HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 135-07 Bikeways Master Plan RESOLUTION NO. 135 - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, in 2005, as part of the Dublin City Council's Goals and Objectives, the City Council
adopted as a high priority the development of a City-wide Bikeways Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, in response to this high priority goal, the Public Works Department initiated a
Capital Improvement Program project to develop a Bikeways Master Plan and to evaluate existing bicycle
conditions and access to parks and open space areas throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to maximize public input in developing the Bikeways Master Plan, the City
held three public meetings on February 22, 2006, March 31, 2006, and July 19, 2006, and invited City
residents, public agencies, businesses and other stakeholders to attend; and
WHEREAS, the Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and
implementing a bikeway system that: 1) provides a viable transportation alternative to the automobile
and thus improves transportation choices for Dublin residents; 2) improves safety for bicyclists; and
3) provides residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities; and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways in Dublin
and the Bikeways Master Plan builds upon that blueprint by creating a comprehensive plan that includes
an evaluation of existing conditions, a prioritized list of recommended improvements for both on- and off-
street facilities and recommendations pertaining to bicycle parking, safety, education and enforcement;
and
WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has since
been amended numerous times; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and
adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have
been approved over the years; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to
evaluate the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed Bikeways Master Plan on June 19, 2007; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Parks and Community Services
Commission recommend City Council adoption of the Bikeways Master Plan; and
1
WHEREAS, the Parks and Community Services Commission did hear and consider the said
foregoing reports, recommendations and testimony and used its independent judgment to evaluate the
project; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Parks and Community Services Commission voted
unanimously to recommend that the Council adopt the proposed Bikeways Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, the City of Dublin Planning Commission ("Planning
Commission") held a public hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration; a General Plan Amendment,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village
Parkway Specific Plan Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation; and General
Plan Conformity for the Bikeways Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment, and Village Parkway Specific Plan
Amendment for the bicycle circulation. The Staff Report further recommended that the Planning
Commission make a determination that the proposed Bikeways Master Plan is in conformance with the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider the said foregoing reports,
recommendations and testimony and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
07-33 recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bikeways
Master Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
07-32 recommending that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment and Village Parkway Specific Plan
Amendment to incorporate changes related to bicycle circulation. The Planning Commission further
made a determination that with the proposed General Plan Amendments, the proposed Bikeways Master
Plan is in conformance with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the project,
including the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment and Village Parkway Specific
Plan Amendment, and Bikeways Master Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to
be heard. The City Council considered a Staff Report dated July 17, 2007, and incorporated herein by
reference, and all written and oral testimony; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution 133-07 adopting
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Resolution 134-07 adopting the General Plan Amendment,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment and Village
Parkway Specific Plan Amendment,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that
the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Bikeways
Master Plan as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti, Scholz and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor
ATTEST: h~j
CIC..
Inte i ity Cler
G:CC-MTGS/7-17-07/Res 135 Bikeways Master Plan (Item 6.6)
G:\CIP\City Bicycle Master Plan\CC Reso Bikeways.doc
3
.
F
IC
A .
. ; b.,y ~ i Lea _ri', • _~J,~2~~~. t..f
y ..1. T-1 ,
y
~ .
Acknowledgements
' Mayor
Janet Lockhart
' City Council
Kasie Hildenbrand, Vice Mayor
Tony Oravetz
Tim Sbranti
Kate Ann Scholz
Planning Commission
Bill Schaub, Chairperson
Doreen Wehrenberg, Vice-Chairperson
Donald Biddle
Greg Tomlinson
' Morgan King
Parks and Community Services Commission
' Sue Flores, Chairperson
Steve Jones, Vice-Chairperson
Alan Elias
Rich Guarienti
' Angela Muetterties
Alex Deering, Student Representative
' City Staff
Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer, Project Manager
Herma Lichtenstein, Parks & Facilities Development Manager
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
' Mark Lander, City Engineer
Rose Macias, Community Safety Assistant (Retired)
' Bikeway Master Plan Public Meeting Participants
(See Appendix E for list)
' Consultants
Fehr & Peers
RHAA
' Funded by State TDA Article 3 Funds and ACT/A Measure B Bicycle Program Funds
Cover images (clockwise from upper left): Amador Valley Boulevard Class II Bike lanes, Dublin employees on
Bike to Work Day, Iron Horse Trail, Tassajara Creek Trail, Martin Canyon Creek Trail
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 1
2007
i
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
' 1. DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................................................................8
' 2. INTRODUCTION 9
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS ..................................................................................................................9
CONFORMANCE WITH FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................13
3. GOALS AND POLICIES ....................................................................................................................................15
4. BICYCLE NETWORK ........................................................................................................................................18
NEEDS ANALYSIS .........................................................:..................................................................................18
' TYPES OF BIKEWAY FACILITIES ...................................................................................................................22
5. EXISTING FACILITIES 24
' LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ...................................................................................................24
KEY CORRIDORS ............................................................................................................................................25
' 6. PROPOSED BIKEWAY NETWORK 33
CORRIDOR STUDIES ......................................................................................................................................39
7. SUPPORT FACILITIES 57
TYPES OF BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES ...............................................:........................57
EXISTING FACILITIES ......................................................................................................................................57
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................58
' 8. SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION 60
' BICYCLE COLLISIONS .....................................................................................................................................60
SECURITY .........................................................................................................................................................63
' BICYCLE EDUCATION PROGRAMS ...............................................................................................................63
BICYCLE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS .....................................................................................:..................64
' 9. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS 65
10. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION 69
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 2
2007
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' This Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and imp?ementing a bikeway system that
can be broken down into three general categories:
' Provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile and thus improve transportation choices for
Dublin residents
• Improve safety for bicyclists
t Provide residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities
' Also embraced in the Plan is a Vision Statement created by the Bikeway
Master Plan Public Meeting Participants envisioning the City as a place
with many safe and pleasant bikeway facilities, and a City that encourages VISION STATEMENT
bicycling as a healthful and enjoyable activity.
The purpose of the
The City of Dublin's General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of Bikeways Master Plan is to
bikeways in Dublin. This Bikeways Master Plan builds on that blueprint by make Dublin a city with
creating a comprehensive plan that includes an evaluation of existing many safe and pleasant
conditions, a prioritized list of recommended improvements for both on- bicycle facilities that provide
and off-street facilities, and recommendations pertaining to bicycle access to parks, trails, and
parking, safety, education, and enforcement. open space as well as to
' schools, jobs, and
In addition, this plan incorporates items from a number of documents community facilities; a city
pertaining to bicycling in Dublin, including the Parks and Recreation in which the needs of
Master Plan, the Downtown Core Specific Plan, the West Dublin BART bicyclists and other trail
' Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the Municipal Code. users are considered in
balance among all modes of
Goals for the plan include developing a comprehensive bikeway system travel; and a city that
' for both commuting and recreation,. creating links to existing trails, parks, encourages bicycling as a
and open space, improving bicycle connections to transit, improving healthful and enjoyable
safety, developing programs to encourage bicycling, and maximizing the activity.
amount of state and federal funding for which Dublin is eligible. This plan
' complies with the California Streets and Highways Code, which is a Improving bicycle access
requirement to compete for funds in the State Bicycle Transportation throughout the City benefits
Account. not only cyclists, but also
' walkers, hikers, wheelchair
Dublin residents currently enjoy a system of pedestrian-bicycle trails along users, and other trail users,
creeks, channels, and some major roadways. Many of the new roads and improves quality of life
under development include either bicycle lanes or adjacent paths. The for all Dublin residents.
' City has installed bicycle parking at key locations, including City Hall and
the Dublin Library. The Police Department organizes bicycle safety
rodeos at several elementary schools each year, and plans to expand this
' program in the future.
This document is intended as a conceptual guide for City staff and members of the public. Individual projects may
differ from the Plan's recommendations, but the main project alignments and policy recommendations should be
' implemented to the greatest degree possible.
Highlights of the recommendations include:
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 3
2007
~ .
1
' Continued development of successful trail corridors such as the Tassajara Creek Trail and improved
access to the Iron Horse Trail and other trails.
' Improved bicycle access to parks and open space including the Martin Canyon Creek trailhead,
Stagecoach Park, Alamo Creek, and Emerald Glen Park.
' Bicycle lanes and/or routes on several key cross-city corridors, including Dublin Boulevard, San
Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road.
• Bikeways on key freeway crossings, including I-580 at San Ramon Road and Tassajara Road, and
' the Alamo Canal Trail undercrossing.
• Development of education and enforcement programs.
' In addition, the Bikeways Master Plan includes an Existing and Proposed Bikeways map, which illustrates all of
the proposed projects, as well as the existing bicycle facilities in the City.
' Bikeways Masfer Plan Page 4
2007
I
I '
•
~r.
~~c /
.
- 1
c T ; I
Syn Ramos _ , ~ _
'V J
~ ~
m . , ~ ~
l r - _
a r•'r
~ - ~ ~ P Camp Parks '~•?P•
' • pper"" ~ • Reserve Farces
' 'Dy Doughert Hills Training Area ~
\ ~ tN ~ 0~ Open 5 ce
' ~ arF
~ \ i Murray •
- East Bay Regional • jElemema ~ - - - - _
Park District \ ry
' • • ~ ~ jDubI11L •gecoac ,
q~qmt ark ~ ~
.ry Yll High,
~ Swim
••?••i • OI Ted ~ ••?4?••ir•
l center•'? ;m ~ FaParkd j Z~p N~
I • . ~i Shannon ~ ~ jElementary QP' dl Lreen •i~~ ~
~ Community 0 j v o a Fallon Elementary `O-H ? • i•• ,1
. Center Z x a Middlej ?~t?Ro i•~
• ~ o Elemenlla ~ GLBSON DR y" ~ ••i•• it
lP , ? Sorts
• D 0 ? ~ Park
i ~ • •
- jWells ~ ~ i •ffff~••? •Future ,
• ? .
i • T~Rrj ~ 8L~ Middle j•• ~ w Dougherty ~ Sc~l • ~
'_'__'_--__-"-_.i__~ ~ \ N'W ~ \ ..oft.. _,~nµ Valle • o ? • I,~
' , ; _ ~ M~'_ ~ Y ~~pp~ • = Elementary Emerald Glen • : ' • • • ~ ,
I l~. __"'*••?•?\Y C~ '•Ma P High ~lYlStage '•?g ~ j Park ~ •••.j a....
•
r ?•••.?.J• u~ Memorial Senior Gy S•i•l......?,•'• G•..:i::::::: i::::~
•
i • ? < par Center • ~
? Schaefer ••'a• 1 ~ if 111 111 Bray ' ~ '
• • • • Nielsonry .N ' . • : C moos ~
I • Elemema UN • • ~ To North
_ ,???•Ranch ~ ibra ••'FwurN qa..• , • . .
? . • . • rY- ~ TrfisitV , \ ? Park
• nt~ s ~ .p ~ , ~ ~ ~a~~~ •WB:::~w •:::y: ns ParkwaY
•
? •
~ ?
? • i Cent~t,•p•~• ~ '••s • ~ ~ IcL Center 1P ~ ••.•i .~w._-__ 1 •
. ~
~ ?•~i • • / qua ~ ~ - 1. ~ei:Ys ~
' A:S? , a ~ i , ~ it ~
_ „r,,...~..~ ,F . Pleasanton ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
~ ~ "s°R •
/ o
Stoneridge o
' ~ e Mall
i , St
i
Class I Blke Paths Opan Space Trolls omar ~ BART Line
Existing Class I Bike Paths -Existing Unpaved Trail j Schools Hi hwa s `t I''r~
• Pro osed Class I Bike Paths g y „ 'I
P •••••Planned Unpaved Trail ~ Public Buildings Streets ^ ~
Clara 11 Blke Lanes Other Blke Proposals r~ V~:A)
' --Existing Class II Bike Lanes -One Side StudyArea ~ BART Station C! Parks
Water ~ u, I ~.r=~~~
- Existing Class II Bike Lanes -Two Sides Class III Bike Routes/Class II Bike Lanes ~ Proposed BART Station
' CWas III Blke Routes t ~ City Boundary
® Proposed Rest Area N
Existing Class III Bike Routes Freeway Crossing Study
Proposed Class III Bike Routes ®Proposed Trailhead Ex i st i n and Pro osed B i kewa s
O Intersection Improvement/Connection Study ~ ~
Not to Scale +r
I
' Dublin can implement portions of the Bicycle Plan in public and private development, implementation of City
programs, development of new roadway and transit facilities, and scheduled roadway maintenance. For instance,
' providing bicycle parking as part of the permit process for new and redevelopment projects can accomplish the
goal of increasing support facilities for cyclists.
The key policy recommendations contained in the plan include the following:
' Support Facilities
• Evaluate the needs of the community for bicycle parking on aproject-by-project basis, considering the
' type of non-residential development, proximity to transit, etc. (Community Development Department)
• Make a list of locations of bike racks and lockers available to the public. (Public Works Agency)
' Encourage the School District to provide safe and secure bike parking at all schools. (Public Works
Agency)
Safety and Education
• Expand the bicycle rodeo program to serve all of Dublin's elementary schools, as well as middle schools
and community centers to reach older children. (Police Services Department)
• Work with the Community Services Department to identify ways to promote the health benefits of
recreational cycling. Consider displaying promotional materials and advertising recreational rides. (Public
' Works Agency and Parks and Community Services Department).
• Combine the successful Flat Repair Clinics with bicycle rodeos and bicycle safety education for adults, or
establish an adult bicycle education program. (Police Services Department and Parks and Community
Services Department)
• Establish a bicycle helmet program through various statewide helmet programs that provides low-cost
' helmets to youth. (Police Services Department)
• Consider working with Safe Moves, a statewide non profit organization that has a bicycle and pedestrian
safety education program for school children and senior adults. (Police Services Department)
' Educate drivers about the rights of bicyclists by making bicycle safety a part of traffic school curriculum,
producing a brochure on bicycle safety and rights for public distribution, providing signs at strategic
locations, and other measures. (Public Works Agency and Police Services Department)
• Collect and analyze bicycle collisions on an annual basis to determine high-collision locations, primary
collision factors, helmet use, and other trends, and use this data to develop safety and education
' programs. (Public Works Agency and Police Services Department)
Funding and Implementation
' Prepare multi-agency joint applications for funding of projects of regional significance. (Public Works
Department)
• Use existing funding sources (i.e. Measure B Bike and TDA Article 3 funds) as matching funds for State
' and Federal funding. (Public Works Department)
• Require construction of bicycle facilities as part of new development. (Planning Department)
1 Bikeways Master Plan Page 6
2007
~ .
' Continue to include proposed bikeways as part of roadway projects involving widening, overlays, or other
improvements. (Public Works Department)
' Monitoring
• Review roadway improvement plans to ensure that bikeway segments and related improvements are
' implemented, developer impact fees are identified (if applicable), and design standards are met. (Public
Works Department)
• Provide interested residents with materials, information, and other support as the system is being
implemented. Plan and manage bicycle promotional and educational events, such as Bike to Work Day
and Bike to School Day. (Public Works Department)
• Keep track of long term path maintenance, schedule repairs, and respond to calls from the public or staff
regarding maintenance needs. (Public Works Agency and Parks and Community Services)
• Work closely with various funding agencies such as ACTIA, MTC and Caltrans to keep abreast of funding
opportunities and to follow upon applications to ensure maximum success. (Public Works Department)
• Provide enforcement along bike paths. (Police Services Department provides enforcement of City-
operated bikeways)
• Maintain surface conditions through periodic street sweeping. (Public Works Agency)
' • Include in the City's Volunteer Program the maintenance of bikeways. (Public Works Department)
This Plan is consistent with Alameda County's Regional Bicycle Plan, Bike Plans and maps from the cities of San
Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore, and the East Bay Regional Park District's Trails Master Plan. This Plan
addresses items (a) through (k) in Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The Plan should
be updated every five years to reflect its status and maintain City eligibility for certain state funding sources.
1
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 7
2007
o
1. DEFINITIONS
DEFINITIONS (see Appendix A for illustrative examples of the following):
Bikeway -All facilities that provide primarily for bicycle travel.
' Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) - Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and
pedestrians with crossflow minimized.
Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) - Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or a highway.
Class III (Bike route) -Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.
' Sharrow -Shared road bicycle marking used to alert road users of the location a bicyclist may occupy within the
traveled way.
Bicycle Support Facilities -Facilities that bicyclists use when they reach their destinations. They can include
short- and long-term bicycle parking, showers, lockers, restrooms, lighting, and public pay phones.
1
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 8
2007
1 2. INTRODUCTION
' VISION STATEMENT
The purpose of the Bikeways Master Plan is to make Dublin: a city with many safe and pleasant bicycle facilities
' that provide access to parks, trails, and open space as well as to schools, jobs, and community facilities; a city in
which the needs of bicyclists and other trail users are considered in balance among all modes of travel; and a city
that encourages bicycling as a healthful and enjoyable activity.
Improving bicycle access throughout the City benefits not only cyclists, but also walkers, hikers, wheelchair users,
and other trail users, and improves quality of life for all Dublin residents.
' INTRODUCTION
Bicycling is a low-cost, quiet, non-polluting, and healthy form of transportation ideal for many trips. It is also a
pleasant, enjoyable activity that can improve personal health, promote a sense of community, and provide access
' to recreational amenities. A bicycle network benefits an entire community, including walkers, hikers, and
wheelchair users, and people of all ages and abilities. While this plan incorporates mixed-use trails and access to
open space, its primary focus is on bicycling.
' The City of Dublin General Plan sets forth a blueprint for a system of bikeways in Dublin. This Bikeways Master
Plan builds on the original blueprint with an evaluation of existing conditions and a prioritized list of improvements
that include on- and off-street bicycle facilities. The Bikeways Master Plan is the official policy document
addressing the development of bicycles facilities for transportation and recreation purpose.
The Bikeways Master Plan is divided into nine chapters that address the plan's relationship to existing plans, new
goals and policies, bicycling needs, existing conditions, a recommended bicycle network, support facilities, safety
and education improvements, funding, and project prioritization.
In developing the Plan, City staff worked with the Bikeways Master Plan Public Meeting Participants, composed of
' representatives of Dublin-area stakeholders to ensure consistent, regular input and feedback. Three public
meetings were held with the Public Meeting Participants between February and August 2006, and the draft Plan
was recommended for approval by the Bikeways Master Plan Public Meeting Participants in July 2006.
' RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
This Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with plans and policies at a Federal, State, and local level.
Federal Policies
There are four key policy sources at the Federal level:
r The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
' The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Joint Statement, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian
Travel: A Recommended Approach
• The American Association of Transportation Official's (AASHTO's) Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Bikeways Master Plan Page 9
2007
~ .
' SAFETEA-LU, passed in 2005, integrates bicycle and pedestrian travel into the mainstream transportation
system. This builds on previous federal transportation bills, beginning with ISTEA (passed in 1991), and
' TEA-21 (passed in 1998). The legislation asserts that bicycle and pedestrian facilities should offer a viable
transportation choice while prioritizing the safety of all road users. SAFETEA-LU requires that bikeways and
pedestrian walkways be considered as the rule rather than the exception in all federally funded transportation
projects. SAFETEA-LU also includes a Safe Routes to School program, which provides funding for safety and
' access projects that improve conditions for children walking or bicycling to school.
The Federal Highway Administration's Joint Statement, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A
Recommended Approach offers a base for bicycle and pedestrian planning. The statement establishes overall
' policy as well as performance measures. The three key principles contained in the statement are as follows:
• Bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional
' circumstances exist;
• Municipalities should use approaches to achieving the policy that have worked elsewhere as a model;
and
' • Public agencies, professional associations, or advocacy groups should adopt several action items to
improve the overall conditions for bicycling and walking.
' The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities offers design guidance for accommodating bicycle
facilities into transportation projects.
' The Americans with Disabilities Act Title 111 is legislation enacted in 1990 that provides thorough civil liberties
protections to individuals with disabilities with regards to employment, state and local government services, and
access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Title III of the Act requires places of
public accommodation to be accessible and usable to all people, including those with disabilities.
Regional and State Policies
' Regional and State policies that relate to this Bicycle Plan include:
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual
' California Vehicle Code
• The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Policy on Routine Accommodation
' • Alameda County Regional Bicycle Master Plan
• East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan
' Zone 7 Water Agency Stream Management Master Plan Interim Report
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual is the main source for design standards for bicycle facilities in California.
' Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design, sets the basic minimums for bike lane and trail widths. It also
establishes policies for the type and placement of signs. The Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter
31: Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities defines the means by which local jurisdictions may receive Caltrans
' approval for State-funded projects. The Project Development Procedures Manual includes information about
State grant programs, following the State mandate in the Streets and Highways Code that the State disburse a
minimum of $7.2 million annually to bicycle projects as part of the Bicycle Transportation Account.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 10
2007
i
' The California Vehicle Code includes several sections related to bicycle operation, while allowing local
jurisdictions leeway to create their own policies. For example, Section 21200 establishes bicyclists' right to share
the road with vehicles, and makes them subject to the same rules and regulations as drivers. These sections also
define conditions under which a bicyclist may "take the lane," as well as instances when drivers are allowed in
bicycle lanes.
' Regional Connections
This Bikeways Master Plan is consistent with regional and neighboring cities' bicycle plans. Bicycle network maps
' for Alameda County and the cities of San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore were reviewed and considered in
developing Dublin's recommended network, in order to promote a coordinated regional bicycle system. These
plans are described briefly below.
' Alameda County
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency is currently updating the Alameda Countywide Bicycle
Plan. The Draft 2006 Bicycle Network map shows the following proposed facilities relating to Dublin (please refer
to Definitions on Page 9):
• Class II lanes on Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road to Tassajara Road, on an extension of Dublin
Boulevard from Tassajara Road to the Dublin city limit, and on Dublin Boulevard and Collier Canyon from
the Dublin city limit to Doolan Road, connecting in Livermore to Class II lanes on North Canyons Parkway.
• Class II lanes on San Ramon Road from Alcosta Boulevard south over I-580, connecting to Class II lanes
on Foothill Road in Pleasanton.
• Class II lanes on Dougherty Road from the Contra Costa County line south over I-580, connecting to
Class II lanes on Hopyard Road in Pleasanton.
• A Class III route on Tassajara Road from the County line south to the Dublin City limit, and Class II lanes
on Tassajara Road from the Dublin city limit south across I-580, connecting to Class II lanes on Santa
Rita Road in Pleasanton.
• The Alamo Canal Trail underpass at I-580.
t A Class I trail along Tassajara Creek from the County line south to just north of Somerset Lane.
These projects are all incorporated into this Bikeways Master Plan. The I-580 overcrossings are proposed as
freeway crossing studies, with the understanding that they will entail significant coordination between Dublin,
Pleasanton, and Caltrans.
' City of Livermore
The City of Livermore's Proposed Bikeways and Trails Network map in their General Plan shows both proposed
Class II lanes and a Class I trail along an extension of Dublin Boulevard. The Class I trail would connect to a
proposed trail along Collier Canyon Road, while the proposed Class II lanes would connect to existing bike lanes
on North Canyons Parkway.
' City of San Ramon
The City of San Ramon's Bicycle Network map in its 2020 General Plan shows existing Class II lanes on San
Ramon Valley Boulevard (which becomes San Ramon Road in Dublin), Village Parkway, and Stagecoach Road,
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 11
2007
' and existing Class III routes on Davona Drive, Alcosta Boulevard and Kimball Avenue. It also shows proposed
Class II lanes on Dougherty Road. This Bikeways Master Plan proposes connecting Class II lanes on San
Ramon Road, Stagecoach Road, and Dougherty Road, and a connecting Class III route on Davona Drive.
City of Pleasanton
The City of Pleasanton's Existing Community Trails & Bike Paths map shows an existing Class I path along Alamo
Canal, existing Class II lanes on Hopyard Road (Dougherty Road in Dublin) and Santa Rita Road (Tassajara
Road in Dublin), and an existing Class III route on Foothill Road (San Ramon Road in Dublin). No proposed
' bicycle facilities are shown. This Bikeways Master Plan proposes to study a connection to the Class I Alamo
Canal path under I-580, and connecting Class II lanes on San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, and Tassajara
Road (with a potential overcrossing at I-580).
' In addition, several of the trails in Dublin are the shared responsibility of the City, the East Bay Regional Park
District, and the Zone 7 Water Agency. Coordinating with the County and other cities and agencies will maximize
the likelihood of securing funding and enable an integrated bicycle network.
Local Policies
' The City of Dublin has many policies that support bicycling. These include policies within larger plans such as the
Dublin General Plan and the Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as well as, Specific Plans and Guidelines
such as the Village Parkway Specific Plan and the Fallon Village Design Guidelines. The following is a list of
' Dublin plans that include policies related to bicycling.
• The Dublin General Plan calls fora comprehensive, integrated trail network that permits safe and
convenient pedestrian and bicycle access within urban areas and between urban areas and open space
areas." The General Plan also recommends an integrated multi-modal circulation system that encourages
pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other non-automobile transportation alternatives. The General Plan's
Roadway Standards call for all streets to serve a balance of vehicle, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit.
' • The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan calls for off-street paths linking community
amenities such as parks, schools, open space areas, neighborhood retail and other destinations.
' The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires bicycle parking in all parking lots with 20 or more spaces
in non-residential zoning districts and in all multi-family residential complexes.
• The City of Dublin 2004-2009 Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program includes several
' bicycle projects, such as raising catch basin grates on Dublin Boulevard and studying an Alamo Canal
Trail under I-580.
• The Downtown Core Specific Plan's objectives include providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages
between the downtown core area and other portions of Dublin.
• The Village Parkway Specific Plan recommends that new commercial and office development provide
' bicycle storage facilities for employees and visitors.
• The West Dublin Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Specific Plan's objectives include creating bicycle
linkages between the BART area, Downtown Core, and other portions of Dublin.
