pleasanton, Ca. 94588
925 -523 -3089
Ferd Del Rosario
From: Sprague Terplan <spragueterplan @yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 1:56 PM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: Please stripe bike lanes on Dublin Blvd.
Dear Senior Engineer, Mr. del Rosario,
As an occasional visitor to your fair city, and as someone who primarily travels by transit and bicycle, I strongly
encourage you to install bicycle lanes along Dublin Blvd in your city's emerging downtown. Both any family
and I find your city to be very well suited to bicycling, with its often flat topography, mild weather, and fine
views. Bicycling on busy multi -lane roads without bicycle lanes is daunting, but the presence of bicycle lanes
helps to make otherwise intimidating streets feel safer to ride on. Please do what you can to help enable Dublin
to be both a pleasant and safe city for cyclists.
Thank you,
Sprague Terplan
San Francisco
Ferd Del Rosario
From:
.Jim Van Dyke <
Sent:
Tuesday, April 23, 2013 9:54 PM
To:
Ferd Del Rosario
Subject:
Please add bike lanes on Dublin blvd!
Mr Del Rosario,
I hear hope you'll reconsider your decision to not put bike lanes on the extremely dangerous Dublin Boulevard.
with Bart going in and more travelers using bicycles, Dublin needs to have one of its most central routes safe
for the transportation mode of the future. I've worked with the traffic teams in Pleasanton in Livermore and we
are seeing fantastic changes there which are leading to making these cities a better community for both business
owners and residents. Fra hoping that you'll consider creating the same quality of life for the transportation
mode which is fantastic for the future of the environment and for building a community that brings a higher
standard of living for its residents. As a local business owner and someone who was presented to Congress I
think it is most important to consider the future, even if it means you have to make some sacrifices and endure
some resistance from short sighted residents in the present. Thank you for considering a healthy transportation
policy change that would reduce my chances of being in accident in Dublin Boulevard future as well as others
who must increasingly travel that dangerous road by bicycle or regular basis.
Sincerely Yours,
Jim Van Dyke
local resident and business owner
Ferd Del Rosario
From: Kevin Dielissen <kevindi @sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 9:26 AM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: Bike lanes on Dublin Blvd
Hi Ferdinand,
I'm a long time Dublin City resident and owner of 3 homes in Dublin. I'm writing to encourage you to support new bike
lanes on Dublin Blvd when the City updates it's Bicycle Plan. The new green lanes on Golden Gate headed to BART from
Dublin Blvd are very good, highly visible and provide safety for both cars and bikes. Good bike transportation routes are
becoming more important all the time in both large and small cities. They help property values, reduce pollution and
traffic and reduce expensive accidents and trauma. Cities like Boulder, CO and Davis, CA are both examples of cities that
have increased desirability because of their bike lanes.
I would appreciate your thoughts and comments and I would be happy to attend any hearings or volunteer some time
for education on the matter. l grew up in San Francisco, moved to Dublin in 1950 and ride about 100 miles a week by
bike.
Sincerely,
Kevin Dielissen
Ferd Del Rosario
From: michael.graff @gmaii.com on behalf of Michael Graff <michael.graff @pobox.com>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:15 AM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: Dublin Blvd bike lanes
Hi, the EBBC encouraged people to write in support of bike lanes on Dublin
Blvd. https:llwww.ebbc.org�dublinblvd,
I recommend that you convert the existing slow lane into a "right- buffered" bike lane. An example is shown in
this presentation
http: / /iamtraffic.or advocacy- focus - areas /en ing eerin understanding bicycle- transi)ortation_I_ubt -5 -2/
starting at slide "027" through slide "029 ", toward the end of the slide deck.
The right- buffered design is consistent with how I currently drive my bicycle on that stretch of Dublin Blvd,
based on the training I received from the League of American Bicyclists and CyclingSaM. A right - buffered
bike lane in place of the slow lane will encourage all cyclists to be in a good lane position. It will minimize
conflicts at intersections and driveways.
If you get a chance, I encourage you to seek out the next Understanding Bicycle Transportation
workshop. Here's info about a previous session, with contact information:
http: / /www.alamedactc.orWfiles /managed /Docuinctit /_9.444 /3C_Understanding Bicycle �Transportation Works_h
on Announcement Oakland.pdf
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to seeing these improvements to Dublin Blvd.
Michael Graff
District 4 East Bay Director
California Association of Bicycling Organizations (CABO)
Ferd Del Rosario
From: Savannah Fisher <savyfish9 @gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 2:12 PM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: bike lanes
It make sense. Bike lanes are safer for families and commuters. Gives all motorist a good opportunity to make solid
judgment calls when they encounter cyclist.
Ferd Del Rosario
From: bjmilne @comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:10 AM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: dublin needs to be more bicycle friendly
Please register my support of dublin adding more bike lanes and in general supporting all areas of
doing what is necessary to promote bike use in a safe and reasonable manner, thank you. I am an
avid cyclist in our city and the surrounding areas and I can tell you from much experience the average
motorist in not too concerned for our safety . 2 incidents recently, press my point , a fatality of a
chinese national on tassajara , and a young boy struck and seriously injured while he was in the
crosswalk ( by dog park on amador valley blvd).
Ferd Del Rosario
From: bobfusco <bobfusco57 @yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:55 PM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: Please support bike lanes on Dublin Blvd
Dublin Blvd and the city of Dublin would benefit greatly with improved safety. I currently ride through Pleasanton
instead of Dublin because of the dangerous traffic.
Thanks
Bob Fusco
Sent from my Whone
Ferd Del Rosario
From:
Joseph ledbetter <joeledbetter @hotmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:00 PM
To:
Ferd Del Rosario
Subject:
Bike lanes on Dublin boulevard
As a frequent bicycle commuter, I regularly use Dublin boulevard. Safety for cyclists and cars will be enhanced by bike
lanes along this busy road. Bike lanes are the first step and with federal funding, this is the time to get it done.
Joe Ledbetter
Bicyclist
Sent from Joe's Wad friend
Ferd Del Rosario
From: Nicholas Littlejohn <nicklittlejohn @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:00 PM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: City of Dublin- please continue the road diet and stripe bike lanes on Dublin Blvd
Thank you for all that you do for our world,
Nicholas
Nicholas Littlejohn
Founder- Green, ink.
Green Consultant, saving you and your business energy (and money.)
+1- 512 - 869 -5481 Google Voice (is amazing)
Please consider our environment before printing this or any e -mail
Ferd Del Rosario
From:
John Brittell <j.brittell @gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:30 PM
To:
Ferd Del Rosario
Subject:
Bike Lanes on Dublin Blvd. - Yes!
Dear Mr. del Rosario,
am in support of bike lanes on Dublin Blvd. I think that 6 lanes is a bit excessive for a suburban thoroughfare. With
bike lanes, we are promoting a much cleaner, much safer form of transportation that will build a more sustainable and
resilient town.
I am hopeful you incorporate these comments into the decision making process this coming season.
All the Best,
John Brittell
Founder -- Capitol Food Ventures, LLC
MBA /MA International Finance 2013
The George Washington University School of Business
& Elliott School of International Affairs
M: +1.202.549.2539 (USA)
M: +256.787365190 (Uganda)
O: Linkedln
IFerd Del Rosario
From: Taryn Gavagan Bozzo
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:17 AM
To: Tim Sbranti
Cc: Joni Pattillo; Andrew Russell, Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: opposition to Dublin Blvd. Bike Lanes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Mayor,
Resident, Mr. Tom Dickson, called this morning to speak to you about the proposal of bike lanes on Dublin Blvd. He
stated that he is in opposition to eliminating driving lanes on Dublin Blvd., considering the growing population and traffic
in Dublin, and he hopes you do not consider the elimination. Mr. Dickson can be reached at 925 -829 -3214 should you
want to speak with him.
