Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 Amador Vly Blvd Midblock CrosswalkOF Ill 4 �Ir 111 113 � =�, 82 DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL March 19, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager( � �a CITY CLERK File #600 -35 SUBJECT: Approval of a New Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project — Amador Valley Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Midblock Crosswalk between Regional Street and Starward Drive Prepared by Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic /Transportation) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff received safety concerns from residents and businesses in the vicinity of the mid -block pedestrian crosswalk on Amador Valley Boulevard between Regional Street and Starward Drive. To address these concerns, a field evaluation was conducted to determine appropriate measures to enhance pedestrian safety at this location. Staff seeks City Council approval of a new CIP project to implement new safety measures at the existing mid -block crosswalk on Amador Valley Boulevard. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total cost of the project is estimated at $178,225. Staff recommends using revenues from the Transportation Development Act — Article 3 (TDA — Article 3) to fund this project. As of Fiscal Year 2012/13, there is $272,394 available in the City's allocation under the TDA — Article 3 fund. The budget for this CIP was appropriated as part of the Mid -Year budget adjustment approval at the March 5, 2013 City Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a new CIP — Amador Valley Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Improvements at the Midblock Crosswalk between Regional Street and Starward Drive project, and 2) Adopt the Resolution Requesting the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of $178,225 in TDA — Article 3 funding for the new CIP project Submitted By Reviewed By Director of Public Works Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 8.3 DESCRIPTION: Both Public Works and Dublin Police Services (DPS) have received requests from businesses and residents to improve pedestrian safety at the existing mid -block crosswalk between Regional Street and Starward Drive (Figure 1 below). Safety requests included consideration of minimizing vehicle and pedestrian conflicts, and improving driver visibility of the crosswalk itself and pedestrian visibility in both directions along Amador Valley Boulevard. The proposed project is designed to address the above stated concerns. Amador Valley Boulevard is, at the proposed project location, a 4 -lane Class I Collector with a raised concrete median, left -turn pockets and bicycle lanes. The crosswalk is about 380 feet from the signalized intersections of Regional Street and Starward Drive. There are adjacent commercial driveways on both sides of the street at the crosswalk, forming a side - street stop - controlled type of intersection. The posted speed limit on Amador Valley Boulevard is 30 miles per hour, and average weekday daily traffic volumes are about 16,000 vehicles. Figure 1 There are existing advanced pedestrian warning signs near the Starward Drive and Regional Street intersections over 300 feet from the crosswalk, as well as signs at the intersection. Curb ramps and tactile domes are present at the crosswalk. ANALYSIS Staff contracted with a traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers, to conduct a safety audit (Attachment 1) using a crosswalk treatment identification tool to evaluate the existing crosswalk and to consider potential improvements to better accommodate pedestrians. The tool combines academic research on crosswalk treatment effectiveness with national best practices. Key inputs for the tool include: 1. speed limit 2. pedestrian volume 3. major and minor roadway volumes 4. crossing distance 5. number of lanes Page 2 of 5 6. presence of bicyclists 7. presence of transit 8. presence of a median 9. presence of on- street parking 10. expected motorist compliance (yielding) Based on the analysis of the above listed factors and field observations, Fehr & Peers recommended, and Staff concurs, that the following improvements be implemented to improve pedestrian safety at this location: Pedestrian Actuated Devices Installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) was identified as a measure by the crosswalk treatment identification tool. RRFBs are user - actuated amber LEDs that supplement warning signs. They use an irregular flash pattern and have been found to increase motorists' yield rates at an uncontrolled crosswalk to approximately 80 percent and can be more effective when implemented with other treatments, such as signing and striping improvements discussed below. Staff also considered the installation of in- pavement flashers (In Pavement Lights), but it was not recommended due to the east /west alignment and intersection visibility issues. Sianina and Strinin Although the crosswalk is currently signed and striped appropriately, it is recommended to enhance pavement markings and signage in advance of and at the crosswalk. Advance yield markers for westbound and eastbound traffic (i.e. Shark's teeth approximately 30 feet in advance of crosswalk, Figure 2) should also be installed. These should be paired with additional signage. Striping advanced stop bars at both driveways at this