' The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan's land use patterns and intensities are designed to encourage the use
of alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling, bus, and others. The plan also calls for a
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 12
2007
~ .
bicycle circulation system including bicycle lanes on Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, and Fallon Road and
convenient and secure bicycle parking facilities at key destinations.
' The San Ramon Road Specific Plan calls for pedestrian/bicycle access along San Ramon Road and
Martin Canyon Creek from San Ramon Road to the west edge of the Nielsen Elementary School grounds.
' The Fallon Village Design Guidelines Trails and Parks Plan recommends Multi-Use Trails on both east
and west sides of the creek-side open space as well as along both sides of major roadways in the Fallon
Village area.
• The City of Dublin Green Building Ordinance encourages new commercial and institutional buildings to
be designed with bicycle racks or storage and shower and changing facilities. It also encourages
residential development to include covered bicycle storage.
' The Zone 7 Arroyo Management Plan encourages local cities such as Dublin to construct, operate and
maintain public recreational trails along selected flood control channels or arroyos. The plan includes
design standards for bicycle and pedestrian trails as well as staging areas.
CONFORMANCE WITH FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
The Bikeways Master Plan conforms to the California Bicycle Transportation Act (BTA), the Transportation
Development Act (TDA), and Measure B requirements, which allows the City to pursue grant funds for bicycle
projects from these sources. The requirements of the BTA funding source are generally considered the most
challenging, so satisfying the BTA will also expand the City's opportunities to pursue a variety of Federal and
' State funding sources. Measure B and TDA require that the plan contain a list of prioritized projects approved by
the City Council. These lists may be found in Chapter 9.
' Table 1 summarizes the 11 elements required by the BTA and their relationship to the City of Dublin Bikeways
Master Plan.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 13
2007
TABLE 1
' RELATIONSHIP OF CALIFORNIA BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ACT (1994)
TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN
' California Bicycle Transportation Act (1994) Bikeways Master Plan
1. Estimated number of existing and future bicycle
commuters Description in Chapter 3.
' 2. Map and description of land use and settlement Description in Chapter 4. Land uses shown on
patterns, including shopping centers, City
buildings, and employment centers Figure 1.
' 3. Map and description of existing and proposed Description of existing bikeways in Chapter 4.
bikeways Description of proposed facilities in Chapter 5.
Existing and proposed bikeways shown on Figure
' 4.
4. Map and description of bicycle parking facilities Description in Chapter 6. Existing facilities shown
on Figure 5.
' 5. Map and description of multi-modal connections Description in Chapter 4. Multi-modal connections
shown on Figure 3.
6. Map and description of facilities for changing and Description in Chapter 6. Support Facilities shown
storing clothes and equipment on Figure 5.
' 7. Description of bicycle safety and education
programs Description in Chapter 7.
' 8. Description of citizen and community participation,
including letters of support. Description in Chapter 1.
9. Description of consistency with transportation, air
quality, and energy conservation plans, including Description in Chapter 1.
incentives for bike commuting
10. Description of proposed bicycle projects and Description of proposed facilities in Chapter 5.
implementation priority Prioritization discussed in Chapter 9.
11. Description of past expenditures and future
financial needs for bicycle facilities Description in Chapter 8.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 14
2007
1
. ~ s
3. GOALS AND POLICIES
' The Bikeways Master Plan contains goals and policies for developing and implementing a bikeway system that
can be broken down into three general categories:
' Provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile and thus improve transportation choices for
Dublin residents
• Improve safety for bicyclists
' Provide residents with access to open space, trails, and other recreational amenities and encourage
cycling for health and recreation.
These goals and policies are outlined below.
Goa11: Support bicycling and the development of a comprehensive bicycle transportation system
' as a viable alternative to the automobile.
Policies:
' 1.1 Integrate the proposed highest priority on-street and off-street bikeway projects contained in this plan as
part of the larger five-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP) update that the City undertakes for all
' projects.
1.2 Update the City's General Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan to reflect the goals and policies in
' this plan.
1.3 Update the Plan every five years.
' Goal 2: Maximize the amount of state and federal funding for bicycle transportation improvements
for which Dublin is eligible.
' Policies:
2.1 Identify current regional, state, and federal funding programs along with specific funding requirements and
deadlines.
' 2.2 Pursue multi-jurisdictional funding applications with neighboring cities and other potential partners such as
BART and the East Bay Regional Park District.
2.3 Encourage the formation of reliable local, regional, and state funding sources that can be used to leverage
federal funds.
' Goal 3: Build upon existing bicycle facilities.
Policies:
' 3.1 Encourage the use of existing natural and man-made corridors such as creeks, canals, and other open
space corridors for future multi-use trail alignments.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 15
.2007
i
' 3.2 Identify existing bicycle education programs and expand these programs as appropriate.
3.3 Conduct bicycle counts and surveys whenever vehicle counts are conducted to gauge the effectiveness of
' various improvements and programs.
Goal 4: Develop a bicycle system that meets the needs of commuter and recreational users, helps
' reduce vehicle trips, and links residential neighborhoods with regional destinations.
Policies:
4.1 Develop a bicycle commuter route system that connects residential neighborhoods to employment areas,
multi-modal terminals, and schools.
' 4.2 Develop a recreational route system that uses low-volume streets and off-street multi-use trails to serve
recreational destinations such as parks and open space.
4.3 Develop policies that encourage people to bicycle to work. Estimate the future benefits of reduced
congestion, parking, and improved air quality and health to make the City competitive in applying for
grants.
' 4.4 Balance user convenience with safety concerns. Where needed, develop a dual system that serves both
the experienced and inexperienced bicyclist.
4.5 Encourage employers to provide secure bicycle parking, showers and changing rooms for bicycle
' commuters.
4.6 As a condition of project approval, require major development projects with major transportation impacts
to construct adjacent bicycle facilities included in the proposed bicycle system.
' 4.7 Evaluate the needs of the community for bicycle parking on aproject-by-project basis.
4.8 Consult the Recommended Bikeways map prior to implementation of street improvement projects.
4.9 Install bicycle stencils and bicycle-sensitive loop detectors (or other detector type) on bikeways as part of
new signals, signal upgrades, and resurfacing/restriping projects.
' 4.10 Provide appropriately-signed detours for bicyclists during construction projects.
Goal 5: Maximize multi-modal connections to the bicycle system.
Policies:
5.1 Ensure that the bicycle system serves transit stops and stations.
5.2 Work with local and regional transit agencies to install bike lockers at existing and new stations and bike
storage on BART.
' S.3 Take advantage of available funding sources to provide strong bicycle connections to transit.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 16
2007
' Goal 6: Improve bicycle safety.
Policies:
6.1 Monitor bicycle-related collisions annually and target a reduction rate over a specific period of time.
' 6.2 Expand the "bicycle rodeo" program that is held at elementary schools to serve older children and adults.
6.3 Develop a maintenance schedule for bicycle facilities.
6.4 Work with the school district to identify "Safe Routes to Schools" improvements for cyclists and
pedestrians.
' Goa/ 7: Develop a coordinated marketing strategy to encourage bicycling and to increase
awareness of the importance of regular physical activity.
Policies:
7.1 Develop and update a Bikeway Map showing bicycle facilities for public distribution both in print and via
the City's website.
7.2 Coordinate with other agencies (i.e. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Dublin Unified School
District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and Regional Rideshare Programs) and local
' businesses on annual bicycle events such as "Bike to Work Day," "Bike to School Day", and bicycle safety
courses.
7.3 Provide information about the advantages and opportunities afforded by the bicycle system to groups who
may help publicize the system.
7.4 Coordinate efforts with neighboring cities, local bicycle clubs, and relevant associations.
i
1
1
i
Bikeways Master Plan Page 17
2007
~ .
4. BICYCLE NETWORK
The Bikeways Master Plan sets forth a blueprint for completing a system of bikeways and support facilities within
the City of Dublin. The current General Plan circulation element consists of two circulation maps and two policies
in the 2005 update to Dublin's General Plan. The General Plan's circulation maps include 16 existing and future
bicycle routes as well as policies encouraging the City to provide safe bikeways on arterial streets and complete
the bikeway system shown on the maps. This Bikeways Master Plan builds upon existing on-street and off-street
bicycle facilities throughout the City, focusing on access to Dublin's parks, trails and open space areas, and also
includes criteria for defining different types of bicycle facilities, a project list, design standards, and education and
safety programs.
NEEDS ANALYSIS
' Dublin has many qualities favorable to bicycling, including a temperate climate, existing regional trails and
relatively flat terrain. However, heavy traffic and a lack of bicycle facilities on major arterials are existing
constraints to bicycling. The only east-west arterial, Dublin Boulevard, carries high traffic volumes (over 30,000
vehicles per day) and has limited bicycle facilities. North-south connectors such as San Ramon Road, Dougherty
Road, and Tassajara Road also carry high traffic volumes (17,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day) and provide limited
or incomplete bicycle facilities.
In addition to busy streets and incomplete facilities, other constraints are the interstates located on the southern
boundary of Dublin (I-580) and through central Dublin (I-680). These interstates present obstacles when crossing
south into Pleasanton and traveling east and west within Dublin. Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
(RFTA) also presents a unique constraint to Dublin. As shown in Figure 1, Camp Parks is a large section of land
close to the center of Dublin that divides the City in half. Camp Parks roads are exempt from City control and,
therefore, bicycles do not currently have access through Camp Parks. However, this Plan, along with other
documents, recommends consideration of bicycle route extensions through the southern portion of Camp Parks if
this portion of Camp Parks is developed by the private sector in the future.
Bicycle Trip Types
Bikeways, like streets and sidewalks, are used by a wide range of people--children riding to school, commuters
riding to work, people exercising, racing, or touring. This analysis takes into account the different user groups to
' design a comprehensive bicycle system that meets their needs.
Related to the user groups mentioned above is trip purpose, which helps identify common needs among the
groups. In general, bicycle trips can be broken down into recreational (including all discretionary trips), commuter
(whether to work or school) or shopping trips. The biggest difference between these groups is that while
recreational riders may be interested in routes leading to parks or other areas of interest, commuters and
shoppers are interested in the shortest and safest route between two points. The Bikeways Master Plan identifies
' appropriate improvements for recreational and commuter bicycle facilities.
1
Bikeways Master Plan Page 18
2007
~ .
' Recreational Destinations and Needs
Dublin has a diverse recreational system that includes city parks and trails as well as regional parks and trails that
appeal to various types of bicyclists. Recreational bicycling includes children riding to a nearby park, more serious
cyclists riding tours, casual riders riding in the evening for exercise, and older adults riding to a community center.
The common attribute of all of these activities is that they are generally done for the pleasure of the ride itself, they
have a recreational facility as a final destination, they are discretionary by nature, and they value speed and
directness less than surroundings and relative safety.
Recreational bicyclists can generally be categorized into two groups. The first group is casual bicyclists who
typically have short trips and often include less experienced cyclists, particularly young children and older adults.
The second group includes more experienced and athletic riders who generally seek scenic back roads as their
favorite domain.
It is important to understand these distinct types of bicyclists because the proposed system must provide
opportunities for both groups. For the person riding for exercise, the needs are for a relatively quiet route with no
stops, away from automobile traffic, if possible, preferably with visual interest and shades from the wind and sun.
A loop configuration is preferred so that the rider ends up back at his/her starting point without backtracking. For
the person going to another recreational destination (a park or a shopping mall), the route may consist of fairly
direct back streets that allow arrival with reasonable time through a comfortable environment. For other casual
' riders, a route that leads through interesting neighborhoods, along creeks, or through parks and open space offers
the greatest interest.
Commuter and Student Destinations and Needs
' Commuter and student destinations include downtown employment centers, office parks, and elementary, junior
high, and high schools. Targeting bikeway improvements to commuters is important because most roadway
congestion and a significant portion of air contaminants occur during the AM and PM peak periods.
In many cases, bicycling as a commute alternative has the potential to improve traffic and air quality. For
example, bicycle commuters in the City of Davis have reduced peak hour traffic volumes by over 15%-- to the
' point that many downtown streets that would normally require four traffic lanes (with no bike lanes) have only two
traffic lanes and ample room for bicyclists. While Davis may be an anomaly, national surveys have shown that
about 20% of the adult population would use a bicycle to ride to work, at least occasionally, if a properly designed
bikeway system existed. Roughly 14% of work-trips in Dublin are under 9 minutes. This shows that there is a
substantial target group for bicycle commuters.
Commuters and students have similar travel behavior, which is typically to take the most direct route from origin to
destination. For grammar school students, this may consist of residential or collector streets, with few crossings
of major arterials. For junior high and high school students, riders may have to cross several arterials to reach
school. For college students and adult commuters, rides are most often less than five miles but may be as long
as 10 or 15 miles. The nearest university/community colleges are the Amador Valley Adult & Community
' Education campus in Pleasanton and Las Positas College in Livermore (about seven miles away), and the Diablo
Community College in San Ramon's Dougherty Valley.
Commuters and students (in the morning) travel during peak periods of traffic to destinations that may have high
levels of congestion and speeds. For example, one of the most dangerous parts of a student's commute is the
drop-off zone in front of the school where many vehicles search for parking or drop-off spaces.
Commuting bicyclists have simple and obvious needs. They require bike lanes or wide curb lanes along arterials
and collectors, loop detectors at signalized intersections, signals where school children need to cross busy
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 19
2007
~ .
' arterials, periodic maintenance of the pavement, and adequate bicycle storage and lockers/showers at their
destination points (see Chapter 7, Support Facilities).
Most commute bicycle trips are fewer than five miles and are not regional trips, except for those commuters
linking to another mode, such as at bus stops or transit stations. Continuing to allow bicycles on other modes
such as bus and BART and providing bike lockers at transit stations will help extend the range of commute
bicyclists in Dublin.
Existing and Future Bicycle Commuters
I A common term used in describing demand for bicycle facilities is "mode split." Mode split refers to the form of
transportation a person chooses to take, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or driving. Mode split is often
used in evaluating commuter alternatives such as bicycling, where the objective is to increase the percentage of
' people selecting an alternative means of transportation to the single-occupant (or drive-alone) automobile. Table
2 presents 1990 and 2000 Census data for the journey-to-work mode split for the City of Dublin.
i
TABLE 2
JOURNEY-TO-WORK MODE SPLIT FOR THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
Mode 1990 2000
' (Home-based work trips)
Drive Alone 79.7% 79.1%
Carpool 11.9% 9.9%
Public Transit 2.0% 5.4%
Bicycling 0.5% 0.3%
Walking 2.2% 1.3%
Other Means 0.3% 0.7%
Work at Home 3.4% 3.2%
' Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 20
2007
~ .
t As shown in Table 2, bicycle trips represent 0.3 percent of home-based work trips in Dublin. This should not be
misinterpreted as the bicycle mode share of all trips for several reasons:
• Journey-to-work data only represents commute trips, which tend to be longer than shopping, school,
recreation, and other trips, and are therefore less compatible with bicycling.
• Census journey-to-work data fails to capture people who commute by bicycle one or two days per week.
• Journey-to-work data does not account for commuters with multiple modes of travel to and from work,
such as commuters that ride a bicycle to a BART station before transferring to transit for the remainder of
their journey to work.
• No separate accounting of shopping, school, or recreational trips is made in the Census; these trips make
up more than half of the person trips on a typical weekday and a significantly greater proportion on the
' weekend. These trips also tend to be short to medium in length and are therefore very well suited for
bicycling.
• Journey-to-work reports information for adult work trips, but does not request data on school trips, which
are much more likely to be bicycling trips because school-aged individuals cannot drive until the latter half
of their high school years.
' School trips, recreation trips and other non-work related trips make the overall bicycle mode split higher than 0.3%,
and may make it as high as 1.5% (based on MTC's 2000 travel forecasts). According to the 2000 Census, there
are 9,325 households in Dublin. Assuming approximately 9 daily person trips per household, there are a total of
approximately 83,925 daily person trips in Dublin, of which approximately 250 to 1,260 each day are by bicycle
(assuming an overall mode share of 0.3% to 1.5%). Of course, as the City grows, the number of potential bicycle
trips increases.
Future bicycle trips will depend on a number of factors such as the availability of well-connected facilities, and
location, density, and type of future land development. With appropriate bicycle facilities in place and
implementation of employer trip reduction programs, the bicycle mode split could increase above its current rate.
i
1
1
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 21
2007
i -
f TYPES OF BIKEWAY FACILITIES
.Bikeway planning and design in California typically relies on the guidelines and design standards established b~r
Caltrans as documented in "Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design" of the Highway Design Manual (5
Edition, California Department of Transportation, January 2001). Chapter 1000 follows standards developed by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), and identifies specific design standards for various conditions and bikeway-to-roadway
relationships.
Caltrans standards provide for three distinct types of bikeway facilities, as generally described below and shown
in Appendix A.
• Class 1 Bikeway (Bike Path) provides a completely separate right-of-way and is designated for the
' exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized. Bike paths
are for non-motorized use only. It should be noted that Class I paths adjacent to roadways (also known
as "sidepaths") with intersecting driveways and roadways have a high collision potential for cyclists,
because drivers who are exiting driveways or intersecting roads and looking for oncoming traffic do not
expect cyclists to approach from the opposite direction.' For these reasons, when the City reviews plans
for development adjacent to proposed Class I facilities, driveways and cross-flow traffic should be
minimized. When driveways cross Class I paths, the City should consider warning signs and pavement
markings (such as "Bike XING" or STOP bars) for both drivers and bicyclists, as appropriate. These
safety issues do not apply to regional trails, which generally have few intersections.
• Class ll Bikeway (Bike Lane) provides a restricted right-of-way and is designated for the use of bicycles
with a striped lane on a street or highway. Bicycle lanes are generally at least five feet wide. Vehicle
parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. Class II lanes are preferred to Class I paths on
roadways with multiple intersections and/or driveways, for the reasons described above.
1 • Class Ill Bikeway (Bike Route) provides for aright-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings
for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles. A Shared-Use Arrow (or "Sharrow") can be marked in
the outside lane on a Class III route to show the suggested path of travel for bicyclists. This is often done
when the route has on-street parking, in order to encourage cyclists to ride a safe distance away from the
parked vehicles' "door zone." The Sharrow can also be used at intersections with multiple turn lanes to
show bicyclists the recommended lane for through travel. The Sharrow also shows drivers that cyclists
should be expected on the street and given sufficient room. A sign stating "Bicycle Allowed Full Use of
Lane" is often included.
1
'Wachtel, Alan and Diana Lewiston, Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections, Institute of Trans ortation En ineers
P 9
Journal, September 1994. pp. 30-35
Bikeways Master Plan Page 22
2007
r;
~r
1 ~ a T "".4~I'. -"~u ~ i
s ~ ~ = ~
c~
x ~ qz ~ I ~ 1
~
r _ @ 'p~¢,
$w ~r•y~ ~Rrr^'~ d X ~ ,~A~7` "f 4 'P ~~°ay$"'`,~Gr~^
i
s ~ ,W
`~f~
- .
i ~
v
'u
~ r
A:
T,~
N..
1 ~
s , . ~
~ w
~ , -
va, s^ ~ x ~ e ' ~ 4
~~~~i~-
h
~
t~ ~ t r-
a
_ . 'i l' ~ x
~ ~~1,~
_ 7 ~0 v'~` C ~ ~
c~,'`~ ~ . M
_ , n, ~ ;
~ <
T
1 ~ w /i
° ` ~`M 9~'~ ISM j ,\y~ ~ r
~ `~r', t ~ ~ ~~',t
Ii / ~ i- r
C~.r ~ ' ~ ~ it
~ .
' BAN ,.n ' E IjueuN - ons
0
r~ ~ ~ n
~J ~ err :e
r ~
b
i
~4. ~ G
1 / _
"o~"N
~ h i~`
.pry , ^ot' _
a2 q
e ~
.
P!
i? l ~ .'t~ iy
~Kr i
~ ~
~ >
'
` " i. .yam ~'?u.~-_ .
;,e r,*
GtyZoniny ~ Retail Commercial D Two Family Residential rnn~ ~ BART Station
' ~ A riculturelMilita ® Public Buildin s
g ry ~ Neighborhood Commercial ~ Multi-Family Residential 9
~ Light Industrial 0 planned Development ~ Unclassifed j Schools ®Future BART Station w
~ Commercial Office Single Family Residential ~ Parks
~ General Commercial ~ Shopping Centers _ Streets Figure 1
' JIB. Employment Centers Water "
~ BART Line
NoitoScale Land Use
I
~ .
5. EXISTING FACILITIES
' Fehr & Peers conducted an inventory of existing bikeway segments in Dublin based on the City's current General
Plan bikeway map, additional information obtained from the City, and field visits. The City currently has
approximately 21 miles of bikeway facilities, consisting of:
• 13 miles of Class I bike paths
• 8 miles of Class II bike lanes
• 1/3 mile of Class III bike routes
It is worth noting that approximately 5.5 miles of the Class I paths are sidepaths along only one side of a street,
and 1.4 miles of the Class II lanes are only on one side of the street.
The Existing Bikeway Network map on Figure 2 illustrates the locations of existing bikeways. Note that unpaved
open space trails are also included on the map as a reference. These trails do not meet Caltrans design
standards for Class I bike paths. They primarily serve hikers and may or may not permit mountain bicycling
depending on park regulations. However, open space trails are recreational destinations providing access to
' creeks, ridges, and undeveloped areas their trailheads may be reached by bicycle.
LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
In addition to showing the types and locations of existing bikeways, Figure 2 also locates major bicycle activity
centers such as schools, parks, and the library. Figure 1 shows the existing land use pattern in the city.
Interstate 580 serves as the southern boundary to the city, and Interstate 680 crosses the City near the
Downtown Area. Camp Parks RFTA occupies a large amount of land in central Dublin between Dougherty Road
and Tassajara Road, from Dublin Boulevard to the border with San Ramon, and almost splits the City in half.
Retail uses are concentrated along Dublin Boulevard on both sides of I-680, as well as along San Ramon Road
and Village Parkway. Major employment centers include offices along Dublin Boulevard and office parks on
Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive. There are some light industrial uses along Sierra Court.
The Dublin school system includes six public elementary schools, two public junior high schools, two public high
schools, and five private schools. Public facilities include the Civic Center and library on Dublin Boulevard at
' Civic Plaza, the Shannon Community Center on San Ramon Road (currently closed), the Dublin Senior Center on
Amador Valley Boulevard, the Dublin Swim Center at Dublin High School, and the Frank Stager Gym on York
Drive.
' Dublin is a growing city, and is expanding to the east and west. A large amount of this expansion will be new
housing development. For example, Fallon Village is a large development of over 3,000 units and 2.5 million
square feet of non-residential space located in eastern Dublin north of I-580 and east of Fallon Road. In western
Dublin, the Schaefer Ranch development located north of the extension of Dublin Boulevard includes up to 302
housing units and 250 acres of parks and open space. A transit village near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station
is now under construction and a new West Dublin BART station is currently being planned. There are also plans
' for new mixed-use development, shopping centers, and commercial/office space along Dublin Boulevard and
Tassajara Road in eastern Dublin. All of this development will change land use patterns in the city and could
potentially generate additional bicycle trips.
r
Bikeways Master Plan Page 24
2007
i
KEY CORRIDORS
Dublin currently does not have a complete north-south on-street bicycle connection between San Ramon to the
north and Pleasanton to the south. However, Dublin does have a number of off-street north-south bike corridors
that extend across the city, many of which are regional Trails managed by the East Bay Regional Park District.
There is no existing east-west bicycle connection in Dublin. This is in part because both Interstate 680 and Camp
Parks RFTA present barriers, dividing the eastern and western ends of the City. Dublin Boulevard and Amador
Valley Boulevard (with connections to other streets including Gleason Drive and Central Parkway) could provide
on-street east-west access.
On-Street North-south routes:
• San Ramon Road is a four-lane arterial with a parallel off-street path on the west side as well as bicycle
lane striping between Silvergate Drive and Alcosta Boulevard. San Ramon Road extends from the
northern city boundary to the southern city boundary, and crosses I-580 with on- and off-ramps. The
speed limit on San Ramon Road is 40 miles per hour and the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is between
17,000 vehicles in the north and 29,000 near Silvergate Drive.
• Village Parkway is four-lane collector with Class 11 bike lanes between Amador Valley Boulevard and the
City of San Ramon. Between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard, Village Parkway is a Class
III bike route. South of Dublin Boulevard, there are no existing bike lanes. The City of Dublin recently
improved the section of Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin Boulevard with a
median, landscaping, benches and trash cans. The speed limit on Village Parkway is 30 to 35 miles per
hour and the ADT is between 10,000 vehicles in the north and 20,000 between Amador Valley Boulevard
and Dublin Boulevard.
• Dougherty Road is a four-lane arterial that runs from the southern city boundary, where it crosses I-580
' with on- and off-ramps, to the northern city boundary. It has an off-street bike path along the east side
from the Iron Horse Trail to the northern city boundary. Dougherty Road provides connections to the Iron
Horse Trail, Amador Valley Boulevard, and Alamo Creek Park. It also serves as the western boundary of
Camp Parks RFTA. The speed limit on Dougherty Road is 35 to 45 miles per hour and the ADT is
between 18,000 vehicles in the north and 44,000 near I-580.
• Tassajara Road is a four-lane arterial in eastern Dublin. The street has bicycle lane striping at major
intersections between Dublin Boulevard and the south leg of North Dublin Ranch Drive. South of Dublin
Boulevard, Tassajara Road crosses I-580 with an on- and off-ramp. Tassajara Road could provide a
straight north-south connection through Dublin as well as access to the retail uses on the western side of
the street. The speed limit on Tassajara Road is 35 miles per hour and the ADT is between 20,000
' vehicles near Gleason Drive and 30,000 near I-580.