Thank you,
Taryn
_ Taryn Gavagan Bozzo
Executive Aide
CITY Of
DUBLIN City of Dublin I loo Civic Plaza I Dublin, CA 94568
116 "in (925) 833.6656 I (925) 833 -6651 FAX
f taryn bo_rx_9@iiubl n.ca. ov www.dublin.ca.goy
Follow us on Twitter: @DublinPlO
Mission Statement: The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of fife avhkh ensures a safe and secure
environment that fosters nesv opportunities.
APlease consider the environment before printing this message
1
Ferd Del Rosario
From: Whitehead, John Charles <whitehead2 @llnl.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 5:31 PM
To: Ferd Del Rosario
Subject: Dublin Blvd. Bike lanes
2013Aug15
To Ferd Del Rosario
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Dublin, California
Dear Mr. Del Rosario,
have heard that bicycle lanes are being considered for Dublin Blvd.
As a Dublin resident, that would be wonderful for me, so thank you for working to make that happen.
I have ridden my bicycle along Dublin Blvd. from the Civic Center area to shop at Safeway for example, and from
firsthand experience I can say that it would be much safer with bike lanes.
Sincerely,
John Whitehead
I fit# � C� ,. /•��
o � �4� N v. ti •ti
v
m �
m � t
Aq
w Co
AW
lo
C u u
o
J
I�
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 21, 2013
To: Ferd Del Rosario and Obaid Khan, City of Dublin
From: Carrie Nielson, Nikki Nagaya, Meghan Mitman, and Rob Rees, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor Study
WC10 -2749. GO
This memorandum presents a bikeway corridor study for Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon
Road and the Alamo Canal Trail, in conjunction with the update of the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan
and development of the citywide Pedestrian Plan. Traffic operations considerations are also
presented for each alternative, including a micro - simulation analysis completed for the lane
reduction alternative. Dublin Boulevard is a major east -west arterial through the City of Dublin
and provides the only continuous east -west connection through the City for all modes of travel.
In 2007, the City Council requested that City staff analyze the potential of providing Class II Bike
Lanes along Dublin Boulevard through roadway widening. In response to that request, this
corridor study takes a step back to consider several solutions for bikeway facility along Dublin
Boulevard. The study identified and considered four proposals for bikeways on Dublin Boulevard,
and assembled an evaluation matrix to understand the benefits, cost estimates, and trade -offs
associated with each alternative. This memorandum presents the results of the evaluation,
including conceptual designs, traffic analysis, and implementation considerations for each
alternative. In conjunction with other Downtown bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the
of how bicycling can be accommodated through the Dublin Boulevard corridor by providing
alternate routes to those with limited abilities. These Downtown bikeway connectivity and
pedestrian improvements are proposed as companions to all bikeway alternatives and discussed
below.
The figures referenced in this memorandum are provided at the end of the memorandum and
prior to the Appendices.
100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 1 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1 (925) 930 -7100 1 Fax (925) 933 -7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 2 of 14
r
The Downtown bikeway connectivity improvements recommended in this section are included in
the update of the Bikeways Master Plan and are intended to serve as alternate routes to Dublin
Boulevard that would enhance bicycle access to Downtown Dublin. Collectively, the projects
would provide bicyclists of many ages and abilities more options to get to and through
Downtown Dublin. As shown on Figure 5 of the memo, the following bike improvements will be
prioritized and implemented as funds become available:
1. Amador Valley Boulevard Buffered Bicycle Lanes from San Ramon Road to Village
Pa rkway
2. Regional Street Class II Bicycle Lanes from Amador Valley Boulevard to St. Patrick Way
3. Amador Plaza Road Class II Bicycle Lanes from Amador Valley Boulevard to St. Patrick
Way
4. St. Patrick Way Bicycle Lanes from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road
5. Village Parkway /Clark Avenue Class II Bicycle Lanes from Amador Valley Boulevard to
Dublin Boulevard
6. Alamo Canal Trail Bridge /Class I Path to Clark Avenue
Appropriate alternate bike route signs throughout the Downtown area would also be installed to
assist bicyclists in getting to major destinations.
Several non - motorized safety and accessibility enhancements are proposed for Dublin Boulevard
create a walkable Downtown Dublin through treatments such as reduced crossing distances,
directional curb ramps, and striping crosswalks, as appropriate. As such, these improvements are
recommended regardless of the preferred alternative. These include treatments at Dublin
• San Ramon Road
• Amador Plaza Road
• Village Parkway
• Clark Avenue
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 3 of 14
Corridor -wide treatments also include reconstruction of commercial driveways that do not meet
Public Right -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) standards, such as providing a level path
through the driveway apron. At all intersections, advanced stop bars, placed at minimum five feet
back from the crosswalk, are proposed, which requires that auto and bicycle detection be
relocated at each intersection approach. Cost estimates for the companion enhancements and
Dublin Boulevard alternatives were developed using planning -level unit costs from local projects.
These estimates factor in 10% each for traffic control and mobilization, 20% for construction
management; 25% contingency; and 20% for design and engineering. Table 1 presents cost
estimates for each intersection.
r +r • r �� +r r r •
San Ramon Road /Dublin Boulevard is a key intersection in the study corridor, providing access to
the cities of San Ramon and Pleasanton to the north and south, respectively, as well as to I -580.
This intersection is very large, with three to seven lanes in each direction. As a gateway to
Downtown Dublin, this intersection is critical to accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists as well
as auto traffic, commercial vehicles, and transit. The following treatments are proposed:
• Reduce curb radii on the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection and add
directional curb ramps, while accommodating commercial vehicles serving the businesses
in Downtown
• Stripe crosswalk and pull -back median on south leg of the intersection where crossing is
currently prohibited, if ramp operations allow.
• Provide dedicated phasing for eastbound right -turns to eliminate potential for multiple-
threat collisions with pedestrians when there is not a pedestrian call.
• Install signal control for the northbound right turns and operate as a protected and
overlap phase (with westbound left- turns) instead of permitted and overlap, if WB I -580
off ramp operations allow.
Proposed curb radii would accommodate California Legal vehicles turning onto Dublin Boulevard
from San Ramon Road and AASHTO WB -40 at all other right -turn movements. Operational
analysis using Synchro software shows that channelizing the dual northbound right -turns slightly
increases delay but the movement maintains acceptable auto level of service operations.
Restricting right- turn -on -red appears to be infeasible relative to traffic operations and potential
for spillback onto the I -580 WB off -ramp and should be verified prior to implementation. Minimal
right -of -way would need to be acquired to accommodate the channelized northbound right -turn
lanes, which is accounted for the in cost estimate in Table 1. Adding the crosswalk on the south
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 4of14
leg of the intersection will increase delay for vehicles but serve as an essential, direct connection
for pedestrians walking to and from BART and downtown. Upstream impacts to the I -580 Ramps
were outside the study area and not included in this analysis. Several mitigations were
considered with operations analysis, such as increasing cycle length; however, these would
significantly degrade service to pedestrians on the corridor and are not recommended. As the
area is located in one of the Metropolitan
Development Areas and the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan creates an explicit policy foundation
for creating a truly walkable Downtown, striping a crosswalk on the south leg is recommended,
however, more detailed analysis of the intersection is necessary prior to implementation
r• r � ,� +r r r •
Advanced stop bars are proposed at all approaches, which requires relocating existing detection
at all intersection approaches.