location is also recommended. All existing pavement markings and signs at the driveways should be refreshed and /or replaced. Driveway Aprons: The existing Driveway apron on the southerly driveway should be modified to improve pedestrian circulation and to improve Americans with Disability Act (ADA) access. This will require adjacent property owners /businesses support in acquiring construction easements during the construction of the driveway. Rebuilding of the driveway will entail creation of sufficient space to mark an 8 -foot crosswalk and to comply with the ADA standards. Turn Restrictions Reducing the number of conflict points across the crossing will improve the pedestrian safety. To accomplish this, construction of a partial median on Amador Valley Boulevard is recommended. It would reduce the vehicle /pedestrian conflict points at the crossing by restricting turn movements from the retail centers across the crosswalk. It should be noted that each shopping center associated with the north and south Retail Driveways has a significant number of additional access points for motorists, including a signalized full access entrance at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard /Regional Street for the northern center. The southern shopping center has numerous side - street stop - controlled driveways along Amador Valley Boulevard, Regional Street, and Dublin Boulevard. Traffic operations under the existing and restricted access conditions were evaluated and staff found Page 3 of 5 no significant impacts on traffic delays at the existing signals at Regional Street or Starward Drive, and the retail driveways on Amador Valley Boulevard or Regional Street. FEH R t PEERS ROADWAY CONFIGURATION WITH PARTIAL MEDIAN ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD Figure 2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on staff and Fehr and Peers analysis of the mid -block crosswalk on Amador Valley Boulevard between Regional Street and Starward Drive, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented: 1. Install an advance yield markers for westbound and eastbound traffic 30 feet in advance of crosswalk, including "YIELD HERE TO PEDESTRIANS" signs 2. Reconstruct southern commercial driveway to meet ADA standards and provide space for a crosswalk 3. Install advance stop bars at the commercial driveways and new stop signs 4. Install a pedestrian actuated RRFB system and coordinate it with the advanced beacon in the eastbound direction 5. Reduce conflicts at the crosswalk by partially extending the median and restricting turning movements, as presented in Figure 2 Project Costs and Next Steps Pending the City Council approval, Public Works will contract with Fehr and Peers, current on- call consultants, to complete the design of the project. This task budget is estimated at $27,300. Staff salaries are estimated at $13,272. The overall construction cost is estimated at $137,653, Page 4 of 5 and Staff plans to secure a construction contract through the formal bidding process for this work during Fiscal Year 2013/14. The City Council is also being asked to approve the proposed resolution (Attachment 3) requesting that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) allocate Transportation Development Act Article 3 funds to this project. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: All properties within 300 feet of the existing crossing were notified (Attachment 2) of the proposed improvements. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Crosswalk Assessment Study - Fehr and Peers, October 2012 2. Public Notice 3. Resolution of approving request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of $178,225 in Fiscal Year 2013/14 Transportation Development Act Article 3 funding for the project Page 5 of 5 F E H R � PEERS MEMORANDUM Date: October 30, 2012 To: Obaid Khan, City of Dublin From: Kathrin Tellez, Fehr & Peers Fehr & Peers conducted a crosswalk audit of a mid -block crossing on Amador Valley Boulevard between Regional Street and Starward Drive (Crossing) in Dublin. The Crossing is shown on Figure 1 (all figures are at the end of this report). The main function of a crosswalk is to channelize pedestrians. Well- marked pedestrian crossings accomplish dual goals. They prepare drivers for the likelihood of encountering a pedestrian, and they create an atmosphere of walkability and accessibility for pedestrians. Marked crossings reinforce the location and legitimacy of a crossing. For this assessment, Fehr & Peers collected data to evaluate the current condition, conducted a walking audit with City and Police staff, and evaluated potential crosswalk treatments. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Crossing is located on Amador Valley Boulevard, a 4 -lane Class I Collector with a median, left- turn pockets and bicycle lanes. The crossing is about 380 feet from the signalized intersections of Regional Street and Starward Drive, as shown on Figure 2. There are adjacent driveways on both sides of the street at the Crossing, forming a side - street stop - controlled intersection. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour, and average weekday daily traffic volumes are about 16,090. Attachment 1 summarizes relevant information used in this assessment. The roadway design creates a multiple - threat condition on both approaches. A multiple- threat condition can occur on any multi -lane roadway where pedestrians must cross more than one lane of travel in a given direction. When a single motorist yields to the pedestrian close to the crossing, additional approaching motorists may not interpret correctly the reason the 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930 -7100 Fax (925) 933 -7090 www.fehrandpeers.com Obaid Khan FEHR,'PEERS October 30, 2012 Page 2 of 6 first motorist stopped and may not see the pedestrian as they walk into the second lane into the path of the oncoming vehicle. This condition is particularly acute on the westbound approach with its left -turn lane. A vehicle that is stopped in the left -turn lane may be waiting for a pedestrian to cross the street or for a gap in traffic to make the left -turn movement. A vehicle in the through lane may not see a pedestrian blocked by the left -turn vehicle. In addition, sight lines are limited at the Crossing due to the horizontal roadway curvature. Signals become visible just as motorists approach the Crossing, and if the light is green, motorists may be encouraged to speed up or less inclined to yield to pedestrians so that they can make the light. There are advanced pedestrian warning signs near the Starwood Drive intersection and Regional Street intersection, over 300 feet from the crossing, as well as signs at the intersection. Curb ramps and tactile domes are present at the crosswalk. Pedestrians have been observed running across the street at the Crossing to avoid on- coming traffic and the Dublin Police were two reported pedestrian /vehicle accidents which resulted in injuries to the pedestrian. Based on complaints to the Police and City staff, there have been numerous near - misses at the Crossing. While there were no pedestrian - related accidents in 2010, there was one in 2011 resulting in injury. ANALYSIS Fehr & Peers used a crosswalk treatment identification tool to evaluate the existing Crossing and to consider potential improvements to better accommodate pedestrians. The tool combines academic research on crosswalk treatment effectiveness with national best practices. Key inputs for the tool include: • speed limit • pedestrian volume • major and minor roadway volumes • crossing distance • number of lanes • presence of bicyclists • presence of transit • presence of a median • presence of on- street parking • expected motorist compliance (yielding) Attachment 1 summarizes these inputs. Based on current conditions, the pedestrian condition is poor. Given conditions of the Crossing, located on a multi -lane street (three or more lanes) with Obaid Khan FEHR,'PEERS October 30, 2012 Page 3 of 6 traffic volumes exceeding 16,000 vehicles per day, enhanced treatments beyond current striping and signing are appropriate. Crosswalk removal is not recommended because the Crossing is located more than 300 feet from adjacent crossings. Because of the separation between adjacent signalized crossings, pedestrians would be likely to continue crossing at this location despite a prohibition. RECOMMENDATIONS The following details our recommended Crossing improvements. Pedestrian Actuated Devices crosswalk treatment identification tool. RRFBs are user - actuated amber LEDs that supplement warning signs. They use an irregular flash pattern and have been found to increase yield rates at uncontrolled crossings to approximately 80 percent and can be more effective when implemented with other treatments, such as signing and striping improvements discussed below. Per CA MUTCD interim approval guidance, RRFBs would be placed on the right and left sides of the roadway immediately adjacent to the crosswalk, with a double -sided RRFB unit located in the median. RRFBs may also be combined with advanced warning sign or advanced beacons, located approximately 150 feet before the RRFB devices. Based on the Crossing location, full signalization is not recommended due to the close spacing of the crosswalk to the adjacent traffic signals. Installation of in- pavement flashers is not recommended due to the east /west alignment and visibility issues. Signing and Striping Although the Crossing is currently signed and striped appropriately, there is an opportunity to modify the current placement of signs and add additional pavement markings. Additionally, some of the existing signage is faded and outdated. The current pedestrian signing is located approximately 380 feet from the crossing when traveling in the eastbound direction and 220 feet from the crossing when traveling in the westbound direction. It is recommended that the sign on the south side of the street, for eastbound vehicles, be moved closer to the crossing, approximately 190 feet from the crosswalk and include an advanced beacon. This location considers the location of a driveway serving the shopping center. feet in advance of crosswalk) crosswalk and the R1 -5L signs at the markings has been shown to reduce multiple- threat collisions and reduce auto /pedestrian conflicts. When advanced yield markers are placed 30 to 50 feet in advance of a crosswalk on a multi -lane roadway, the yielding motorist does not obscure the view of a pedestrian crosswalk. Though advanced yield markings may be staggered by travel lane, research has proven effectiveness at a uniform 30 to 50 feet distance from the crosswalk. At areas with complex roadway geometry or demonstrated sight distance issues, staggered advanced yield markings