• Fallon Road is a two/four-lane arterial that will connect with Tassajara Road in northern Dublin in the
future. There are existing bicycle lanes at several of the most recently paved intersections as well as a
bicycle lane on one side of the street between Central Parkway and Gleason Drive. Fallon Road provides
access to the Sports Park and the future Fallon Village development in eastern Dublin.
' Off-Street Norfh-South routes:
• San Ramon Road Path is a sidepath used by both pedestrians and cyclists and extends along the west
side of San Ramon Road from Dublin Boulevard north to the City Limit at Alcosta Boulevard. The ten foot
wide asphalt path is striped with a yellow center line. Between Silvergate Drive and Dublin Boulevard, the
Bikeways Masfer Plan Page 25
2007
' path is frequently crossed by driveways to parking lots. This section of the path has been designed with
curves and small hills. North of Silvergate Drive the path is straighter and is not crossed by driveways.
• The Iron Horse Trail is an East Bay Regional Park District Regional Trail that extends from Pleasanton
to Concord with proposed extensions to Niles Canyon in Fremont. Within the City of Dublin the trail
extends from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to the San Ramon Border. The Iron Horse Trail
intersects with the Alamo Creek and Alamo Canal Trails and the Dougherty Road Bike Path. The asphalt
trail surface is 12 feet wide.
_ The Alamo Canal Trail is an East Bay Regional Park District Regional Trail that extends from the
southern city limit near the Dublin Library and Civic Center and extends north up to the Iron Horse Trail.
Currently, there is a closed gate that creates a gap in this trail connection.
' The Alamo Creek Trail is a City trail that extends from the Iron Horse Trail north through Alamo Creek
Park to the northern city limit near Crossridge Road. The trail ranges from 12 to 14 feet in width. With the
exception of a short gravel-paved segment through Alamo Creek Park, the rest of the trail is paved with
asphalt.
' The Dougherty Road Bike Path is an 8-foot wide asphalt sidepath that parallels the east side of
Dougherty Road from the city limit with San Ramon and connects with the Iron Horse Trail near Scarlett
' Drive. This path currently ends at the City's border with San Ramon.
• The Tassajara Creek Trail extends from Dublin Boulevard north to Somerset Lane. Extensions will
continue north with new development to the Tassajara Creek Regional Park. Most of the trail is managed
by the East Bay Regional Park District and is designated as a Regional Trail. Between Gleason Drive and
Dublin Boulevard, the trail runs on both sides of Tassajara Creek. The west bank trail is managed by the
EBRPD, while the east bank trail is managed by the City. Between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway,
the trail runs adjacent to Emerald Glen Park.
The Fallon Road Bike Path is a 12 foot wide concrete sidepath on the west side of Fallon Road from
Kingsmill Terrace to Gleason Drive. Abridge from the path crosses a swale connecting to unpaved
maintenance access roads near Oak Bluff Court.
On-Street East-West Routes:
' Dublin Boulevard is the main east-west arterial that runs through Dublin. It has four to six lanes and
intersects major north/south routes including San Ramon Road, Village Parkway, Dougherty Road, the
Alamo Canal Trail, the Iron Horse Trail, Hacienda Drive, the Tassajara Creek Trail, Tassajara Road, and
' Fallon Road. Dublin Boulevard provides access to many commercial, office, and civic uses as well as the
Dublin BART Station and the future West Dublin BART Station. There is existing bicycle lane striping on
one side of the street from Lockhart Street to Brannigan Street (east of Tassajara Road) and on both
sides of the street from Tassajara Road to Tassajara Creek. Bicycle lane striping also exists at
intersections between Hibernia Drive and DeMarcus Boulevard. The City's General Plan shows proposed
bicycle lanes along Dublin Boulevard through Dublin. These lanes will provide access to the new
Schaefer Ranch development in west Dublin and the new Fallon Village development in eastern Dublin.
The speed limit on Dublin Boulevard is 45 miles per hour east of Dougherty Road and 35 miles per hour
west of Dougherty Road. The ADT on Dublin Boulevard ranges from 6,000 vehicles in the west to 34,000
near Sierra Court.
' Amador Valley Boulevard is a two-lane collector that runs between San Ramon Road and Dougherty
Road and intersects both the Iron Horse Trail and the Alamo Creek Trail. There are existing bicycle lanes
on Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and the Iron Horse Trail, and on the north side
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 26
2007
of the street from the Iron Horse Trail to the Alamo Creek Trail. However, the segment between the Iron
Horse Trail and Dougherty Road (Alamo Creek Trail and Dougherty Road on the north side) is
incomplete. The speed limit on Amador Valley Boulevard is 25 to 35 miles per hour and the ADT is
between 7,000 vehicles near Penn Drive and 20,000 by I-680.
• Gleason Drive is four-lane collector between Arnold Road and Fallon Road in east Dublin. It has
' complete bicycle lanes between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road, and bicycle lane striping between
Brannigan Street and Fallon Road. Gleason Drive provides connections to the Tassajara Creek Trail,
Emerald Glen Park, and the future Sports Park. In the future, Gleason Drive may be extended west
through Camp Parks RFTA to Dougherty Road. The speed limit on Gleason Drive is 40 miles per hour.
' Central Parkway is currently atwo-lane collector that runs between Arnold Road and .Fallon Road south
of Gleason Drive. The segment of Central Parkway between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road is expected
to be open for traffic use by 2008. Currently, there are bicycle laries on Central Parkway between Arnold
Road and Tassajara Road, but no bicycle facilities east of Tassajara Road. Like Gleason Drive, Central
- Parkway provides bicycle connections to the Tassajara Creek Trail, Emerald Glen Park, and the future
Sports Park. As part of the Fallon Village development project, the Parkway will be extended east of
' Fallon Road to Croak Road in the future. The designated speed limit on Central Parkway is 35 miles per
hour. Central Parkway is planned to be expanded to 4 lanes in the future.
Off-Street East-West Route:
' • The Iron Horse Trail /Tassajara Creek Trail Connector rovides a Class I bike ath connection
P P
between these two East Bay Regional Park District Trails along existing sidewalks on the north side of
Dublin Boulevard. Between the Iron Horse Trail and Iron Horse Parkway, the trail is a 12 foot wide
asphalt sidepath. The path narrows to 5 feet between Iron Horse Parkway and Sybase Drive where no
development improvements exist. From Sybase to the Tassajara Creek Trail, the path is 12 feet wide and
paved with concrete.
Key Gaps in the Bikeway Nefwork
As Figure 2 shows, Dublin lacks a continuous bikeway system that provides connections throughout the City and
to important origins and destinations. With the exception of a few corridors, such as Amador Valley Boulevard,
Village Parkway, and the Regional Trails, bikeways are sporadic. Key gaps include:
' Dublin Boulevard east-west connection: A corridor study is being proposed to identify the right-of-way
needed to accommodate Class II bike lanes along Dublin Boulevard. In particular, the segment through
the Downtown area between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Bridge would require acquisition of
' right-of-way for the bike lanes and could result in major impacts (i.e. removal of street trees, utility
relocation, etc.). If the resulting study shows that Class II bike lanes are too costly and difficult to
construct, a Class III bike route designation with shared-use pavement marking and signs will be
evaluated as an alternative at those locations.
• Additional east-west connections through Dublin: East of Arnold Road, Gleason Drive and Central Parkway
have existing bicycle lanes except for the sections between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Drive where
' no frontage improvements have been built on Gleason Drive; and Central Parkway has inconsistent
markings. Completing the bicycle lanes on Gleason Drive and Central Parkway, providing extensions
through the southern portion of Camp Parks if this portion of Camp Parks is developed by the private
sector in the future, and providing a link to Amador Valley Boulevard's existing bicycle lanes will provide
an additional east-west connection that will help to integrate the on-street and off-street bikeway systems.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 27
2007
1
i .
• North-south on-street connections on major arterials: On San Ramon Road, continuous bike lanes exist
between Alcosta Boulevard (at the north City Limit) and Silvergate Drive. Although there are no bike
lanes south of Silvergate Drive, there may be an opportunity to complete the bike lanes up to Dublin
Boulevard by restriping the lanes. On Tassajara Road and Fallon road, bike lane striping exists only at
intersections. Completing these bike lanes between intersections will increase the number of north south
connections in Dublin, providing access to existing and new development as well as connections to San
' Ramon and Pleasanton.
• Interstate-580 crossings: With the exception of the Iron Horse Trail, currently, there are no designated on-
street I-580 crossings for bicyclists between Dublin and Pleasanton. I-580 is the southern boundary of the
City and separates Dublin from Pleasanton. A study of the freeway crossings needs to be undertaken to
identify ways of reducing/eliminating hazards while riding over the freeway where on- and off-ramps are
located. Providing adequate connections across I-580 would likely increase bicycle commuting and
recreational riding between the two cities.
Upcoming Projects
The City has several upcoming bikeway projects. Some are development projects and some are part of the City's
Capital Improvement Projects. On-street bikeway projects that are currently planned or partially funded include
the following:
Capital Improvement Proiects
• Raising Catch Basin Grates: As detailed in the 2005 City of Dublin Proposed Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program, this project would raise the grade of catch basin grates along both side of Dublin
Boulevard between Donlon Way and Village Parkway. These improvements will make it easier for
bicyclists to ride inside the curb line.
• Scarlett Drive-iron Horse Trail Extension: This project would provide an extension of Scarlett Drive
north of Dublin Boulevard with bicycle lanes, and relocate and enhance a portion of the Iron Horse Trail.
The roadway element is a connection between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard (within the
Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way).
• Bike Lane-Amador Val/ey Boulevard: Stagecoach Road to Dougherty Road: This project will install
a bikeway along Amador Valley Boulevard between Stagecoach Road and Dougherty Road. This project
will connect the Iron Horse Trail, the Alamo Creek Trail, and the Dougherty Road Bike Path.
Development-Funded Proiects
• Dublin Boulevard Bicycle Lanes: Bicycle lanes are proposed as part of the widening of Dublin
Boulevard between Silvergate Drive and Hansen Drive and the intersection improvement of Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road. These roadway improvements are in fhe 2005 City of Dublin Proposed
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
• Constructing Bicycle Lanes in Eastern Dublin: This project is described in the Easfern Dublin Specific
Plan. Streets included in the Plan include Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, Tassajara Road, and Fallon
Road north of Central Parkway. As described in other sections of this plan, these streets currently have
limited bicycle lanes. The project also includes widening of the bike/pedestrian trail along the Camp Parks
frontage on Dublin Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Sybase Drive.
Off-street bikeway projects that are currently planned or partially funded include:
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 28
2007
1
' Capital Improvement Proiects
• The Alamo Canal 1-580 Gap Elimination will provide a connection from the Alamo Canal Trail in Dublin
beneath I-580 to connect with the Alamo Canal Trail in Pleasanton, transforming it into a regional trail.
The feasibility study for this project is included in the 2005 City of Dublin Proposed Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program and has over $30,000 in funding for 2005-2006. This project has also been
' identified by the Zone 7 Water Agency in the Stream Management Master Plan Interim Report (March
2004). The City is working jointly with East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Pleasanton, Caltrans,
BART, and Zone 7 Water Agency to secure funding for its construction.
' Development-Funded Proiects
• Tassajara Creek Trail Northern Extension: An extension of the Tassajara Creek Trail from Somerset
' Lane north to the Tassajara Creek Regional Park will be constructed with future housing development. A
continuation of this trail within the Tassajara Creek Regional Park will be developed by the EBRPD.
• Schaefer Ranch Open Space 8 EBRPD Lands -Dublin Hills Regional Park: A number of unpaved
multi-use regional trails have been planned for the western hills of Dublin in the areas of Schaefer Ranch,
Donlon Canyon, Martin Canyon, and Calaveras Ridge (see Figure 4). These trails will be developed by
the East Bay Regional Park District and the Schaefer Ranch developer.
' Fallon Village: The Fallon Village Stage One Design Guidelines recommend multi-use trails on both the
east and west sides of the creek-side open space as well as along both sides of major roadways in the
Fallon Village area.
1
1
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 29
2007
A``ti" 4.
~s ~
-
t
I
' ~ i
_ F~~_. I ~
/ v;; oy ---------------------I
\ / T~ C ~
/ ~ tamp Parks i
9 Mitltary Reservation
Doughe Hills 'a
/ tAOCV~.s' 'Ya Opens ce y
i' \ ~
Murray
Fast Bay Regional ~ jElementary - li
Park Distritt Stagecou ~ - ~
~ / +Pir jDu9„,n Park
Swim
' ~ s Center w fa field
l ~ a ~ C _ Park j
~ r~i Shannon $ ~ ~ ~Fmemeor~ry ~ QT Gretn sq
/ Communay ; j ,m i a ` - ~ faldltln j Ekmenpry ~(pN '
Center ~ ° ~
y Dublin OIEPSON DH 5 I Mi le Ro
o Elemen tP I~ ' Sports
/ jWells ~ o i Furore Park I
` (~AqT C gl'~ Middlt ° w Dougherty khoOl, I
/ ANC \ 4 Valley ~ - = U Elemennry Fmerald Glen it
,~q
i A I V ~~f0 ~ EDR pv° v Hlghfrank ¢ ~ _ j Park.
~ ~,~N ~ NM ~ Stage a ALP I~-
I I ~ - I 0 MdM Senior Oy }
a.=
I - v ~ ~ McPmorial ~ Center - ~ - ~ - l
I ~ w j ' _ r Bray
~ ~ DUBLIN BIVD C7lmmoni,
Schaefer ~ . Nielson ,Ng~,`1D o Future Park ~
I Ranch ~ t, Elementary p0~" ~tiCk,ub anter Transit Village -~~N i
~ gm ~
L. Center 1 - \ / \
~ ~ ~ \ ar -
~ .
EYS a
Stoneridge o
~ MaE
1 :1
'
F
' Class I Blke Paths aher: t~ gART Line
Existing Class I Bike Paths j Schools -Highways rt»„~,r
' Class II BBte Lanes
~ Public Buildings -Streets
Existing Class II Bike Lanes -One Side , ~
Existing Class II Bike Lanes -Two Sides ®BART Station Parks ,,,~„a.S
Class m Bike Homes Water
Existing Class III Bike Routes ®Proposed BART Station ~ _ ~ City Boundary Figure 2
' Open Space Trofls N
-Existing Unpaved Trail Ex i st i n B i kewa s
' Not to Scale
i -
' Multi-Modal Connections
' Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), the regional commuter rail transit system, provides service at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station on the Millbrae-DublinlPleasanton line. Bicycles are allowed on BART trains during
non-commute hours (4 AM to 6:30 AM, 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM, and 6:30 PM -Closing) and all day on weekends and
holidays. During AM peak periods (6:30 AM to 8:30 AM), westbound bicycles are not allowed in stations between
Dublin/Pleasanton and Powell Street and eastbound bicycles are not permitted between the San Francisco
Airport station and Montgomery Street station. In the PM peak period (3:30 PM to 6:30 PM), westbound bicycles
are not allowed in the stations between Embarcadero and Daly City and eastbound bicycles are not allowed in
' stations between Civic Center and San Leandro.
BART's Bicycle Access and Parking Plane contains recommendations for access and parking improvements for
both existing and future stations, as well as promotions, incentives, support and education for existing and
' potential bicyclists. According to the plan, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station has a high priority for bicycle
parking improvements, based on current bicycle locker use. The Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Access Plana
recommends installing at least 34 additional lockers, as well as bicycle-sensitive loop detectors and signage on
key bicycle routes. BART has recently developed wayfinding signage for bicyclists both in station areas and on
surrounding bikeways and other roads. These signs help direct bicyclists to the station, as well as to bicycle
parking, stairs, and elevators.
' The Dublin/Pleasanton BART station is also used as a hub by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA) Wheels bus service and Contra Costa County's County Connection bus service. The location of the
BART station is shown on Figure 1. Wheels operates approximately six bus routes through Dublin, all with buses
equipped with bicycle racks. County Connection operates three bus routes connecting at the Dublin BART station,
' all with bicycle racks. There is also a park and ride lot at the Koll Center office complex at the southwest corner of
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard.
' The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan calls for development of a transit village north of the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station. Currently, there are multi-family residential units under construction and there are proposals to develop
more housing, office and retail near the station. As this occurs, it will be important to provide bicycle connections
between the transit village and the BART Station as well as with the rest of Dublin.
' There are also plans for a West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. The location of the station is west of I-680 on
Golden Gate Drive at I-580. Figure 1 shows this proposed location. If constructed, bicycle access to the station
and bicycle parking facilities will be crucial to enabling multi-modal connections.
Figure 3 shows existing Multi-Modal connections.
' Z BART, August 2002
' BART, August 2002
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 31
2007
,
I
i ~ i
~ ~ Camp Parks c
Military Reservation <
Dougherty Hills '
1 ~ ~ ~
/ ~ Murn
East Bay Regional l~, ~Elemenpry ~ ~'+r'~
Park Distritt ' 9 ~
~tDublin .Ted
High - Sngecoach Fai~eld
' \ / ~ , Swim Park g ~ Park Grcln
' ~ J \ o ~ Center o ~ ~ I ~Ekmentary '
\ ~ m
~ Frederiksen n s~ ~
r~~ Shan - QCs lementary i °`s ,
Community m , I - ~ Fallon Qy
' Center ~ x ° Middle ~ ~
Dublin < GLFASGN DR
°T~'F';'^. Elemenq Its o Spas
~ / M~ddl ~ o w ' ~ Dou kh~l
/ ~ 0~~ Valle " ~ Z ' ` ~ N F',
/ \ ~ Hlgh ~ i ~ Elementary Emenld Gkn n. ,
' _ ~ ~ POOP nnk ~ ¢ ~ Park ~ '
_J I P5 N'V' SngcP ~ CENfRQP
+ z knior Gym
' i ~ M+De Center
. m -.Nielson j Memorial DUBLIN BLVD r ..4\ Bn .
khaefer Elemenury Park Comm s ~
,.y .
' ~ ~ Retch s a Futurt Park
qqn~ Tr 11 e
I ansit Vi ag
i~
~ " 1W CIWc Center i ~ 'm _
~ L ..:Heritage 3y Ik Ltbn ) ~ ~ ~
Ceme /
Stoneridge o
Mall
.1
~ Bus Shelters other: BART Line
-Transit Routes t Schools -Highways ~
till c~R`~
~ Public Buildings Streets
® BART Station Parks F i u re 3
Proposed BART Station ®Water N g
i_ __'CityBoundary Multi-Modal Connections
' Nat lG Scale
6. PROPOSED BIKEWAY NETWORK
' The recommended bikeway network is not meant to accommodate every bicyclist and bicycle trip in the City.
Once completed, this network will provide safer and more direct travel paths for a majority of those bicycling
within Dublin. A bikeway network consists of routes that are designed to be the primary system for bicyclists
' traveling through the City. It is important to recognize that by law, bicyclists are allowed on all streets and roads
regardless of whether they are a part of the bikeway network. The bikeway network is a tool that allows the City
to focus and prioritize implementation efforts where they will provide the greatest community benefit. Streets or
' corridors selected for inclusion in the network should be targeted for specific improvements, such as the
installation of bicycle lanes, off-street paths, or signage.
The proposed system was developed according to the following planning criteria:
' Coverage: The system should provide equitable, reasonable access from all areas of the city to both commute
and recreation routes. Ideally, the system should provide a bicycle path, lane, or route within one-half mile of any
residential street.
Purpose: Each link in the system should serve one or a combination of these purposes: recreation, connection,
and commuting. On-street facilities should be continuous and direct, and off-street facilities should have a
' minimal number of arterial crossings and uncontrolled intersections.
Connection to Employment Centers: Downtown, Business Park, major retail, and other employment centers
should be accessible from all neighborhoods by a reasonably direct system.
' Connection to Schools and other Community Facilities: Schools and community facilities such as Community
Centers, the Library, and City Hall should be accessible by bikeways. While not serving every residential street,
the bikeway system should provide feeder routes with special treatments at busy intersections, such as bicycle
' loop detectors or signage.
Connection to Parks and Open Space: Parks and open space should be accessible by bikeways so that
' residents are able to bicycle from home to both local and regional recreation.
Connection to Regional Bikeways: The bikeway system should provide access to regional bikeway routes,
regional trails, and routes in adjacent communities.
Figure 4 illustrates the Existing and Proposed Bikeway Network. The proposed system includes a total of
approximately 52 miles of new bikeway facilities in addition to the 21 miles currently in place. Table 3 shows the
number of existing and proposed miles for each bikeway classification. This does not include several freeway
overcrossing studies, which are discussed below.
TABLE 3
Length (Miles) of System by Bikeway Classification
Bikeway Classification Existing Proposed Total
Class I 12.8 13.0 25.8
' Class II 8.3 39.2 47.5
Class III 0.3 3.0 3.3
' TOTAL 21.4 55.2 76.6
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 33
2007
w
~ -
' Table 4 provides a list of the proposed on-street bikeway network projects, organized west to east, as well as the
existing conditions along the roadway. Table 5 provides a list of the proposed off-street bikeway network projects,
' also organized west to east.
Proposed Bikeway Network
' On-Street Facilities
The project list in Table 4 lists 38 recommended on-street facilities, organized from west to east. These include
' 25 Class II lanes, nine Class III routes, and four "freeway crossing studies." These projects represent a total of
nine key corridors for on-street bicycle travel:
1. Dublin Boulevard
2. San Ramon Road
3. Village Parkway
t 4. Amador Valley Boulevard
' 5. Dougherty Road
6. Gleason Drive
7. Central Parkway
8. Tassajara Road
' 9. Fallon Road
The goal is to provide continuous on-street bicycle facilities along these major corridors. In many cases, including
' Dublin Boulevard, Amador Valley Boulevard, Village Parkway, Gleason Drive (west of Tassajara Road), Central
Parkway, and San Ramon Road, these roads have existing bicycle lane striping along portions of the corridor. In
other cases, such as Tassajara Road, Gleason Drive (east of Tassajara Road), and Fallon Road, bicycle lanes are
striped at some intersections. In addition, portions of San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, Fallon Road, and
Dublin Boulevard also have bicycle paths adjacent to the roadway along one side. However, in some instance,
these corridors do not have consistently striped and marked on-street bicycle facilities for their entire length.
' Class II lanes are recommended on the majority of these routes. As detailed in the design guidelines included in
Attachment E, these lanes should be a minimum of five feet wide with a preferred width of six feet, measured from
the edge of the gutter. A four foot lane is allowed where there is no on-street parking and no gutter, but is not
' preferred. When necessary to provide this width, vehicle lanes should be narrowed to 11.5 or 11 feet, and
parking lanes can be narrowed to seven feet. Some corridors such as Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
may need to be split into segments or phases to account for different conditions and possible need for street
' widening along the corridor. In these cases, the City should endeavor to complete the listed project to the
maximum extent possible to avoid discontinuous segments. In all cases, bicycle lanes should be striped and
marked on both sides of the roadway at one time to provide continuity and discourage wrong-way riding. If there
are shorter segments of the corridors where there is insufficient width for bicycle lanes, it may be appropriate to
provide on-street signage or stencils to raise the visibility of bicyclists and alert motorists that they are likely to
encounter cyclists.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 34
2007
i
r
' In addition to the corridor projects, the list includes four Class II/III projects that provide access to the planned
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station: Regional Street, St. Patrick Way, Golden Gate Drive, and Amador Plaza
Road; and five Class II projects to access the planned Transit Village and existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station: Iron Horse Parkway, Demarcus Boulevard, Altamirano Street, Martinelli Way, and Arnold Drive. Dublin
should work with Alameda County to ensure that these facilities include appropriate signage and access to bicycle
facilities for BART users. The other on-street projects provide access to parks, schools, and other community
' facilities. The freeway crossing studies are potential extensions of proposed Class II facilities on key corridors
that include existing freeway overpasses. These projects will require detailed engineering analysis, as well as
significant coordination with the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, and Caltrans on design and funding. They
' call for creative approaches, such as "blue lanes" or other innovative treatments, particularly at ramp locations4.
These study corridors also provide an opportunity to work with regional agencies and organizations such as the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the East Bay Bicycle Coalition on standards for freeway
overcrossings.
These on-street bicycle facilities will provide access across Dublin, from north to south and east to west, and to
' major destinations within the city. Where appropriate, City staff should coordinate the planning of these facilities
with staff from San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore to ensure continuity across city boundaries.
Each project is described briefly below.
t Description of proposed on-street projects
' 2-1 Schaefer Ranch I-580 underpass Class II Lanes: This underpass is planned as part of the Schaefer
Ranch development and will use the existing paved road that passes under I-580. Class II lanes should
be included on this roadway to provide access from Dublin Boulevard to the existing Class III route south
of I-580 in Pleasanton.
' 2-2 Silvergate Drive Class II Lanes: This collector street provides access from San Ramon Road to Martin
Canyon Creek and Dublin Boulevard. It has sufficient width for bicycle lanes, which could also serve as a
' traffic calming measure.
2-3 San Ramon Road Class II Lanes: San Ramon Road provides north-south access from Dublin Boulevard
to the northern city limit, with connections to the Shannon Community Center, Mape Memorial Park, and
Dublin Elementary School. There is currently a sidepath adjacent to the western side of the road, and
bike lane striping between Silvergate Drive and the northern City Limit. Complete bike lanes on San
Ramon Road between Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive wilt serve both commuters and recreational
' riders and will connect to the Class II facility on San Ramon Valley Boulevard in San Ramon.
3-1 Regional Street Class III Bike Route: A Bike Route designation is proposed on Regional Street between
Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way as part of a series of Class III facilities connecting Dublin Boulevard
to the planned West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. This facility will allow BART users to bypass a
section of Dublin Boulevard.
2-4 St. Patrick Way Class II Lanes: St. Patrick Way currently exists between Golden Gate Drive and Amador
Plaza Road, with connecting ramps to I-680 and I-580. This road will be extended to Regional Street with
' For additional information about blue lanes, see www.Oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 35
2007
~ -
' the development of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Bike lanes on St. Patrick Way between
Amador Plaza Road and Regional Street will provide an alternate route to Dublin Boulevard for BART
users.