+r r � ,� +r r r •
At the Golden Gate Drive intersection, the existing signal would be modified to protect the
northbound left -turns to remove the potential conflict with pedestrians. Additionally, advanced
stop bars are proposed on the southbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches, which
requires relocating existing detection on those approaches.
a r r +r r r • r in ,� +r r r •
The Amador Plaza Road intersection accesses popular land uses to the north and provides access
to I -680 SB off -ramp and I -680 SB On -Ramp approximately 800 feet to the south. Near misses
between pedestrians and both northbound right- turn -on -red and permitted right -turn vehicles
were observed. Restricting right- turn -on -red is not feasible relative to traffic operations and
potential for spillback onto the I -680 SB off -ramp at this time. However, in the future, restricting
right- turn -on -red and creating a protected northbound right -turn phase should be considered as
traffic is reduced through diversions to other streets in the area or peak demand is shifted from
automobile traffic to alternative modes of transportation. In the near term, decreasing the
turning radius at the northwest corner of the intersection and installing directional curb ramps are
recommended (if feasible) to slow turning traffic and make pedestrians more visible.
Other striping and curb work is captured under the cost estimates for Amador Plaza Road
improvements.
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 5 of 14
r� r � � s w r r •
The intersection at Village Parkway /Dublin Boulevard is a large intersection with skewed
approaches. In the SB direction, Village Parkway provides access to I -680 NB on -ramp as well as
to lower- density commercial buildings. South of the on -ramp, traffic volumes are low and excess
capacity in the northbound direction is present at the intersection. Large tractor truck trailers are
expected to make the eastbound right -turn from Dublin Boulevard onto Village Parkway to access
the freeway. The following treatments are proposed:
Remove the channelized northbound right -turn lane to create a pocket park
• Convert one of the northbound through lanes to an additional southbound receiving lane
to allow a tightened curb radius on the southwest corner and add directional curb ramps
Install curb extensions on northeast and northwest corners of the intersection with
directional curb ramps
Restripe crosswalks on the north, west, and south legs of the intersection to straighten
crossings and reduce crossing distances
Pull back median on eastbound approach to accommodate shorter crosswalk
Traffic volumes on the northbound approach were low and not expected to increase significantly
under future scenarios. Operations analysis suggests minimal increase in vehicle delay with the
recommended changes.
a ;I ,� +r r r •
Advanced stop bars will be striped at all approaches, which requires relocating existing detection
at all intersection approaches.
r
Changes at 37 commercial driveways on the north and south sides of the street are proposed for
Dublin Boulevard in order to create a continuous, accessible pedestrian environment. Seven of
those driveways are at grade and do not require reconstruction but would require ADA curb ramp
upgrades and striped crosswalks, and 30 of the driveways would be reconstructed as concrete
driveways with level pedestrian areas.
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF COMPANION ENHANCEMENT
PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES (2013$)
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 6 of 14
Intersection Cost Estimate
San Ramon Road $788,800
Regional Street $54,700
Golden Gate Drive $159,700
Amador Plaza Road $126,000
Village Parkway $336,000
Clark Avenue $54,700
Driveways $ 597,300
Total $2,117,200
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013.
r
Fehr & Peers collaborated with City staff to study three bikeway alternatives for Dublin Boulevard
between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail. Based on public feedback, a fourth
also presented here based on input received at
the July 2013 public meeting. The following alternatives were analyzed:
1. Class I Shared -Use Path Option
from San Ramon Road to Alamo Canal Trail
2. Lane Reduction Option
Court /Civic Plaza
3. Sidewalk Riding Option - Permit Bicycles on Sidewalk
4. Class III Bike Route Option
appropriate.
At the February 2013 community workshop, the Alternative 1 Class I path, with associated
intersection enhancements, was selected as the preferred treatment with Alternative 3, the
wayfinding and sidewalk riding option, selected as a near -term solution for the corridor. At that
meeting, Alternative 2, Alternative 4, and a widening option to accommodate to Class II bicycle
lanes were presented to the public as alternatives considered but discarded. Alternative 4, which
would designate Dublin Boulevard as a Class III Bicycle Route and include standard sharrows was
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 7 of 14
considered but discarded by the community over concern about the wide roadway cross - section,
high average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, and high speeds on Dublin Boulevard. While these
features do not prohibit sharrows from being striped on the corridor, recent best practice
guidance issued from the NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide indicates that sharrows are not the
preferred treatment where posted speed limits are 35MPH or higher and ADT exceeds 3,000. The
state and federal MUTCD do allow for sharrows on roads similar to Dublin Boulevard. Class II
Bicycle Lanes option (either traditional or buffered bike lanes) was considered and discarded as a
result of the large cost of reconstructing the street by removing existing sidewalks, street streets,
curb and gutter, street trees, drainage facilities, relocating utilities, street furniture, and signals,
and acquiring right -of -way on both sides of the street. Additionally, this option would further
increase the already wide cross - section of the roadway, making pedestrian crossing distances
longer and increasing pedestrian exposure to vehicles.
Figure 1 presents the cross - sections for the three alternatives and an evaluation matrix that
summarizes the key considerations associated with each design.
Boulevard from San Ramon Road to the Alamo Canal Trail to create a Class I shared -use path by
expanding the existing sidewalk space. The south side of the street was chosen based on the
relatively consolidated driveways and large setbacks to adjacent buildings. Figures 2a, 2b, and
2c illustrate the Class I shared -use path alternative in plan view. As an alternative to the portion
of the proposed Class I path between Village Parkway and the Alamo Canal Trail, the City could
consider Village Parkway /Clark Avenue south of Dublin Boulevard as an alternative east -west
connection. Under the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Village Parkway /Clark Avenue a priority
proposed project with Class II bicycle lanes south of Dublin Boulevard and a Class I bike
path /bridge through the City owned property (formerly National Food Laboratory site) and over
the Alamo Canal connecting to the Alamo Canal Trail. This alignment is included on Figure 2d
and 2e. If the Class I path is the preferred alternative, the extents of the path and whether or not
to envision the Village Parkway /Clark Avenue proposed bikeways as part of this Dublin Boulevard
east -west bikeway can be clarified in subsequent design phases.
The path consists of an eight -foot wide shared -use path, with a five -foot landscaped buffer
between the path and the travel way. At bus stops, the landscaped buffer breaks to allow for
loading and unloading of passengers. Additionally, new curb ramps should be wide enough to
accommodate the needs of bicyclists as well as pedestrians.
