Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7.2 Bikeway Corridor Study
or 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL July 16, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo City Manager""' Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor Study Prepared by Ferd Del Rosario, Senior Civil Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #930 -30 The 2007 Bikeways Master Plan recommended a study of the Dublin Boulevard corridor through Downtown in order to determine the feasibility of accommodating bicycle lanes between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail. The corridor study, which included the evaluation of various alternatives, was initiated in July 2012 in conjunction with the update of the Bikeways Master Plan. Staff will present the results of the study to the City Council to seek direction on the preferred alternative, which would then be included in the update of the Bikeways Master Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no cost associated with the selection of the preferred alternative. The incorporation of the preferred alternative in the update of the Bikeways Master Plan is for planning and development purposes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff presentation and select preferred alternative for inclusion in the update of the Bikeways Master Plan. Submitted By Director of Public Works DESCRIPTION: Background. Reviewed By Assistant City Manager The 2007 Citywide Bikeways Master Plan recommended a study of the Dublin Boulevard corridor through Downtown to determine the feasibility of accommodating bicycle lanes between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail (Attachment 1- Location Map). In July 2012, the Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 7.2 City Council approved the commencement of the corridor study in conjunction with the update of the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan and the development of the City Pedestrian Master Plan. The study included the evaluation of several alternatives with the goal of including the preferred alternative into the update of the Bikeways Master Plan. Dublin Boulevard is the City's primary and only east -west arterial which runs the full length of the community — from the western hills to Fallon Road. In the Downtown area, Dublin Boulevard carries an average of 29,000 vehicles per day on 6 travel lanes (3 lanes each direction) with a raised median and includes 8 -foot sidewalks for pedestrian circulation. Bikeway facilities currently do not exist in the section of roadway between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail. Dublin Boulevard also serves LAVTA's Tri- Valley Rapid buses which run the length of Dublin Boulevard every 15 minutes on weekdays between San Ramon Road and Fallon Road with key stops in the Downtown area, including stops near the West Dublin BART Station. Historically, the City Council has adopted several plans and policies to create a more pedestrian - friendly environment in the Downtown area. To achieve this vision, all street intersections within the limits of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan project area are exempt from the General Plan policy which strives to maintain a Level of Service D or better for intersections in the City. Downtown intersections may operate at a Level of Service E or worse. In addition, the City Council adopted a Complete Street Policy to accommodate all modes of transportation including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and persons with disabilities. Alternatives Studied: Through the 2013 update of the Bikeways Master Plan, additional bicycle facility types are proposed to be added to the citywide network in response to new best practice guidance issued by the American Association of State Highway Officials and National Association of City Transportation Officials. Considering these new facility type options, five corridor alternatives were devised for Dublin Boulevard. These included: ➢ Class II Bicycle Lanes through Roadway Widening ➢ Class III Bicycle Routes with Shared Lane Markings ( "Sharrows ") ➢ Class I Shared -Use Path along south sidewalk ➢ Lane Reduction Alternative with Buffered Bicycle Lanes ➢ Sidewalk Riding and Wayfinding Signage Two of the alternatives - the Class II Bicycle Lanes through roadway widening and Class III Bicycle Route alternatives - were dismissed at the initial stage as being infeasible because of the high costs and pedestrian impacts under the Class II widening option and failure to meet best practice guidance on the implementation of shared lanes under the Class I II option. The remaining three bikeway alternatives were developed conceptually and are summarized below: Alternative 1 — Class I Shared -Use Path: the sidewalk on the south side of Dublin Boulevard would be replaced with an eight -foot shared path with a five -foot landscaped buffer between the roadway and the path. Signals at street crossings would be modified to include an actuated bicycle phase. Page 2 of 5 Alternative 2 — Lane Reduction Alternative with Buffered Bicycle Lanes. a travel lane would be removed from Dublin Boulevard in each direction and be restriped as a seven -foot bicycle lane with a four -foot wide buffered area to provide separation between vehicles and bicyclists. Alternative 3 — Sidewalk Riding and Wayfinding: as sidewalk riding is already allowed Citywide, this option would reinforce the legitimacy of sidewalk riding with signage. Wayfinding signs would provide guidance to alternative and nearby on- street bicycle routes and directions to key destinations. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Considerations Alternative 1- Shared Use Alternative 2 - Buffered Alternative 3 - Sidewalk Path Bicycle Lane Riding & Wayfinding • 8' shared path for bicyclists and • 7' Bicycle Lane In Each • No change to existing sidewalk pedestrians Direction dimensions Design • 5' landscaped buffer separating • 4' Striped Buffer between • Reinforce that bicycles are roadway and path Bicycle and Travel Lanes allowed on sidewalk • Lowest Stress Facility • Low Stress Facility • Limited Change from Existing Level of Traffic Stress for . Good for All Ages and Abilities • Good for Many Ages and Bicyclists Abilities • Requires Right -of -Way • Converts Travel Lane to • Improves Bicycle Safety at Acquisition to Accommodate Buffered Bicycle Lane Intersections Key Sidewalk Widening Considerations • Provides continuous bicycle • Limited Additional Changes • Signal Modification Necessary lanes for almost 5 miles to Introduce Bicycle Signals COST* $5,009,000 $2,048,000 $1,788,000 *In order to improve the walkability of Downtown Dublin, several pedestrian- oriented intersection improvements were included in each concept. These include improvements at the intersections with San Ramon Road, Amador Plaza Road, and Village Parkway in addition to some driveway modifications. Cost represents planning -level cost estimates associated with the conceptual designs for each alternative. Summary of Public Input on Bike Alternatives: As part of the update /development of the Bikeways and Pedestrian Master Plan, the bike alternatives were presented to the public at the second Bikeways Master Plan public workshop held on February 28, 2013. One alternative which formed a series of discussions was the Lane Reduction Alternative with Buffered Bicycle Lanes with some participants suggested additional analysis on travel time delay and economic impacts of this particular alternative. On March 25, Page 3 of 5 2013, a letter was received from the East Bay Bicycle Coalition (Attachment 2) supporting the Lane Reduction alternative with buffered bike lanes, and several emails supporting bike lanes on Dublin Boulevard were also received. The corridor study was also presented to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors for input. Majority of the chamber directors expressed concerns on likely economic effects of reducing the number of travel lanes on Dublin Boulevard, as their customers may avoid Downtown Dublin and shop elsewhere if Dublin Boulevard and the side streets are heavily congested. It was also mentioned that with the city population rising, congestion will get worst and removing the lanes is going backwards as the two travel lanes were purposely constructed to reduce Downtown congestion. The Board of Directors overwhelmingly stated their opposition to the Lane Reduction alternative (see Attachment 3). Results of Travel Time Delay Study for Lane Reduction Alternative: Traffic operations analysis, including micro - simulation analysis using SimTraffic software, was completed for the Lane Reduction alternative to study the effects of reducing the number of travel lanes from 6 to 4 lanes under existing conditions and assuming no changes in travel patterns for motorists. The analysis found that intersections would operate at level of service (LOS) F with queues largely contained within each block during off -peaks hours but with backlogs on several intersections of Dublin Boulevard including spillback to adjacent intersections during peak periods. The analysis also found the projected left -turn movements in and out of side streets were observed to cause much of the travel time delay and contributed substantially to backlogs at several intersections including Village Parkway, Amador Plaza Road, and Regional Street. While these findings suggest congestion would worsen if travel patterns do not change, under the City's General Plan, LOS F is acceptable at Downtown intersections as long as safety for pedestrians and bicyclist is not degraded and impacts to transit travel speeds are minimized. However, travel delay due to severe backlogs on Dublin Boulevard and its cross streets may frustrate and discourage motorists (and shoppers) to drive on Dublin Boulevard and simply avoid going to and through Downtown Dublin. Also, the lane reduction will impact the LAVTA's Tri- Valley Rapid bus service. Several video clips of traffic simulating existing condition (with six travel lanes) and traffic simulating four travel lanes (to accommodate the buffered bike lanes) will be presented at the City Council meeting. Summary: Weighing the pros and cons associated with each alternative, the Shared -Use path (Class 1) alternative appears to offer the best alternative for integration into the update of the Bikeways Master Plan (Attachment 4 - Alternatives Summary). This alternative provides the lowest stress bikeway facility for all ages and abilities and could make Downtown Dublin a more pedestrian and bike friendly environment. In the near -term, the City may formalize bike riding on sidewalks within the study area (under Alternative 3) supported with traffic signal modifications at each intersection and wayfinding signs to accommodate bicyclists. The preferred alternative chosen by the City Council would be integrated in the update of the Bikeways and Pedestrian Master Plan and the final draft presented to the Parks and Planning Commission. Ultimately the Plan will be presented to the City Council for approval and final adoption. Page 4 of 5 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Copies of the report were sent to East Bay Bicycle Coalition and Dublin Chamber of Commerce. Also the Bikeways Master Plan participants and Bikeways "Notify Me" subscribers were notified of the upcoming City Council meeting and the availability of the Staff report via the City website. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Location Map 2. EBBC Letter dated March 25, 2013 3. Chamber of Commerce Letter dated July 9, 2013 4. Alternatives Summary 5. Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Feasibility Analysis Memorandum Page 5 of 5 March 25, 2013 EAST BAY BICYCLE COALITION Working for safe, convenient and enjoyable bicycling for all people in the East Bay Ferd del Rosario Senior Civil Engineer Public Works Department, City of Dublin Dublin CA 94568 RE: Request for Bike Lanes on Dublin Blvd Dear Mr. del Rosario: The East Bay Bicycle Coalition strongly supports bike lanes on Dublin Blvd as part of the city's update to its Bicycle Master Plan. Specifically, we request that you evaluate how to remove a travel lane in each direction in order to provide space for a buffered bike lane. The graphic to the right is an illustration from the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, which has technical specifications for designing buffered bike lanes on arterial streets. http: / /nacto.org /cities - for -cy clin /design-�ug ide/ The area of Dublin, between San Ramon Rd and City Hall is part of Dublin's new downtown, with a goal of making this community a thriving walking and bicycling community served by good transit. New in -fill housing in under construction. To do this, the main road through the new downtown has to have a safe and comfortable place for people to walk and bike. Fortunately, Dublin Blvd has plenty of travel lanes -6, plus a turn lane. Removing one lane in each direction leaves two lanes in each direction for traffic and the center turn lane. We are aware of the freeway cut -thru traffic that Dublin Blvd suffers from. However, the city has no obligation to encourage this cut -thru traffic and discourage bicycling and walking, by keeping 3 travel lanes in each direction. In essence, you can't have a downtown and a 6 -lane major arterial. No city in the Bay Area has achieved this yet and we don't foresee any city doing so in the near future. 6 -lane arterials with heavy traffic are not walkable and not bikeable, because people are overwhelmed by cars and discouraged from getting out of their cars in the first place. You need to commit to making Dublin Blvd a smaller, more neighborhood commercial street that people want to come to and enjoy Dublin. In addition, all of the new homes going into the downtown are going to be filled with residents that will want to be able to walk and bicycle in their new communities. In fact, this is the goal of the One Bay Area Grant Program, which Dublin is seeking funding from for new in -fill development and P.O. BOX 1736 OAKLAND, CA 94604 • BERKELEY BIKE STATION, 2208 SHATTUCK AVE. www.ebbc.org (510) 845 -RIDE EAST BAY BICYCLE COALITION Working for safe, convenient and enjoyable bicycling for all people in the East Bay support. Dublin should be commended for taking a lead in this area by designating an area for in -fill development in order to encourage less sprawl development. Dublin is setting a good example for its neighbors. Yet this good example requires Dublin to take another important step forward and that is to make its new development walkable and bikeable. The two go hand in hand. We are also encouraged that the City of Dublin has approved a `complete streets' policy and was one of the first cities in the County to do so. This new policy requires that the city make a good faith effort to design comfortable and inviting bikeways all around the City so that its residents, employers and visitors all have the option of bicycling as a viable means of transportation. The idea proposed at the February 28 public workshop on the Bicycle Plan, of having bicyclists ride on the sidewalk on Dublin Blvd, does not satisfy this new policy and certainly is not going to encourage many new people to try bicycling. It also makes it much more inconvenient and dangerous as well to walk on a sidewalk when people are bicycling there. In connection with our request for new bike lanes on Dublin Blvd, we also request that Amador Plaza and Village Parkway also receive well - designed bike lanes their entire length. These two streets are important parts of Dublin's new downtown connectivity. If it takes a more thorough analysis of parking needs, we would like to see the City of Dublin starts this process as soon as the Bicycle Plan is approved. It should be the first action item in the Bicycle Plan -a parking analysis. We realize making the downtown area of Dublin will involve some tough decisions, and perhaps this is one of the early such tough decisions and priority setting you will have to do. You have our support making these types of decisions and we will be reaching out to the community to further gather their support for you to make Dublin a more walkable and more bikeable city. Thank you again for improving the Bicycle Plan by making all important streets walkable and bikeable. Cordially yours, Advocacy Director East Bay Bicycle Coalition (0) 510.845.7433 ext 4 dave ,ebb" cc: Mayor Tim Sabranti Vice Mayor Don Biddle Congressman Eric Swalwell Rosie Marterhazy, Safe Routes to School Alameda County P.O. BOX 1736 OAKLAND, CA 94604 • BERKELEY BIKE STATION, 2208 SHATTUCK AVE. www.ebbc.org (510) 845 -RIDE Dublin CHAMBER OF COMMERCE July 9, 2013 Honorable Mayor Sbranti Members of the City Council City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Dear Mayor Sbranti & Members of the Council: On June 12, 2013 the City of Dublin staff made a presentation to the Board of Directors of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce regarding the update of the Bikeways Master Plan together with the results of the Dublin Boulevard Bikeways Corridor Study. Also presented were the bike alternatives being considered on Dublin Boulevard through the downtown area. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce would like to express our concern about the "Lane Reduction" alternative which proposes to replace two of Dublin Boulevard's travel lanes with buffered bicycle lanes thru downtown Dublin. The Chamber is very concerned about the likely economic effects of reducing the number of lanes on Dublin Boulevard, as shoppers may avoid downtown businesses if Dublin Boulevard and the immediate cross streets are heavily congested and travel time delay becomes overstretched. In addition, reducing the number of travel lanes from six to four lanes creates increased congestion and extended travel time during peak use hours. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce is overwhelmingly opposed to the "Lane Reduction" alternative as this may cause detrimental economic effects on businesses as well as quality of life issues for residents and travelers of Dublin Boulevard. The sidewalk riding /way signage appears to be a much better alternative, in addition to being aesthetically pleasing to the downtown area. We thank the City Council and City staff for continuing to partner with the Chamber of Commerce in increasing the City's economic vitality. Copy: Joni Pattillo, City Manager Alternative 1' Shored-use path Alternative 2— Buffered Bicycle Lane with lane Reduction Plus Plus Minimal or Minimal Effect Yes on no Effect Downtown Walkability Yes Plus Plus Minus Minus Yes on No Downtown VVa|kabi|ity; Travel Lane Reduction-No Alternative 3— Formalizes Minimal Effect Minimal or Sidewalk Bike No Effect Riding- Riding on yyayfindinK sidewalks Consistent with current City policy allowing bicycling on sidewalks Yes —0em ^ FEHR � PEERS MEMORANDUM Date: June 6, 2013 To: Ferd Del Rosario and Obaid Khan, City of Dublin From: Carrie Nielson, Nikki Nagaya, Meghan Mitman, and Rob Rees, Fehr & Peers Subject: Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Feasability Analysis WCI 0 -2749. GO This memorandum presents a bikeway feasibility analysis for Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail, in conjunction with the update of the 2007 Bikeways Master Pfan and development of the citywide Pedestrian Plan. Traffic operations considerations are also presented for each alternative, including a microsimulation analysis completed for the road diet alternative. Dublin Boulevard is a major east -west arterial through the City of Dublin and provides the only continuous east -west connection through the City for all modes of travel. In 2007, the City Council requested that City staff analyze the potential of providing Class II Bike Lanes along Dublin Boulevard through roadway widening. In response to that request, this feasibility study takes a step back to consider several solutions for bikeway facility along Dublin Boulevard. The study identified and considered three proposals for bikeways on Dublin Boulevard, and assembled an evaluation matrix to understand the benefits, cost estimates, and trade -offs associated with each alternative. This memorandum presents the results of the evaluation, including conceptual designs, traffic analysis, and implementation considerations for each alternative. Several non - motorized safety and accessibility enhancements are proposed for Dublin Boulevard as a companion to all bikeway alternatives. These projects address the community's desire to create a walkable Downtown Dublin through treatments such as reduced crossing distances, directional curb ramps, and striping crosswalks, as appropriate. As such, these improvements are recommended regardless of the preferred alternative. These include treatments at Dublin Boulevard's intersections with: 100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 1 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1 (925) 930 -7100 1 Fax (925) 933 -7090 www.fehrand peers. corn Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 2 of 16 • San Ramon Road • Amador Plaza Road • Village Parkway • Clark Avenue Corridor -wide treatments also include reconstruction of commercial driveways that do not meet Public Right -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) standards, such as providing a level path through the driveway apron. At all intersections, advanced stop bars, placed at minimum five feet back from the crosswalk, are proposed. Cost estimates for the companion enhancements and Dublin Boulevard alternatives were developed using planning -level unit costs from local projects. These estimates factor in 5% each for traffic control and mobilization, 10% for construction management; 20% contingency; and 15% for design and engineering. San Ramon Road /Dublin Boulevard is a key intersection in the study corridor, providing access to the cities of San Ramon and Pleasanton to the north and south, respectively, as well as to I -580. This intersection is very large, with three to seven lanes in each direction. As a gateway to Downtown Dublin, this intersection is critical to accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists as well as auto traffic, commercial vehicles, and transit. The following treatments are proposed: • Reduce curb radii on the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection and add directional curb ramps, while accommodating commercial vehicles serving the businesses in Downtown • Stripe crosswalk and pull -back median on south leg of the intersection where crossing is currently prohibited Provide dedicated phasing for eastbound right -turns to eliminate potential for multiple - threat collisions with pedestrians. Eastbound right -turns would go with eastbound right - turns and when there is not a pedestrian call. • Channelize the dual northbound right -turn lanes • Install signal control for the northbound right turns and operate as a protected and overlap phase (with westbound left- turns) instead of permitted and overlap, if WB I -580 off ramp operations allow. Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 3 of 16 Proposed curb radii would accommodate California Legal vehicles turning onto Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road and AASHTO WB -40 at all other right -turn movements. Operational analysis using Synchro software shows that channelizing the dual northbound right -turns slightly increases delay but the movement maintains acceptable auto level of service operations. Minimal right -of -way would need to be acquired to accommodate the channelized northbound right -turn lanes. Adding the crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection will increase delay for vehicles but serve as an essential, direct connection for pedestrians walking to and from BART and downtown. Upstream impacts to the I -580 Ramps were outside the study area and not included in this analysis. Several mitigations were considered with operations analysis, such as increasing cycle length; however, these would significantly degrade service to pedestrians on the corridor and are not recommended. As the area is located in one of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC's) Priority Development Areas and the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan creates an explicit policy foundation for creating a truly walkable Downtown, striping a crosswalk on the south leg is recommended. The cost estimate associated with these improvements is $700,000, including signal modifications, curb work, and restriping. This includes approximately $135,000 associated with bicycle signals for Alternatives 1 and 3. Regional Street /Dublin Boulevard Intersection Bike signals are also proposed at the intersection with Regional Street associated with Alternatives 1 and 3. Advanced stop bars are proposed at all approaches. The total cost is estimated at $121,000. Golden Gate /Dublin Boulevard Intersection At the Golden Gate Drive intersection, the existing signal would be modified to protect the northbound left -turns to remove the potential conflict with pedestrians. Additionally, advanced stop bars are proposed on the southbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches. Bicycle signals are proposed for Alternatives 1 and 3. The cost estimate associated with these improvements is $200,000. Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 4 of 16 The Amador Plaza Road intersection accesses popular land uses to the north and provides access to I -680 SB off -ramp and I -580 EB On -Ramp approximately 800 feet to the south. Near misses between pedestrians and both northbound right- turn -on -red and permitted right -turn vehicles were observed. Restricting right- turn -on -red is not feasible relative to traffic operations and potential for spillback onto the I -680 SB off -ramp at this time. However, in the future, restricting right- turn -on -red and creating a protected northbound right -turn phase should be considered as traffic is reduced through diversions to other streets in the area or peak demand is shifted from automobile traffic to alternative modes of transportation. In the near term, decreasing the turning radius at the northwest corner of the intersection and installing directional curb ramps are recommended to slow turning traffic and make pedestrians more visible. The cost estimate associated with these signal improvements is $160,000 for bicycle signal - related modifications for Alternatives 1 and 3. Other striping and curb work is captured under the cost estimates for Amador Plaza Road improvements. Village ParkwgZ /Dublin Boulevard Intersection The intersection at Village Parkway /Dublin Boulevard is a large intersection with skewed approaches. In the SB direction, Village Parkway provides access to I -680 NB on -ramps as well as to lower- density commercial buildings. South of the on- ramps, traffic volumes are low and excess capacity in the northbound direction is present at the intersection. Large tractor truck trailers are expected to make the eastbound right -turn from Dublin Boulevard onto Village Parkway to access the freeway. The following treatments are proposed: • Remove the channelized northbound right -turn lane to create a pocket park • Convert one of the northbound through lanes to an additional southbound receiving lane to allow a tightened curb radius on the southwest corner and add directional curb ramps • Install curb extensions on northeast and northwest corners of the intersection with directional curb ramps • Restripe crosswalks on the north, west, and south legs of the intersection to straighten crossings and reduced crossing distances • Pull back median on eastbound approach to accommodate shorter crosswalk Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 5 of 16 Traffic volumes on the northbound approach were low and not expected to increase significantly under future scenarios. Operations analysis suggests minimal increase in vehicle delay with the recommended changes. The cost estimate associated with the signal improvements, including bicycle signals for Alternatives 1 and 3, is $318,000. Striping and curb work costs are assumed under the Village Parkway improvements. Clark Avenue /Dublin Boulevard Intersection Bike signals are also proposed at the intersection with Clark Avenue. Advanced stop bars will be striped at all approaches. The total cost is estimated at $121,000. Driveways Changes at ten commercial driveways on the south side of the street are proposed for Dublin Boulevard in order to create a continuous, accessible pedestrian environment. The total cost estimate for driveway improvements is $124,000. As properties redevelop on the north side of the street, commercial driveway reconstruction should also be considered to improve the pedestrian environment. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF COMPANION ENHANCEMENT COSTS Intersection Cost with Bicycle Signals' Cost Without Bicycle Signals' San Ramon Road $700,000.00 $565,000.00 Regional Street $121,000.00 $22,000.00 Golden Gate Drive $200,000.00 $100,900.00 Amador Plaza Road $160,000.00 $27,000.00 Village Parkway $318,000.00 $215,000.00 Clark Avenue $121,000.00 $22,000.00 Driveways $124,000.00 $124,000.00 Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 6 of 16 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF COMPANION ENHANCEMENT COSTS Intersection Cost with Bicycle Signals' Cost Without Bicycle Signals' Total $1,744,000.00 $1,075,900.00 1. Cost with bicycle signals represents companion enhancement planning -level cost estimates for Alternative 1. Cost without bicycle signals costs represents planning -level cost estimates for companion enhancements under Alternatives 2 and 3. All cost estimates include traffic control, mobilization, construction management, contingency, and design and environmental. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013. Fehr & Peers collaborated with City staff to select three bikeway alternatives for Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and the Alamo Canal Trail. The following alternatives were analyzed: 1. Widen Right -of -Way Option —Class I Shared -Use Path 2. Lane Reduction Option— Buffered Bicycle Lanes from San Ramon Road to Sierra Court /Civic Plaza 3. Signage Option — Wayfinding Signs to Alternative Routes and Permit Bicycles on Sidewalk The Alternative 1 Class I path, with associated intersection enhancements, was selected as the preferred treatment. Alternative 3, the wayfinding and sidewalk riding option, was seen as a near - term solution for the corridor. At the February 2013 community workshop, Alternatives 1 and 3 were presented as the preferred alternatives. Alternative 2 and two other concepts were presented to the public as alternatives considered but discarded. A Class III Bicycle Route option, including sharrows, was considered but discarded as a result of the wide roadway cross - section, high average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, and high speeds on Dublin Boulevard. A Class II Bicycle Lanes option (either traditional or buffered bike lanes) was considered and discarded as a result of the large cost of reconstructing the street by removing existing sidewalks, street streets, curb and gutter, street trees, drainage facilities, relocating utilities, street furniture, and signals, and acquiring right -of -way on both sides of the street. Additionally, this option would further increase the already wide cross - section of the roadway, making pedestrian crossing distances longer and increasing pedestrian exposure to vehicles. Figure 1 presents the cross - sections for the three alternatives and an evaluation matrix that summarizes the key considerations associated with each design. Dublin Boulevard Typical Cross - Sections Looking West alternative 1: class 1 path pros cons 'f�viNWl � i _ 6 6sZl ((((((((((((((((((((G i¢ �imii%%%%%%/ a aa�iiaaaaai�iiiacrrrrrrrmrrrrrrrrrrrrmrrrrGrrrrrmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmrrrW ( alternative 2: buffered bicycle lanes aiaiil%%%%%/ aiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaa�rrrrrmrrrrrrrrrrrrrmrrrrrorrrrrrmwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr /�O / % % % % % % %%/ ED SICEWAL BIKE TRAVEL TRAVEL TURN TRAVEL TRAV IT BIKE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE alternative 3: signage Signage and Sidewalk Riding on South Side Only OIJ (MEDIAN SIDEWALK >> >> >> >> >> >> SlrEWFlLK TRAVEL TRAVEL TRAVEL TURN 'I TRAVEL TRAVEL TRAVEL 7 LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE Dublin Boulevard Concept Alternatives Matrix +Provides a low- traffic stress facil Ity for bicyclists +Provides separated, dedicated on -street facility for bicyclists - +May attact new bicyclists, particularly the young and old +Provides continuous on -street bicycles lanes on Dublin Boulevard through Downtown Dublin +Minimizes Intersection conflicts +Reduces vehicle speed enhance pedestrian safety & mobility +Addresses immediate safety need on the corridor +Directs bicyclists to use dedicated bicycle facilities on alternate routes +May provide an Interim solution as funding for long -term solutions Is secured, which may Increase delay for motorists + Add resses Intersection conflicts with signal modifications - Provides a bike path on south side only - Widens pedestrian area but also allows bicyclists In pedestrian space - Requires consideration of of transitions to and from the on- street bicycle network -Speed differential/visibility concerns exist for bicycle crossings at each Intersection -May require a small amount of parking removal or reconfiguration where parking stalls abut the existing public right of way - Requires acquisition of right of way - Traffic congestion and delay for drivers, transit and truck traffic could substantially Increase -Reg tonal travel patterns may change as a result - Potential conflict with rapid bus operations Including time delay and conflict between buses and bicyclists at bus stops - Retail shoppers using automobiles to access Downtown businsesses could be delayed as traffic backs up on Dublin Boulevard -Not likely to attract new ridership - Allows bicyclists in pedestrian space without widening - Requires consideration of how to get to and off of the path from the on- street bicycle network Speed differential/visl bully concerns exist for bicycle crossings at each Intersection - Potential conflict with pedestrians, trees, above ground utltillties, and signs within the existing sidewalk PEERS Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 7 of 16 T ., The first alternative involves widening the City's right -of -way along the south side of Dublin Boulevard from San Ramon Road to the Alamo Canal Trail to create a Class I shared -use path by expanding the existing sidewalk space. The south side of the street was chosen based on the relatively consolidated driveways and large setbacks to adjacent buildings. Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c illustrate the Class I shared -use path alternative in plan view. As an alternative to the portion of the proposed Class I path between Village Parkway and the Alamo Canal Trail, the City could consider Village Parkway /Clark Avenue south of Dublin Boulevard as an alternative east -west connection. Under the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, Village Parkway /Clark Avenue a priority proposed project with Class II bicycle lanes south of Dublin Boulevard and a Class I bike path /bridge through the City owned property (formerly National Food Laboratory site) and over the Alamo Canal connecting to the Alamo Canal Trail. This alignment is included on Figure 2d and 2e. If the Class I path is the preferred alternative, the extents of the path and whether or not to envision the Village Parkway /Clark Avenue proposed bikeways as part of this Dublin Boulevard east -west bikeway can be clarified in subsequent design phases. The path consists of an eight -foot wide shared -use path, with a five -foot landscaped buffer between the path and the travel way. At bus stops, the landscaped buffer breaks to allow for loading and unloading of passengers. Additionally, new curb ramps should be wide enough to accommodate the needs of bicyclists as well as pedestrians. Because this would be a two -way path, and because driver visibility of bicyclists crossing at the intersections may be compromised by the speed differential, an actuated bicycle signal phase would face eastbound and westbound bicycle traffic, and the bicycle signal phase would overlap with the eastbound through phase. To avoid right -hook conflicts, additional control for the eastbound right- turning autos should be addressed in future phases should Alternative 1 be the preferred alternative. Such consideration could consist of an extinguishable no right -turn sign that would be activated when a bicyclist is detected or a flashing yellow arrow for eastbound right -turns when the bicycle phase is actuated. The Class I path would require widening and right -of -way acquisition on the south side of the street. Approximately five additional feet of right -of -way would be required for the length of the facility plus an additional two feet of shoulder space to accommodate Caltrans' minimum Class I IB;;; r r :: /1/ // ✓;, /r/ //r � / / / /;✓ Ir � ,'-' � //� „a/ 9 (!l,n 0 /i/ : ,, ,; + /!/ %,,' /r rpr / %ae, ,rrr;:" I/ / /�D� r ,r,; „!, ;✓ :// / / a / /i %i !i�iir / /r / /�. / %,,, ;, :,'1✓ral ;; /r %. ,,< rii,,,, -„ / /; i ✓ � //r � /,,,, l� �1J Vii/ / / / , ;' . Slf„ /// //� �/t „� !4 % / /i / //„ rii r/ , ,,, iirr ✓, r/� / .r ✓ , <, ✓ ✓r�/ �// /ail,; .'; �, -, // rii r �f /✓ % " /i,,,,,, ,�/ ri i� ,,, il!„ �' .,� ,,,,' ,,,` lu /4�l /d�l /1:.. �/� "A ,..a �, .., , �... �, ;, ; T, I,/ ,,, � %// �Y r a / ,., r// i'� � � � I '„ �� �.,. r,,,. >r,. ;, ,y D ° I��Off '9' 'U ", / '; ,✓ FB,i�xM�l�, ���', f &' N� /// // lll� / ,� �% // ,,,,, ✓,� ,,.,, �/ /1 'r � l /'„ : �%' V... ,, ,- f „� �. ,n. „P� „�. / %i� /� ,,1 ! / % „exeaFFiC WHEN , d //l r% O;, / ;,r., r,,. ✓, c / ,;, ril �� /iii / %/: ,< DUBLIN BLl/D' . ,� ✓, nr /oe, /v,,. „r, %ail /%��!/��� „11 „r., � /i /, �, , l,(� �v, Ul;,.,. / .✓ ,,,,, /.dr %r /, 1,,,._ ,i lr ;� /, /ri /il % ✓..,, e, /i F /l %, ,��,w / /i /�l�( /r� /.. � ��ri / /,,,, / '�l /��j,�r''9i /�/ %M ,,. ,,; ,,;�- / / �l�i �r)�f %t�� H�� // � s,/ •; ,, ADVANCER' r "'��,, "' ' ";': /, / /�, rro,i %r .ra /� it / / / � � _, "„ o'�,'.. �r l4 � O r r .. ✓iii r, >�,. � i ✓/a /iii, ,,,, / / , r / /i/ / .,,,,, ri „ „. ✓., / a,,,r ✓., //a /fill / ,x. ✓1........, /.../ r/ /��✓ �. �, / / /i //i f, /... w a ✓l „ ✓r / ll rir/ %// ,, c „ /.. / � v� l „/i r /,rrr rrri „- r /e.rr✓ / „� %i m / r /ii / „ ...,,� ,.✓ / .... % /1! r / / / ✓ /l/r% ✓/ /r /.l l/! / ✓1„ ...,,, 'ii /// / /r<..,, ✓ ✓/ / / r, �, /✓ :,., / / /.... fir/ „✓ rr ., r i. /r ,.a,.. ri / / /// / r ✓ rill/ ,,,�! r skrae sour r r /rnr,,... A ,,, ✓, .... „o Ji /%. Ai.. I ,..., rill / ,o/ /r / /,;:,,. ,,,,,,iii ri //'.. % / / /��, / /// , /,, // / /,,,,., ,., r,:,,,r ,,, /"�, %/ /// I / //„ ,.. // ,rii :: rh / , , Iri � ,.,,, ✓ ✓�r ✓✓ ,,;'� ,,. / /�. � "� � ., .,., / ..,.., , /...,....,, /r i � /Ills.. / /.. ,... ✓,l �� .,��, �/ �., r/f r , /. � / /// � vr, � / ✓/ ! � � /� L / ✓tiff �w , / „ /rr l rr �,�11✓ .! - cwttNNE U, N- , -, „ /� „r /;/%11L ,,,ill„ �1,,,„ rJ / /,,., , /,; /,,,,,9,,r✓ ,, //, //iii /I /,ii�l ////,1//�//., /��.., / „i „r v,�,r r /� /rrrrr /�r ,�' /ro ..r /;% %�`i / „ri% ��/ •.. �, fff ,rr u' A „. -' ✓l .,rrori / '/„ r iii /viii % % %r /./ „!, /r i�,J /A rl/ ,ri / / / / //r ,,,i,,, RIG.r TUNS �� ',,,, r�� � r, ,,,,1 /��� � uurr „I / %r�� ,,, � i 1.'I,v ll/ r f�;'f �r,rA I rri ��� �/ „t /// ✓ / / / / / / /�� /l ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ /,: / / /I;, /:,, � l� / / / / /ii %iii '/ / ,,, f% ,, � �;' � /, //, ;,, ” r; ..... i,r, / / / / /i /%ii /oil rr / 1; I,LIID�/ a ^s %% / / / /��'� r, „. « « « «/ .. %✓ / //( /i r „iiiiii /,. / / / / /iiiiil/ / / r ��NAA /„ euLLdacA , „ „�wI/ r�r,�i,I ✓r r o/ r� „ /ii r l , loi / f ';MEDIdN, , l;,l;,,, , „ ,.,..� -. / /,.,, �; ,, ✓,% o' /i/ sill /.:/ Ir ✓ 1 : r IC✓ / /(i/ r���l /ii�,c r �(' ' %!� /iL i,,,e,,,,i ,l „ /�: z ;, ;, / ✓ , ,,,, /// /ills,” // / / r / r i r l if r rr1 r. '/ / v���M� rr / ,,,,; /dr / / / / /�C ✓c�/ /rrr "�m"�f'W ,„ � ,, �1 r,- ,r.,l„ ��";� ,.,, ✓� ,,:., - r „ <, ,,. a „/, / /,. r ..,.. lfa l,, r' .,.. /, l ,r ';,, „�� /J/ ,.,, a�sNWWW�ti"uti�Xk' "..,���� �, I / /iii /rrr, � y// ,r r t.�n, �;/ ,,, ' ,,, ,, o rr r „/� %l/ / / = "l "' s %iii,: , , rrrr� „FV /, f ✓ f �»' l; /1,,,� �l , iii f /� .r ' / ! ✓ / / <�!', /%/ / H,,, %,' „rii...r /ri ,r,,,, // / % / / /%. do isriii,.: /, ✓YWC ,l /l x,:� I/ Airy r , akilflo ,,,,,,,,,,�, i ✓ vy�/ 1. ,. ,Ir .6, r/i / %../ , � 1/, /i / //i r //✓ %/ ;iii ✓ k oe.wa[u r r,, yl ., ,,, , �Z� ., (% BUS 11 �p F , „ ,,,,,. /r , /� „, .: o i , , ✓ ,,,, nl r,Slb 110 � /lP i ,,, /✓ , , � „rr ,; /,,, 9 co T L,;,, //� / /// / / / /r/ . ✓r / / / / / / / / /// /rra, / /rrrr / .........:.. . / / .r A ,, „ ., ,,, , Nd8 .,riii� rr ,,.,., 1J, / _, i,, si //x i ✓r /� /rrr /� /1:,, .,,; r r: a,, ,.,.. ,. r,,,,,,,„ T.. .,r „ „, ,. ri.1 /.. �,�,. //, r /i / „.,, .., Ii � ,rri,. ,.., r, AW?C,,. fi1AiH .I1dJ M, ,., r / />� /r/ �, / , ,,, -; �,.,, 0 /ll1 ���� ,,. v✓ r r y��,.ri /// / ;,,,,� -„ Iii r ✓ ,, I /I h �/ /1 %r /� ,. �r,/ rA ail ✓lyv '/ 11Ni Ulil x// ��Alr% rii �/ 1 % r %/� �„ .. /✓. ✓i/ / a //N r �r aj� // ' / ✓ / qr r a � LEGEND: / r it / !„ , rr1 / rf rr �„ ,,, / '`,' ” rri 1rr ✓ / !,� Fr, A �+r,A' I,�,✓1,48LE ”. r r/ iJ i r : ' ,,; ro / /„ ,,,�; �; „� ". /%r ,.:; i �/ : WiG, ,,, ,,, /1,1Ir // a %rG�h!4 AI '��ii rl/`,��� JFu //� A iR4;, ��'w�J/ �% � /�✓ /� ��,'r ✓ ,,,,., <, �" 77 ii -iii a rrr .. aaaaoseo 5 PLPNiER STRIP r �, 1. _,. / / ✓ ,. / . / , , r �/. ,, �/ ,, �✓ r/ /., rlr / rA/ � /i /� .r�, 1 r / rrr / / / > ✓U r1U l% // rif / /�i/ /, 4iG/ lc /u ���i // / 1 / �Jr.l�/ % %/✓ / l /l ✓%J ,, , AG r //. o m 9 ,,;/�j /'sill ✓o,,,,,,o /../ ,o „r,.:, q, ,,,yr, r/ frill /% / /xi / % /i/ /ice / %,r / / / /ii ✓i / /ri / /rri // rlfr /,:,;. / / / /i / /,' „ /.,,;a r / / /// I /, a �/ � /irr /✓ f� i r. ” ,,, ,,,. ri /// ,' /iii / /// /:r / ri / .. �� I ,�/ r. I / /// / / � / / /., / / /,i / / / / /// �„ ” "' /// l %r.. /%? �` EXISTING �,� � �. L �: r/ tl / /�rro ter, //f //✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓, r /o. i ,,.