3-2 Golden Gate Drive Class III Route: Golden Gate Drive extends south from Dublin Boulevard towards 1-
580, and will be extended to the planned West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. A Class III Bike Route
designation is proposed on Golden Gate Drive between St. Patrick Way and the BART station to provide
access for BART users.
' 3.3 Amador Plaza Road Class III Route: Amador Plaza Road extends south from Dublin Boulevard towards 1-
580. A Class III Bike Route designation is proposed between Dublin Boulevard and St. Patrick Way. This
facility will allow BART users to bypass a section of Dublin Boulevard.
' 3-4 Davona Drive Class III Route: Davona Drive provides access from Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon to
Village Parkway with connections to Murray Elementary School and the Dublin Swim Center. A Class III
route will also connect the existing lanes on Davona Drive in San Ramon and Village Parkway in Dublin.
Because of the low vehicle volumes on this road, Class II lanes are not necessary.
2-5 Village Parkway Class II Lanes: Village Parkway has existing bicycle lane striping between the northern
' City limit and Amador Valley Boulevard, but it should be upgraded to current standards. Bike lane
markings should be added, and striping at intersections with right turn lanes should be improved so that
the bike lane continues to the inside of the right turn lane rather than ending when the right turn lane
' - begins (see design guidelines in Appendix A).
3 5 Village Parkway Class III Route: Village Parkway between Amador Valley Boulevard and Dublin
Boulevard is currently classified as a Class III route, but there are no signs or pavement markings to alert
' bicyclists or drivers to this designation. Shared-use markings (sharrows) and Bike Route signs should be
added to alert drivers to bicyclists' presence and to guide bicyclists to a safe location within the lane.
' 2-6 Amador Valley Boulevard Class II Lanes: Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road and
Stagecoach Road is currently striped with Class II lanes, but these should be upgraded to current
standards. Bike lane markings should be added, and striping at intersections with right turn lanes should
be improved so that the bike lane continues to the inside of the right turn lane rather than ending when the
right turn lane begins (see design guidelines in Appendix A).
2-7 Amador Valley Boulevard Class II Lanes: Amador Valley Boulevard between Stagecoach Road and
Wildwood Road is currently striped with a Class II lane only on the north side of the road. A Class II lane
could be added to the south side of the road on this segment, by restriping the roadway. No right-of-way
acquisition is required.
3-6 Amador Valley Boulevard Class III Route: Between Wildwood Road and Dougherty Road, Amador Valley
Boulevard splits into two lanes in each direction, which decreases the right-of-way available for a bike
lane. Instead, a Class III route with signage is recommended. A sharrow is not recommended here;
instead, cyclists will choose their lane position based on their destination.
2-8 Stagecoach Road Class II Lanes: Stagecoach Road provides access between Alcosta Boulevard in San
' Ramon and Amador Valley Boulevard. Class II lanes are recommended for the segment between the
City limit and Stagecoach Park, where there is an existing shoulder that can be marked as a bike lane.
Lane widths and grate configurations must be verified to confirm that this is feasible. These lanes will
Bikeways Master Plan Page 36
2007
~ ¦
' connect to existing Class II lanes on Stagecoach Road in San Ramon and provide access to the
Dougherty Hills open space and Stagecoach Park.
3-7 Stagecoach Road Class III Route: A Class III Route is recommended on Stagecoach Road between
Stagecoach Park and Amador Valley Boulevard, where there is insufficient roadway width for Class II
lanes. Vehicle volumes are sufficiently low that only signage is necessary.
2-9 Dougherty Road Class II Lanes: Dougherty Road provides access between the cities of San Ramon and
Pleasanton, and includes on- and off-ramps at I-580. There is currently a sidepath adjacent to the
' eastern side of the road from the Iron Horse Trail to the northern City limit. Class II lanes are
recommended for the extent of the roadway in Dublin between the City limit and Sierra Lane (a separate
project will examine options for the I-580 crossing). This will provide access to Alamo Creek Park and the
' Iron Horse Trail, and will connect to planned Class II lanes on Dougherty in San Ramon. City staff should
work closely with the City of San Ramon to ensure that this connection is made.
2-10 Iron Horse Parkway Class II Lanes: Iron Horse Parkway provides access between the existing
' Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Dublin Boulevard. Class II lanes are proposed here as part of a
series of Class II facilities connecting Dublin Boulevard to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and
planned Transit Village. These facilities will be developed in conjunction with the Transit Village and
' should be coordinated with Alameda County staff.
2-11 Demarcus Boulevard Class II Lanes: Demarcus Boulevard provides access between the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and Dublin Boulevard to the west of Iron Horse Parkway. Class II lanes
are proposed here to connect Dublin Boulevard to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and planned
Transit Village. These facilities will be developed in conjunction with the Transit Village and should be
coordinated with Alameda County staff.
2-12 Altamirano Street Class II Lanes: Altamirano Street is a new street planned as part of the Transit Village
development at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. It will provide access between Arnold Road and the
BART parking garage. Class II lanes on this road will be developed in conjunction with the Transit Village
and should be coordinated with BART staff.
2-13 Martinelli Way: Martinelli Way is a new street planned as part of the Transit Village development at the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. It will provide access between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway.
Class II lanes on this road will be developed in conjunction with the Transit Village and should be
coordinated with Alameda County staff.
2-14 Arnold Road Class II Lanes: Arnold Road runs along the western edge of Camp Parks from Broder
Boulevard to I-580. There are existing Class II lanes on the segment between Gleason Drive and Central
' Parkway. These lanes are proposed to be extended from Central Parkway to the planned Altamirano
Road near I-580. These lanes will provide access to the planned Transit Village and existing
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
' 2-15 Gleason Drive Class II Lanes: Gleason Drive runs between Arnold Road and Fallon Road and provides
access to the Tassajara Creek Trail and Emerald Glen Park. It currently is striped with Class II lanes
between Arnold Road and Tassajara Road, but may require some improvements. For example, the
' eastbound lane disappears approaching the intersection with Tassajara Road, and the westbound lane is
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 37
2007
i -
placed to the right of a right-turn lane at the intersection with Arnold Road. This project is to upgrade the
existing striping and lane markings per current design guidelines.
2-16 Gleason Drive Class II Lanes: Gleason Drive has no bike lane striping between Tassajara Road and
Brannigan Street adjacent to undeveloped parcels. This project is to stripe Class II lanes continuously
between Tassajara Road and Brannigan Street. This will provide access to destinations including
Emerald Glen Park and the future Sports Park near Fallon Road. This project will be completed by the
developer as part of their frontage improvements.
2-17 Central Parkway Class II Lanes: Central Parkway runs between Arnold Road and Fallon Road and
provides access to Dougherty Elementary School, the Tassajara Creek Trail, Emerald Glen Park, the
future Sports Park, and Fallon Village. Similar to Gleason Drive, Central Parkway has existing Class II
' lanes striped between Arnold Drive and Tassajara Road, but it may require some improvements,
particularly at the current endpoints. For example, the westbound lane is placed to the right of a right-turn
lane at the intersection with Arnold Road. This project is to upgrade the existing striping and lane
markings per current design guidelines. This project will be completed by the developer as part of their
frontage improvements.
2-18 Central Parkway Class II Lanes: This project is to extend the existing Class II lanes from Tassajara Road
' to Fallon Road. This will provide access to Emerald Glen Park, the future Sports Park, and Fallon Village.
This project will be completed by the developer as part of their frontage improvements.
' 2-19 Hacienda Drive Class II Lanes: Hacienda Drive runs between Gleason Drive and the I-580 freeway, and
provides access to large offices and residential developments. It is currently striped with Class II lanes,
but may require some improvements. For example, the northbound lane is placed to the right of a right-
turn lane at the intersection with Gleason Drive. This project is to upgrade the existing striping and lane
1 markings per current design guidelines.
3-8 Grafton Street Class III Route: Grafton Street is an undeveloped road between Gleason Drive and Central
Parkway. A Class III Route is proposed when the facility is built.
3-9 Lockhart Street Class III Route: Lockhart Street is an undeveloped road between Dublin Boulevard and
Fallon Road. A Class III Route is proposed when the facility is built.
2-20 Tassajara Road Class II Lanes: Tassajara Road runs north-south through Dublin from the City border with
San Ramon to I-580 and provides access to residential areas, Emerald Glean Park, and offices. It
' currently has intermittent bike lane striping at some intersections. This project will stripe and mark
continuous Class II lanes along all of Tassajara Road to the I-580 ramps, which will provide an important
cross-town facility for bicyclists.
' 2-21 Fallon Road Class II Lanes: Fallon Road runs between north Dublin and I-580, and provides access to the
Dublin Golf Course, Fallon Village, and the future Sports Park. It will be extended to connect to Tassajara
Road near the northern City limit. There is currently intermittent bike lane striping at some intersections
' along Fallon Road, as well as a bike lane on one side of the road between Central Parkway and Gleason
Drive. There is also a Class I path on the west side of the road between Gleason Drive and Kingsmill
Terrace. This project will stripe continuous lanes on Fallon Road for its entire length up to the I-580
ramps and to Tassajara Road as the road is extended.
f Bikeways Master Plan Page 38
2007
' 2-22 Upper Loop Road Class II Lanes: Upper Loop Road is being constructed as part of the Fallon Village
development. It will provide access between Fallon Road and Croak Road. This project wilt stripe
continuous bike lanes along the road, as well as to a planned park to the north. This project will be
completed by the developer as part of their frontage improvements.
2-23 Croak Road Class II Lanes: Croak Road is being constructed as part of the Fallon Village development. It
will provide access between Central Parkway and Upper Loop Road. This project will stripe continuous
bike lanes along the road. This project will be completed by the developer as part of their frontage
improvements.
CORRIDOR STUDIES
' C-1 San Ramon Road I-580 Crossing: The I-580 crossing at San Ramon Road includes on- and off-ramps for
I-580 East and West from San Ramon Road in Dublin and Foothill Road in Pleasanton. There is currently
a Class III route on Foothill Road south of the ramps. A bicycle facility on the crossing would connect the
proposed Class II lanes on San Ramon Road to this existing bicycle route, as well as to Stoneridge Mall,
offices, and other destinations in Pleasanton. Planning and design for this facility must be coordinated
with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans.
C-2 Dougherty Road I-580 Crossing: The I-580 crossing at Dougherty Road includes on- and off-ramps for 1-
580 East and West from Dougherty Road in Dublin and Hopyard Road in Pleasanton. There are currently
Class II lanes on Hopyard Road south of the ramps. A bicycle facility on the crossing would connect the
proposed Class II lanes on Dougherty Road to these existing lanes, as well as to offices, residences, and
other destinations in Pleasanton. Planning and design for this facility must be coordinated with the City of
Pleasanton and Caltrans.
C-3 Tassajara Road I-580 Crossing: The I-580 crossing at Tassajara Road includes on- and off-ramps for 1-
580 East and West from Tassajara Road in Dublin and Santa Rita Road in Pleasanton. There are
currently Class II lanes on Santa Rita Road south of the ramps. A bicycle facility on the crossing would
connect the proposed Class II lanes on Tassajara Road to these existing lanes, as well as to offices,
residences, the ValleyCare Medical Center, and other destinations in Pleasanton. Planning and design
for this facility must be coordinated with the City of Pleasanton and Caltrans.
' C-4 Fallon Road I-580 Crossing: The I-580 crossing at Fallon Road includes on- and off-ramps for I-580 East
and West from Fallon Road in Dublin and EI Charro Road in Alameda County and Livermore. There are
' currently no bicycle facilities on EI Charro Road south of the ramps. However, as eastern Dublin grows
and the EI Charro corridor develops, a bicycle facility on the crossing could provide connections between
the proposed Class II lanes on Fallon Road and destinations in Pleasanton and Livermore. Planning and
design for this facility must be coordinated with Alameda County, the City of Livermore, and Caltrans.
' C-5 Camp Parks access Corridor Study: Camp Parks Military Reserve is currently closed to the public, but
there are plans to develop a portion of the reserve adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. This will provide an
opportunity to study this corridor and provide a bike way(s) parallel to Dublin Boulevard, potentially along
5~h Street between Dougherty Road and Arnold Road. This could connect to either Central Parkway or
Gleason Drive. Amore precise alignment will need to be developed in conjunction with the Corridor
' Study.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 39
2007
i .
1 C-6 Dublin Boulevard Corridor Study (Class II Lanes/Class III Bike Route): Dublin Boulevard is the only road
in Dublin that provides continuous east-west travel through the city. It also provides access to key
community facilities including Civic Center, the library, the Dublin Sports Fields, and the BART station, as
well as many commercial buildings. Class II lanes are proposed for the entire length of Dublin Boulevard,
though this will require right-of-way acquisition, particularly on the segment between San Ramon Road
and the Alamo Canal Trail. Removing on-street parking, narrowing vehicle lanes, widening the street and
redeveloping adjacent parcels may be necessary in places to provide a continuous facility. A corridor
study of the arterial is being proposed to identify the right-of-way needed to accommodate Class II bike
lanes on Dublin Boulevard. If the resulting study shows that Class II bike lanes are infeasible and too
costly, Class III bike route designations will be considered at those locations. As Dublin Boulevard is
extended further east, the bicycle lanes should also be extended to establish a connection to North
Canyons Parkway and Las Positas College in Livermore. This will require coordination with Alameda
County and Livermore.
TABLE 4
PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
ID Project Proposed Class Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction
Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost
Local:RoadwayFacrlitles ~ ~ '
. R.. . ,
"
from Dublin
Schaefer Boulevard south Existing paved road
2-1 Ranch I-580 Bicycle Lanes II under I-580 at passes under I-580 0.40 N $27,828
Underpass existing underpass at
Schaefer Ranch
Silvergate Low-volume collector
2-2 Drive Bicycle Lanes II Silvergate Drive street with excess width 1.11 N $77,700
available for bike lane.
San Ramon Road Class I sidepath on west
San Ramon from north of Dublin side of street. Bike lane
2-3 Road Corrido Bicycle Lanes II Blvd to Silvergate striping between 1.47 N $102,746
Drive Silvergate Drive and
northern City limit.
' Regional Regional Street from Ends in cul-de-sac near I-
3-1 Street Class III Route III Dublin Boulevard to 580; provides access to 0.11 N $1,000
St. Patrick Way office uses.
Extends from Amador
Plaza Road to Golden
St. Patrick St. Patrick Way from Gate Drive only; will be Developer-
2-4 Bicycle Lanes II Regional Street to extended to Regional 1.40 Y
Way Amador Plaza Road Street with West built facility
Dublin/Pleasanton BART
development.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 40
2007
i .
TABLE 4
PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
ID Project Proposed Class Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction
Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost
Golden Gate Drive
Golden Gate from St. Patrick Way Ends in cul-de-sac near I-
3-2 Drive Class III Route III to planned West 580; provides access to 0.31 N $1,000
Dublin/Pleasanton office uses.
BART Station
Amador Plaza Road Ends in cul-de-sac near I-
Amador Plaza from Dublin
3-3 Road Class III Route III Boulevard to St. 580; provides access to 0.11 N $1,000
Patrick Way** office uses.
Davona Drive from Low-volume collector
street; provides
3-4 Davona Drive Class III Route III Alcosta Boulevard to connection to Murray 0.70 N $2,818
Village Parkway Elementary.
Bicycle lane striping, but
inconsistent markings
(bike symbol) and unclear
Village Parkway striping at endpoints (i.e.
Village Stripe & mark SB at Amador Valley
between northern
2-5 Parkway existing lane II Boulevard, and NB at 1.15 N $80,606
Corridor per standards City limit and Amador Alcosta Road in San
Valley Blvd Ramon, bike lane ends
when right turn lane
begins: move bike lane to
left of right turn lane).
Class III Route Existing lanes extend
Village with Sharrow Village Parkway north of Amador Valley
3-5 Parkwa shared-use III between Amador Blvd; existing Class III
y ( Valley Blvd and route from Amador Valley 0.34 N $2,000
Corridor arrow) Dublin Blvd Boulevard to Dublin Blvd
' marking**
is not marked.
Bicycle lane striping, but
' inconsistent markings
(bike symbol) and
Amador Amador Valley incorrect striping at some
Stripe & mark
2 6 Valley existing lane II Boulevard from San intersections (i.e. at 1.60 N $111,907
Boulevard Ramon Road to Village Parkway and EB
Corridor Per standards Stagecoach Road York Drive, bike lane
ends when right turn lane
begins: move bike lane to
' left of right turn lane).
Amador Amador Valley Blvd Two-way lanes end at
Valley between Stagecoach Stagecoach Rd, one-way
' 2-7 Bicycle Lanes* II lane on north side ends at 0.18 N $12,860
Boulevard Road and Wildwood Alamo Creek Trail
Corridor Road** crossing.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 41
2007
i
TABLE 4
PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
ID Project Proposed Class Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction
Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost
' Amador Amador Valley Blvd Eastbound, street ends at
Valley between Wildwood Dougherty with right and 0.14
3-6 Boulevard Class III Route III Road and Dougherty left turn lanes. N $2,000
' Corridor Road Westbound, right turn
lane for most of block.
Stagecoach Road Low-volume collector
Stagecoach street; existing shoulder 0.56 N $39,200
2-8 Road Class II Route II between Alcosta Blvd can be re-striped as bike
and Stagecoach Park lane.
t Stagecoach Road Low-volume collector
3-7 Stagecoach Class III Route III between Stagecoach street; insufficient width 0.27 N $2,000
Road Park and Amador for bike lanes.
Valley Blvd
Dougherty Rd from Class I sidepath exists on
Dublin Boulevard to east side of street from
northern City limit. Iron Horse Trail to
2 9 Dougherty Bicycle 11/Ill May need to be a northern City limit. City of 1.79 N $125,284
Road Corrido Lanes/Route Class III route San Ramon's General
' between Dublin Plan calls for Class II
Boulevard and Sierra lanes on Dougherty
Lane. Road.
Iron Horse Parkway
Iron Horse ,from Dublin Four-lane divided access 0 28 Developer-
2-10 Parkwa Bicycle Lanes II Boulevard to road into BART station N
y Dublin/Pleasanton with on-street parking. Built Facility
BART station.
DeMarcus Boulevard
DeMarcus from Dublin Four-lane divided access 0 25 Developer-
2-11 Boulevard Bicycle Lanes II Boulevard to road into BART station N guilt Facility
Dublin/Pleasanton with on-street parking
BART station.
Altamirano Altamirano Street 0,27 Developer-
2-12 Street Bicycle Lanes II from Arnold Drive to Undeveloped road. N Built Facility
BART parking lot
Martinelli Way from 0.20 Developer-
2-13 Martinelli Wa Bicycle Lanes II Arnold Road to Iron Undeveloped road. N Built Facility
' Horse Parkway
Arnold Drive from Class II lanes exist on
Central Parkway to Arnold Rd. between 0.48
2-14 Arnold Drive icycle Lanes** II end of roadway when Central Parkway and N $33,409
extended Qust north Gleason Drive
of I-580)
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 42
2007
~ -
TABLE 4
PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
ID Project Proposed Class Location Existing Conditions Length ROW Construction
Name Facility (miles) Req'd? Cost
' Stripe & mark Gleason Drive from Bicycle lane striping, but
2-15 Gleason Drive existing lane II Arnold Drive to inconsistent markings 1'18 N $82,674
Corridor er standards Tassa ara Rd
p j (bike symbol).
Gleason Drive Gleason Drive from No bicycle lane striping
2-16 Corridor Bicycle Lanes* II Tassajara Rd to adjacent to undeveloped 0.92 Y $64,697
Brannigan Street parcels.
' Central Stripe & mark Central Parkway from Bicycle lane striping, but 1.18
2-17 Parkway existing lane II Arnold Drive to inconsistent markings N $82,886
Corridor per standards Tassajara Rd (bike symbol).
Central Central Parkway from
' Some bicycle lane 1.81
2-18 Parkway Bicycle Lanes* II Tassajara Rd to striping at intersections. N $127,008
Corridor eastern city limit
Stripe & mark Hacienda Drive from Bicycle lane striping, but
2-19 Hacienda existing lane II Gleason Drive to inconsistent markings 0'75 N $52,633
Drive er standards** southern Cit limit
p y ' (bike symbol).
Grafton Street from 0.30 Developer-
3-8 Grafton Stree Class III Route III Gleason Drive to Undeveloped road. N Built Facility
' Central Parkway
Lockhart Lockhart Street from 0,70 Developer-
3-9 Street Class III Route III Dublin Boulevard to Undeveloped road. N Built Facility
Fallon Road
Tassajara Road from
2-20 Tassajara Bicycle Lanes* II south of Dublin Blvd Some bicycle lane 2.58 N $180,833
Road Corrido to northern city limit striping at intersections.
Some bicycle lane
striping at intersections;
bike lane on one side of
' street between Gleason
Fallon Road Fallon Road from Drive and Central 2 68 Developer-
2-21 Bicycle Lanes* II south of Dublin Blvd Parkway. Class I path on N Built Facility
Corridor to Tassajara Road west side from Gleason
' Drive north to Kingsmill
Terrace. Road will be
extended to Tassajara
Road.
Upper Loop Road
2 22 Upper Loop Bicycle Lanes II from Fallon Rd to Road is under 1.23 N Developer-
Road Croak Rd, via new development. Built Facility
' park
Croak Road from Road is under Developer-
2-23 Croak Road Bicycle Lanes II Dublin Blvd to Upper development. 1.14 N guilt Facility
Loop Road
' OTAL COST 089
$1 214
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 43
2007
1
TABLE 4
PROJECT LIST: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
ID Project Proposed Class Location Existin Conditions Len th ROW Construction
Name Facility 9 (mi es) Req'd? Cost
_ .fu
' ~ Coirrdor S dies ~ ~ ~
San Ramon San Ramon Road Existing overpass. Need 0.51
C-1 Road I-580 Study Corridor other from Dublin Blvd to coordinate with City of n/a Unknown
crossing across I-580 Pleasanton and Caltrans.
Dougherty Dougherty Road from Existing overpass. Need
C-2 Road I-580 Study Corridor other Dublin Blvd across I- to coordinate with City of 0.41 n/a Unknown
crossing 580 Pleasanton and Caltrans.
Tassajara Tassajara Road from Existing overpass. Need 0.34
C-3 Road I-580 Study Corridor other Dublin Blvd across I- to coordinate with City of n/a Unknown
crossing 580 Pleasanton and Caltrans.
' Existing overpass located
Fallon Road from in Dublin and
Fallon Road I- unincorporated Alameda
C-4 580 crossing Study Corridor other Dublin 6580across I- County. Need to 0.20 n/a Unknown
coordinate with Alameda
County and Caltrans.
Across Camp Parks
Camp Parks annex, from
C-5 Access Bicycle Lanes II Dougherty Rd to Not accessible to the 0.98 Y Unknown
Corridor Arnold Rd between public.
Study Gleason Drive and
Central Parkway
Class II lanes exist on
one side of street from
Dublin Blvd from Lockhart Street to
Dublin western city limit to Brannigan Street, and on Y For
C-6 Boulevard Bicycle Lanes' II/III* North Canyons both sides from Tassajara 8 15 Class II Unknown
Corridor Parkway in Road to Tassajara Creek; Bike
' Livermore'' wide outside lane and no Lanes
parking between
Hacienda Drive and
Scarlett Drive.
' A Corridor Study is being recommended to identify Right of Way requirements and impacts. A Class III Bike Route designation may be
recommended at those locations where Class II Bike lanes are infeasible.
* Project shown on City's General Plan "Bicycle Circulation System" maps.
t
Bikeways Master Plan Page 44
2007
i
' Proposed Bikeway Network
Off-Street Facilities -
Table 5 lists thirty two recommended projects including off street bicycle paths, street-side paths, intersection
improvements at road /bicycle path crossings, freeway and road overcrossing studies, and atrail-side rest area.
' These projects represent ten major off-street path corridors:
1. Alamo Creek / Alamo Canal Trail
2. Iron Horse Trail
3. Dougherty Road Path
4. Dublin Boulevard Path
v 5. Tassajara Creek Trail
t 6. Grafton Street Path
7. Lockhart Street Path
8. Area 'F' East-West Path
9. Fallon Road / Lockhart Street Path
10. Fallon Village Creek Trails
A primary goal of the recommended Class Ioff-street network is to extend, enhance, and provide additional
connections to Dublin's existing off-street system. These off-street routes provide connections to parks and open
' space and are recreational amenities in themselves. Additionally these routes provide connections to schools,
community and civic institutions and facilitate bicycling for everyday transportation and commuting.
Proposed Class Ioff-street routes are generally of two types: 1)multi-use paths and trails along creeks, canals,
' and former railroad right-of-ways, and 2) multi-use side paths parallel to existing and future roads.
Recommended enhancements to existing major multi-use trails include north and south extensions of the
Tassajara Creek trail and trail gap closures on the Alamo Creek !Alamo Canal Trail to create connections with
San Ramon and Pleasanton. New multi-use trails are also proposed in Fallon Village. Spur paths and trails that
provide connections to major corridors are also recommended, such as the Nielsen Elementary / Mape Memorial
Park Trail and Dublin High School /Iron Horse Trail Path.
' Multi use side-paths are recommended where they provide connections between bicycle trails along busy streets
such as Dublin Boulevard. Additionally, multi-use side-paths are recommended where they provide connections
to schools and parks along roads that are too narrow or otherwise unsuitable for Class II bicycle lanes. While
bicyclists may always utilize roadways, off-street side-paths may provide a greater sense of comfort for children,
the elderly, and inexperienced riders.