Y
J
. Q
X
W W
J
_ W W
> Z
n
J
_ W W
� Q
H
J
_ W W
> Z
n
Z W
� Q �
J
W W n ,
C) c-
6'� 6�
6
V
+
V
QO
O
+
V
+
O
O
'+
CT O
6 O
CT
OD
'�
4J
0
CT
>-0
O
O
O
+ 6 O
6
n
n
O
.V
i
c6
O .*O v'
Q m 6
`n
O
6
•U
O
+ O
Q
m
O
Q
O
O
E
O O
4
O
>�o
42
}�—
V
O 6
V Q
c6
Q
o O
O
O 4J 4J in
4J
O O
4J
vii
V
>
v
O
O
v O
O ± .0
>
Q
Q
V
0
?i
V
to
O
O
CO
c6
4J
O
c6 •'
c6
V
to
O
to V
O `�
4J
O 4J
4J
4J in
4J
4J
O
O
6
O
COC
6
4
L
Q f
:5
V
+ + +
+ Q +
+
+ Lo
+
O
+ Q +
+ dS
+ +
6 + O
.�
Y
J
. Q
X
W W
J
_ W W
> Z
n
J
_ W W
� Q
H
J
_ W W
> Z
n
Y
J
. Q
X
W W
N
W W
Y_ Q
m J
W W
> Z
H
W W
> Z
� QJ
H
Z W
� Z
� Q
J
W W
> Z
J
W W
< n
Y
J
Q
X �
W W
J
_ W W
> Z
J
_ W W
Q Z
J
_ W W
H
Z W
� Z
Z
J
W W
¢z
J
W W
H
Z W
� Q �
J
W W n ,
H U
V_
J
_
W W
QZ
Q
Y
J
. Q
X
W W
N
W W
Y_ Q
m J
W W
> Z
H
W W
> Z
� QJ
H
Z W
� Z
� Q
J
W W
> Z
J
W W
< n
Y
J
Q
X �
W W
J
_ W W
> Z
J
_ W W
Q Z
J
_ W W
H
Z W
� Z
Z
J
W W
¢z
J
W W
H
P 1l Ili %N
Ml
IF
� � %a�Gr��l�l,, ���!�� �,1
0 0
•
..
>
!� .. ..... ... .
0
< z
z <f ON MIMI Ill J rig
Li
,x <
LLJ M
m
z
rfllmll,
M �
DIVOlf, X/
IS I m
y rg,
NO
Ld
On! of
Z' W
U) �) "f , ("'c'-(
x <
ud
fi
lip/
CD
00
rl0 � r
�R
or
ry� �
�U11'fr
� I
,r %M%�1�19 \� f
1 DWI i %
0
em,
c CD
w
ay,
oiln "u�
Ip ml
ws rm i a/
"ANN �hW
u
9
W
/ 0 l
m�
r
uo
r
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 8 of 14
Because this would be a two -way path, and because driver visibility of bicyclists crossing at the
intersections may be compromised by the speed differential, an actuated bicycle signal phase
would face eastbound and westbound bicycle traffic, and the bicycle signal phase would overlap
with the eastbound through phase. To avoid right -hook conflicts, additional control for the
eastbound right- turning autos should be addressed in future phases should Alternative 1 be the
preferred alternative. Such consideration could consist of an extinguishable no right -turn sign
that would be activated when a bicyclist is detected or a flashing yellow arrow for eastbound
right -turns when the bicycle phase is actuated.
MM
The Class I path would require widening and right -of -way acquisition on the south side of the
street. Approximately five additional feet of right -of -way would be required for the length of the
facility plus an additional two feet of shoulder
standards. As right -of -way is available, a wider paved path should be considered to comfortably
accommodate bicyclists and pedestrian operating side -by -side on the path given the Downtown
land use context and adjacency to BART.
Vehicle delay could increase when the bicycle signal is actuated and a bicycle phase is provided in
the signal cycle, therefore additional consideration should be given to signal phasing and
potential impacts to other modes should Alternative 1 move forward as the preferred alternative.
The total cost for Alternative 1, including the right -of -way acquisition, path construction, signal
modifications, and bicycle signal heads, is approximately $7,176,600. Right -of -way acquisition
accounts for approximately $1,170,000. The cost of all companion intersection improvements is
$2,932,300 and is included in the figure above.
Recent research on bikeway planning has focused on level of traffic stress (LTS). Level of traffic
stress is a four -level ranking of how stressful it is to ride on a given roadway. By identifying and
people may find themselves comfortable riding,
which has benefits for physical activity and health, congestion levels, safety and air quality and the
environment? The Class I alternative would provide the lowest traffic stress of all three options,
with an LTS 1, as the facility is a physically separated bikeway from automobile traffic. The Class I
Low - Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012). b.11; UILtrrinswel). su.edu/PDFs reserirr.. -.h /1..00 Ilow
y;tres_`y.::::.�, ...::Y.c..- .Jj.0. ...networkc...r..:ommer..:HiM . �df
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 9 of 14
facility would provide a bikeway to Downtown Dublin with a low degree of traffic stress, which
would likely increase its ability to attract new riders, particularly the young and old.
Dublin Boulevard to convert one traffic lane in each direction to a buffered bicycle lane. A
buffered bicycle lane consists of a typical Class II bicycle lane separated from the adjacent travel
lane with a striped buffer. This proposal consists of a seven foot bicycle lane and a four -foot wide
buffer with chevrons. At driveways, buffer striping is altered, consistent with California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD, 2012) and California Vehicle Code (CVC) relative to
autos crossing double white lane lines to turn. The buffer striping transitions to a standard
dashed bicycle lane line prior to intersections to allow right- turning traffic to cross the bicycle
lane. At major driveways and at bus stops, skip- striping with green pavement is proposed to
highlight the conflict zone between bicyclist and autos. This use of green pavement is consistent
with the Caltrans and FHWA blanket approval granted to use of the color green as a traffic control
device for bicycle facilities. At bus stops, the buffer should drop and transition to the green skip -
striping for the length of the bus stop. Where buses currently stop in the travel lane, buses are
anticipated to stop in the bicycle lanes. Where bus pullouts are provided, the bicycle lane would
also have green skip- striping to highlight the conflict zone as buses pull into and out of the stop.
Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c present the buffered bicycle lane alternative.
Under this alternative, relocation of existing loop detection would be required and is proposed as
is bicycle and auto video detection at each intersection. Additionally, modifications to existing
signal and mast arms locations would be required to accommodate the lane realignments at
some intersections.
MM EM
No specific right -of -way acquisition would be required for this alternative. The total cost
associated with the striping, green pavement, and intersection improvements, including signal
modifications and video detection, is $2,733,000. The companion intersection improvements
account for $2,243,200 of the total cost, which includes additional costs for signal modifications
associated with lane alignment changes, such as moving signal heads and adding signal heads, as
necessary.
The buffered bicycle lane alternative would provide a higher level of traffic stress than Alternative
1 even though bicyclists are separated with a striped buffer. This alternative would receive an LTS
if �ioi 11
"ius
"loll,
. . . .. . . .. , J,i Jf fffl llllllrlr // !?
. ..... ... or/, W11,11
"o,
g I rill
M oil 111;�
W 'MM
'fM ...........
F-
opq
iaL
MEN
0 F_�
two PENN'
c r o'
Oil
"MM 11111111111111UMM
I
Phil'
wo
'dMINNINNO, g .. ..... .... . ..... ... .. ....
� I
"gO
lov
1, /Of
. . .... . .
, "I
c
C)
co
?J1
A J
I/P
A J
11 ''1
CD
03
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 10 of 14
score of 3, as the buffered bicycle lane is on a roadway with 2 travel lanes with a median, and has
prevailing existing speeds of 35 MPH or more.
reduction and striped buffer may not offer as much benefit relative
to high prevailing speeds on the corridor. While the buffered bicycle lane will provide additional
comfort, the large auto volumes, freight usage, multiple lanes, numerous driveway conflict zones,
bus stop blockages of the bicycle lane, and high speeds on Dublin Boulevard will likely still cause
potential challenges for recreational bicyclists, particularly the young and the old. The large auto
volume on this arterial (over 30,000 average daily traffic) coupled with bus and freight usage
make the corridor less ideal for lane reduction /buffered bike lane installation. As is the case with
many urban corridors with bicycle facilities and transit, leap- frogging between buses and
bicyclists is also a factor in traffic stress for bicyclists.