may be appropriate. Obaid Khan October 30, 2012 Page 4 of 6 FEH Rt PEERS Striping advanced stop bars at both driveways is recommended. Advanced stop bars are typically placed 4 to 10 feet from a crosswalk, instructing drivers to stop before the crosswalk, preventing encroachment into the crosswalk area. If the crosswalk is clear of pedestrians, drivers may then advance to the intersection where they can look for conflicting traffic before turning to the main street. The northern driveway provides a level pedestrian path through the driveway due to the steep driveway apron. An advanced stop bar is recommended at this location to prevent cars from encroaching into that level pedestrian path. The southern driveway is level with the roadway, similar to a typical intersection. However, a wide concrete gutter runs parallel to the unmarked crosswalk and is immediately adjacent to a small concrete median, which blocks the pedestrian pathway through the driveway. Rebuilding the driveway to provide sufficient space to mark an 8 -foot crosswalk is recommended and to fully comply with ADA standards. Pavement legends should also be refreshed at both driveways. Signing and striping recommendations are depicted on Figure 3. Turn Restrictions Reducing the number of conflict points across the Crossing can also improve the pedestrian experience. Construction of a full or partial median on Amador Valley Boulevard would reduce the vehicle /pedestrian conflict points at the Crossing by restricting turn movements from the retail centers across the Crossing. It should be noted that each shopping center associated with the north and south Retail Driveways has a significant number of additional access points for motorists, including a signalized full access entrance at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard /Regional Street for the northern center. The southern shopping center has numerous side - street stop - controlled driveways along Amador Valley Boulevard, Regional Street, and Dublin Boulevard. Traffic operations under the existing and restricted access conditions were evaluated based on the analysis methods and procedures outlined in Attachment B. Existing Conditions Weekday Mid -day and evening, and Saturday mid -day peak period turning movement counts were collected at the following locations on a clear day with area schools in normal session: 1. Amador Valley Boulevard /Regional Street 2. Amador Valley Boulevard /Retail Driveways 3. Amador Valley Boulevard /Starward Drive 4. Regional Street /Retail Driveways These time periods were selected as they experience the highest pedestrian and vehicle volumes, based on prior data collection efforts. Existing peak hour turning movements and traffic control Obaid Khan FEHR,'PEERS October 30, 2012 Page 5 of 6 devices at the intersections are shown on Figure 4. The analysis results indicate that the intersections in the study area operate at an acceptable service level, as presented in Table 1. Full Median Extending the median on Amador Valley Boulevard across the driveway openings would result in both driveways restricted to right -in /right -out operation, as shown on Figure 5 and would reduce the number of vehicle movements over the Crossing from five to three. A median refuge would allow pedestrians to cross the street in two stages, but would shift traffic in the area. Traffic from the turning movements that would be affected by a full median was reassigned to the surrounding street network, as presented on Figure 5. The traffic shifts reflect a conservative estimate of the number of U -turns at the adjacent signalized intersections. The resulting volumes were used to evaluate traffic flow under restricted access conditions. As presented in Table 1, the study intersections are projected to continue operating at acceptable service levels with turn restrictions at the retail driveways. Partial UnHiin As an alternative to a full median, it may be desirable to provide a median break to allow eastbound left -turns into the northern retail center, as this movement does not travel through the Crossing. This concept, as depicted on Figure 6, would also provide a median refuge. Potential traffic shifts that could occur under this scenario are also presented on Figure 6. As presented in Table 1, the intersections and driveways would continue to operate at an acceptable service level with a partial median on Amador Valley Boulevard. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on our analysis of the mid -block crossing on Amador Valley Boulevard between Regional Street and Starward Drive, we recommend the following improvements for installation in the near -term: • Install advanced pedestrian crossing sign assembly with advanced warning beacon approximately 190 feet west of the Crosswalk • Install an advance yield markers for westbound and eastbound traffic 30 feet in advance • Reconstruct southern commercial driveway to meet ADA standards and provide space for a high - visibility crosswalk • Install advance stop bars at the commercial driveways and new stop signs • Install a pedestrian actuated RRFB system and coordinate it with the advanced beacon in the eastbound direction • Replace existing outdated /faded signage on Amador Valley Boulevard • Reduce conflicts at the Crossing by extending the median (either fully or partially) and restricting turning movements, as presented conceptually on Figures 