As noted in Chapter 3, when sidepaths have intersecting driveways and roadways, drivers who are exiting
driveways or intersecting roads often do not expect approaching cyclists. For this reason, when the City reviews
plans for development adjacent to proposed Class I facilities, driveways and cross-flow traffic should be
Bikeways Master Plan Page 45
2007
1
i
i
' minimized. When driveways cross Class I paths, the City should consider warning signs and pavement markings
(such as "Bike XING" or STOP bars) for both drivers and bicyclists, as appropriate.
' Recommendations for the off-street network also include enhancements to bicycle trail /roadway intersections
such as at the Alamo Creek Trail /Amador Valley Boulevard intersection and the Iron Horse Trail intersections
with Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. These enhancements may include signage, pavement striping, in-
' ground flashing warning lights, signal improvements, and rest areas. A study for a bicycle bridge over I-580 to
extend the Tassajara Creek Trail is also recommended.
Each project is described briefly below.
' Description of proposed off-street projects
1-1 Nielson Elementary /Mape Memorial Park Path: The proposed Class I path will connect an existing
' asphalt path from the San Ramon Road Bike Path and Mape Memorial Park along Martin Canyon Creek
to the Nielson Elementary School site. Development and alignment of this path will require coordination
with the Dublin Unified School District.
' 1-2 Shannon Community Center Path: An existing steep, narrow path connects the San Ramon Bike Path
with the Shannon Community Center. Potential improvements to this path include repaving, and
' realignment to increase the path width and decrease the path grade. This project should be coordinated
with future rehabilitation of the Shannon Community Center.
1-3 Dublin High School Path: A Class I multi-use path is recommended from the Dublin High School
' Campus, connecting with an existing bridge to the Iron Horse Trail along the south and east sides of the
Campus. Development and alignment of this path will require coordination with the Dublin Unified
School District.
1-4 Alamo Canal I-580 Gap Elimination: This project will extend the Alamo Canal trail from its current end
point near the Dublin Library, under I-580, to connect with the end of the Centennial Trail in Pleasanton,
creating an important regional trail link. This project will require coordination between the City of
Pleasanton, Caltrans, East Bay Regional Parks District, and Zone 7.
1-5 Alamo Creek Trail /Amador Valley Road Intersection Improvements: Improvements to enhance the
' safety, visibility, and continuity of the Alamo Creek Trail are proposed where it crosses Amador Valley
Road. Recommended improvements include: signage, striping, and button-activated in-street flashing
lights.
' 1-6 Dougherty Road Path /Iron Horse Trail: Improvements include extension of existing Dougherty Road
Class I path up to the Iron Horse Trail. This will be incorporated in the Scarlett Drive Extension Project.
' 1-7 Iron Horse Trail /Dublin Boulevard Trailside Rest Area: A rest area is proposed to include benches, map
kiosk, bicycle racks, and a gateway element to announce the presence of the regional Iron Horse Trail
along Dublin's main east-west street. This will be included as part of the Camp Parks Corridor Study.
' 1-8 Dublin Boulevard Path: Enhancement and widening of an existing path along Dublin Boulevard is
proposed to provide a Class I path linking the Iron Horse Trail and the Tassajara Creek Trail.
1-9 Tassajara Creek Trail North Extension (East Bay Regional Park District trail): The existing Tassajara
Creek Trail extends from Dublin Blvd. through Emerald Glen Park to Somerset Lane. Continuation of the
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 46
2007
1
.
1
' Tassajara Creek Trail to Tassajara Creek Regional Park will increase recreational opportunities. This
project will be built by the developer.
' 1-10 Tassajara Creek Trail / Fallon Road Connection: Anew Class I path is proposed linking Fallon Rd. with
the planned extension of the Tassajara Creek Trail. This project will be built by the developer.
' 1-11 Tassajara Road Path: Anew Class I path is proposed from the Fallon Road /Tassajara Road
intersection to connect with the future Moller Ranch trail. This project will be built by the developer.
1-12 Fallon Road Path North Extension: A continuation of the Class I Fallon Road Path is proposed to
' connect with Tassajara Road. In conjunction with projects 1-10 and 1-11 this project will provide access
to the future Tassajara Creek Trail and Moller Ranch Trail from north-east Dublin neighborhoods. This
project will be built by the developer.
' 1-13 Brannigan Street Path: There is potential for a Class 1 path on the west side of Brannigan St. between
Gleason Dr. and Central Pkwy. This path would provide connections to Bike lanes on Brannigan street
' north of Gleason Dr., connecting with Fallon Middle School. Future roads and driveways crossing this
path should be minimized.
1-14 Gleason Drive Path: There is potential for a Class I path on the south side of Gleason Dr. from
' Brannigan St. to Tassajara Road. Along with intersection improvements at Tassajara road, this path
would provide access to Emerald Glen Park. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be
minimized. This project will be built by the developer.
' 1-15 Central Parkway Path: There is potential for a Class I path on the north side of Central Parkway from
Brannigan Street to Tassajara Road. Along with intersection improvements at Tassajara road, this path
' would provide access to Emerald Glen Park. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be
minimized. This project will be built by the developer.
1-16 Chancery Lane Path: There is potential for a Class I path along Chancery Lane from Central Pkwy,
' crossing Dublin Blvd., and connecting with the Stormwater Pond. Along with the Grafton Street Path (1-
23) this path would create a Class I corridor connecting Ted Fairfield Park, Green Elementary, Fallon
Middle School, and the Stormwater Pond. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be
' minimized.
1-17 East Dublin Bike /Pedestrian Corridor: There is potential for a Class I path from Area F East
' Neighborhood Park to the Area F West Neighborhood Park with a bridge crossing Grafton Street. This
project will be built by the developer.
1-18 Grafton Street Path: There is potential for a Class 1 path on Grafton St. between Gleason Road and
' Central Parkway. Along with the Chancery Lane Path, this would create a Class I corridor connecting
Ted Fai~eld Park, Green Elementary, Fallon Middle School, and the Stormwater Pond. Future roads
and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer.
' 1-19 Oak Bluff Lane / Fallon Street Path Connection: An existing unpaved maintenance road could be paved
to provide a Class I Connection from the end of Oak Bluff lane to an existing bike /pedestrian bridge
' connecting with the existing Fallon Street Path.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 47
2007
~ -
' 1-20 Lockhart / Fallon Sports Park Path: A Class I path is proposed extending from Fallon Road down
Gleason Drive and Lockhart Street to Dublin Boulevard. This project will provide access to Fallon Sports
' Park and along with the Fallon Road Path North Extension will create a significant north-south Class 1
corridor.
1-21 Upper Loop Road Paths: Class I paths are proposed on both sides of the Upper Loop Road in Fallon
' Village. These paths will connect to a future neighborhood park, elementary school, and open space.
Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the
developer.
' 1-22 Fallon Village North Neighborhood Square Paths: Class I paths are proposed on both sides of a road
extending from the Upper Loop Road to a future Neighborhood Square in Fallon Village. Future roads
' and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer.
1-23 Fallon Road Grade Separation with Fallon Village Creek Trail & Dublin Sports Park: A bike and
pedestrian bridge is proposed from the future Dublin Sports Park over Fallon Road to connect with future
creekside open space trails in Fallon Village. This project will be built by the developer.
1-24 Fallon Village Creek Westbank Trail: A Class I path is proposed within future Fallon Village open space
' from Fallon Sports Park extending to open space north of Upper Loop Road. This project will be built by
the developer.
1-25 Fallon Village Creek Eastbank Trail: A Class I path is proposed within future Fallon Village open Space
' extending from Central Pkwy to open space north of Upper Loop Road. This project will be built by the
developer.
' 1-26 Central Parkway Paths: Class I paths along both sides of Central Parkway are proposed in the future
Fallon Village extending from Fallon Road to Croak Road. This path will connect Fallon Sports Park with
a Community Park along Central Parkway. Future roads and driveways crossing this path should be
' minimized. This project will be built by the developer.
1-27 Croak Road Paths: Class I paths along both sides of Croak Road are proposed in future Fallon Village
extending from Dublin Boulevard to Upper Loop Road and connecting with future open space. Future
' roads and driveways crossing this path should be minimized. This project will be built by the developer.
CORRIDOR STUDIES
C-7 Tassajara Creek Trail I-580 Overcrossing: A study should be undertake to explore the potential to
extend the Tassajara Creek Trail from Dublin Boulevard along Tassajara Creek with a crossing over 1-
580 to connect with existing bike lanes in Pleasanton. This project will require coordination with the City
' of Pleasanton, Caltrans, and Zone 7. This project along with the Tassajara Creek.North Extension would
create a complete Class I facility in east Dublin extending to the northern and southern city limits.
C-8 Stagecoach Park /Iron Horse Trail Connector: There is potential for a Class (multi-use path connecting
from Stagecoach Road along the south side of Stagecoach Park to the Iron Horse Trail. This path would
cross land currently owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad and Alameda County, which is currently
being studied by the Planning Department with respect to its land use designation. This proposed
project will be assessed as part of the Southern Pacific Land Use Study.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 48
2007
' C-9 Alamo Creek Trail /City of San Ramon Gap Elimination Study: The north end of the Alamo Creek Trail
currently ends at the Crossridge Road cul-de-sac and access to an existing multi-use trail in San Ramon
is prevented by a locked gate. A direct connection from the Alamo Creek Trail to the City of San Ramon
trail is recommended, bypassing the cul-de-sac. This project will require coordination with the City of
San Ramon. Environmental review of the connection is underway.
TABLE 5
PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
ID Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length R/W Construction
' Conditions (miles) Req'd7 Cost
_ . Local,_Off_stceet Facihtres ~ „ , ~
Existing path
' From Amarillo Rd, along southem
along southem edge of Mape
Memorial Park,
Nielson edge of Nielson with pedestrian
' Elementary / Extend Bicycle / Elementary to
1-1 Mape Memorial multi-use path 1 existing path along bridge over .25 N $150,000
Martin Canyon
Park Path Mape Memorial Creek and
Park to San connection to
Ramon Rd. San Ramon Rd.
Class I path.
' From San Ramon Existing steep,
Shannon Bike Path and
1-2 Community Bicycle / multi- 1 future bike lanes narrow path in .04 N $25,000
Center Path use path up to Shannon need of widening
' Community Center and repaving.
' Unpaved
pathway and
landscaped
Class 1 bike path area.
t from Iron Horse Improvements
Trail to Dublin needed to
Dublin High Bicycle / multi- High School along existing signage
1-3 School /Iron use path 1 the south and east surfacing, .26 N $156,000
' Horse Trail Path sides of the fencing and
campus landscaping at
existing
connection from
' Iron Horse Trail
bridge to Dublin
High property.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 49
2007
i
TABLE 5
PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
ID Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction
Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost
' Existing Alamo
Canal Trail ends
From existing end near a steep
' of Alamo Canal embankment
Alamo Canal Trail Near Dublin beneath I-580.
1-4 I-580 Gap Bicycle / multi- 1 Library, under I- The Centennial .07 N $2,250,000
Elimination use path 580, connecting w/ Trail in
Alamo Canal Trail Pleasanton
in Pleasanton begins on the
southern side of
I-580.
Signage,
striping, button-
' Alamo Creek activated in- Existing trail
Trail /Amador street flashing Alamo Creek Trail connection
1-5 Valley Rd. lights. Crossings other at Amador Valley crosses Amador .02 N $70,000
Crossing at Wildwood Rd. Valley Rd. mid-
' Improvements Road with minor block.
roadway
improvements.
Existing
southbound
' Dougherty Path
Reconfigure becomes one
Dougherty Road bike path and way north-bound
Path /Iron Dougherty Rd. near 5th St.
1-6 Horse Trail Signage as part 1 Path at Iron Horse Cyclists 0.02 N $70,000
' of the Scarlett
Connection Drive Extension Trail continuing to
Improvements project. Southbound Iron
Horse trail must
' cross Dougherty
twice for legal
connection.
t Signage/
gateway
Iron Horse Trail / element, map North side of Undeveloped. Unknown-
, kiosk, benches, Dublin Blvd., east Part of the future n/a Y Camp Parks
1-7 Dublin Blvd. bicycle racks, other side of Iron Horse Camp Parks Corridor
Rest Area trash/recycling Trail Study. Study
bins, drinking
' water fountain
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 50
2007
' TABLE 5
PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
' ID Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length R/W Construction
Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost
' Paving 12' asphalt path
improvement, from Scarlett Dr.
trail widening, North side of to Iron Horse
' and signage
1_$ Dublin Blvd. improvements. 1 Dublin Blvd. from Expressway 4 N $240,000
Bike Path Landscape Iron Horse Trail to 5' asphalt path
improvements Sybase Dr. from Iron Horse
to eliminate Expressway to
puncturevine. Sybase.
Tassajara Creek Undeveloped.
Tassajara Creek from Somerset Ln. East Bay
1-9 Trail, northern Bicycle / multi- 1 through Tassajara Regional Park 1.5 Y Developer-
extension use path Creek Regional District project, Built Facility
Park to be built by
developer.
' From northwest
corner of Fallon
Road /Tassajara
Road intersection Undeveloped.
' south along Project identified
Tassajara Road, with Tassajara
Tassajara Creek connecting with Road and Fallon
1-10 Trail to Fallon Bicycle / multi- 1 planned Class II Road Precise 0.4 Y Developer-
, Road use path lanes on Ultimate Built Facility
Connection Path Tassajara, and Alignment Plan
continuing through 3/3/04. To be
the Wallis Ranch built by
development, developer.
connecting to the
Tassajara Creek
Trail.
Undeveloped.
' Project identified
East side of Fallon with Tassajara
Road from Fallon Road and Fallon
1-11 Tassajara Road Bicycle / multi- 1 Rd. /Tassajara Road Precise Developer-
, Path use path Road intersection Ultimate 0.15 N Built Facility
north to planned Alignment Plan
Moller Ranch Trail 3/3/04. To be
built by
' developer.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 51
2007
' TABLE 5
PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
S ID Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length R/W Construction
Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost
' Undeveloped.
Project identified
From north end of with Tassajara
' existing path on Rd. and Fallon
1-12 Fallon Rd. Path, Bicycle / multi- 1 west side of Fallon Rd. Precise 0.75 N Developer-
north extension use path Rd. near Kingsmill Ultimate Built Facility
Terr. to Tassajara Alignment Plan
' Road 3/3/04. To be
built by
developer.
' West side of
Brannigan St. Bicycle / multi- Brannigan St. from Developer-
1-13 path use ath 1 Central Pk Undeveloped. .25 N
p wy. to Built Facility
' Gleason Blvd.
Class II lanes
striped on
Gleason Dr.
On south side of west of
Bicycle / multi- Gleason Drive Tassajara Rd.,
' 1-14 Gleason Dr. use path, street 1 from Emerald Glen and striped 25 N Developer-
Bike Path crossing Park/Tassajara intermittently Built Facility
enhancements Rd. to Brannigan between
St. Tassajara Rd.
' and Fallon Rd.
To be built by
developer.
' Class II lanes
On north side of striped on
Bicycle / multi- Central Parkway Central Parkway
' Central Parkway use path, street from Emerald Glen Develo er-
1-15 Bike Path crossing 1 Park/Tassajara west of .25 N Built Facilit
enhancements Road to Brannigan Tassajara Rd. y
St. To be built by
' developer.
Between Central
' Bicycle / multi- Parkway and
Chance Lane use ath stormwater pond
1-16 D' p 1 south of Dublin Undeveloped 0.5 N Developer-
Bike Path Blvd Built Facility
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 52
2007
i
' TABLE 5
PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
ID Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RNV Construction
Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost
From Area F East
Neighborhood Undeveloped,
East Dublin Park to Area F planned
' Bicycle /mufti- West Sorrento .30 N Developer-
1-17 Bike/Pedestrian 1
Corridor use path Neighborhood development. To Built Facility
Square, with be built by
bridge crossing developer.
Grafton St.
West side of future
' Class 1 bike Undeveloped. To
Future Grafton Grafton St. from Developer-
1-18 St. Bike Path path west side 1 Gleason Drive to be built by 0.3 N guilt Facility
of road Central Parkway developer.
' Existing path
From existing from pedestrian
Oak Bluff Ln. - bike/pedestrian bridge to Oak
Bicycle / multi- Bluff Court is
1-19 Fallon Ct. use path 1 bridge along unpaved. This 0.02 N $18,000
Connection Fallon Rd. Path to will provide a
Oak Bluff Ct. direct connection
' to the school.
South side of
' Gleason Drive Bikeway is along
Lockhart / Fallon from Fallon Rd. to mitigation
1-20 Sports Park Bicycle / multi- 1 east side of corridor. To be 0.75 N Developer-
' Path use path Lockhart St. built by Built Facility
continuing on east developer.
side of Lockhart to
Central Pkwy.
Undeveloped,
From Fallon Road planned Fallon
1-21 Upper Loop Bicycle / multi- 1 to Croak Road, on Village 2.0 N Developer-
Road Paths use path both sides of development. To Built Facility
Upper Loop Rd. be built by
developer.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 53
2007
~ -
TABLE 5
PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
' ID Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction
Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost
' From Upper Loop Undeveloped,
Fallon Village Road north to planned Fallon
1.22 North Bicycle / multi- 1 future Village 0.5 N Developer-
' Neighborhood use path Neighborhood development. Built Facility
Square Paths Square, both sides To be built by
of future road. developer.
' Fallon Rd. Undeveloped,
Grade From proposed planned Fallon
separation with Fallon Village Village Developer-
' 1-23 Fallon Village Bridge 1 Creek Westbank 0.16 N
Creek Trail / Trail to Future development. To Built Facility
Dublin Sport Fallon Sports Park be built by
Park developer.
Undeveloped,
Fallon Village From Fallon Road planned Fallon
' 1-24 Creek Eastbank Bicycle / multi- 1 to Open Space Village 1.06 N Developer-
Trail use path north of proposed development. To Built Facility
Upper Loop Road be built by
' developer.
Undeveloped,
Fallon Village Class 1 Bike From Fallon Road planned Fallon
' 1-25 Creek Westbank Path / Multiuse 1 to Open Space Village Developer-
Trail Path 12' 'width north of proposed development. To 1.00 N Built Facility
Upper Loop Road be built by
' developer.
Undeveloped,
From Fallon Road planned Fallon
1-26 Central Parkway Bicycle! multi- 1 to Croak Road, on Village .75 N Developer-
Paths use path both sides of development. To Built Facility
Central Parkway be built by
developer.
From Dublin Blvd. Undeveloped,
' to Upper Loop Planned Fallon
1.27 Croak Road Bicycle / multi- 1 Road, on both Village 1 0 N Developer-
Paths use path sides of Croak development. To Built Facility
Road be built by
' developer.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 54
2007
1
i .
' TABLE 5
PROJECT LIST: OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES
1 ID Project Name Proposal Class Location Existing Length RIW Construction
Conditions (miles) Req'd? Cost
t
.
' CorndorrStudies ~ r ~
Unpaved gravel
Tassajara Creek Special study Tassajara Creek, maintenance
Trail, Freeway area for bridge from Dublin Blvd. road along
and over I-580 Tassajara Creek.
C-7 Overcrossing overcrossing other connecting to Will require 0.6 N Unknown
Study and bicycle / Pleasanton coordination with
multi-use path
Caltrans and
Pleasanton.
Stagecoach From Stagecoach Significant grade
Park /Iron Bicycle / multi- Road along edge issues; Crosses
C-8 Horse Trail use path and 1 of Stagecoach land owned by .06 Y Unknown
Connector Southern Pacific
(include in land bridge Park to Iron Horse and Alameda
use study) Trail County.
Existing Alamo
Creek Trail ends
at end of
' Crossridge Road
cul-de-sac at the
city border with
Extend trail to San Ramon.
' Alamo Creek connect to Access to
Trail /City of existing path in Alamo Creek Trail existing path in
C-9 San Ramon Gap San Ramon 1 at Dublin/San San Ramon is 02 N $30,000
Elimination connecting to Ramon city border Prevented by
Study Beaver Creek locked gate.
Court
Requires
coordination with
the City of San
Ramon and
improvements in
City of San
Ramon.
OTAL COST $3,009,000
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 55
2007
.
'n,,
T
•
on
n 0.art+
Sa
's
c • rr
' '
j.:; ~~fr
~ '•'r
Camp Parks • ~
• Reserve Forces ~
'P Training Area ~
Doughe Nills •
TA~~ ~ Open 5 [e
i • PLD ~
Murray ~y
Fast Bay Regional ~Ekmentary [
' Park Di9rin .
• ge[oac
i Ap tDubillp ark ~
Jrk
Swim Wgh, ~ ; •I
f•
~ GI Ted p •
• ltnser"•• . ~ W Fairfield t SI
< ~m ~ Yl Park
~ Frederiksen z G 7 •
~r~
' Shannon ~ lementary < k4' dl Lreen • •~i•q•
is ; Community m ~ a < ~ Fallon Elementary ~~M1M' Z • ~
Center D ~ v 0 a Middle •'S•RsO.
~ o Dublin ~ GLEASON DR q ~I i~
Elements P • I,
o t Bpons ~ • wP•
•p ' ,Park •
~ Wells 9 g • fll • Future ,
' ~4R1 0l Middle w Dougherty k ; ,
~ ~ M' ~ Valle ~ a Elementary Emerald Gkn • k
\ '•i•~Dry '3'- ~kFDOp High Frank • i Park Qol• •......:,y~
. CR._ Stage . ALP ~ •f • .....•.::.7•
• Memorial knior • ~ -
• , ~ Par Center • ~ i
' yi • illll;lp • Bray '
khaefer ~ Nielson JD , ~ ••e••• i
~ • • • • • . ' :Commons ~ ~ ~
Ranch ; ~ • Eementary ~gVS~•••' • • e ~ Trfisit Vii~', e.••~ ~ Park DUBLIN BIVD :TO North
uP, • Wf ~ i~ ~ ~ Canyons Parkway
• ~s1a
a ? •i•
~ J?l Cnic Cener _ e• ti1WWT •.••.••••••ee....••een•
•
- • • Herds a • • _ Puhlic Libra
1_
fYrlLli1 • '
1 •
' , ,t
'~•4 •••a •.•••p.~••G:~• • . it . ~
- - , I Pleasanton ~ ~ , ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ` o `
•r
1 ~ ~T9P ~
` Btoneridge
' ~ Mall
•
s
•~r-
' Cless I BNce Pamf oPerl spree tills Omer: Ilk BART 'n
LI e
-Existing Class I Bike Paths ~-Existing Unpaved Trail j Schools -Highways
ra u~r,,
• • • Proposed Class I Bike Paths • • • Planned Unpaved Trail ®Pu~lic Buildings Streets ,r ~
' CIm II BIke Liles Omer 8lke Propoulf II ~~n
-Existing Class II Bike Lanes -One Side • ^ Study Area ~ BART Station ( Parks
Existing Class II Bike Lanes -Two Sides Class III Bike Routes/Class II Bike Lanes ®Proposed BART Station Water ° i ~ u re 4 f
Pro sail Class II Bike Lanes City Boundary
' Po m Proposed Rest Area
Clna 111 Bike Routes ~ i Freeway Crossing Study N
Existin Class III Bike Routes ®Proposed Trailhead
g O Intersection ImprovemenUConnection Study A Existin and Pro os e d B i kewa s
Proposed Class III Bike Routes
' Not to Scale
~ -
7. SUPPORT FACILITIES
Every bicycle trip has two components: 1) the route selected by the bicyclist and 2) the "end-of-trip" facilities at the
destinations. Bicycle support facilities are facilities that cyclists use when they reach their destinations. They can
include short and long-term bicycle parking, showers, lockers, restrooms, good lighting, and even public phones.
The lack of bicycle facilities at the destination can be one of the largest deterrents to cycling for many riders.
TYPES OF BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
' There are different types of support facilities just as there are different levels of bikeway facilities. Support facilities
fall into one of four main categories:
' Short-term Bicycle Parking: Bicycle Racks are low-cost devices that provide a location to secure a
bicycle. Ideally, bicyclists can lock both their frame and wheels. The bicycle rack should be in a highly
visible location secured to the ground, preferably within 50 feet of a main entrance to a building or facility.
' Short-term bicycle parking is commonly used for short trips, when cyclists are planning to leave their
bicycles for up to a few hours.
• Long-term Bicycle Parking: Bicycle Lockers are covered storage units that can be locked individually,
' providing secure parking for one bicycle. Bicycle Cages are secure areas with limited-access doors.
Occasionally, they are attended. Each of these is designed to provide bicyclists with a high level of
security so that they feel comfortable leaving their bicycles for long periods of time. They are appropriate
' for employees of large buildings and at transit stations.
• Shower and Locker Facilities: Lockers provide a secure place for bicyclists to store their helmets or
other riding gear. Showers are important for bicycle commuters with a rigorous commute and/or formal
' office attire.
• Bicycle Stations: Bicycle Stations provide free all-day, attended bicycle parking. Three recent bicycle
station projects include one in Long Beach, the Palo Alto CalTrain station, and the Downtown Berkeley
BART station. Bicycle stations can provide bicycle tune-ups, repairs, and rentals in order to sustain their
operation. They are intended to serve locations with large numbers of bicycle commuters needing long-
term bicycle parking and are an excellent means of facilitating the intermodal connections between
bicycles and transit.
• Trailheads ~ Staging Areas: Trailheads and Staging Areas provide access to and support facilities
along trails. These may include bicycle racks, public telephones, restrooms, drinking fountains, and maps
' and signage.
EXISTING FACILITIES
' Several businesses offer minimal bike parking outside their stores, including the Safeway on Dublin Boulevard,
the EXPO Design Center and Target on Amador Plaza Road, and the Safeway on Tassajara Road. Some
employment centers, such as Sybase and the business park on Hacienda Drive near Gleason Drive also offer
' bicycle parking. Public buildings including the Civic Center, the Dublin Library, and Shannon Community Center
provide bike racks. In addition, Emerald Glen Park and Bray Commons Park provide bike racks. Finally, there are
currently 66 bicycle racks and 12 bike lockers (with room for 24 bikes) at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station,
and there are plans to add at least 34 additional lockers.