Fehr & Peers completed a preliminary evaluation of a lane reduction option on Dublin Boulevard
between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway using Synchro and SimTraffic software.' The
analysis of the Near -Term Condition with Lane Reduction scenario found that many of the queues
are contained within each block; however, maximum queues on several approaches had spillback
to adjacent intersections. Figure 3d shows the simulated queue lengths on the corridor. Figure
3e shows bicycle and pedestrian volumes on the corridor. The analysis strictly examined the
operational effects of removing a lane of traffic in each direction and did not model the
improvements detailed in Companion Enhancements section of this memo which may have
additional impacts to queuing
The micro - simulation takes into account operational effects of adjacent intersections and
accounts for queue spillback along the corridor. The forecasted left -turn volumes on to and off of
Dublin Boulevard were observed to cause much of the delay and contributed substantially to
queuing spillback at several intersections including Village Parkway and Amador Plaza Road.
Maximum queues at these intersections could cause motorists to experience up to three traffic
signal cycles to clear thru the intersection. Appendix A shows the SimTraffic queuing and level of
service analysis for the Near -Term PM scenario and the Near -Term PM for Alternative 2.
3 The Near -Term PM Peak traffic volumes and Synchro network developed for the Downtown Dublin Specific
Plan (DDSP) were used as the baseline analysis. Phasing and coordination were optimized on Dublin
Boulevard, and Existing PM traffic volumes from the DDSP were used at the northbound, southbound, and
eastbound approaches to focus on operational considerations associated directly with the Dublin Boulevard
study area. The DDSP model was not calibrated and validated, as that was outside the scope of this analysis.
= W
�a
V) z
W W
:) W
LW J
a
a�
W
on
2C
�0
W
a p
oa
V) >
Z W
J
o:)
am
�z
OJ
m
D
W
W
W
M
M
d
LL
0
v
v
ul J
T T
� ¢ V
Y hl
� v
V 72 "l
a
o �
G d J
v
N
�+ f6
C
— C �
m J 0 O
r v N — V
V V
�
v m
�
O N
0
O 3
m a m
Z VIII v
N
6
C �
W ry o .�
Y
0) o
J
aj W �
O u
Q
O u
� a m
E
7
� Ol
C s
_ O
�C •
V f6 V
N
-O -6 - ro
T d v It
O j
Q v
o -6 O
O
M
Q0
Q d
m puuuoi
V
� a
c �
N
N
� w O
L � r
O ry
f6
U V
O_ T Ol um
V �
T m
r0 i X VIII
7 W
O m -O
a >
tp r6 41
Q d V O
v m
ro p_ v u
V O u
Ol d m
LU
Y,It O
YI: w
N
�) C
O 3
- O
L
Y vNi `n 3
N v
0
v
J y a v
u
Q Y O u
m 0 m
w f
w
a
z
w
Z
III,,,,W,,,,,, Li
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 11 of 14
Alternative 3 would direct through - traveling bicyclists onto nearby alternative routes that have
lower traffic volumes, a narrower cross - section and dedicated bicycle facilities. As such, the
proposal consists of wayfinding signs to provide directions to those routes. For those bicyclists
accessing destinations along Dublin Boulevard and not well - served by alternative routes,
installing signage about bicyclists using the pedestrian crossing phase and reinforcing the legality
of sidewalk riding, bicyclists could be better accommodated until funding for right -of -way
acquisition and sidewalk widening is secured. Alternative 3 can be viewed an interim option for
a long -term Class I path proposal or until feasibility of Alternative 2 can be further assessed.
Figures 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d present the wayfinding and sidewalk riding alternative. The
wayfinding signage on these figures shows directions to West Dublin BART Station.
M=
No specific right -of -way acquisition would be required for this alternative.
The cost associated with the signage and companion intersection improvements is $2,277,200, of
which $160,000 is signing related costs.
The sidewalk riding option also provides a low degree of traffic stress. However, the substandard
sidewalk width, frequency of existing vertical objects such as poles and signs in the sidewalk
space, and given that no widening is proposed, the sidewalk riding would likely increase the level
of stress for both bicyclist and pedestrians.
xx� 40 .,.,x,.
Alternative 4 proposes designating the section of
Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and
Alamo Canal Trail Class III bike route with
installation of sharrows and signs where
appropriate.. This alternative would be installed
consistent with the state and federal MUTCDs and
would be paired with implementation of the
Downtown Bikeway Connectivity Improvements
which are discussed above and shown on Figure
M. IifR % ei //L
r
aaiilwe3d ` /f" ugW . AN
03llIWd3d
SAIOA019
PERMITTED
r
f
SIDEWnLK
•
IN
�rrw+ rrw�vwS�alomm4rr�1�1�10f�ff��Y ffYOlid�'�
�i�fli��l�111�1�1��1111 , , b�m
N�� TIVI
Y %/ c
rill, o/ f 1 it ■
�� � �fi ti 1 � r%% /r, I lit�,I,d / /�/tlglI�NOMD1i11WPOV0f
�� f 11� /riG /II
�,. /�' �( /'+!! �� / I i' ✓ N I 0
031LWa3d
1111/1111"
% I�.
VMM7
II;
r z
n,
P2,;
` ' 11111'
f
Vii,
NL. -. pmt NI
5 1 5
. . .....
i'
Ill I � ��f MIDIi� , �JIl7i
ly�tilV��i7�71>!>!>!>1�Im11>ml�l
BICYCLES
PERMITTED
NIVMEOIS NO
a2u1,E3d
SE,0A01e
' 1
..
f M
Gj
BICYCLES
PERMITTED
ON SIDEWALK
uLl �l
�IJl1h! �fl
l J
F
1/
I�I�I
,�IIlUl11l' 1111lJ,1
t5
/, 3 NO
S3�0A018
'Kr.'
�
"" j, fl /��� alcvcLES r
ay1� � / oN sloEwnLK
II� / „ /// Y
W
a
z
V)
M
W
a
z
w
W
J
a
0
oc
W
J
O
m
z
J
m
N
W
H
O
w
W
a
z
w
W
J
a
O
z
a
J
a
z
z
L1-4 L.
a
W
N
O
m
O
oC
a
cn
W
W
W
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 12 of 14
5. These include bicycle lanes on Regional Street, buffered bicycle lanes on Amador Valley
Boulevard, bicycle lanes on St. Patrick Way, and bicycle lanes on Amador Plaza Road.
Typical sharrows would be spaced appropriately on the corridor to indicate the preferred bicyclist
positioning within the outside travel lane. This treatment would designate Dublin Boulevard
between San Ramon Road and Alamo Canal Trail as a Class III Bicycle Route. The treatment
would be accompanied with appropriate Class III signage. Approximately two signs per blocks in
each direction are assumed, with additional signs proposed on longer blocks.
It is recommended that the travel lanes be restriped to narrow the two inside travel lanes. Any
excess space should be given to the outside travel lane. If possible, a 14 -foot outside travel lane
should be striped, which may require 10 -11 foot inside travel lanes This would allow bicyclists to
ride closer to the curb, where many cyclists will feel more comfortable, while also minimizing the
ovide less than three feet of passing distance
during overtaking events. The restriping will serve to lower the 85th percentile speed and reduce
the speed differential between bicyclists and autos.