5 and 6 This completes our Crossing assessment. Please call Kathrin if you have any questions. Obaid Khan October 30, 2012 Page 6 of 6 FEHR'- FURS Attachments: Attachment A: Crosswalk Tool Input Data Attachment B: Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methods Figure 1 TABLE 1 Figure 2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY Figure 3 Potential Signing and Striping Improvements Figure 4 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements and Traffic Control Figure 5 Scenario 14 Scenario 25 Intersection Controls Peak Existing (Full Median) (Partial Median) Z Hour Delay3 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Amador Valley Noon 18 B 24 C 23 C Boulevard /Regional Signal PM 16 B 20 B 20 B Street Sat 22 C 27 C 27 C 2. Amador Valley Noon 3 (17) A (C) 1 (11) A 2 (11) A (B) Boulevard /Retail SSSC PM 2 (20) A (C) 1 (11) A 1 (11) A (B) Driveways Sat 4 (28) A (D) 1 (11) A 1 (11) A (B) 3. Amador Valley Noon 10 A 14 B 15 B Boulevard / Starward Signal PM 15 B 15 B 15 B Drive Sat 13 B 14 B 15 B 4. Regional Noon 3 (11) A (B) 4 (13) A (B) 4 (13) A (B) Street/Retail SSSC PM 2 (12) A (B) 3 (13) A (B) 3 (13) A (B) Driveways I Sat 3 (14) A (B) 4 (17) A (C) 4 (17) A (C) Notes: 1. Signal = Signalized intersection; SSSC = Side Street Stop Controlled intersection 2. Noon: Weekday 12:15 to 1:15; PM = Weekday 5:15 to 6:15; SAT = Saturday1:45 to 2:45. 3. Traffic operations results include LOS (level of service) and delay (seconds per vehicle). LOS is based on delay thresholds published in the (Transportation Research Board, 2000). For side - street stop - controlled intersections, delay for worst approach (in seconds per vehicle) is presented in parentheses. 4. Reflects right -in /right -out operations at Amador Valley Boulevard /Retail Driveways and corresponding shifts in traffic to adjacent intersections. 5. Scenario 1, plus eastbound left -turn access to the northern retail parcel and corresponding shifts in traffic to adjacent intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011. Attachments: Attachment A: Crosswalk Tool Input Data Attachment B: Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methods Figure 1 Project Study Area Figure 2 Crosswalk Distance to Starward Drive and Regional Street Figure 3 Potential Signing and Striping Improvements Figure 4 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements and Traffic Control Figure 5 Roadway Configuration with Full Median on Amador Valley Boulevard Figure 6 Roadway Configuration with Partial Median on Amador Valley Boulevard f� �FHR & PEERS TRAN5PORSATTON CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: June 23, 2010 To: Jaimee Bourgeois From: Kathrin Tellez Subject: Data Summary for Amador Valley Boulevard Crosswalk WC08- 2606.05 The following presents a summary of our data collection efforts for the safety assessment of a mid -block pedestrian crossing on Amador Valley Boulevard between Regional Street and Starward Drive. This data will serve as inputs to our crosswalk treatment identification tool and help facilitate our walking audit. • Posted Speed Limit — 30 miles per hour (MPH) • 85th Percentile Speed — Eastbound = 31 MPH, Westbound = 32.2 MPH • Weekday Average Daily Traffic Volumes — 16,090 (decrease from 18,200 in 2007) • Saturday Daily Traffic Volumes — 14,550 • Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (5:15 to 6:15) — 1,381 total vehicles 840 Eastbound, 541 Westbound • Weekday Afternoon Pedestrian Volume (11 AM — 1 PM) — 16 • Weekday Afternoon Pedestrian Volume (4 — 6 PM) — 18 • Saturday Afternoon Pedestrian Volume (2 — 4 PM) — 24 • Peak hour Pedestrian Volume — 15 pedestrians observed on Saturday from 3 to 4 PM • Weekly Transit Boardings in area — 12 passengers • Closest signalized crossings — 380 feet to the west and 375 feet to the east • Reported Pedestrian/Vehicle Collisions — 0 in 2010, 2 in 2009, 0 in 2008 • Total Crossing distance — 80 feet • Median Island — 4 foot median present to channelize left -turn vehicles into shopping center driveway • Bicycle Lanes Present — Yes • On- Street Parking Permitted — No 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930 -7100 Fax (925) 933 -7090 www.fehrandpeers.com ATTACHMENT B: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODS qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A (i.e., best operating conditions) to LOS F (worst operating conditions). When volumes exceed capacity, stop- and -go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. The City of Dublin strives to maintain LOS D in the study area. Table B -1 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections and Table B -2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. This analysis was conducted using Synchro 6.0. Signalized Intersections Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 16 of . This operations analysis method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table B -1 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. Unsignalized Intersections Traffic conditions at unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2000 . With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right -of- way. For all -way stop - controlled intersections, the average control delay is calculated for the intersection as a whole. This incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping and moving up in the queue. At two -way or side street - controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement, the left -turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection. For controlled approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are reported. Table B -2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. TABLE B -1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level of Description Delay in Service < 10.0 Seconds Short traffic delays Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green C A phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute < 10.0 Long traffic delays to low delay. E B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than > 10.0 to 20.0 Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Source: , Transportation Research Board, 2000. Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. C Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass > 20.0 to 35.0 through the intersection without stopping. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result D from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or > 35.0 to 55.0 high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. E These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, > 55.0 to 80.0 and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival F flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at > 80.0 high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. Source: TABLE B -2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level of Service Description Average Control Per Vehicle (Seconds) 1 A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: , Transportation Research Board, 2000. FEH R t PEER Crosswalk Safety Evaluation PROJECT STUDY AREA November 2011 FIGURE 1 WC08- 2606.05_1 _StudyArea Crosswalk Safety Evaluation F E H R Vii' P E E FMS CROSSWALK DISTANCE TO STARWARD DRIVE AND REGIONAL STREET November 2011 FIGURE 2 WC08- 2606.05 2 xwalkdistance Crosswalk Safety Evaluation FEH R � PEERS POTENTIAL SIGNING AND STRIPING IMPROVEMENTS N— mber2011 FIGURE 3 WC08- 2606.05_3_Sig ping_ &_Striping Crosswalk Safety Evaluation FEH R � PEERS EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES & STUDY INTERSECTIONS November2011 FIGURE 4 WC08- 2606.05_ 5 _ Update_ 1 _FU LLMEDIAN Crosswalk Safety Evaluation FEHR,� PEERS ROADWAY CONFIGURATION WITH FULL MEDIAN ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD October 2012 FIGURE 5 WC08- 2606.05_ 5 _ Update_ 1_FULLMEDIAN Crosswalk Safety Evaluation FEHR,� PEERS ROADWAY CONFIGURATION WITH PARTIAL MEDIAN ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD October 2012 FIGURE 6 WC08- 2606.05_ 5 _ Update_ 2_EBL_ALLOWED CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Phone: (925) 833 -6650 Fax: (925) 833 -6651 City Council (925) 833 -6650 City Manager (925) 833 -6650 Community Development (925) 833 -6610 Economic Development (925) 833 -6650 Finance /Admin Services (925) 833 -6640 Fire Prevention (925) 833 -6606 Human Resources (925) 833 -6605 Parks & Community Services (925) 556 -4500 Police (925) 833 -6670 Public Works /Engineering (925) 833 -6630 81i, www.dublin.ca.gov City of Dublin Public Notice Proposed Partial Median Closure Between Regional Street and Starward Drive on Amador Valley Boulevard The City of Dublin is writing to inform you of the proposed action to restrict traffic from crossing Amador Valley Boulevard between Regional Street and Starward Drive from the commercial driveways (Dublin Plaza Center and Shamrock Village) as shown in the attached location map. The proposed action will also restrict traffic from making left turns into the southerly commercial driveway (Dublin Plaza Center) from Amador Valley Boulevard while travelling towards San Ramon Road. This action is recommended to address community concerns on pedestrian safety at the existing white crosswalk connecting the two commercial driveways. The proposed project will construct a raised concrete median by extending the existing concrete median, install pedestrian flashing beacons (Rectangular Rapid Fire Beacons), and new signing and striping. This item will be reviewed by the City Council at its meeting on Tuesday, March 19, 2013. If you would like to submit comments to be included in the staff report for the City Council's consideration, please do so by Tuesday, March 5, 2013. Otherwise, comments may be received up to the date of the meeting. Comments may be submitted via email to Obaid.Khan(a)-dublin.ca.gov or via mail to the following address: Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic/Transportation) City of Dublin Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 You are also invited to participate in person at the City Council meeting starting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Plaza in Dublin. Should you have any questions in advance of the meeting, please call (925) 833 -6630. Location Map F E H R,t PEERS ROADWAY CONFIGURATION WITH PARTIAL MEDIAN ON AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD Resolution No. -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING REQUEST TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE PROJECT FUNDING WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and /or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised, entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects," which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of "TDA Article 3" funding; and WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and /or use of pedestrians and /or bicyclists; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Dublin declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code, and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Dublin to carry out the project; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Dublin attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case may be, of Alameda County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Resolution No. 13 Attachment A Re: Approving Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2013/14 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian /Bicycle Project Funding Findings Page 1 of 1 1. That the City of Dublin is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Dublin legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in "Attachment B" of this resolution. 2. That the City of Dublin has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s) described in Attachment B. 3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right -of -way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s). 4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right -of -way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested. 5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.). 6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s). 7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and /or design engineering; and /or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; and /or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and /or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and /or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and /or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of Dublin within the prior five fiscal years. 8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.). 9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a "Class I Bikeway," meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual. 10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are ready to commence implementation during the fiscal year of the requested allocation. 11. That the City of Dublin agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public. Resolution No. 13 Attachment B page 1 of 1 TDA Article 3 Project Application Form Fiscal Year of this Claim:2012 /13 Applicant: City of Dublin Contact person: Obaid Khan Mailing Address: Public Works, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 E -Mail Address :obaid.khana -dublin.ca.gov Telephone: 925-833-6630 Secondary Contact (in event primary not available) William Lai E -Mail Address :William.lai(cbdublin.ca.aov Telephone:925- 833 -6630 Short Title Description of Project: Amador Valley Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Improvements at Midblock Crosswalk between Regional Street and Starward Drive Amount of claim: $ 178,225 Functional Description of Project: The project will enhance pedestrian access by eliminating the vehicular traffic crossing Amador Valley Boulevard by constructing a partial median, install enhanced striping and makings, install a Rectangular Rapid Fire Beacon, and modify the commercial driveway to provide a new crosswalk and ADA infrastructure. Financial Plan: List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, environmental, engineering, right -of- way, construction, inspection, contingency, audit). Use the table below to show the project budget. Include prior and proposed future funding of the project. If the project is a segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources for the other segments. Project Elements: Environmental, Engineering, Construction, Inspection, and Contingency Funding Source I All Prior FYs I Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals TDA Article 3 $178,225 B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a No $178,225 list all other sources: C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter N/A 1. D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee? (If "NO," provide an explanation). N/A 2. No CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county 3. F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of Yes 4. G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant Yes Totals $178,225 maintain the facility provide its name: ) $178,225 Project Eligibility: YES ? /NO? A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate Yes date approval is anticipated). B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a No separate page. C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter N/A 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via: http: / /www.dot.ca.gov). D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee? (If "NO," provide an explanation). N/A E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to No CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only for projects that include construction). F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of Yes project (month and year) December 2014. G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant Yes arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name: ) Explanation for D. This project does not have a bicycle infrastructure element, and it does not impact bicycle infrastructure Explanation for E: An environmental determination will be made as part of the design work and before the project is advertised for construction. All work will occur within the existing roadway.