' Bikeways Master Plan ~ Page 57
2007
1
~ .
' Showers and clothes storage facilities are provided at Dublin High School for students and at health/fitness clubs
for members. Dublin middle schools also provide lockers for clothes storage. The Fire Stations, Civic Center, and
the new Shannon Community Center offer showers, but these are not for public use.
The existing City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.76.020.4.2) requires that parking lots in non-residential
zoning districts with 20 or more spaces provide one bicycle parking space in a bicycle rack for each 40 vehicular
parking spaces. It also requires that multi-family residential complexes provide one bicycle storage space within
each residence or in lockable containers or spaces if not within the individual residence.
The existing ordinance also does not include design or location standards other than that bicycle racks shall be
' designed to provide a minimum of four bicycle spaces in each rack, and so that a bicycle can be secured to the
rack. It also states that the bicycle rack shall not encroach into the sidewalk which would reduce the
unencumbered width of the sidewalk to less than four feet, and that bicycle racks shall have adequate lighting and
provide the ability for surveillance. Finally, the ordinance lists standards for non-residential parking lots and multi-
family housing only, rather than specifying recommended bicycle parking amounts for a variety of land uses.
Figure 5 illustrates the existing support facilities.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
t The following improvements and programs are recommended to increase the provision of end-of-trip facilities for
bicyclists:
• Evaluate the needs of the community for bicycle parking on aproject-by-project basis, considering the
type of non-residential development, proximity to transit, etc.
• Make a list of locations of bike racks and lockers available to the public.
• Encourage the School District to provide safe and secure bike parking at all schools.
• Determine the adequacy of bicycle parking currently provided. Pursue grant funds or other funding to
supplement insufficient bicycle parking at key locations in the City.
1
i
1
1
1
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 58
2007
1
-I
i
I
~I ~ ~
i
r--~
;
~ ~
Camp Parks
~ Military Reservation
- Dougherty Hills ,
\ PL~StP~VD.~ ~ Open Space F
~ ~ Murray
Fast Bay Regional ~ lElemenury - ~ - •
Park District Stagecoach
ippt !Dublin .Park .
Swim Niyh g "
' \ Center c ~ Ttd
1 / LLLLL ~ !
I V ° ~ fairGeld '
- t x Park
~ Z Frederlksen~ ~ z
/ r~~ Shannon ~ Green e '
r Community ; b Ydementary ~ n , fallon Dementary ,<<0~, '
' CenteS tYlt 9~ ! x i h"~ o Middle! q0
` if 1W 9 Dublin t ''r GLEASON OR
o Elements t~ o Sports
J Park
~
n° ~ FWUre '
C/ BLS lMiddk ° w Dougherty Emerald Glen Sch of
/ - 1\\1 _ I`\\`` ¢P~pk P ~~y~ytt~or 1~ Hagh ~SGymr g CFMRAL ~ Elem~ta *k ~ ~ ~ 1..
' ! -----___-J ~ ~ MMmarial IIY enter y ~.ry
J Park ~ eny - ~
' ! DUBLIN BLVO w * . CoPman
JD * irk
~c-~~ Schaefer k Nielson ~
Ranch Elementary ~,yNe`' sC Futurt ~
' I 9 's Tpnsrt Villagc r
_ q~
~ - _ lYl*CNIc Center '\~F/j m ~ ~ ~
. ~ _ bfkllhruy
Heritage _.J \D9J~ ------_,I \ i
,L, Center / _ \ / ~
F ~LFiso9 0
Stoneridge v
' Mall
;1
1
Bike Support FeCllitles ocher: ~ BART Line N°a,,
* Racks ! Schools
' -Highways
t(i rl1M~~~
k r C
oc e s ublic Buildings Streets
f Shower Facilities ®BART Station ~ Parks Figure 5
' ®Proposed BART Station Water N
i. _'CityBoundary EX~St~ll su ort Facilities
' Not to Scale
8. SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATION
This section identifies various bicycle safety improvements and
recommends specific actions which are designed to enhance safety for ~
~Y
bicyclists through enforcement and education. While improving safety
' is extremely important and a high priority, riding a bicycle involves $Ha~RE
inherent risk that no improvements, including those listed in this
section, can completely eliminate. ~
BICYCLE COLLISIONS _ READ
On-street bicycle riding is commonly perceived as unsafe because it -
' exposes a lightweight, two-wheeled vehicle to heavier and faster- ~ ~ `~~I
moving automobiles, trucks, and buses. However, collision statistics
show that, based on number of users and miles traveled, bicyclists face only a marginally higher degree of
sustaining an injury than a motorist (Bicycle Federation of America). Death rates are essentially the same for
bicycle and automobile collisions. Nationwide, roughly half of reported bicycle collisions show the bicyclist to be
at fault.
' Bicycle collision statistics compiled from collision reports for the years 2000 to 2005 indicate that Dublin
experiences about five to seven bicycle collisions each year. In 2000, there were 12 collisions, while from 2001 to
2005, there were between three and seven collisions each year. Without taking bicycle counts, it is difficult to
' infer if this drop in collisions is due to improved safety, a reduction in bicycling, or some other factor. It is
important to note that these collision figures reflect reported collisions only; bicycle-related collisions tend to be
under-reported especially if they do not involve bodily or property damage.
According to collision reports filed by police, the cyclist was at fault in 75% of the collisions. This is quite a bit
higher than the national average of 54%. The most common cause of bicycle collisions was wrong-way riding
(riding against traffic or on the wrong side of the road), which was the primary collision factor in 34% of collisions.
' As discussed above, this may be due in part to the large number of sidepaths on one side of the road, which tend
to encourage wrong-way riding. Additionally, some bicyclists believe that in the absence of bike lanes, they are
more visible to motorists if they ride against the flow of automobile traffic; however, this practice results in turning
conflicts between bicycles and autos and poses a danger for less experienced bicyclists who might unintentionally
weave into the path of oncoming autos. Others believe that they are safer riding on sidewalks, which in fact
increases their chance of being hit by a vehicle pulling out of a driveway and creates conflicts with pedestrians.
The second most common primary collision factor was bicyclist failure to yield to driver's right of way, which was
the primary factor in 12% of collisions. Other common factors include bicyclist failure to obey signals (10%),
driver failure to yield to bicyclist's right of way, (9%), and bicyclist not riding as close as practicable to right hand
curb (8%). Secondary factors cited in the collision reports include lack of proper lights and driver inattention. In
' order to ride safely, bicyclists must not only follow the rules of the road (outlined in Section 21200 of the California
Vehicle Code), but also communicate with each other and other facility users, such as pedestrians, when traveling
on off-street paths.
' Figure 6 shows the locations of these collisions. In terms of streets, Dublin Boulevard had by far the largest
number of reported collisions, with 19 collisions over the six year period. Amador Valley Boulevard and Village
Parkway had the second and third highest number of collisions, with 12 and nine, respectively. In terms of
' intersections, Amador Valley BoulevardNillage Parkway was the most common collision location, with four
collisions, while Amador Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard/Camp Parks Boulevard
(DeMarcus Boulevard) both had three collisions. It is important to note that areas with high numbers of collisions
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 60
2007
~ -
' generally represent areas with high levels of bicycling. Aheavily-bicycled street with several collisions is not
necessarily less safe than a street with fewer bicyclists, but because more people are riding on it, more collisions
occur there. Without bicycle counts (which could be used to create a collision rate per cyclist), it is difficult to
' compare the actual safety of various streets. Additional collision data can be found in Appendix B.
Construction Zones
' Dublin is growing rapidly, with construction projects and road work occurring throughout the city. These projects
often result in construction vehicles parked in bicycle lanes, large truck traffic on city streets, and other conditions
that affect bicycle safety. For these reasons, Dublin should continue to review construction traffic control plans for
development and utility projects to ensure bicycle safety.
Trail Crossings
At locations where amulti-use trail crosses a street, the location of the crossing (mid-block or intersection) should
determine what type of safety considerations are used to determine whether or not to mark a crosswalk.
' Trail crossings should be well lit and well signed. At all uncontrolled at-grade trail crossings, traffic calming and
signage within 150 to 200 feet of the crossing should be considered. Warning signs should be installed within 30
to 50 feet of the crossing or as deemed appropriately by the City on a case-by-case basis. Button-activated, in-
street, flashing warning lights may be considered as appropriate.
t If the crossing does not meet the demand or safety considerations for installation of a marked crosswalk and the
nearest signalized crossing location is: 300 feet or more away on an arterial street; 200 feet or more away on a
1 collector street; or 100 feet or more away on a local street, signage and landscaping should be used to direct
cyclists to the adjacent signalized crossing. However, if the nearest signalized crossing is greater than 150 feet
away and the location does not meet safety considerations for a marked crosswalk, and other at-grade treatments
are infeasible, agrade-separated bicycle crossing should be considered.
1
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 61
2007
~ i
C~. t.
~
1
I i
, ~ /
i
rr ~ ~I i
~
~ 'r' r'` c9F~• I---------
~ ~
g
' Camp Parks <
/ - ~ Doughe Hills Mllkary Reservmlon ~ I
/ \ tt ~ . 09 OPen ce ~ '
/ \ Mmoy ~y I _ _ _
Eas[Bay Regional ~ Elementary ~ - `
Park Distria Stagccou I
~ ~~~Duban Park ~
~ Swim r
1 ~ / Nigh 2 x
~ Ted
Center w- Fairfield '
...r - \ m ur Park I
~ 2 Frtderlksen. 4Q,
/ r•~~ Shannon - ~ emen[ary ~ ~F~ Grtep. ,cq
- Community ~ a < t Fallon r ~r^e^~ry ~
Center ~ ~ v ~ ° ~ m Middki ~qa ~
Dublin < GLEASDNbfl
~ ° Elemensa ~Py ~ Sports
I /
~ ° ~ ~ Park
Wells ~ ` a ~ iii Future
tt H \ ~ Valky - _ < Ele entary Emerald Glen khaol I
_,._________.___J I \ CMhY DN ni r y, Hi h~Frank l < •;,t~ Park
~~.q~eg~_. UPE - Ma pM 9. SC 9e kP n
K, MeP ro~r[ial Center ~ - ~ ~ I
~;F.. N.., ~ a ODBUN BLVD ~ a Bray
khaerer r.. ~ Nielson 1N0k~ ~ ~ u re _ _ Co a~ ns ~
' ~ Ranch Elementary ~gL. I n -
I J~9/C TransR village
Mfr j m \ I
~ Gvir Ce .
g
Heritae
\•L Center - ~ 1 \ I
bsoq ~
S[oneridge o
Mall
f Yt
1Yy5 ~1
.T
` r~
X Bicycle Collision Open SpaceTreNa k# BART Line ~
`
Clau I Blke Palhs ~ Existing Unpaved Trail -Highways ~
' ~ Existing Class I Bike Paths 01~`~ ~ Streets , ~ ,
ClaasllBlkeLanes j SChOO15 "r[~a~`
Parks
Existing Class II Bike Lanes -One Side ~ Public Buildings Water Figure 6
' -Existing Class II Bike Lanes -Two Sides ®gART Station L _ ~ City Boundary
Clara III Blke Roula ~ n
Existing Class III Bike Routes ®Proposed BART Station Not to SDaie ~ I ~ ~ I e ~ 0 ~ I I S 101 1 ~ : 2000 2 005
I
i .
SECURITY
' Enforcement on the Ciry's multi-use paths should be provided by the Dublin Police Services Department. Existing
vehicle statutes relating to bicycle operation violations will be enforced through the Police Department's normal
operations. No additional manpower or equipment is anticipated. The Iron horse Trait, Tassajara Creek Trail, and
the Alamo Canal Trail are under East Bay Regional Park District jurisdiction and are currently patrolled by Park
' Police and volunteer Trail Patrol.
In general, multi-use pathway undercrossings require special attention because they can be perceived as unsafe
' areas, particularly after dark. Any undercrossing over 50 feet in length should be lighted, and all approaches to
the undercrossing should provide the user a clear view all the way through the undercrossing. Undercrossings
should be designed to avoid areas off the path where people can loiter.
The Dublin Police Services Department may have to be provided with special vehicles (such as trail bikes) for
patrolling the paths. It is estimated that one hour of additional police manpower is required for every 5 miles of
pathway. The Dublin Police Services Department already has bicycle-trained officers.
BICYCLE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Programs to teach current and potential bicyclists of all ages about the fundamentals of bicycle riding are
important to establishing good riding skills.
The City of Dublin's Police Services Department currently provides bicycle safety and education programs at
elementary schools. These are typically "bike rodeos" in which kids ride through obstacle courses designed to
' improve specific bicycling skills. The rodeo also includes a safety talk which includes information about bicycle fit
and proper helmet use and fit. The bike rodeos are held at elementary schools but are open to the public. They
typically last about one hour and include 50 to 75 participants. In the past, bike rodeos have been held at one to
three schools per year, but the program is expanding to four schools in 2006, with an ultimate goal of hosting an
event at each elementary school. These are generally held in the spring, to prepare students for summer
bicycling. They are advertised through fliers at the schools, the library, and civic center, notices in school
newsletters, on the Police Department website, and in the local press, and supported by volunteers from local
' bicycle shops and various clubs as well as Police Department staff.
In addition, the Dublin Cyclery, a local bike shop, has hosted free "Flat Repair Clinics" at the Dublin Library for
' adults. These clinics, which have been well attended, teach cyclists how to repair a flat tire and provide an
opportunity to discuss bicycle safety issues.
Dublin is a participant in the "Double Traffic Fines" program in school areas. The increased portion of the fine is
supposed to be used exclusively to pay for the cost of school pedestrian-bicyclist safety programs.
The following steps are recommended to build upon this effort:
• Expand the bicycle rodeo program to serve all of Dublin's elementary schools, as well as middle schools
and community centers to reach older children.
• Consider combining the successful Flat Repair Clinics with bicycle rodeos and bicycle safety education
' for adults, perhaps on Saturdays or weekday evenings. Alternatively, establish an adult bicycle education
program through the Dublin Community Education Center, the Amador Valley Adult and Community
Education Program, the Parks and Recreation Department, or another City department that teaches
' adults how to ride defensively and encourages people to ride to work. This program may include the use
of volunteers from local bicycle clubs and other organizations.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 63
2007
i
' Establish a bicycle helmet program through various statewide helmet programs that provides low-cost
helmets to youth. In California, helmets are mandatory for all bicyclists under age 18.
' Consider working with Safe Moves, a statewide non-profit organization that has a bicycle and pedestrian
safety education program for school children and senior adults. The Safe Moves program offers school
workshops, bicycle rodeos, bicycle registration, helmet inspection, and traffic assessment skills.
' Educate drivers about the rights of bicyclists through a variety of means including making bicycle safety a
part of traffic school curriculum, producing a brochure on bicycle safety and rights for public distribution,
enforcing existing laws regarding both motorists and bicycles, encouraging the state to include questions
' about bicycle safety and operations on drivers license exams, and providing signs at strategic locations
advising motorists to share the roadway with bicyclists.
Analyze bicycle collisions on an annual basis to determine high-collision locations, primary collision
factors, helmet use, and other trends, and use this data to develop safety and education programs.
• Consider working with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, Valley Spokesmen, or other qualified instructors to
' offer the League of American Bicyclists' Street Skills cycling class at Community Centers.
• Work with the East Bay Bicycle Coalition to provide safety quizzes and brochures to cyclists.
• Consider partnerships with organizations such as Cycles of Change, which provide after-school programs
for cyclists at Middle Schools.
BICYCLE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
A sound approach to enforcement for both cyclists and motorists is an excellent tool to educate both audiences
about the rules of the road. While it is important to enforce wrong-way riding, helmet laws for young cyclists, red-
light running, and even speed limits, enforcement efforts targeted at cyclists represent an excellent opportunity to
provide education as well. This approach allows police officers to enforce the laws without representing a
potential barrier to cycling for less-experienced riders. The City of Dublin may want to pursue the program
described below:
• Bicycle Diversion Program: Bicycle Diversion Programs have been successfully pioneered in Arizona by
the Tucson Police Department. Locally, the City of Sunnyva?e has a program that targets juveniles.
These programs are for both motorists and bicyclists ticketed for Vehicle Code violations pertaining to
' cycling. The violator may choose to pay the fine or to participate in a "Bicycle Traffic School," which
teaches rules of the road and techniques to safely share the road. The Dublin Police Services
Department may adopt a similar program as funding becomes available. The program would require
additional ongoing resources for Police enforcement, program administration, hiring instructors, and
' offering courses.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 64
2007
i e
1 9. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS
The proposed bikeway system, when fully implemented, may provide a comprehensive system for the City of
Dublin. However, due to limited resources, the proposed segments need to be prioritized for implementation over
the next 20 years. The prioritization provided in this Chapter is meant to serve as a guide and not an impediment
' to implementation. The City will pursue opportunities to implement projects through routine resurfacing or
development projects as they arise, regard?ess of a project's place in the prioritization. The prioritization of the
bicycle projects is based on the following five criteria:
' Activity Centers: The project is near existing and planned activity centers such as parks, schools,
employment centers, and shopping centers.
' Connectivity: The project provides connections to existing bicycle facilities, activity centers, or
closes a gap in the existing bikeway network.
• Safety: For on-street facilities, the project provides a bicycle facility on a roadway with a high
' number of bicycle collisions over the past several years. For off-street facilities, the project is
designed to minimize intersections and opportunities for conflicts with vehicles.
• Regional Access: The project provides access to regional trails, bikeways in adjacent cities,
across freeways, or to BART stations or bus stops.
• Relative Ability to Implement: The project can be implemented based on the amount of roadwork
' and coordination needed.
The scoring for each bikeway project and the resulting rankings are listed in Tables 6 and 7. A complete
description of the prioritization scoring is provided in Appendix D. The scoring resulted in two prioritized lists, one
' for on-street and one for off-street projects. These prioritized lists should be reevaluated every five years when
the plan is updated. Community workshops should be convened to participate in these updates.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 65
2007
~ -
TABLE 6
ON-STREET BIKEWAY PROJECTS: PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
' ID Project Activity Regional Ability to
Centers Connectivity Safety Access Implement Total Points
2-6, mador Valley Boulevard
2-7, Corridor 2 5 3 3 3 15
3-6
2-5, Village Parkway Corridor 2 5 2 3 3 15
3-5
2 3 San Ramon Road 2 5 2 3 2 14
' Corridor
3-4 Davona Drive 2 5 1 3 3 14
2-9 Dougherty Road Corridor 1 5 2 3 2 13
' C-1 San Ramon Road I-580 2 5 0 5 0 12
crossing
C-3 Tassajara Road I-580 1 5 0 5 0 11
crossing
C-6 Dublin Boulevard 2 5 2 2 0 11
Corridor
' 2-8, Stagecoach Road 3 2 1 2 3 11
3-7
2-1 Schaefer Ranch I-580 1 2 1 5 2 11
Underpass
3-2 Golden Gate Drive 1 5 1 2 2 11
C-5 Camp Parks Access 1 5 1 3 1 11
2-17, Central Parkway Corridor 1 5 1 1 2 11
2-18
2-20 Tassajara Road Corridor 1 5 1 1 2 10
2-21 Fallon Road Corridor 1 5 1 1 2 10
2-19 Hacienda Drive 2 2 2 1 3 10
2-11 Demarcus Boulevard 2 2 2 2 2 10
3-9 Lockhart Street 3 2 1 0 3 9
2-15, Gleason Drive Corridor 3 2 1 0 3 9
2-16
' 3-1 Regional Street 1 1 1 5 1 9
2-4 St. Patrick Way 1 2 2 2 2 9
2-10 Iron Horse Parkway 2 2 1 2 2 9
' 2-12 Altamirano Street 2 2 1 2 2 9
2-13 Martinelli Way 2 2 1 2 2 9
C-2 Dougherty Road I-580 1 2 0 5 0 8
Crossing
3-3 Amador Plaza Road 1 3 1 0 3 8
Bikeways Master Plan Page 66
2007
~ .
TABLE 6
ON-STREET BIKEWAY PROJECTS: PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
' ID Project Activity Regional Ability to
Centers Connectivity Safety Access Implement Total Points
' 2-2 Silvergate Drive 1 2 1 2 2 8
3-8 Grafton Street 1 2 1 2 2 8
2-22 Upper Loop Road 1 2 1 2 2 8
' C-4 Fallon Road I-580 1 1 0 5 1 7
Crossing
' 2-14 Arnold Drive 1 2 1 0 3 7
2-23 Croak Road 1 2 1 0 3 7
TABLE 7
OFF-STREET BIKEWAY PROJECTS: PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
ID Project Activity Connectivity Safety Regional Ability to Total Points
Centers Access Implement
1-4 Alamo Canal / I-580 Gap 3 5 3 5 1 17
' Elimination
1-8 Dublin Blvd. Bike Path 3 5 3 3 3 17
C-7 Tassajara Creek Trail ~ 3 5 3 5 1 17
' Freeway Crossing
Alamo Creek Trail /
1-5 Amador Valley Rd. 3 5 3 3 2 16
Crossing Improvements
1-3 Dublin High School /Iron 3 5 3 3 1 15
Horse Trail Path
Dougherty Road Path /
1 6 Iron Horse Trail 3 5 3 3 1 15
Connection
Improvements
' 1-g Tassajara Creek Trail, 3 2 3 5 2 15
northern extension
Nielsen
1-1 Elementary/Mope Park 3 5 3 0 2 13
' Path
1-2 Shannon Community 3 5 3 0 2 13
Center Path
' Alamo Creek Trail /City
1-4 of San Ramon Gap 1 5 3 3 1 13
Elimination
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 67
2007
~ -
TABLE 7
OFF-STREET BIKEWAY PROJECTS: PRIORITIZATION MATRIX
ID Project Activity Regional Ability to
Centers Connectivity Safety Access Implement Total Points
Tassajara Creek Trail to
1-10 Fallon Road Connection 1 1 3 3 2 10
Path
' 1-14 Gleason Dr. Bike Path 3 5 Unknown* 0 2 10
Fallon Rd. Grade
1-23 separation with Fallon 3 1 3 0 2 9
' Village Creek Trail /
Dublin Sport Park
1-24 Fallon Village Creek 3 1 3 0 2 9
Eastbank Trail
' 1-25 Fallon Village Creek 3 1 3 0 2 9
Westbank Trail
1-7 Iron Horse Trail !Dublin 3 0 0 3 2 8
' Blvd. Rest Area
1-20 Lockhart / Fallon Sports 2 2 2 0 2 8
Park Path
1-12 Fallon Rd. Path, north 0 2 3 0 2 7
extension
1-15 Central Parkway Bike 3 2 Unknown+ 0 2 7
Path
1-17 East Dublin 3 1 2 0 1 7
Bike/Pedestrian Corridor
1-18 Future Grafton St. Bike 3 2 0 0 2 7
Path
1-19 Oak Bluff Ln. -Fallon Ct. 0 2 3 0 3 7
Connection
1-26 Central Parkway Paths 3 2 Unknown 0 2 7
1-11 Tassajara Road Path 0 1 3 0 2 6
1-16 Chancery Lane Bike Path 3 1 Unknown 0 2 6
' 1-21 Upper Loop Road Paths 2 2 Unknown 0 2 6
Fallon Village North
' 1-22 Neighborhood Square 3 1 Unknown 0 2 6
Paths
1-13 Brannigan St. Path 0 2 Unknown 0 2 4
' 1-27 Croak Rd. Paths 1_ 1 Unknown 0 2 4
Note: Frequency of roads and driveways crossing proposed trails in future development areas is unknown.
Bikeways Master Plan Page 68
2007
~ .
1 10. FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
' Implementation of the proposed bicycle system will require funding from local, state, and federal sources and
coordination with multiple agencies. To facilitate funding efforts, this section presents conceptual construction cost
estimates for the proposed system along with a brief description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities. At the
' conclusion of this section, a brief overview of overall funding and implementation strategies are provided.
Current and Past Expenditures
Over the past seven years, the City of Dublin has spent approximately $1.14 million on bicycle facilities. Annual
expenditures over this period were as follows:
' FY 99/00 - $84,689
• FY 00/01 - $129,422
• FY 01 /02 - $361, 926
• FY 02/03 - $238,037
' FY 03/04 - $217,016
• FY 04/05 - $0
• FY 05/06 - $112,544
These funds were spent on the following projects:
' 1. Construction of the Iron Horse Trail from the Northern City Limit (County Line) to Amador Valley
Boulevard - $34,203 (99/00)
2. Construction of the Iron Horse Trail from Amador Valley Boulevard to Alamo Canal Trail $376,900
(99-02)
' 3. Construction of the Alamo Canal Trail from the Iron Horse Trail to I-580 - $373,229 (00-03)
4. Construction of Alamo Creek Trail north of Amador Valley Blvd. - $219,490 (02-04)
5. Tassajara Creek Trail Improvements - $27,270 (03-04)
6. Preliminary Engineering -Alamo Canal Trail under I-580 - $31,400 (05-06)
7. Citywide Bikeways Master Plan - $81,144 (05-06)
These expenditures total $1,143,636.
' In addition, the Parks Department budget includes annual funding for bicycle trail maintenance. For 2005 and
2006, bicycle trail maintenance totaled $127,000. This includes the following items:
' • Bike path maintenance: $47,125. This is for paths along San Ramon Road, Dougherty Road, and Alamo
Creek (excluding what's covered by the Parks District).
' Tassajara Creek Trail: $70,227. This is mainly landscaping.