EM
The cost associated with the sharrows and signs are $2,158,300, of which $41,100 would be for
the striping and signing costs. These remaining costs include the costs associated with the
This option likely will not attract new bicyclists to Downtown and BART. It will address the gap in
the bikeway system along Dublin Boulevard. While the sharrows, and signage would highlight
that drivers can expect bicyclists in the area, these do not address the level of traffic stress on the
roadway. However, this treatment does accommodate existing bicyclists who feel comfortable
bicycling in mixed -flow travel lanes and prefers the most direct bicycle route. This treatment,
along with the implementation of dedicated bikeways proposed under the Downtown Bikeway
Connectivity Improvements could provide several alternate bike routes that are good for many
ages and abilities and further address bicycling along the Dublin Boulevard corridor.
Table 2 provides a summary of the alternatives. Weighing the pros and cons associated with
along with the implementation of the other Downtown Bikeway Connectivity Improvements
subject to prioritization and acquisition of implementation funds. Concurrently, the projects
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 13 of 14
also move forward to preliminary design and engineering (as funding allows) to improve the
walking and bicycling environment of Downtown. Alternative 4 plus the Downtown Connectivity
projects represent near- and medium -term solutions for the area.
At the public workshop and public meeting, some segments of the Dublin community indicated
that Alternative 2 should continue to be considered as a long -term vision for Downtown Dublin,
as land use changes occur and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mode share increase. In future Plan
updates, the future vision for Dublin Boulevard, whet
the context of the environment at that time.
Ferd Del Rosario
October 21, 2013
Page 14 of 14
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Alternative 3 Alternative
Companion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 4- Class III
Considerations Enhancements Riding & Bike Route
Path Bicycle Lane Wayfinding with
Sharrows
1. Costs represents planning -level cost estimates associated with the conceptual designs for each alternative. Costs for
each alternative include the companion enhancement treatments. Striping and curb works costs at Village Parkway and
Amador Plaza Road are assumed under the Village Parkway and Amador Plaza Road priority project improvements,
respectively.
2. Bicycle signals are assumed under Alternative 1.
• Curb extensions
8' shared
7' Bicycle
No change to
and reduced
path for
Lane In Each
existing
curb radii
bicyclists and
Direction
sidewalk
Sharrows
Design
Signal
pedestrians
4' Striped
dimensions
(typ.) and
modifications to
5' landscaped
Buffer
Reinforce
signs where
provide improve
buffer
between
that bicycles
appropriate
pedestrian signal
separating
Bicycle and
are allowed
phasing
roadway and
Travel Lanes
on sidewalk
path
Level of Traffic
Lowest Stress
Low Stress
Limited
Limited
Facility
Facility
Change
Change
Stress for
Good for All
Good for
Bicyclists
Ages and
Many Ages
from
Existing
from
Existing
Abilities
and Abilities
• Requires
Suggests
• San Ramon Road
Right -of -Way
• Converts
preferred
improvements
Acquisition to
Travel Lane
Improves
bicyclist
on SE corner
Accommodat
to Buffered
Bicycle Safety
positioning
Key
y
equire right -of-
e Sidewalk
Bicycle Lane
at
Highlights
way acquisition
Widening
Provides
Intersections
presence of
Considerations
Signal
Signal
continuous
Limited
bicyclists on
modification
Modification
bicycle lanes
Additional
the corridor
necessary to
Necessary to
for almost 5
Changes
Limited
improve
Introduce
miles
Changes
walkability
Bicycle
from Existing
Signals
Cost'
$2,117,200
$7,176,6002
$2,733,000
$2,277,200
$2,158,300
Phasing/Vision
Near -Term/ Mid-
Possible Long-
Possible Long-
Not Preferred
Near -Term
Term
Term Vision
Term Vision
1. Costs represents planning -level cost estimates associated with the conceptual designs for each alternative. Costs for
each alternative include the companion enhancement treatments. Striping and curb works costs at Village Parkway and
Amador Plaza Road are assumed under the Village Parkway and Amador Plaza Road priority project improvements,
respectively.
2. Bicycle signals are assumed under Alternative 1.
I�
APPENDIX A: SIMTRAFFIC RESULTS
100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 1 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1 (925) 930 -7100 1 Fax (925) 933 -7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
I�
NEAR -TERM NO PROJECT
100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 1 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1 (925) 930 -7100 1 Fax (925) 933 -7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
SimTraffic Performance Report
3/26/2013
7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
74.9
68.4
22.4
80.1
26.3
13.5
376.8
77.3
19.9
55.4
31.3
13.3
Vehicles Exited
114
249
353
1001
364
254
500
974
865
183
659
83
Hourly Exit Rate
114
249
353
1001
364
254
500
974
865
183
659
83
Input Volume
115
253
342
1064
378
250
575
1030
882
189
660
87
% of Volume
99
98
103
94
96
101
87
95
98
97
100
96
Denied Entry Before
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
80.2
Vehicles Exited
5599
Hourly Exit Rate
5599
Input Volume
5825
% of Volume
96
Denied Entry Before
1
Denied Entry After
0
8: Dublin Boulevard
& Reaional Street Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
128.5
42.9
44.5
99.7
39.4
64.4
399.6 379.8
367.9
44.0
51.8
22.1
Vehicles Exited
224
1063
303
111
1252
135
311
55
77
149
74
198
Hourly Exit Rate
224
1063
303
111
1252
135
311
55
77
149
74
198
Input Volume
239
1071
306
115
1274
140
352
65
86
154
71
198
% of Volume
94
99
99
97
98
96
88
85
90
97
104
100
Denied Entry Before
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
5
9
0
0
0
8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
87.6
Vehicles Exited
3952
Hourly Exit Rate
3952
Input Volume
4072
% of Volume
97
Denied Entry Before
7
Denied Entry After
47
Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report
Page 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
3/26/2013
9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Performance by movement
66.9
Vehicles Exited
3469
Hourly Exit Rate
3469
Delay /Veh(s)
120.8
87.2
102.1 57.7
28.0
30.6
98.7 86.7
91.2
30.9
34.6
7.5
Vehicles Exited
126
1169
147 98
1150
37
309 18
286
61
4
64
Hourly Exit Rate
126
1169
147 98
1150
37
309 18
286
61
4
64
Input Volume
120
1186
150 96
1177
40
310 16
285
62
5
61
% of Volume
105
99
98 102
98
93
100 111
100
98
84
105
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
66.9
Vehicles Exited
3469
Hourly Exit Rate
3469
Input Volume
3508
% of Volume
99
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
0
10: Dublin Boulevard
& Amador Plaza Road Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
87.0
68.1
89.8
100.8
29.0
12.3
111.7
53.2
22.8
68.6
58.4
41.7
Vehicles Exited
213
1190
166
337
850
184
239
195
371
192
131
101
Hourly Exit Rate
213
1190
166
337
850
184
239
195
371
192
131
101
Input Volume
210
1225
172
341
859
177
248
206
353
190
130
109
% of Volume
102
97
97
99
99
104
96
95
105
101
101
93
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
59.0
Vehicles Exited
4169
Hourly Exit Rate
4169
Input Volume
4220
% of Volume
99
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
9
Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report
Page 2
SimTraffic Performance Report
3/26/2013
11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
78.9
23.5
26.2
61.1
19.6
11.2
70.5
63.5
4.4
84.7
55.6
20.9
Vehicles Exited
373
973
275
210
1047
329
68
28
9
301
81
239
Hourly Exit Rate
373
973
275
210
1047
329
68
28
9
301
81
239
Input Volume
377
981
280
201
1051
335
66
28
8
307
78
242
% of volume
99
99
98
105
100
98
103
99
112
98
104
99
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
35.2
Vehicles Exited
3933
Hourly Exit Rate