✓I ��,// �,,. r / - .,cell/ „l rr/ /rrr /1..,;i� ,r %ooi/ r.,: sioexnu< w ;%/ r/ /i r / / „ / /ii /ilfil ,,,/ /�',a /c , Ir ,,,,„ 1 i ' ,,,,, %/i / % /,f� /i /i /�11�r,✓ ,ii ,r� r"� li / /i��/ /iii,, ,1 / ,,�„ /✓ r% i1/ �,,,,,,,,Iir�' / %� /d?il'� rI /� �;i,,�!/ ii/ rll fli „�r rr � a w � ': /4/ r ✓ /1i' % /,,;, ,'., ., rr/ /rrr l / ✓,,,,, i . gaarr,r l / „r „ /,,,, ,. 11„ „ / %';, / / / /// r ”, / ✓l /P' Ir / /r „l /� /l / / / /iiiii l /.,,% n/ � ,' -,, I „%�� � oar ,r' ' rrrrrrr r,rr ,, rriii -: r .../ ri // /i %� / % /iii /%/ -.. ,ir... /// ,.i,,, /i r. r , a ,."Ili ,.,, ,,. ,» x l ✓� 1 ,,, �. �/ „ . / / / /.,,, r //l //% �, ", /rui,, , , ll,/ ci /ll /r //✓ ,,, ✓ ✓l!/✓ ll (11 , 1+ . / , /'r 1 ,,,,,,,,, /ii r„ , /, , „riD -„ „o- ni,. / „�,ri,r,,a „nl /i,i;, /,rl/ �;, I , rii �;y,%,,, l /� / / / / / /I „r ✓ r � , -„ ,,, ✓ f N d(� ,,,, „ "" / r, � /,r , /, �, fl � /B�r .I ii /� ;D; 1 r /o P o z ,/� � f /li/ -/ iii / j�� ®% �r� /,�r„ Ir /// // ,l/i ,,. /I r,,. � f �J���r /� �� / ,T� „�rr r�1✓ %rr „// w 8' CI-ASS IASS I PATH i1 , /iJ /r , I1 EruMAr/ ,r i r .v/ �% ,, '/,.!�.,;Ia u; /' „ , ,/, % : ✓ / � / r r r/r �A i r, F �i / ,j/ l P% fI//j / rfrj m, ,r , /,o /, „� , / ,,, // ,/ /i/ ,/ ? /l f, ,ri rr / i� r�%„ r%i / / ro %, r ' i /„ % ,% ii ,///// , i %orir,. %r�A ,.i ,.l„. a l , 1 ' /% / /l/ l , .� 8,x, �i / liJO� r��„ �D /�. r %m.; .y. , �Rn' r� 1. , ✓' � // / 1 r o, /o �% ��io /o r , ,�,r ,/, / z,.// Ii r,J , , � ,/ / ,,/ i / , ,„ , rrr �� r � �/ /„W i "r[ il7� y . r / L � ,, ;R� /, i r/l� . / r y.r r f/l, /rr / i . d . o Z :.r - �, , ,�u <r,,�,.,1� l �' "r 1 ;,,,,?r, ,; , ,/✓ r o/,ti ,�� / � / ' coEMM 4E0^ W HrR Cs,i';, . . ,: ,„rI �„r'r ���/ .i � l�/ r /% �/�� O � .i.�/f, „ �///i�I/� ,l.. , r � vI . , . % <”, ° r ,,,, ,, ,,;„;,N;..a�A(� ' / ff/ %%�� r / W% % n/r / /r � K a PROPOSED ; z SHOULDER ;r6 ; �1ia I r / � 4 � / uR/l /i AY FEHR� PEERS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 80 0 80 160 1" = 80' GRAPHIC SCALE coo:;. =�m.e.�aoo�:ve�n�own�:nsssw�:aw uu�w..<., DUBLIN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 1. CLASS I PATH FIGURE 2A LR IrrlldrNllir qi /i;,,, / % /feerxouc y,# E,;,x7Ui 1/ , ;, ��� r „ "'" �; ✓i1 /!>'�J>; ,,,,;,,� n %%r �. ° ,! ;, ;; ,,, � � , / /,�J H//,r�M,fi��jN,�Rr:�nS'f�csUf� �, rdn09,� .a. ,) I. ;� „ ",/ iq iNnr6, WITH cnL1RtiN5 ro i,BE By z No SAPP' Pe /,. ,,, ,r " ; ;; rrrr ,' r// /, ,. rrr // l% r / /�r✓ F7 /iio iii /// f�i i r v _ {S!�, Ncs As NNcESSaHV'7o , rte, r' ,,,,,rr;r ,,;,,/ "F 1 ; „r,r rll Ir „r,;. r aipi �i /� /a✓,! S ip RT S ©uBA RIER + w � ,ii ,r/ „�0 � .� �Irl /. / /�I ,,,r�� ;, " ",v. �.r,,rc,,,J�', s✓ °� / / / ?. ii %� :%/ r,rJ�r �r :. �q ", IIL / /I / S ALL VERTICAL RTI CAI:, BARRIER J /` ,, ,,.,, , �, r r., a � ,; �.� ✓/ , /��iy;�/ � �,; ..,Orr / � // f �i,. /' r TH Y T, '. „r , y, ''y „ioi. /� r,✓ / /l,,,u ��i /1 ii ✓ , �e f!� / /r /// / // ID, /, %���// ���IriI ,ir 9e �/„ Ull /aow n o aYEr LANE 0 ,,, r /�� , %ii,./xl���>%�l ✓�f�ii� ,r6 ✓� I ✓ /r /l ✓U�� ✓.! ✓, %l ,,,,,� o � v� /rr /;, ,�. ., rr(j /✓� / / ✓� �� ��i 1, r%� �1.. r %,.:.� /��� rill/ riiiii . / r r - P"', / ✓✓ r✓inrr > ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓:....�, r rl rr r..... � w or / / /arr r %r / / / /,/ / /r,,,, O r / /,,,,, , / /✓/ I / / /i, ,, / „r rii r✓✓ . Vii✓ /99/l// /%/ ✓/ % ✓ /. / /// ,..,,,� /,,,,/ , r. / rrr r� /r / /r/ l ✓%r rJrir r ,,,. :, , �; °iii -:. ✓ � / - / / /i/ r 1;/✓!/' %ill y�i %r., / / / / / / / / / / /// �JJ�' // % % / % / / / % / / / / / / %s' °r l/� r /rrsl�frrrrr / //i ✓ � H ,rri /r, /iii /� , ri ✓i r ,,,,,,iii , , G„ ,,,,�r,,. ri / w,: ar r // ✓:. s // rri /� / /// r/� ”" ..... // /// , /' /> / /nrV , rf ro ✓ ri r,,..,,. ✓ , / /�✓ , ✓ ✓ ✓ / / //� /.,,_ rI ✓ /llr,,,,,,, /// g i ✓ ✓ % /// g// ! r �/f (r' ,,,,;rs /�D / % / / / % ° //r ��r /i 1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓�r / / ,�J r Ir, it r r ✓ / / /r� % / //i r . I / / //% % %// ;; iiiii ri r r J/ ' �� ? - rr nj, r r ,,,r r j�, ri ✓ ✓iir�i ✓t / %% / / /a�l� ar ovioE sicN ✓ .!,, ,lu,, /r rrs.....,� r✓ , // r l 4,N rss �. r ✓ r/✓ =;i r/ 1i �� /iii 7Y .: r r `' / H J i - ,.r,,r;,l r {/ %G/ / / ✓/i .✓ ✓r < / ✓� %/ ' I/% l % %lli ✓li� .r3i ads puLN, BE r a r rr /rri rP✓r/l r rl J1��i r r f � E ����i� % /r/ rr) ' ��' l�'� rrirl iiii ✓�l P r � i ✓ ✓�/ I�ioiwn�K' z , , ,,, / rr ✓ / l ✓ /r(ri / , rir / /���r / l/ �%�y /r� //i 1 J/ ll % % / /// / oN, z s n r9 9 rr r/ / /r,; /,., ,,,,, / /J /i r: ✓ %�o�'�/l r r r�u /r 4 i r %� ! /r� / /!//„? r � r RrceswsrRUCi�iIEw" rr % / r„ r„ c,r,r, �/ rlr /%�II�„ ",.'� I r/r J r /i f All roi r. II .rt,..... ✓ / %rri r0 ...ir!1�� Il �l/ (f;/�i% '^ / ,,r(/ /�i r ,7 ��'ri��l �! /iiii��f /� / /ii r '% ✓a 1 r!kr0�! r 7, � (l, r /x,f�/� vy,,, nrr r�ai ��; / / �' 9 r , r ✓n ,5 o`' i�� //� �% ��, <;; i 9r /?rr� �I.,.9J ?" ';r” ii ✓,''�6i5,8i�w,� nt� f,?i5c;kdr,cGRReNx',Ni�x ,/ ol” /P'k�0''. LEGEND: i/� of %I r „z ; r , .,'i;,, �, ,f, ; (,J r /r, ue,” rw�# P,a' ar�ro; "Exriwiu(sxk�C,i ^' ,� // /� ✓(Irl' ,yn,. ✓/% I ��l r r, 1 / r+o ffi ku �i s rr / 7 f r rr / /%i PnF HE ai bes r ✓//l !�rf1 ,Orrt cif "rho // r.i P r/�,ri�,,,i yr Y....i.. .... ✓S / /���j/ /I / r., r j� / /r'i, / 'APIJ / / /// l �I� ! i„ j.., PRO POSED > r ✓ii /ioi� /ilia „ iii / / / / / / / /iii / /i /�iiinf�i /r�� I „/� ..r , " "" %, / , e, r i o r J / /, /i / /� /rr /rr r /i /fikirr / /r ✓r�'� /ffffj /i , ,rri / /..i flrrnmr,+ l.a // „r ",,,,, �� /// r �� '. r.!lihri /4r'�r! �a.� ,��i! rr �", s• PwarER srRiP m� rrvrr yr ✓ ✓ / /lo l� ✓ / / /// /i /� , F a �l/ ���� % r�/r /f a rrr, rare r /'iiii // /rrr r ✓ „ E!r /i /✓ rr rp girl/ r0i," / /11 r ,, i� ✓// / / /,% 2 / rni /r n llr / .,,,, / / r r /r. /ii��r/ ✓ / / //� r/I r 1r�rrr�/94im,' r 'ri r� ,,, " r;��� % /��`� r -0l; �I��r /r w P'OVOE sl", r " / ��� � d� Gli / </lG % % /r� rr r r f % / %rE /iir r� E m r ; /, r � /� r 0 � �' l v ✓r, �l / ;: rn L BIKES nrr ru/ �%r l ✓r lrrl EXISTING rr �/ ////�T' %f% r r I r r✓✓✓,✓ / /�/ /,x /. !/ % / /ii G /G/ l SiDEwnu< ON sioEwArK ,/l / /rr�;;,, � /i f y/�' �/// l r r, /// �� ✓ri a� rir /i„ ���j� / //, p��.It4r �Ir w _, r ; : a /r� ,-w. h Jr .iii r ✓rra�� , °, r ��Ala� �i�iai✓ , %�"„ /rr�rws���h � �r �;, r r;r . � � rri " -nom. �� @,,2r ti %' �Il�r', Ten r // �,u ,/ �� lm���i�ir ✓r / /,,, 1»1, ,, ,��,rm ���I�1U�11J�U1U�UJU�O��S� JEDJ��J�� I / ,pATr9�L� h ,,,,, (' ✓� %fir /i" �Vl �� PROPOSED a' cuss r anm a 0 ✓ / r ii � r " rw /i F � / li��yl � rF�com�srrzucr � % "� S //✓l /�N yn rri �/, Exi;�rw OR,fNVU77Vx✓rwis DAll r wa4, r 1 e r /� aikk I L II�� PROPOSED 2' SRODLDER %r ll /l /x a�n� /�; �i�ri ��✓r �� �ii> ✓l ?J✓ r rr����✓ r rr rrr /i! n /ir/ NECArf r r/ 4 w ��rh <�% J✓�% /�i /J�,r % / % %��r r „ � J„ wpNH � „1 �”" �P /ii/,r ,r6&1 „r f xA4U. a ao o FEHR� PEERS G 60 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN —NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1" = 80' GRAPHIC SCALE coo:;. =gym. =m =oo�:ve�n�o wn:nssxw�:aw uu�w..<., DURLIN E30ULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 1. CLASS I PATH FIGURE 213 If /r ✓�/ � // , /�/r ��f '/' AMA %� I �o����������. ;� �'% ro /¢a��;rrr �,I' /l. % e; ;, ,,� ", ,,, „ �� /�r ,l, ,; ,,, ,,. �, � ��� %l /r r ,,,�,; �oiP!:J. ✓G %I! "fll rII� % %J %�';y, .� r,ANI�" ;. �j, „ I - IJ (I ,r ,� ,� �� , r , r ! , % n / • of ./ J '? G/ /7�rO���a// �/ � � j %/ /� ,o/�� /i�� r „; r/ �� i / a i� y t % Ai / ; r :o r9 - l " , : rruryarmu0, 10 ,/ ✓ / / � / % / r // / / % / // /r/, //f / /r f A ,- / r ! u ( / %i rI/ // ! I/ I / OrfiI / i / � , rr , ;u,.s;'', ;; ;,� ^ : / , ,�✓% a F ,�,r , J u I l%J� > rl,, . r ; !, / �/ ' , ///i , �/ / � „ ,rf ,i.. '/ /; ./� , r / � �, � r% i ,i ^:rBoER " �`EaF�sTe.A oa u aB uN wA par, u �N „ / / /✓/ ��I, r 7ar^r ,, : r „ ✓, � u��r/ �? / / „l�y� r����rl // rrrr/ Ir,; l ^,t », ... ur.., / -U l�� /k,_J %)LIr //, r,:r�r w / /��r�dru .�1�1; %,f�l(I /� "�, /.a� /ll /Jl %J /f.�,/�i�<r �� /iq rr ,.,,, ,, /. /���Jl��('</ ✓ir. f /�i� /(/!, //i � /i //„//ef; ,^ o i!a /!�' /� ' i %rrr .. /7J /v , /ai/r::.. /i r /i // s� % ri // „// /, /i / / y... , .at�unh� ..�. �r.,' ..`.r ,,, ,,,,,.,........✓ m �rinm rrNr / � illll/ y f..rr ryas. ,. HllrAaP BAR r fi1'l ✓ w�iiiii ✓ / ✓ / /i�/ r/ yyll�l lrrrrrr, <, ' /rff ` r :. lsL� r ,rf.. �// / /// :, rr !