• Martin Canyon Creek Trail: $9,752
Understanding the City's investment in the existing bikeway system and what is required to complete the system
is important in developing a funding strategy. With an approximate length of 21 miles, the existing bikeway
' system represents a substantial investment.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 69
2007
~ .
i Cost of New Bicycle Facilities
Construction Costs
Table 8 provides a unit cost summary for the construction of bikeway facilities in Dublin. These estimates are
based on costs experienced in Dublin and other communities throughout the State, with small increases to
account for engineering, construction management, inspection, and contingency costs. More detailed estimates
should be developed following the preliminary engineering stage as individual projects advance towards
implementation.
For purposes of this Bikeways Master Plan, conceptual construction costs for the proposed system were based
on the following assumptions:
• New Class 1 facilities would be constructed on generally flat right-of-way with no grade separation and
minimal grading needed given the existing topography within the City; cost of right-of-way acquisition is
not included.
New Class II facilities would require minimal or no roadway improvements
• New Class III facilities would require signing only (with optional stencils). An adjustment to account for
traffic control costs is included. .
TABLE 8
CONCEPTUAL UNIT COST ESTIMATES FOR BIKEWAY CONSTRUCTION
Facility Type Estimated Cost per Mile
Class I Bike Pafh -Construct path with minimal grading needed $600,000
Class 11 Bike Lane -Signing/Striping only $15,000
Class 11 Bike Lane -Signing/striping plus minimal roadway improvements $70,000
Class 111 Bike Route -Signing plus stencils in some locations $4,000
Note: costs are in 2006 dollars, excluding Right-ot-Way costs.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 70
2007
i . -
TABLE 9
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Proposed
Bikeway Classification Segments Cost
1 (miles) (2006 Dollars)
Class I Bike Paths (excluding those
to be built by developers) 1.09 $2,979,000
r Class II Bike Lanes (excluding those 31.76 $1,202,271
to be built by developers)
' Class III Bike Routes 2.98 $11,818
Corridor Studies 2.15 Unknown
Developer-Built Facilities:
Class I 11.87 Unknown
Class II 7.45
TOTAL 57.3 $4,993,089
Note that a minimum cost of $2,000 was assumed for the Class III projects. Thus, the total Class III cost is higher
than a direct multiplication of the unit cost and mileage. Additionally, some of the Class I paths include other
design elements that change the cost from a direct multiplication of unit cost and mileage.
Construction of the Class I, II and III system would require approximately $4,193,089, which equates to an
investment of approximately $209,655 per year over 20 years. A significant portion of the proposed system would
' be constructed as part of new development or as re-development occurs. The recommended corridor studies
should be initiated to determine feasibility and related construction costs.
Maintenance Costs
Multi-use path maintenance includes cleaning, resurfacing, and re-striping the asphalt path, repairing bridges and
other structures, cleaning drainage systems, removing trash, and landscaping. While this maintenance effort may
' not be incrementally major, it does have the potential to develop heavy expenses if it is not done periodically. The
City of Dublin is responsible for maintaining all Class I paths in Dublin except for East Bay Regional Park District
trails, which include the Iron Horse Trail, the Tassajara Creek Trail, and the Alamo Canal Trail.
' The estimated annual maintenance expenses for Class I bike paths is approximately $8,300 per mile. If all of the
proposed bike paths were implemented, there would be a total of almost 13 miles of Class I facilities, including
existing bike paths. The annual maintenance cost for Class I facilities is estimated at about $107,900.
For Class II bike lanes, the cost consists of maintaining pavement markings and striping. The estimated annual
cost is $62,000 for a full build-out of 39 miles of Class II facilities.
Lastly, Class III facilities will require maintenance of bike signs located along the bike route. For approximately 3
miles of Class III bike routes at full build-out, the annual cost is estimated at $450. Tables 4 and 5 show the costs
associated with the proposed on-street and off-street facilities.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 71
2007
Funding Strategy
' With this understanding, the following options should be considered by the City for fulfilling the funding
commitment necessary to complete the proposed system:
• For multi-agency bikeway projects, prepare joint applications with other local and regional agencies, such
as the City of Pleasanton, City of San Ramon, Alameda County, and the East Bay Regional Park District
for competitive funding programs at the State and Federal levels. Joint applications often increase the
competitiveness of projects for funding; however, coordination amongst the participating jurisdictions is
often challenging. The City should consider acting as the lead agency, with a strong emphasis on
coordination between participating jurisdictions and agencies (including BART, AC Transit, and Public
Health organizations) on important projects to ensure they are implemented as quickly as possible.
• Use existing funding sources as matching funds for State and Federal funding.
• Include bikeway projects in local traffic impact fee programs and assessment districts.
r Require construction of bicycle facilities as part of new development.
• Continue to include proposed bikeways as part of roadway projects involving widening, overlays, or other
' improvements.
The City should also take advantage of private contributions, if appropriate, in developing the proposed system.
This could include a variety of resources such as volunteer labor during construction or monetary donations
towards specific improvements.
There are a variety of potential local, state and federal funding sources available for bicycle projects. These are
' summarized in Table 12 and described in more detail below. Some portions of the system can be completed as
part of future development and road widening and construction projects.
TABLE 12
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCES AND ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
t TDA County SAFETEA-LU Safe Office of
SAFETEA-LU Routes to Traffic
Project Type Article TFCA CMA/Bicycle BTA Transit
3 Fund Enhancements Enhancements Schooll Safety
' Transit
Construction/Engineering X
capital project (i.e. roadway X X X X X
widening, bike lanes, shoulde
paving, restriping, bike bridge)
Bike paths, lanes, and/or X
routes to provide access to X X X X X
activity centers
Hazard elimination or X
improvement (i.e. X X X
' substandard grates or
culverts)
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 72
2007
TABLE 12
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOURCES AND ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
' Safe Office of
TDA County SAFETEA-LU
SAFETEA-LU Routes to Traffic
' Project Type Article TFCA CMA/Bicycle BTA Transit
3 Fund Enhancements Enhancements School/ Safety
Transit
Maintenance of non- X' X X
' motorized bikeways
Secure Bicycle Parking XZ X X X X X X
Facilitation of bicycle-transit X X X X X
trips
Traffic control devices to X X X X
improve bicycle travel
' Adjustment of traffic-actuated X X X X
signals to be bike-sensitive
Development or update of a Xa
Bicycle Master Plan
Bicycle promotion program X X X X
Bicycle Safety Education X X X X X
Program
1. Up to 5% of county's TDA Article 3 funds, 50% match required where county policy supports use of funds for this purpose.
. At employment centers, park and ride lots, transit terminals, and where other funds are unavailable.
3. Limited to once every five years.
ource: Draft 2005 Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan
Federal Funding Sources
t The following federal sources provide funding that could be utilized by the City of Dublin for implementation of
bicycle projects.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) -SAFET EA-
' LU provides funding for roads, transit, safety, and environmental enhancements. These are generally state and
local improvements for highways and bridges that accommodate additional modes of transit. Improvements
include capital costs, publicly owned intercity facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This legislation also
includes a Safe Routes to School program, with funding for projects that improve pedestrian and bicycle access
and safety around primary and middle schools. Cities, counties, and transit operators can apply for SAFETEA-LU
funds. An 11.5 percent focal match is required for these funds. There are several bicycle-related programs
' funded through SAFETEA-LU. These include the following:
• Surface Transportation Program Fund, Section 1108 (STP) -STP are block grant funds that are used for
roads, bridges, transit capital, and bicycle projects. Eligible bicycle projects include bicycle transportation
facilities, bike-parking facilities, equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transit facilities, bike
activated traffic control devices, preservation of abandoned railway corridors for bicycle trails, and
Bikeways Master Plan Page 73
2007
1
' improvements for highways and bridges. SAFETEA-LU allows the transfer of funds from other
SAFETEA-LU programs to the STP Fund. Cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO),
and transit operators can apply for STP funds. An 11.5 percent local match is required for these funds
when used for bicycle projects.
• National Highwav System Fund1NHS) -NHS funds provide for an interconnected system of principal
' arterial routes. The goal of the program is to afford access to major population centers, international
border crossings, and transportation systems, meet national defense requirements, and serve interstate
and inter-regional travel. This travel includes access for bicyclists. Facilities must be located and
' designed pursuant to an overall plan developed by each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and
state, and incorporated into the RTP. Both state and local governments can apply for NHS funds. A 20
percent local or state match is required for these funds.
' • Congestion Mitigation and Air Qualify Improvement Program. Section 1110 (CMAQ) -CMAQ funds are
available for projects that will help attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) identified in the
' 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. Projects must be located within jurisdictions in non-attainment
areas. Eligible projects include bicycle facilities intended for transportation purposes, bicycle route maps,
bike-activated traffic control devices, bicycle safety and education programs, and bicycle promotional
programs. Cities, counties, MPO, state, and transit operators can apply for SAFETEA-LU funds. An 11.5
' percent local or state match is required for these funds. Note that this program will likely be discontinued.
• Transportation Enhancements Program. Section 1201 (TE) -The TE Program is a 10 percent fund set
' aside from the STP. Projects must have a direct relationship to the intermodal transportation system
through function, proximity, or impact. This program has 12 activities that are eligible for funding. Two
enhancement activities are specifically bicycle related: 1) provision of facilities for bicyclists, and 2)
' preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for bicycle trails).
Local, regional, and state public agencies, special districts, non-profit and private organizations can apply
for TE funds. Cities, counties, or transit operators must sponsor and administer the proposed projects. A
12 percent local match is required for these funds.
• Bridge Repair and Replacement Program (BRRP) -BRRP funds are available for badge rehabilitation
and replacement. When a highway bridge deck is being replaced or rehabilitated with federal funds, the
bridge-deck must provide bicycle accommodations, if access is not fully controlled. Bridge projects must
be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Cities may apply for
these funds. No local match is required specifically for bicycle accommodations.
' National Recreational Trails Fund. Section 1112 -Funds are available for recreational trails for use by
bicyclists and other non-motorized and motorized users. Projects must be consistent with a Statewide
' Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Projects include development of urban trail links,
maintenance of existing trails, restoration of trails damaged by use, trail facility development, provision of
access for people with disabilities, administrative costs, environmental and safety education programs,
acquisition of easements, fee simple title for property, and construction of new trails. Private
individuals/organizations, cities, counties, and other governmental agencies can apply for these funds.
There are no specific local match requirements for these funds.
' National Highwav Safety Act. Section 402 -The Highway Safety Program is anon-capital safety project
grant program under which states may apply for funds for certain approved safety programs and
activities. There is a priority list of projects for which an expedited funding mechanism has been
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 74
2007
' developed; bicycle safety programs have been included on this list. Eligible states must adopt a Highway
Safety Plan (HSP) reflecting state highway problems. Eligible projects include bicycle safety programs,
' program implementation, and identification of highway hazards. State departments, cities, counties, and
school districts may apply for these funds. No local match is required.
• Transit Enhancement Activity. Section 3003 -The Transit Enhancement Activity fund can be used for
' bicycle access to mass transportation, including bicycle storage facilities and installation of equipment for
transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles. Regional transportation planning agencies, state,
and local agencies may apply for these funds. A 5 percent local match is required for these funds.
• Highway Safety. Research, and Development Fund, Section 2003 -This fund can be used to improve
bicycle safety through education, police enforcement, and traffic engineering. Projects must be
' incorporated into the RTIP. Cities, counties, and state agencies can apply for these funds. A 25 percent
local match is required for these funds.
• Section 3 Mass Transit Capital Grants -This fund can be used for mass transit station access including
' bicycle access, bicycle parking facilities, bicycle racks, and other equipment for transporting bicycles on
transit vehicles. States, regional, local governments, and transit operators can apply for these funds. A
10 percent local match is required for bicycle related projects using these funds.
' State Funding Sources
The following State of California sources provide funding that could be applicable for the City of Dublin:
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM~Program -This program benefits bicycle projects that offset
' environmental impacts of new or modified transportation facilities. Local and non-profit agencies can apply for
these funds. There is no local match required.
' Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR~ Program -This program is designed to reduce congestion on major
transportation corridors by adding capacity to roadways. These funds can be used for bikeway projects if they are
consistent with the RTP and included in the RTIP. There is no local match required for these funds.
' Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) -The following is an excerpt from the OTS websites:
' OTS grantees conduct traffic safety rodeos for elementary, middle and high schools, and community groups in an
effort to increase awareness among various age groups. To boost compliance with the law and decrease injuries,
safety helmets are properly fitted and distributed to children in need. Court diversion courses are established in
several communities for those violating the bicycle helmet law. Other programs target high-risk populations and
areas with multicultural public education addressing safer driving and walking behaviors.
Swww.ots.ca.gov (as of 3(16!04)
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 75
2007
~ .
A bicycle community program should be designed to increase safety awareness and skills among bicyclists and
should also address driver behaviors. Two types of programs are described below. A comprehensive program
should include both elements: 1) education and 2) enforcement.
' Education -Educational efforts may be designed to include the entire community or specific target groups.
Educational efforts may include bicycle rodeos, school presentations, public service announcements and the
' distribution of pamphlets and posters to increase public awareness and education.
Enforcement Enforcement efforts can include safety helmet violations, speed enforcement and visible
display radar trailer deployment near schools and areas of high bicycle traffic. Several agencies have
' successfully implemented diversion programs for those cited for safety helmet violations. It is also
appropriate to conduct occupant restraint and speed enforcement near schools during school commute
hours.
' State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) -This program is state-funded and used by
Caltrans to maintain and operate state highways. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to work with Caltrans to help
define projects, including bikeway projects on state highways.
' Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article III funds are state block grants awarded annually to local
jurisdictions for bicycle projects in California. These funds originate from the state sales tax and are
' distributed to local jurisdiction based on population.
• Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA, and formerly AB 434) funds are available for clean air
transportation projects, including bicycle projects, in California.
• California's Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) is an annual program that is available for funding
bicycle projects. Available as grants to local jurisdictions, the emphasis is on projects which benefit
bicycling for commuting purposes.
Local Funding Sources
A variety of local sources may be available for funding bikeway improvements; however, their use is often
dependent on political support.
Alameda County Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Program: Measure B is ahalf-cent sales tax that was
passed in Funds are distributed through the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA).
75% of these funds are distributed to cities and the County based on population, while 25% is allocated for
' regional projects. Currently, Dublin receives approximately $90,000 per year from Measure B for bicycle and
pedestrian projects.
Local Transportation Fund, TDA Article 3 -This fund was established by the California legislature under the state
Transportation Development Act of 1972. Revenues are derived from return of '/<-percent of the 7'/4 state sales
taxes to the county of origin. Local jurisd'+ctions can apply for these funds that can be used for transit and bicycle
projects. Up to 2 percent of funding can be set aside for bicycle facilities and 5 percent can be used for
supplementing other funds to implement bicycle safety education programs. Historically, Dublin has been able to
obtain between $35,000 and $40,000 a year from County TDA funds that can be used for improving bicycle
facilities.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 76
2007
r
i .
' Transportation Fund for Clean Air - Afour-dollar motor vehicle surcharge funds this program, which generates
around $20 million in annual revenue. Bicycle facility and smart growth projects are eligible for funding.
' Applications are submitted in June each year for consideration.
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) -The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) disburses
these funds, which are collected at the Federal and/or State level and are intended to incentivize smart growth-
' 'related projects in the Bay Area. Currently, the program funds planning grants, capital grants, and a housing
incentive program (described below). While the most successful applicants have included a housing element in
their applications, these grants are intended to foster transit use and mobility for bicyclists as well.
' Housing Jncentive Pra4ram (H!P) -The Housing Incentive Program is a smart growth grant funding program
begun by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in 1998. The Housing Incentive Program disperses
federal and/or state transportation funds as part of the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program.
' HIP offers capital grants for transportation enhancement projects to cities and counties in the San Francisco Bay
Area that develop and/or permit infill housing along existing public transit corridors. The amount of funds granted
is relative to size and density of the residential development, but HIP funds can only be used by a local
government agency for transportation enhancement projects. To be eligible for HIP funds the transit service
' intervals must be 15 minutes or less during peak periods and the housing in the development must be built to a
density of at least 25 units per acre.
New Construction -Future road widening and construction projects are one method of providing bike lanes. To
' ensure that roadway construction projects provide bike lanes where needed, it is important that the review
process includes a designated bicycle coordinator. Planned roadway improvements in Dublin could provide bike
lanes in the City. Since Dublin is growing rapidly with road expansions planned in several areas, there are many
opportunities to leverage this construction work for new bicycle facilities.
Assessment Districts -Different types of assessment districts can be used to fund the construction and
maintenance of bikeway facilities. Examples include Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts, Infrastructure
Financing Districts (SB 308), Open Space Districts, or Lighting and Landscape Districts. These types of districts
have specific requirements relating to the establishment and use of funds.
' Impact Fees -Another potential local source of funding are developer impact fees, typically tied to trip generation
and traffic impacts as a result of proposed projects. The Tassajara Trail extension project will be constructed by
the developer and is included in the City Traffic Impact Fee program. No other bikeway projects are included at
this time.
Open Space District -Local Open Space Districts may float bonds that go to acquiring land or open space
easements, which may also provide for some improvements to the local trail and bikeway system.
' Regiona! Measure Two - On March 2, 2004, voters passed Regional Measure 2 (RM2), raising the toll on the
seven State-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area by $1.00. This extra dollar is to fund various
transportation projects within the region that have been determined to reduce congestion or to make
' improvements to travel in the toll bridge corridors The Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) Program is part of Regional
Measure 2. SR2T funds, are allocated on a competitive grant basis. To be eligible, projects must have a "bridge
nexus," that is, reduce congestion on one or more state toll bridges by facilitating walking or bicycling to transit
services or City CarShare pods. The East Bay Bicycle Coalition (EBBC) and the Transportation and Land Use
' Coalition (TALC) were named as joint project sponsors, with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
serving as the lead public agency co-sponsor for fund allocation purposes.
Other Funding Sources
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 77
2D07
i
Local sales taxes, developer or public agency land dedications, private donations, and fund-raising events are
other local options to generate funding for bikeway projects. Creation of these potential sources usually requires
substantial {ocal support.
1
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 78
2007
I s
Monitoring and Marketing
This section outlines various actions recommended in support of the related bicycle improvements.
Monitoring
City staff should coordinate all monitoring activities of the Plan and hold regular meetings with those involved.
Some monitoring activities are listed below.
• Plan Review: Roadway improvement plans should be reviewed to ensure that bikeway segments and
' related improvements are implemented, developer impact fees are identified (if applicable), and design
standards are met. The review should also include an assessment of impacts to existing bicycle safety,
access, and mobility and strategies to mitigate any impacts.
• Collision Monitoring: Bicycle-related collision data should be collected annually from the Police Services
Department and tabulated to show patterns by location and collision type.
' Public Involvement: City staff should continue to provide interested residents with materials, information,
and other support as the system is being implemented. Bicycle promotional and educational events, such
as Bike to Work Day and Bike to School Day, should be planned and managed by the responsible
' departments. The City should coordinate public outreach and involvement with adjacent cities.
• Maintenance: The Public Works Department should be responsible for the annual maintenance and
operations budget, collaborating with the Parks and Community Services department. The Department
should keep track of long term path maintenance, schedule repairs, and respond to calls from the public
or staff regarding maintenance needs.
• Funding Monitoring: City staff should work closely with various funding agencies such as ACTIA, MTC
' and Caltrans to keep abreast of funding opportunities and to follow up on applications to ensure
maximum success.
• Operations Monitoring: The Police Services Department should be responsible for providing the needed
enforcement along City bike paths and working in cooperation with the East Bay Regional Park District on
District-maintained trails. Problems regarding security, privacy, vandalism, and crime along bike paths
should be addressed.
' • Maintain surface conditions through periodic street sweeping to insure that existing and future bikeways
are safe for bicyclists.
' Continue to maintain a bikewav improvement and maintenance log in the Public Works department where
all observed and recorded hazardous conditions are listed and scheduled for repair or replacement. This
list would include all grates that do not meet specific criteria. Each bikeway should be scheduled for
' sweeping no less than four times a year. Obstructions and potholes should be repaired as soon as
possible after being reported.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 79
2007
Marketing
' This section addresses actions a local jurisdiction may take to increase awareness and use of its bikeway system.
Increased commuter bicycling is often one of the goals of a local Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program. One of the first steps is to identify and contact those local organizations or departments that have
mutual interests in promoting bicycling, such as a health organization like the American Lung Association or a
regional ridesharing agency. Not only will this coordination help gather .resources and support, it will also help
identify innovative techniques that have been proven successful in the past. Some common marketing
techniques are described below.
Bikeway Identity
A logo for the proposed bikeway system could be developed and signed relatively inexpensively on existing and
future segments to raise the visibility of the effort. This identity would be used on all bikeway signs, brochures,
maps, and other materials. The logo will help define the bikeway routes as a cohesive system rather than a series
of disconnected routes. The design could be accomplished through a contest involving local schools and bicycle
clubs, with a prize awarded to the winner. Directional, informational, and warning signs should conform to
Caltrans Chapter 1000 and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices unless superseded by City guidelines.
The City should also work with BART to develop signs that are consistent with BART's bicycle and pedestrian
wayfinding standards.
Malts and Brochures
' Maps of the existing bikeway system could be produced by the City, possibly aided by advertising revenues from
local bike shops and other retailers. The map should be small and inexpensive to reproduce and update, and it
should include safety and other information (such as City numbers to call with maintenance problems). The maps
should be distributed to all local bike shops, libraries, schools, and major employers. Brochures on bikeway
' improvements and requirements are also effective education and marketing strategies. The City of Portland
produces brochures on bicycle parking requirements for local employers and bicyclists alike. Other specialty
brochures might cover steps neighborhoods and elementary schools can take to improve bicycling conditions, or
' introduce types of incentive programs employers can offer to encourage employees to bicycle to work. Maps,
brochures, and other information should be posted on the City's website and provided to regional transportation
organizations such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for promotion on their websites.
Bicvcle Safety Program
Bicycle safety programs can also benefit marketing efforts. By educating the public about riding safely and
' properly, the City can promote bicycle riding in a positive manner. The City currently has a bicycle safety program
that includes bicycle "rodeos" at elementary schools which cover bike fit, helmet use and fit, and riding skills. Safe
Moves, astate-wide non-profit organization, has devised a bicycle safety education program for school children
and senior adults and could help offer school workshops, bicycle registration, helmet inspection, traffic
assessment skills, and additional bicycle rodeos for Dublin residents.
Bicvcle-Friendly Community Designation
A long-term goal for Dublin could be to be designated a "Bicycle-Friendly Community." This designation is
' awarded by the League of American Bicyclists based on the City's engineering, education, encouragement,
enforcement, and planning efforts for bicycling. The designation includes a press release, local award ceremony,
and road sign with the designation. See www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org for more details.
' Bikeways Master Plan Page 80
2007
i
' Appendix A: Design Guidelines
i
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
~
1
1
.
t ~
_ _
;y t
i.
.
w
.r ~ i
CLASS I BIKEWAY (Bike Path)
Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles
and pedestrians with crossflow minimized.
' ~ 6 SOLID WHITE STRIPE . ,
dit
~ ~
~ ~
-
wr^ -
l
I. ~ _
~.ll?
CLASS II BIKEWAY (Bike Lane)
Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
BIKE ROUTE SIGN
, r
vt~ j .
,.aF _
_ _ _ _ f
1
CLASS III BIKEWAY (Bike Route)
' Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.
' ~ Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
FEH~ & PFERS
' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS BIKEWAY FACILITY TYPES
i
1
r
2" A.C. (MINIMUM) OR RECYCLED
A.C. OR DECOMPOSED GRANITE
W{TH ADHESIVE
6° COMPACTED
SUB-GRADE (AB2 OR GRAVEL) 7
2% SLOPE
>>ny J?j Y/~~"i ~ J.1'3i>`.~; rah 1'+`.~yhiT:i' ".y ny' h ~j~> >~n
~:'~`G45.~C~:J'`~/.<h`v~`vC ~ -~Cu~C`G~`Cr«.`:/~'~CJi.`c.~VC't .c',l~C ~~~~:C, ~ti'!~~~C'~'/.v<~~..~~c;;C\.
' NATIVE MATERIAL OR FILL
COMPACTED PER
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
2' 10' 2'
i
1
6' FENCE
' 6' FENCE
y yhtir''y'=-'%;i~'`'~:~ r /n iT; ~,%~Y' .Yay yny ~;Yh}
~;v y ~r ~%ilhj'~`%f rnti%. ?,i ~'T,i> ~ i
i'jK`l~ vC~iC~;.rL~c~C~ iC.' ,~r~ .Y.rC `C~'~ G~ s'.`v~ ~tC ~rC~ ~'.~cr~~i: :~:rt'~ v<~~~C: ~4'~
~ i J r , ~ l~, i ~ , r ' 7 / % l ~ t~ ~ /S ~/n /.T Jh,~ 7 ) J~;~ n h i ~ i ~
~r ,c rC.{~%,C~G'~ ~ , .r~~j : ~Gi ~ f.c . ~.f.~ l,t,,:'~ •'r '~rE^~ `~'.c "'«C ,c 'G~. v'~'`'/~ w
'•Jy;5~,7,-'i Y.~+Y1 'yh~ any i ~ 7 r r,~ .fr.,i' i i';> >,i Y r ~J>>7, ynv i~+ti Yh~~S h ,n> > /h 3 f~~?' 'hy:,'
'~i:,t
~,ti ~''.~i~r h ~ ~ ''+'%~f .'G!\~ 4` 4,'~'<r<4~ IYC~c.~C'si4'v:''~~ <,h.~ '4 v '~.,'~~t;C 'C'v'~ ~ ~ ~.`YC`. ~.:C'~4
~Jt V1•n.~i}:`v'~ nary ?,r r"7i~~,' n ~i ,y rti4 ~ rrhy;~.?~ ~h n?~i
3 2 10' 2
' ~ Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
F E H R~ P E E RS TYPICAL CLASS I BIKE PATH
1 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
i .
Bike Path Design Standards
Bike paths are separated from roads by distance or barriers. Cross traffic by motor vehicles should be minimized.