3933
Input Volume
3955
% of volume
99
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
2
Total Zone Performance
Delay/ Veh (s)
1922.6
Vehicles Exited
670
Hourly Exit Rate
670
Input Volume
21579
% of volume
3
Denied Entry Before
8
Denied Entry After
58
Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report
Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
3/26/2013
Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road
Directions Served
L
L
T
T
R
R
L
L
L
T
R
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
108
120
201
210
132
136
521
553
548
572
248
337
Average Queue (ft)
40
62
107
112
67
74
313
338
358
217
78
327
95th Queue (ft)
81
108
168
180
115
120
561
579
594
496
175
357
Link Distance (ft)
2489
898
898
587
587
587
587
1202
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
24
5
2
0
0
1
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
325
325
325
325
350
225
325
Storage Blk Time ( %)
55
0
0
0
2
0
17
Queuing Penalty (veh)
190
0
2
0
4
0
60
Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard
& San
Ramon
Road
Directions Served
L
T
T
T
R
R
T
T
T
L
L
T
Maximum Queue (ft)
350
2582
2441
2494
232
135
193
184
149
135
144
180
Average Queue (ft)
346
1791
1318
1110
87
56
56
46
24
66
71
88
95th Queue (ft)
371
3204
2682
2571
187
113
185
172
123
119
123
151
Link Distance (ft)
2489
2489
2489
163
163
163
1202
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
24
5
2
11
4
2
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
325
425
425
350
350
Storage Blk Time ( %)
55
0
0
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
190
0
2
0
Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard
& San Ramon
Road
Directions Served
T
T
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
193
214
69
Average Queue (ft)
101
121
22
95th Queue (ft)
167
184
55
Link Distance (ft)
1202
1202
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
1000
Storage Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report
Page 4
Queuing and Blocking Report
3/26/2013
Intersection: 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street
Directions Served
L
T
T
TR
L
T
T
T
TR
L
T
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
300
548
507
521
232
273
383
504
629
150
779
115
Average Queue (ft)
254
319
299
331
123
150
203
267
389
148
707
28
95th Queue (ft)
349
523
456
452
220
250
357
442
617
154
881
75
Link Distance (ft)
587
587
587
1226
1226
1226
735
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
1
0
0
44
Queuing Penalty (veh)
3
0
0
0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
275
250
250
125
125
Storage Blk Time ( %)
22
3
3
2
1
73
1
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
78
8
8
5
3
110
6
0
Intersection: 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street
Directions Served
L
T
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
150
351
149
Average Queue (ft)
101
87
83
95th Queue (ft)
163
233
146
Link Distance (ft)
1140
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
125
125
Storage Blk Time ( %)
10
1
2
Queuing Penalty (veh)
26
5
4
Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report
Page 5
Queuing and Blocking Report
3/26/2013
Intersection: 9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive
Directions Served
L
T
T
TR
L
T
T
TR
L
T
R
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
273
873
879
889
220
338
347
359
125
506
125
125
Average Queue (ft)
129
400
408
444
90
163
187
199
118
303
79
48
95th Queue (ft)
248
973
982
1005
176
301
319
329
137
503
136
102
Link Distance (ft)
1226
1226
1226
549
549
549
532
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
1
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
250
225
100
100
200
Storage Blk Time ( %)
1
23
1
5
38
0
9
Queuing Penalty (veh)
3
31
2
6
118
2
30
Intersection: 9: Dublin Boulevard
& Golden Gate Drive
Directions Served
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
94
Average Queue (ft)
33
95th Queue (ft)
74
Link Distance (ft)
232
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report
Page 6
Queuing and Blocking Report
3/26/2013
Intersection: 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road
iii ii o 0 0
r i
Directions Served
L
T
T TR L T
T
T
R L
T
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
250
574
600 583 325 834
600
394
164 200
559
432
Average Queue (ft)
195
405
429 453 295 406
229
191
55 186
320
156
95th Queue (ft)
285
665
665 675 379 825
512
334
126 227
597
310
Link Distance (ft)
549
549 549 1086
1086
1086
535
535
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
6
6 8
5
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
28
29 36
18
0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
225
300
350 175
Storage Blk Time ( %)
10
21
28 0
0
41
3
Queuing Penalty (veh)
35
44
81 0
0
84
8
Intersection: 10: Dublin Boulevard
& Amador Plaza Road
r � �
i l
Directions Served
L
L
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
160
174
511
Average Queue (ft)
84
118
210
95th Queue (ft)
144
190
434
Link Distance (ft)
1688
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
150
150
Storage Blk Time ( %)
1
2
19
Queuing Penalty (veh)
2
6
35
Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report
Page 7
Queuing and Blocking Report
3/26/2013
Intersection: 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway
Directions Served
L
L
T
TR
L
T
T T
R L
T
T
Maximum Queue (ft)
254
276
555
619
225
461
355 342
154 143
48
67
Average Queue (ft)
145
161
295
359
163
177
111 135
44 59
14
16
95th Queue (ft)
233
253
545
619
246
360
248 247
111 119
40
46
Link Distance (ft)
1086
1086
1086
0
1944
1944 1944
2
303
303
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
6
12
4
5
Zone Summary
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
275
200
425 150
Storage Blk Time ( %)
0
0
6
2
0
1
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
0
21
3
0
0
0
Intersection: 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway
Directions Served
R
L
L
T
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
20
237
388
266
150
Average Queue (ft)
1
140
174
89
100
95th Queue (ft)
15
243
357
202
162
Link Distance (ft)
1711
1711
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
75
225
125
Storage Blk Time ( %)
0
4
8
2
6
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
6
12
4
5
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1169
Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report
Page 8
I�
NEAR -TERM WITH PROJECT
100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 1 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1 (925) 930 -7100 1 Fax (925) 933 -7090
www.fehrandpeers.com
SimTraffic Performance Report
Baseline 3/26/2013
7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
77.8
108.2
22.5
50.4
30.6
17.6
281.4
57.0
18.5
160.4
31.1
11.8
Vehicles Exited
121
288
409
1050
367
249
584
1136
986
193
710
94
Hourly Exit Rate
104
247
351
900
315
213
501
974
845
165
609
81
Input Volume
115
253
342
1064
377
250
575
1030
882
189
647
87
% of Volume
90
97
103
85
83
85
87
95
96
87
94
93
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
68.9
Vehicles Exited
6187
Hourly Exit Rate
5303
Input Volume
5812
% of Volume
91
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
1
8: Dublin Boulevard & Reaional Street Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
211.2
117.2
117.9
130.3
32.4
35.0
274.9
263.3
215.5
192.8
152.1
120.9
Vehicles Exited
245
1118
321
113
1328
144
324
60
87
145
68
186
Hourly Exit Rate
210
958
275
97
1138
123
278
51
75
124
58
159
Input Volume
239
1071
306
115
1255
140
352
65
86
154
71
198
% of Volume
88
89
90
84
91
88
79
79
87
81
82
80
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
13
55
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
4
12
8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
113.9
Vehicles Exited
4139
Hourly Exit Rate
3548
Input Volume
4053
% of Volume
88
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
109
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Baseline 3/26/2013
9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
306.6
249.9
261.8
69.7
25.2
25.0