✓ / / /r,:a /r r`"`'„”" «:`.”' " " ✓✓ ��% /// � %f // r 4;: { f>;Y /, yi„ rr // r � �i �,rr,. - ✓. /// ' / / /rrr ✓✓ �r <� �� f ✓11l % % ✓ / ✓ ✓ ✓ll ^IJ• /�� r r ; , w / ,;, /�� , y„ lll✓ ✓iii '' <i/ �;r�jf , / r�i / >� rrrr ,.;,rr //J/'�rr -r, _ .'f i� Il/ai %,l' r�� l /r %1, %� i / �� �J�iov��, '../I ,1� ^,,Ty� � o,;, _, f Jr r// //r /rJ,, /// fT„ ✓,,,,,, //!/ /// / / �r,,,lrrlU'i'9 /i i , / �� Ji ij // �u J// ;, ,' ",f.� /�u /�, /�r,Pp/ mr r`is /, /l���rr ,r, ^, rR� %' :- , / /,'� . / /// „/� ,r r ,, ���� /� /C /ii rrrr, ,.., •. Q clsts ✓ cUrla� 1r � � !/i r,u ail � a ° ',,, r�lrr /ii r /r 1 %` '. ;,. ; " I / , // / � ✓ iii � � r, �, �, g, J , /, , / r,, ,,,rR�a`ERCi ,e ✓,(,s „ri, / C/ � , /, ✓r / / ,iii�iJl /� ,Iv '; -,,, r //i /i� a,aRVewa'., `, � / / „r %/ ��Iro�ll r I ,,. <..1....,�/ /iii/ ,,�jr,,, ✓, �,, � / / // ,.,r. „ ; ,,. -; ;;; ;, . ,:,,,/ , ,A4ir�J% . „ F,,,,�„ , JJ 1j101I1,1,�IJJ�III�fi , I�.,� �rr/�,�j Ls' , , ,...: , .. /,,,, ✓ �� �,,.� ,N� � „ >. , „ u�, � /.,, „ -. ;;1711 ^ , , „ ,,,, ; y„ ,, - r / / % %r,,;, f ��� % % %fii,.,. 4 Sa'rdLJe ,'s ;�,��Ca.. / / /�f ; 0� //a �/ kfimtioti,i' oafiASrrnNwfiVTrl�,.r,rvr / r�,/�.i ✓r,,•,,, d:, Of, ; ,;;; „ %iii; ✓, ��.,, %� r,:,,. I „ .,., , „ , I,/ , rn % 1 J� / / / /// %% :F?G,PBJJe rH' ? r r c Ra r / r LEGEND: Div i / 7 PROPOSED s'PI�rvrEe sreiP /,,,„ ,. 1 /, ✓% ..,,,, ,r,,... ,;a,,,ii ., ai /v / / ,r,,, r/ l / /ii / %I1 Y�r, q,,, �O�) �lI / D uca � /i/ j o m %e / ri rrrr /m rr/ it a /l0 /' exisnrvc CAmu,R sioexnu< w r lJ OUBCIhr'BL46' io % / ✓r /l �// /� r// / /�l, r /ii; / w .. ... , . / , j.. / / l� ✓ii/ %/'� /r/� �r� ii,�G / /l /r' r ni �r / PROaasED 8' CIASS 1 PATH z ri / r ror r^ 111 ,A;�1 / /� /� /i/ /I r ^F ✓ryil%%""�,.,, � /�>` /��Aji Q . 2' PSHDO LDER ��% �, `'��� �/ ��/ J!BE,, fir. ,wrn�!)s / / % °' / / / / / %� '��� //, / // ✓ r�� %� %// ��r !It // r��� � r ” n�;,l, FEHR� PEERS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 80 0 80 160 1” = 80' GRAPHIC SCALE coo:;. =gym. =m =oo�:ve�n�o wn�:nssxw�:aw uurw..<.x DURLIN ROULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 1. CLASS I PATH FIGURE 2C FEHRt PEERS VILLAGE PARKWAY CONCEPT DESIGN Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 8 of 16 standards. As right -of -way is available, a wider paved path should be considered to comfortably accommodate bicyclists and pedestrian operating side -by -side on the path given the Downtown land use context and adjacency to BART. Vehicle delay could increase when the bicycle signal is actuated and a bicycle phase is provided in the signal cycle, therefore additional consideration should be given to signal phasing and potential impacts to other modes should Alternative 2 move forward as the preferred alternative. The cost associated with the right -of -way acquisition, path construction, and signal modifications is approximately $3,347,000. Right -of -way acquisition accounts for approximately $1,170,000. Including all proposed intersection improvements (pedestrian signal and striping improvements in addition to bicycle signals heads and corresponding signal modifications), the total cost is estimated to be $5,091,000, with $1,744,000 of those costs attributed to bicycle and pedestrian intersection improvements on the corridor. Recent research on bikeway planning has focused on level of traffic stress (LTS). Level of traffic stress is a four -level ranking of how stressful it is to ride on a given roadway. By identifying and constructing 'low stress' bike facilities, more people may find themselves comfortable riding, which has benefits for physical activity and health, congestion levels, safety and air quality and the environment.' The Class I alternative would provide the lowest traffic stress of all three options, with an LTS 1, as the facility is a physically separated bikeway from automobile traffic. The Class I facility would provide a bikeway to Downtown Dublin with a low degree of traffic stress, which would likely increase its ability to attract new riders, particularly the young and old. Alternative 2 involves a vehicle travel lane reduction (sometimes referred to as a "road diet ") on Dublin Boulevard to convert one traffic lane in each direction to a buffered bicycle lane. A buffered bicycle lane consists of a typical Class II bicycle lane separated from the adjacent travel lane with a striped buffer. This proposal consists of a seven foot bicycle lane and a four -foot wide buffer with chevrons. At driveways, buffer striping is altered, consistent with California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD, 2012) and California Vehicle Code (CVC) relative to ' Level of traffic stress has been recently analyzed in San Jose, CA in the Mineta Transportation Institute's Low - Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012). H„;, p�./ /transweb.sllsi.s.edi.s /F�1:7f =s /research /BOOS Ilow stress'�c /chi network conn; , , ectsi °ivi °r�v.pd4 Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 9 of 16 autos crossing double white lane lines to turn. The buffer striping transitions to a standard dashed bicycle lane line prior to intersections to allow right- turning traffic to cross the bicycle lane. At major driveways and at bus stops, skip- striping with green pavement is proposed to highlight the conflict zone between bicyclist and autos. This use of green pavement is consistent with the Caltrans and FHWA blanket approval granted to use of the color green as a traffic control device for bicycle facilities. At bus stops, the buffer should drop and transition to the green skip- striping for the length of the bus stop. Where buses currently stop in the travel lane, buses are anticipated to stop in the bicycle lanes. Where bus pullouts are provided, the bicycle lane would also have green skip- striping to highlight the conflict zone as buses pull into and out of the stop. Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c present the buffered bicycle lane alternative. No bicycle- specific signal modifications are required with this alternative. Cost and Level of Traffic Stress Analysis No specific right -of -way acquisition would be required for this alternative. The cost associated with the striping and green pavement is $386,000. Additionally, the San Ramon Road intersection improvements, and signal modifications at the Amador Plaza Road and Village Parkway intersections, would cost $1,075,900, for a total cost of $1,462,000. The buffered bicycle lane alternative would provide a higher level of traffic stress than Alternative 1 even though bicyclists are separated with a striped buffer. This alternative would receive an LTS score of 3, as the buffered bicycle lane is on a roadway with 2 travel lanes with a median, and has prevailing existing speeds of 35 MPH or more. Because the methodology looks at the "weakest link" in the network, the lane reduction and striped buffer may not offer as much benefit relative to high prevailing speeds on the corridor. While the buffered bicycle lane will provide additional comfort, the large auto volumes, multiple lanes, bus stop blockages of the bicycle lane, and high speeds on Dublin Boulevard will likely still cause potential challenges for recreational bicyclists. As is the case with many urban corridors with bicycle facilities and transit, leap- frogging between buses and bicyclists is also a factor in traffic stress for bicyclists. I ....... ., .... rk IrN „r ,f'u, ;✓ /,: 111;/y/ lJ /i /.i / / /C1,'/ ,.; 0 / ✓ /, /Ar r ;,,,;, r /, 1 / / /ii, ./r % / / /J %,,, ,�, !!s � r;. ✓' I.;, :f1, / l / /.. ✓.: 1r � / / / /,r � �� / /! /rvi r / r /; f / fs f1, r �, , ���� f/ ,✓ , , ,1� ��� J r,,,, r., �// r /f /,e, r %a /, ✓,,,,,,, r i[; ,, ✓�� v� J � ✓ J I % /�,/ ; , , � „ "„ ✓ v^ ,,,r, %r 1rr� o� v, u � //1% �� %% rill [.r�4% � ,,.. � / / /� „ //, . ; . 1 I ,;” n ,' .% l ,., I ,..' , ,'r l �Y,Or�,,, �.. r film, �� /'L / -' // r / ✓/ r r. i=.v nr fi /o J Ul ✓/ , ,,, / / / /e� I , ExISnNG ,/ ,/ ,u, ✓,iir�r "v,J; /.. rII / % a� ,:/ ,sue :FACE OFGUR9 ":/ "r' / :', ,.'. ✓ %/� / // jr �, q, , , „' / DASHED GREEN f „rte/ /fir ( .. •.,,� ! r , /�c i ," � ;; ,,;.. „„ ,<,<, ,, ,, ,, „ ���1 %�iia�` ; rf / ✓ %�i;,,,; %/% �,i% i / /A.... THERMOPLASTIC WITH 1 klri /f •,I.. / // r, r / S:, /, � d ,,,, � / n, r / r l/ , ✓l �i ,� �/ / � � /,,.. �;,, / ! ,,, �,, /✓ � %�/ � f. ,r ,r, " ", ,.f ,, ,�I 1'I��� /ri , ,,, ,,. r. /i ) l / /// .� � I t/J�`� � /II�/ rl f,., rl,,, Tr „r., r ;� % ' ', RYpp BAR' ,.'�„ ,,,; ,,, ,';, ,1m//�mr�',.✓,,,»t �' r „> ., r,r, r, ,, ,rr/ ✓i w i! c %6� ��� �; � °..// .