Bike paths can offer opportunities not provided by the road system. They can provide recreational opportunities
or serve as desirable commuter routes.
' Two-way bicycle paths should be a minimum of 10' wide. Bike paths are usually shared with pedestrians and if
pedestrian use is expected to be significant, the path should be greater than 10', preferably 12' wide. Where
equestrians are expected a separate facility should be provided. A yellow centerline stripe may be used to
separate opposite directions of travel. A centerline strip is particularly beneficial to bicycle commuters who may
use unlighted bike paths after dark.
Sidewalks and meandering paths are usually not appropriate to serve as bike paths because they are primarily
' intended to serve pedestrians, generally do not meet Caltrans' design standards, and do not minimize motor
vehicle cross flows.
' Preferred Standards
Minimum width 10.0'
' Vertical clearance 8.5' from roadbed
Horizontal clearance 14.0'
' Maximum cross slope 2.0%
Surface Concrete /Asphalt
Bike Path Structures
Bollards
Entry structures using bollards are placed at bike path access points to separate the path from motor vehicles and
to warn and slow bicyclists as they approach street crossings. Agate may be provided where service access is
needed. The diagonal layout of bollards will make the space between the bollards appear narrower, slowing
bicyclists and deterring motorcyclists from entering the trail. The bollards are spaced to provide access by people
using wheelchairs. A trail sign post can be incorporated into the bollard layout.
Bridges
Bridges will be required wherever bike paths cross creeks and drainages. Crossings can utilize pre-fabricated
bridges made from self-weathering steel with wood decks. Openings between railings should be 4" maximum.
Railing height should be a minimum of 42" high.
Fences
Fencing may be necessary on some bike paths to prevent path users from trespassing on adjacent lands, or to
protect the user from dangerous areas. In areas where private residences are passed, privacy may be a concern.
Screen fences should be used to maintain privacy of residents. Screen fences can be made of wood, concrete
block or chain link if combined with vine planting.
82
6" Continuous White Stripe {Detai139)
~
7 Minimum
Parking Adjacent
No Parking
i ,
S ~
~
' ~
N
• r f
~
Markings or
"BIKE LANE"
Required
r
~ € ~ - - y:~
~
5' min. 4-5' min.
' (6' or more (6' or more
desirable) TYPICAL SIGNING desirable)
i
1
* Where parking lane is less BIKE LANE 5' if curb/gutter is present;
than 8', a 4" edge line or parking 4' if no curb/gutter present
' Tees are recommended between
parking lane and bike lane. R81
Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
F E H R sSt. PEERS TYPICAL CLASS II BIKE LANES
' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
1.: _<<~=..>. - - 4i • - Optional Stencil
Optional Stencil ~ _
•,r
x~_. , e. ~ _:.f
~ -
it
~ ~ ~ No Parking
iii i
~ F' j
j
' ~
{ ti ; I.
5 i ~
t .
~ Shared Travel Lane
Parking Adjacent
y~ ~
r<< I
. _ ~
r
Where travel lane width is 10' or less, place
stencil in center of travel lane. Width Varies
(See note below)
TYPICAL SIGNING
SHARE
THE ROAD
' •
NOTE:
Bike route width varies. 14' is desirable for a shared lane.
' f~ Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
FEHR & PEERS
' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS TYPICAL CLASS III BIKE ROUTES
e -
' Sample Signage Standard
d~ ~8~
1 ~~~~i
f
' ~G1F
1 ~ -
t ~j
L~
I:
'
t
~ I~
~ ~~F
f,
® -o.
•
' ® r
e a s
• .
Bikeways Master Plan Page 83
' 2ao~
1 e L
Shared Use Lane Marking (Sharrow)
(For additional information, see vwvw.bicycle.sfgov.org)
:a
v
~ y~
a
~dd t ~ .
t ~ ~ J
i~
kl + .
f s ~2
f
y t~ 7
j. i . t ti
k f±.~
~ i
1,'~ ~ ~f
1 ~ li 4
r
1 i
t ~~U'~ ~ ~~F
~
I Ot~IY
1, H+1y ~fixa M.. 4A'...s N'.w~«.. C.b '
1 1 w.m ~ s {
~ ~ 1 : ~
1 ~ i i l~ t+1 ~ . I r
{
I ~ ;
1 ) 1111 ~ , ~
{ , ~~,,~.J w f
% ~ r
I ~ r_, ~
1
I
1
V ~V
1
w!tr-... x d sra..a me ay..
rn Gn irSw:r hrta7v
tt =Y'
84
-
2.4m 3.4m' 3,4m 3.dm 3.dm ~ 2.dm ~ I
~o~P i ~ . ;
! _
-i ~ ~ 11 _._t.
;
_..I-- 1 ~ ~0 _-l _ ;
pty ~ _~____I
i_. ~ T ~
~
- 60tH ~ - -
-j - (460, ~ -
-r- I y
1.Sm
+
4.Om I6) 3.4m ~ 3.dm 3Am ( ~
i.~_(_._ 3') l7+') ~ 1+1'1
I ~ ~_-r I I fi I I~ I ~ ~ i! ~ I I I
"qtr -1 t.5m (5) •
(76') C=-
' 3.4m Minimum ~ ~
(+t'I
o-
3.4m
(++'J 16.6m
J
Minimum
3.4m -fib
(,1')
r - _ - -3.4m 30-60m
(t,7 100.200
I I I ! I I I 1 + i L I 1- I I 1_j I
j-
I QTR 3.4m 3.4m 1 1
7Y +,~I ~ n+•J y) ~I Markin s or
( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'BIKE LANE9Required
Dashed Stripe within ~ (+'J j
i-.y-- -
30m (100ft.) to 60m
200ft. of intersection 14m 3.4m 9.4m i
_ _ sm I ~ Sm __I Si na{ Detector
` (s'J '6soa (5> i_~ (withsenciledmarker)
~ ~
-r ~ ~ --1--~,
_ ~ ~ _a
OPTIONAL 4 p _
Bike Tum Lane rp~ 1~ ~ ~ _
(for heary left-turn bike ~ ~ ` 1 „m _ _
volumes, i.e. over 50/hour) _ _ + zs'J, '
--i-- ,1? 4 ' ~ -
~ ' I --a._. • Parking
Parking I _ i = EI ~ ~ ~ ~ _r ~ Lane
Lane - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ -
~ ( i s_ _
f~ Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
FEHR & PEERS
' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS BIKE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS
,
w , .
. .
0
~f~',~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
_ ~ ~ s~
V \s
~P
0~. A 0 0 p
0 0 0 00
il, 0 0 0 0
j~~ ~ o ~ o
J ~ o Q a
J 0 0' p p
~
:III, `
a
~~4~, ~ .
~ -
a. Right-tum-only lane b. Parking Zane iota right-turn-Doty lane
NOTE: The dotted lirtea In caeea "a° and "b" are optional (see case "c".j
1
ry
t '
rya
n
~
~~1~
- , ~ wi~f~t
c. Right-tum-Doty lane d. Optional rightlstraight and right-turmonly i
a
Dublin Bicycle NNaster Plan
F E H R CX PEERS p ~IIKI~ L~,Y~~S
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Pi~Ir~R~PS'1r~lltlt9 ~I'L7tl-Y 11°~~/~1~1°OR1LV LAi~f~S
0
Bicycle parking layout for end parking space
CURB
c ~
N
G
tV
21._O.
Bicycle parking layout for internal parking space
~ 2'-0" I 3'-6" ~ 3'-O' 7'-O" 2'-0'
CURB
(V ,
` O
(V
21 ~-O"
Buffer zone between parked/moving cars and bicycle parking
t ~ Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
F E H R& P E E RS GUIDELINES FOR BIKE RACK PLACEMENT
' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS IN PARALLEL ON-STREET PARKING SPACE
1
1
1
1
Bike racks should not be
placed in bus stop zones
B
U
1 S
S
T
O
P Commercial buildings
CfOSSWaIk , ,Pedestrian zone.
6' min; 10' optimum
2'Ior aligned with street trees
S' min . ± Varies
I~--:; I Is•-- 4' min
L ~ ~
1
Inverted U-rack or Horse Rail Rack
Street Furniture
Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
FEHR ~ PEERS
' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS BIKE PARKING ON SIDEWALKS
0
3' 2"
t
3'-O" Minimum 6'-0" Clear Space 2 s
For Access 8 Circulation
PLAN VIEW
' s'-s~
~s~-io"
r ~
' e e e e e e
,,-Z.
' PROFILE VIEW SIDE VIEW
' ~ Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
F E H R& P E E RS GUIDELINES FOR PLACEMENT OF
' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS BICYCLE LOCKERS
' N
- Q O
(V f~
O
Bicycle Area- is
Parking Pad
2'-0" Minimum 3'-0I Clear Space
For Access 8 Cirwlation (6'-0")
PLAN VIEW
1 NOTE:
IL ` ~ ~I Drawing is not to scale.
Dimensions of rack itself
are for reference only. 3'-0' 2'-0"
0
~ Brick
tO ~ Pavers
e
Sand
10'-0"
Pad 1'-0" ~ ~
Concrete
Footing PROFILE VIEW
SIDE VIEW
1
' ~ Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
F E H R & PEERS GUIDELINES FOR PLACEMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS INVERTED U-RACK
WAVE RACK
7 8. ,
o~
fV
PROFILE VIEW SIDE VIEW
WAVE VARIATION RACK HORSE-RAIL RACK
PROFILE VIEW SIDE VIEW PROFILE VIEW SIDE VIEW
INVERTED-U RACK
' 3'-O" 2'-O"
o r Brick
' io 'L//l Pavers
in
.:,1 r.:
10' 0' "I Sand ~3qI
Pad ~ o. I
PROFILE VIEW Concrete
' Fooling
SIDE VIEW
' ~ Dublin Bicycle Master Plan
F E H R & PEERS TYPICAL BIKE RACK DETAILS
' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
1
Appendix B: Collision Data
The following bicycle collision statistics were compiled from collision reports filed by the Dublin Police Services
Department involving bicycle-related collisions for the years 2000 to 2005. They reflect reported collisions only.
Note that there were a total of forty (40) collisions over the five year period; however, not all of the collision reports
had complete data. Therefore, some of the charts show a total of fewer than forty collisions. In addition, some of
' the charts of collision location show a total of more than forty collisions, since many collisions were at the
intersection of two streets.
' 85
Bicycle Collisions (2000-2005)
n=40
14
' 12
c 10
N
U O I ° ' . .
b ~
~ 6 i i 5:
2 =1 -
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Injury Rate Comparisons (2000-2005)
~ ~ 500 _ _ , , _ _
~ 400
o .
° 300
i ~
~ ° a 200 , - .
u o ~s ~ t
~ a 100
a
0 ~
! 'c Dublin San Jose National Alameda Bay Area Statewide
(2005) (2003) (2002) County (2000) (2000)
(2000)
86
0 s : °
~ Collision Type (2000-2005)
n=40
30 _
26 - .
a5
3 4,
y ~ f
ao ~ ~ ~ _
i U15
o
~ 10
~ ~
~
5 - - -_-~_-4-
~ . a 1' 1 ~a"
0 b:..., ~5. ~,~..x_,..3 ....,a.. i..
as. ~e ~otie ~~Q a oar Sti0
ae o~ oa G` a oc e` ea
~`op eae `eo ~,~o ay`+ reo G\os
G`e~Q r ` coy
r`
Je
Bicyclist's Movement Prior to Collision (2000-2005)
n=40
30 , . _ _ _
~'27
25
H
C .
0 20
~ ~ ~ ,
z
N i
O € ,
0 15
~ I I ~
z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~2 ~ ~ Z~ ~ 1,
-
proceeding traveling making leff making right crossing into other/riot
straight wrong way turn turn opposing lane stated
87
i
i
Driver s Movement Prior to Collision (2000-2005)
n=40
1
10
C f
~ O $
•O ~ ~ - .
U 6 6.. .
_
~ j i ~ 4'
~ 4 ~---j - ~ -
z _ ~ - 3`
~
~ ~ r
2 ~ ~M~ ~
- l
}
{
making right proceeding making leff stopped entering fraffic other/not
turn straight turn stated
' Primary Collison Factor (PCF) (2000-2005)
~ Bicyclist Riding Against
Traffic/Wrong side of road
O Bicyclist Failure to Yield to Driver's
' Right of Way
? Driver Failure to Yield to Bicyclist's
Right of Way
Bicyclist Failure to Obey Signals
~ ~ Bicyclist Not Riding as Close as
Practicab{e to Right Hand Curb
Bicyclist Riding on Sidewalk
' li Unsafe Speed by Bicyclist
¦ Driver Foifure to Obey Signals
¦Unknown
4 ~ ®Other
' 88
r
e.
s - -
~
Other Collision Factors: Bicyclist (2000-2005)
3
l 3
c 2.5 ; i-~----- . .
i :0 2 ± 2 ~ ,
o I ~ ~
` 1.5
E
~ k ~ ~~P
_~e_____~ _ ,
Z ~ - -
0.5
lack of proper wrong way dding unsafe speed disobeying haffic vision failure fo yield
lights signals obscurement right of way on
sidewalks
' Other Collision Factors: Driver (2000-2005)
n=8
7 _ , . _
6
6
~ ~ ,
~ g 5 ~ ~ x
~ ,
t -
_
o
4
' O ~ rr~t" ~ 1. ~
r v
3 n
w - -
~ -'y
I ~ 2 1 _ '
f I , _ .
i ~
_F~V 'S4. t ~-C
=
O n K~ ~ inaflenfion u` vision obscurement ~ ~ failure to field ri hf of wa • n
Y 9 Yo
sidewalks
89
m'
_ a
Collisions: D®y of UVeek (2000-2005)
n=37
10 .
9~ - ~ ~ ~ , .
9 ,f
8
c 7 -
f p 6 ~ '
_U
a 5 r--f _ .
~ 4 ~ 4
I .
fi
E
0 _ r_ _s - ~ _
' Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
' Collisions: Time of Day (2000-2005)
n=38
12 , . , . - _ _
~ r
.
10
10 .
{
8 ~ 8`
N . G
~o C a; 1 _
U i o ~
c 6 ~
~ ~ 4 r ~
_ - ~ ~ -
2
~1-
1 ~
0 _ _ , ~ , _ . _
6:00 to 9:00 9:00 AM to 12:00 to 3:00 3:00 to 6:00 6:00 to 9:00 9:00 PM to 12:00 to 6:00
AM 12:00 PM PM PM PM 12:00 AM AM
I
90
~ •
Collisions: Time of Day (2000-2005)
~ n=38
- - - - - - - --:.~a•~ _ -
I
30 -
- -
N
y 25 - - - _ - _
0
U
20 - -
i
f
~ 15 ~ ~ v
Z 10 ~ n,
0 -
' Dark -Street Lights Daylight Dusk -Dawn
Party at Fault -All Collisions (2000-2005)
1
1 , _
1
1
1
1
~ 9,
1
D o G°~T-
RJ
conision Loc®tions (aooo-coos)
~,=s~
zo - _ . _ _
18 19
16
y ~ 4
° . -
~ Zr=?
u ~ ~ ~'a
o ~o -
~ ~ _
I >
,
Dublin Amador Village San Ramon Dougherty Regional Scarlett Haclendo Tamarack
Boulevard Valley Parkway Road Road Sheet Drive Drive Drive
Boulevard
Collision Loc®tions (2000-200s)
n=22
4.5 _ . _ _ ~ _ .
q
3.5
N
-
° 2.5 '
U - -
o 2' 2 2 2 2
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 v ~ ~ .
E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i r
1 ~ F--° ~ ~ f-.~-T-.+ ~ C
rem--~ t``
- t 1 € 3 k # e i ~ C.
~ E . ~ Y ~ ~
Amador Amador Dublin Dublin Dublin Dublin Dublin Dublin Dougherty
Palley Valley Boulevard 8 Boulevard 8 Boulevard 8 Boulevard 8 Boulevard 6 Boulevard b Road 8 I-
Boulevard 8 Boulevard 3 Camps Clark Village Scarlett Hacienda Regional 580 WB oB-
Village San Ramon Parks Avenue Parkway Drive Drive Sheet ramp
Parkway Road Boulevard
92
_ < ~ ~ G.
D a ~ , '
, -
- Y
a
Collision Location (2000-x005)
' n=40
25 .a . _
t. ~ ~ e
22
r
!
20 '
$ ~
o
w _
a
~ ~ . r~~~ir
Z ~ }4
, r.,~~
7
S
` , „ -
_ _
0 _ _ _ ,
Intersection fVon-intersection
Collision in Crosswr®Ik? (2000-2005)
- 1
No or ~ Yes
Unclear ~ 50%
50%
.a
1 93
~ .
Bicycle on Sidewalk? (2000-2005)
f . ,fir
Ye
3'S~o
,j,
r.
r.
' Driveway-Refafied? (2000-2005)
ti
, ~
j ~P.
F~ .ati ~fi~ ~i~_.
r
S~a~ ~
Yes
{ 23% z~.
94
oa
I
i l3icyclis4 s Gentler (2000-2003)
~ n=3~
35 _
33
30 '
25
r=
~ } ~
~ ~
20 ' .
O ,
U f . . .
~ 15 ~
Z ~
,0 . ,
5
~ -
5
r
0 ,
Male Female
Bicycust~s ~?~e (aooo-aoo3)
n=3~
10 ~ ,
~ _ ~
9 ~
8-
N ~ '
C
r.
U _ 5, 5~
4 G3`..._.__~~~.,~
3 - _ y,
2 -
0 to 5 6 to 10 ~11 to 15 1'6 to 20 21 to 25 ^ `26 to 54 _ 55 and
older
95
a
vo ~
~ei~,~t us~~? ~aooo-aoos~
~,=~o
25
2i
20
is -
0
U
0 11
E 10
z' 8
5. ~ r-~
0 _ i
Yes No Not reported
a:
~>tt~t,t of ii1~~~, ~aooo-aoos~
0 t,=a~
16
14
1~
12_ ~ ;
N
w 10 ~ ~
i
U 8
iv
~ b
Z
4-
2 ~
0 ~ . ~ 0
I Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Property Damage
U Only
96
Weather (2000-2005)
' n=38
35 33
' 30
25
c 20 -
U r° ~ ~
i I
o ~
15 ~
E
z'
' 10
S•
i o
0
' Clear Cloudy Raining
97
' Appendix C: Bicycle Accommodation in Development and Construction
Projects
ss
r
The Federal Highway Administration's Joint Statement, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A
Recommended Approach establishes overall policy as well as performance measures for incorporating bicycle
' facilities into transportation projects. The three key principles contained in the statement are as follows:
• Bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all transportation projects unless exceptional
' circumstances exist;
• Municipalities should use approaches to achieving the policy that have worked elsewhere as a model;
' and
• Public agencies, professional associations, or advocacy groups should adopt several action items to
improve the overall conditions for bicycling and walking.
Bicycle-related impacts should also be evaluated as part of a traffic study for all new development projects. The
following are recommended significance criteria for bicycle-related impacts:
' Bicycle impacts are considered significant if:
' 1. A project disrupts existing bicycle facilities.
Particular attention should be paid to on-street bicycle facilities on roadways with project-proposed
' driveways.
' 2. A project interferes with planned bicycle facilities. This includes failure to dedicate right-of-way for planned
on- and off-street bicycle facilities included in an adopted Bicycle Master Plan or to contribute toward
construction of planned bicycle facilities along the project's frontages.
' 3. A project conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies or
standards.
' 4. A project fails to provide a sufficient quantity of on-site parking for bicycles.
' Bicycle parking should be required of non-residential projects at a specii<ed ratio (such as one bicycle
parking space for each 20 vehicle parking stalls or per each 5,000 square feet of commercial space);
should be well located, preferably in a well lighted and visible area; and should be functional and provide
' sufficient security to allow bicycle owners to lock both tires and the frame. Bicycle parking impacts can
only be considered significant where local jurisdictions have adopted policies related to bicycle parking.
Where such policies do not exist, impacts related to bicycle parking are considered less than significant,
' and improvements are considered recommendations rather than mitigation.
In addition to requiring a set number of bicycle parking spaces, consideration should be given for the type
of bicycle parking. Class 1 facilities, which allow the locking of both wheels and fhe frame of the bicycle,
should be required in areas where bicycles will be parked for long durations (such as employment sites)
' 99
' and where bicycle parking is not highly visible (such as in parking structures). Class 11 facilities, the most
common of which is the inverted U rack, are appropriate for high turn-over areas (such as on a
commercial street) and should interspersed for optimal convenience to destinations.
1
' 100
r
Appendix D: Prioritization Methodology
' The methodology employed to prioritize the bikeway projects was developed by Fehr & Peers specifically for the
City of Dublin, but is similar to that used by other agencies in their bikeway plans, including the City of San
Leandro. There are a total of 19 possible points based on five elements:
' Activity Centers
• Connectivity
' Safety
• Regional Access
• Relative Ability to Implement
The methodology used to score projects within each element is described below:
' Activity Centers (three points): The number of local and regional activity centers on or near a proposed
bikeway was counted. Activity centers include existing or planned parks, shopping centers, schools, and large
employment centers. Examples of regional activity centers in Dublin are the Hacienda Crossings shopping
center, Sybase, the Dublin Sports Fields, the East Bay Regional Park District open space, BART, and the Iron
t Horse Trail.
The total number of activity centers along a bikeway route was averaged on a per-mile basis.
• Projects with three or more activity centers per mile receive three points
• Projects with between two and three activity centers per mile receive two points
• Projects with fewer than two activity centers per mile receive one point
' Connectivity (five points): This criterion evaluates the ability of a bicycle facility to provide access to major
streets, to provide connections between activity centers, and to connect to and extend existing bicycle facilities.
' Projects with high connectivity received five points, moderate connectivity received two points, and low
connectivity received one point. Amore detailed description of how each proposed bikeway was evaluated is
shown below.
' A proposed bikeway receives five points if it meets one of the following conditions:
- connects to existing bikeways and/or activity centers on both ends
- bridges a gap in an existing "crucial" bikeway (defined as a bikeway that provides cross-town access
or is on a major arterial)
' 101
~ -
' - serves as a collector of other bikeways or residential streets
- passes through the entire city
• A proposed bikeway receives two points if it meets the following conditions:
does not qualify for five points
' - connects to existing bikeways and/or activity centers on one end
- serves as a bypass to busy arterial streets
• A proposed bikeway receives one point if it meets two of the following conditions:
- does not qualify for two or five points
- connects to a proposed bikeway on one or both ends
Safety (three points):
' On-street proiects: The methodology for assessing the safety of on-street lanes and routes is based on the
number of bicycle collisions on the roadway over the past five years:
• Projects that provide a bikeway facility on a roadway with more than 5 collisions over the past five years
receive three points.
' Projects that provide a bikeway facility on a roadway with 3 to 5 collisions over the past five years receive
two points.
• Projects that provide a bikeway facility on a roadway with fewer than 3 collisions over the past five years
receive one point.
Off-street proiects: The methodology for assessing the safety of off-street bicycle trails is based on the potential
' for conflicts with motor vehicles:
• Intersection improvement projects and grade separation projects receive three points.
' Trail and path projects that cross roads and driveways fewer than one time per mile receive three points.
• Trail and path projects that cross roads and driveways fewer than two times per mile receive two points.
• Trails and path projects that cross roads and driveways fewer than three times per mile receive one point.
' ~ 102
' Regional Access (five points): The methodology for assessing regional access for each project was as follows:
• Projects that provide access across a freeway receive five points
• Projects that provide access to a regional trail or bikeway or a bikeway in an adjacent city receive three
points
' Projects that provide direct access to a BART station receive two points
• Projects that provide direct access to a bus stop receive one point
Relative Ability to Implement (three points): The relative ability to implement a project was determined through
' a review of existing plans, field review of the study area, and the level of construction required for implementation.
The methodology for assessing ability to implement each project was as follows:
' On-street projects:
• High implementation ability: projects that do not require re-striping or modification of existing street layout
receive three points
' Moderate implementation ability: projects that require re-striping and minor modifications to the existing
layout receive two points
• Low implementation ability: projects that require major construction or inter-jurisdictional coordination
receive one point
' Off-street proiects:
• High implementation ability: projects along existing maintenance or access roads that do not require
significant grading receive three points.
' Moderate implementation ability: projects that require moderate grading and construction receive two '
points.
' Low implementation ability: projects that require major construction, significant grading, bridges, or
require coordination with multiple agencies receive one point.
r
103
Appendix E: City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan
Public Meeting Participants
t NAME TITLE/ORGANIZATION
1. Shawn Costello Citizen-ADA Advocate
2. Richard Guarienti Parks Commissioner
3. Doreen Wehrenberg Planning Commissioner
4. Jim Townsend East Bay Regional Parks District Staff
S. Charles Richey Livermore Cyclery-Dublin Store
6. Charles Tyler Chamber of Commerce c/o Dublin Cyclery
7. Robert Raburn East Bay Bicycle Coalition
' 8. Joe Seto Zone 7 Water Agency Staff
9. Kim McNeely Dublin Unified School District Staff
10. Tim Chan BART Planning Staff
t 11. Jon Milleli Dublin Resident
12. Christine Kaehuaea Dublin Resident
13. Ben Lee Dublin Resident
14. Edwin Osada Dublin Resident
15. Laurianne Behrens Dublin Resident
16. Francis Cushman Dublin Resident
17. Zev Kahn Dublin Resident-ACTIA Watchdog Com
18. Cill Lide Valley Spokesmen Cycling Club
19. Bonnie Powers Valley Spokesmen Cycling Club
' 20. David Bewley Dublin Resident
21. Mary Jo Keortge Dublin Resident
' 22. Fritz Welss Dublin Resident
23. Larry Akinsiku Zone 7 Water Agency Staff
24. Jim Kohnen Dublin Resident
25. Kurt Kummer Pleasanton Parks Commissioner
' 104