165.3
157.4
143.4
35.3
28.4
10.3
Vehicles Exited
117
1109
143
93
1187
44
351
20
315
72
6
71
Hourly Exit Rate
100
951
123
80
1017
38
301
17
270
62
5
61
Input Volume
120
1175
150
96
1163
40
310
16
285
62
5
61
% of Volume
84
81
82
83
87
95
97
106
95
100
107
100
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
6
46
6
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
142.2
Vehicles Exited
3528
Hourly Exit Rate
3024
Input Volume
3482
% of Volume
87
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
66
10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
110.4
77.3
83.6
315.6
68.7
32.1
196.8
111.1
64.1
152.8
108.0
101.9
Vehicles Exited
196
1164
163
318
868
182
255
215
397
194
134
112
Hourly Exit Rate
168
998
140
273
744
156
219
184
340
166
115
96
Input Volume
210
1206
172
341
859
177
248
206
353
190
130
109
% of Volume
80
83
81
80
87
88
88
90
96
87
88
88
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
5
28
6
2
3
1
6
4
7
2
2
2
10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
107.0
Vehicles Exited
4198
Hourly Exit Rate
3598
Input Volume
4202
% of Volume
86
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
68
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
SimTraffic Performance Report
Baseline 3/26/2013
11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Performance by movement
Delay /Veh(s)
216.5
29.5
22.3
119.7
92.0
46.8
890.4
315.8
277.2
135.4
278.4
325.5
Vehicles Exited
356
968
276
211
1161
375
38
26
7
320
72
222
Hourly Exit Rate
305
830
237
181
995
321
33
22
6
274
62
190
Input Volume
377
981
280
201
1051
335
66
28
8
307
78
242
% of volume
81
85
84
90
95
96
49
79
75
89
79
79
Denied Entry Before
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Denied Entry After
0
0
0
0
1
0
14
8
2
15
3
12
11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Performance by movement
Delay/ Veh (s)
112.0
Vehicles Exited
4032
Hourly Exit Rate
3456
Input Volume
3955
% of volume
87
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
55
Total Zone Performance
Delay/ Veh (s)
2310.6
Vehicles Exited
627
Hourly Exit Rate
537
Input Volume
21504
% of volume
2
Denied Entry Before
0
Denied Entry After
299
SimTraffic Report
Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 3/26/2013
Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road
Directions Served
L
L
T
T
R
R
L
L
L
T
R
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
99
217
312
351
218
130
274
489
515
493
250
337
Average Queue (ft)
40
67
144
146
75
67
205
267
294
200
112
310
95th Queue (ft)
82
142
278
297
166
110
314
443
458
378
235
406
Link Distance (ft)
1750
899
899
169
584
584
584
1209
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
24
1
1
16
0
0
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
325
325
325
325
250
350
225
325
Storage Blk Time ( %)
48
0
1
1
0
3
7
5
0
16
Queuing Penalty (veh)
165
0
1
4
0
11
25
13
1
54
Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard
& San
Ramon
Road
Directions Served
L
T
T
T
R
R
T
T
T
L
L
T
Maximum Queue (ft)
350
1835
1827
1706
286
233
197
201
191
282
279
373
Average Queue (ft)
327
1214
951
610
110
97
77
74
60
119
123
106
95th Queue (ft)
424
2318
2063
1651
220
197
224
217
185
280
287
301
Link Distance (ft)
1750
1750
1750
169
169
169
1209
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
24
1
1
16
8
3
Queuing Penalty (veh)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
325
425
425
350
350
Storage Blk Time ( %)
48
0
0
3
4
Queuing Penalty (veh)
165
0
2
5
7
Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard
& San Ramon
Road
Directions Served
T
T
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
310
195
90
Average Queue (ft)
93
108
22
95th Queue (ft)
200
173
59
Link Distance (ft)
1209
1209
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
1000
Storage Blk Time ( %)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
SimTraffic Report
Page 4
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 3/26/2013
Intersection: 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street
Directions Served
L
T
TR
L
T
T
TR
L
T
R
T
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
300
624
628
253
274
664
632
150
1025
126
150
150
Average Queue (ft)
247
443
453
127
192
277
287
147
906
38
98
114
95th Queue (ft)
360
732
725
241
316
556
542
158
1290
99
188
173
Link Distance (ft)
584
584
544
1226
1226
243
936
112
8
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
0
8
7
2
0
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
57
75
54
Queuing Penalty (veh)
1
51
45
1
1
250
0
0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
275
100
250
250
Storage Blk Time ( %)
0
125
125
9
125
Storage Blk Time ( %)
24
17
0
3
3
6
53
73
1
1
31
Queuing Penalty (veh)
127
40
10
10
28
110
4
3
82
Intersection: 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street
Directions Served
T
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
932
149
Average Queue (ft)
270
63
95th Queue (ft)
838
129
Link Distance (ft)
1152
275
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
4
243
Queuing Penalty (veh)
11
125
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
125
125
Storage Blk Time ( %)
2
1
Queuing Penalty (veh)
6
3
Intersection: 9: Dublin
Boulevard
& Golden Gate Drive
r �
OWN
Directions Served
L
T
TR
L
T
TR
L
T
R
L
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
275
1227
1246
243
458
471
125
548
125
125
107
Average Queue (ft)
134
783
782
83
201
196
119
358
82
47
35
95th Queue (ft)
288
1515
1497
178
370
370
137
596
140
99
81
Link Distance (ft)
1226
1226
552
552
544
243
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
11
8
0
0
2
Queuing Penalty (veh)
75
54
0
1
8
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
250
225
100
100
200
Storage Blk Time ( %)
0
43
0
9
48
0
15
0
Queuing Penalty (veh)
1
53
2
11
145
0
50
0
SimTraffic Report
Page 5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 3/26/2013
Intersection: 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road
Directions Served
L
T
TR
L
T
T
R
L
T
R
L
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
249
585
609
325
1116
1154
349
200
582
595
157
175
Average Queue (ft)
174
466
473
312
915
766
58
185
400
210
95
116
95th Queue (ft)
286
726
725
399
1419
1326
198
240
704
441
169
201
Link Distance (ft)
552
552
1091
1091
547
547
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
12
11
34
9
17
1
Queuing Penalty (veh)
80
75
228
61
61
5
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
225
300
350
175
150
150
Storage Blk Time ( %)
7
37
67
1
2
0
55
2
10
13
Queuing Penalty (veh)
36
77
289
4
4
0
114
5
25
31
Intersection: 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road
Directions Served
TR
Maximum Queue (ft)
891
Average Queue (ft)
321
95th Queue (ft)
910
Link Distance (ft)
1700
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
1
Queuing Penalty (veh)
4
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time ( %)
19
Queuing Penalty (veh)
36
SimTraffic Report
Page 6
Queuing and Blocking Report
Baseline 3/26/2013
Intersection: 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway
Directions Served
L
T
TR
L
T
T
R
L
T
T
L
L
Maximum Queue (ft)
300
1065
1052
225
1903
1889
450
171
315
68
249
1438
Average Queue (ft)
280
700
610
158
748
724
115
110
123
16
129
459
95th Queue (ft)
370
1314
1201
272
1873
1826
365
202
339
49
235
1347
Link Distance (ft)
1091
1091
2380
2380
308
308
1729
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
5
0
2
1
19
2
Queuing Penalty (veh)
40
1
0
0
5
6
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
275
200
425
150
225
Storage Blk Time ( %)
62
1
3
39
13
0
49
5
0
2
6
Queuing Penalty (veh)
303
2
16
78
42
0
7
3
0
4
9
Intersection: 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway
Directions Served
T
R
Maximum Queue (ft)
1431
150
Average Queue (ft)
563
125
95th Queue (ft)
1524
189
Link Distance (ft)
1729
Upstream Blk Time ( %)
3
Queuing Penalty (veh)
7
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
125
Storage Blk Time ( %)
3
51
Queuing Penalty (veh)
8
40
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2926
SimTraffic Report
Page 7