- a;,i!. /rr // ✓ 1, ,.. /, iii / / /// » ✓„ 11//// „r ✓ / / / //✓ ,.. , . ” ,.,.. > , rl,,., rrr., ,,,, „ ` J ,u �,f � . , � J rl / / / / /J /rrriiill/1/ ✓/ ; „ rrr". ,i I v,,, a rr.,r / „/i A �o /r , ,,/ r/ /,.... r ,,,,r / ,,,, ri ” ,:. /iiiiii / / / / /aiiir /il��/l// ,r/ i,,,,,, ✓✓ /// , srRr>�esaull/ ✓ 1) , r i . Y / / / r , /% L ,,, /i „ �✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓/ ur �u s rr rr ii /rill / / / / / / //� �J %// ,IlAldr ,n ,. ,. ,,. ,,. ,•; G, �. vii ,rr. ��r /J w I/ - ,, rr ✓,,,, /ir,,,, r,',.. „/ a,. ✓ ✓i..✓ r r.: r /rift r /,,,,/ / //. r.. �4 —/,'�R f. ✓ _ " "" � (. l/ ✓ ✓ /., % ✓.. /iii�dl' , /ii /// �/ l/ ! rJ/ /,, / ! vii // rr J „ =^ �,N ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, , ,,, »mm,., tl ,,, rrr, rzrGKT Tu (+rsi ,,, ... ,. ri ,,,•?,r,o> � / / / /,, ,,, ,, F .'m ,v. " „” /i / R ,r ,,,, ,,, � rri „r rte/ / / /.. rr ✓H „ri /iri C ' :.7� / r: ,, ✓!i / /// ,l /i, , ✓L: ” / / ✓ ✓,','ss� ; � ( ,,,,, /iiiii /�/ /,,,,,,,,,,i, 11 r!i /N+ /,. ,,,,/1 �, „ ,rr / , Lrsiiii ✓aiiirirri riiii ✓rrrrrr „ / / /,� riO r ,rn„ i/, ✓ / /„ / I ...,,.. r,. J Ir f , ,,,, /r ..,.,,i,,,ir ,,,, di ;� /„/lJJ .. fill 1 hK`, ,,,� ✓ii;,rru ,rn „, ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓/ !¢ ;' PULL �acm” ` rr %��' 1 ' „r,,,,, ` �„ iii,,,,,, % /�i��ii / % /i,,,,/ "��1011ay`�ihn I�Jrf �7 y/ /% � / / /// / /// /io ✓, ' �fv ��ii vi: ,,,, ,r, MeainFi „,;�� :a' ✓ii>fr?� ry« rr J ,r,,,r ,i,r „,,, r„ G"�'A% : /�I %✓ /, / / / / / / / % / / / % % / /�r'y, ,,,,;r �,�ri�/mzim �! /li.:�/�>l /;,; z / ,,� ,i,,,,, ,,, ,rrl rr/ I�% /, "'^ 'r n. � �,i r ,, ,n.'. /! i Ill✓/ r 111i, ;// / ,.,,, rorr /,, ,,,/ kffiffFi ,rr r/, ��,�, ,,,, ,, //, , „ r ,I , r ➢ // „ , / / /�/ ll�i /„ / "r�n ✓r , , „ , , , , „, . � . F a,�,... rrrc"%� ✓..... // L /c ,,, ,,,, - ✓i / ,, r, , ,. /;,, r „� A, r ,;, / / /// ,� „ //c ,,,, i r f, ,, ,,rrr.... r , ,,, ✓i13� � „� / /., - / „ /oi... /, / ,r t .v. /„ ,,, l/ /, r . ,,, i ,a , ..11i ,r„ � �f', ✓, ,,,.. /.. / / �� /f LANs,, / /,,,; l,; !,;' /r �,.r ,. ” / /� /i „�; 1, : /,( ��, /2.0 ,.. �/ /� /, , r, „ /ii ✓l% ",,rr s1 r ,., ,� ,,, ,r, , ,:. -,, / /i % %%I ,,,,.:/ it r f / Ili,ll,rlarrliJ,l11 Amin � r r PI I �l/ /�„ rIJG, � l,i,�, r 1 �% , / , , ✓ / , II iii, / /l //, l r // / /, ✓ii �.., i /rr /r 1011// %,,,,,, ,,,,; � / %. /�, / ✓� /r, rJ ,, / � ,} /// r ✓ l / / %�� j /ii/ rrr,', r : , , � 'L„ 1 � r „ � / m„ 1 er / /e,: / „ %I✓ // , z;, , I,•, ; , , , �III�; rrr„ � z ,.. „ , „ , iii /f /, ie,�,,: �! /m / /�� /��i.., �� /acL� ,;.” Ilu/v /�l //„ r.,, , >; ��ill!!i /�» i� .,i I ✓ / / //, , . , � it / /i /0 /i, ,,,,, /GIOIII filr <J�zrie �,,,,, L. a✓ r. / /� n rlr/ / %/1 r ! // ; / / / / /// �' r % %oi Jr p r;r /r r /� .� J � / a /j U✓ r , /� n! as r(Ni r� ,n �G n 'r I'f % fy !r% LEGEND: „', ,' /r i rrrviii ; ° „” r%,,HEa e N %'PPEFdf 'j /u f % %✓ // ,fJi /% %1 r' j! /rl %// a %J // / /%i ;y ' I ,L � I ' %r it ,., ,,;ii / % "�' %// ;, sFJ7h�6,f3LnU�, WjTI( „ ",,,, / r/, „ /�,,,,,, 1 /� ";,,; %,,, �/% �/i �;rrf f ✓,� �. PROPOSED f BUFFER ZONE II , fll , I�., /1/ T ,.i / //✓ /„ I / ,. i „.,. //„ ,,,, ,,,w, ”, ,. rN. ,, ., � ,,, �. STRIPE .,� / /,r /�„ J tl r., � r�„ r ,r/r r , / / r, ;, „.. ✓; ;,; f „r ,,J a ,.. ,. r..r /�� ,,,. ., r r,r, ,/r l , ,, / 1 �li/ , � ✓ ril , �,,,, ,,, i,Y 1, %, / ,r �i= ,/ . r/ /r�,,,, �i rl, /.. ,,, %�,, ,. ,,,,,,,. „. /. ,,. ,.., /.. . //. G [/ I.ul I /; �� / / / %rr, ,,i���r✓/, l,r .err ! i. ✓., .. / / o , . L,../ ,! / /rr0 /l���u / /Dlll� / /r /.l % /lr . ..I/ (,.,1�71fr , „» < I / //, / ,irJ/ / / /rr /Alf��ifN% ����� y T: ✓ /r/' /, � / , rA` Il , �, /... � .. lr�.. � cam. 'w ri� /� z Q ,yi.,,. r / �l� rC ✓l /„ , ,, /, / ,I /t,,r ./ //�i ,/ ' / /i r Fr /il ,., ri% ll;.;., . ✓✓//�% / ,rir1 ;:.... ✓ �' f r� /%, ✓.. r /lr ll„, l � 1 „ r, �- � l� r //1 Y r r / / , � . ,;r .r i Illlr � ✓/l /fu/..r„ A1�1r� IE4 � 11l /rr / '� o /D/ / .... `w ` PROPOSED 7 BIKE LANE ``' ;ice /J�r // I/ riir.,,J /l / / /�.� ,,,, :,,1 /i fl� / ,,,,r / ra , / /rr /� /// r�srr� ��� ����.r,J�� /�i'f% �, // /�y,rr /,r rr� /i 9 ^r , rgri /, J) r,,. r /i %r ,r 'b � %„ .. ✓,�.,. / / / //✓.:, rn r ✓n / / //, r%j / / /%% /r / /Till /lr / �.✓ /l ✓� � /A: r / /i� ”- r � ✓rir%'rrr /rir Y J �' '� / i „ / /iiiii ///.., ,/ /////ir /Trio / l //r//, , ,,,,,,, ,,,,, „v/ ,v r vii /✓ , ,rA/iD ( % /i/ l l lNi ;,,r / / %ii A % / /J % / /Ir ,,, , , %� 'A I /iii /l / / / /..—., ✓ ✓✓ � ll surf /r � J s ”; r /% r S ✓ ✓ ✓� � /iiiir r v ✓l // z o „� / ✓ ri ri, ? r, >” , • . — ” "PROPOSED a, r l.. /,'. , r ,;� "//l'✓;,, ,, U/% ,' it Ilrrr/', 6Gn/ �' // rr - ,K 1 ,,, y_ ., , .,, ; „ J DASHED GREEN PREFORMED s ,..r /f , .. / / / / ,. ,,,,/ / l r,,, ,,.� /, f r(ll ✓ui .. r r �, r r 1J// �/ r „ THERMOPLASTIC WITH Q 6" WHITE STRIPES � ,// �' ; ��i %�. k�RM,P,X%9; �,. f ✓,,, ✓�r� /' rr,,. ,,, / „'��G /�; %/� , , r��� //� //� , a �1�� y7 :. /�Oi � / / /fir ,�Ji /� 1� `r�l���� ✓i / /i %/ r ' //e 1' / � /� /fl //n �, �// // h> /y ,/l 1/21 (I 1pl �/�/i/ /� ...,,/ � i//n�/ /�r/✓/l r „” s ��;," ',,,�ri� ,,,... sIDEWAixry MODIFICATIONS FEHRtPEERS 80 0 80 160 1" = 80' GRAPHIC SCALE sa�wu DUBLIN 6LVD ALTERNATIVE 2 6UFFERED 61CVCLE LANES FIGURE 3A FEHR)- ni IRI IN RI vn AI TFRMATIVF 9• RI IFFFRFn RinvnI F I AMFR FIGURE 313 LEGEND: PROPOSED 4' BUFFER ZONE STRIPE PROPOSED 7' BIKE LANE PROPOSED DASHED GREEN PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC WITH 6" WHITE STRIPES SIDEWALK /MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS 80 160 GRAPHIC SCALE ni IRI IN RI vn AI TFRMATIVF 9• RI IFFFRFn RinvnI F I AMFR FIGURE 313 J^i / / / / /G/ r, ur, � / / /�i /< „ r a ���� rr /, l/ / ,ii IF // / �✓ /c�� /r, � � / /1� ,. ;li r, ,,,, /„ // / f! W ,,,.,,,,, ,,, /, ��� /< ;.� /r iarrr� m../ r,. „i�l(h117� ",. rr / " /�% ! / /l/ li. / / /i,,,�,, .11f,.,.m,� / /r %// ✓_�/���% /, ��yiir. r z / 1 J„ r r rr li� !.( / /// / ��mc�� ✓ ✓✓ ll ;�, r Ayy yyyl y... ri / riir r// %i rilf OP ' I r � r f I r 4 // r// .., m /��rrr .: r/r /ird % /// a/J ri �l ✓l /k / .. / ✓/ % / 89R r o„ ;' -% iiiiiiiii rr ,aru ✓ ✓ ✓ /// /� rar ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ii /11 /%/ �r r /ii /ll % ✓ //� /ii / /// f f r s. r /ii�ll� 1, i rC'i , ..... .. ....... ....... v, d ✓,//// f /`rll�� // / r / "ril /i / /iiii % /r/ /���% ✓ iiiilr �•%i /iii /,�hir,i/'x / /r� Jr , — W v ri% / /1.... r, / f �� ��i f r�, / ,.r Jl / % /,,,,Irvl,,,r /fi 1, ! ��,��C,G �� �% ., ,r/ ,,,, /,,, „ ,... ✓iiiiii �i �// �� , %�/ / /�� i,; 'A �����i /iiii /� � e / % / �/ PROCESSaRS nssaelJ�TIaN sf rr�� � e s mr1/ �>' /� /,, , / fi 'I' � "'f J /IJ��ai, .s�� ,e✓lllf a /I,GmG /roa, ; �/J /i�� ° � J u �l%�j /i� f��l�((�i1 LEGEND: PROPOSED < NE �'% �h�/ �I f //i 1 ri/ ✓ / /i %i suPPER zo STRIP E o ammrauil�mom,0 /rrr, 1 / / /'lr;l /r9�JJ�� /rrrrLn Pl/r r,ali /ri /�ilJri %hall ��I�r�JrYl /�� r jr /' r -- m �'v 1° 7 BIKE LANE PROPOSED PROPOSED DA SHED PREFORMED THERMOPLASTIC WITH e WHITE srnlaEs /I�/ ;:r f / /i✓ %r j /60� /f,>( /%� !,,,,i ii /l i it �� iii % /rr��.. /rii. /i SI DEWALKN MODIFICATIONS FEHRtPEERS 80 0 80 160 rep., wo 1" = 80' GRAPHIC SCALE a�au DUBLIN 6LVD ALTERNATIVE 2 6UFFERED 61CVCLE LANES FIGURE 3C LOCATIONS OF PEAK HOUR QUEUES WITH F E H R PEERS DUBLIN BOULEVARD ROAD DIET ALTERNATIVE Figure 3d VOLUMESKEY: «, fi,n lrsl ss - - -, AM [Midday] (PM) AM[Midday](PM) MAP KEY: NOTE: Birydenetwork shown isadraft network. Study Intersection Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes , Bikeway Classifications Existing Class 1 - Existing Class 2 Existing Class 3 Proposed Class 1 ....... Proposed Class 2A Proposed Class 2B Proposed Class 2A ...... . Bicycle Lanes Buffered Bicycle Lanes Lanes, 1 -Side Proposed Class 3A Proposed Class 313 a " " " " "o Existing Signalzied Existing Unsignalzied -- --I Proposed Trail Crossing City Limits Trail Crossing Bicycle Route w /Sharrows Bicycle Boulevard iw.�.,.wi Trail Crossing Trail Crossing - -- 11 � 1guiire 3e .. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes FEHR,"PEERS Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 10 of 16 Traffic Operations Analysis Fehr & Peers completed a preliminary evaluation of a road diet on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway using Synchro and SimTraffic software.2 The analysis of the Near -Term Condition with Road Diet scenario found that many of the queues are contained within each block; however, maximum queues on several approaches had spillback to adjacent intersections. Figure 3d shows the simulated queue lengths on the corridor. Figure 3e shows bicycle and pedestrian volumes on the corridor. The analysis strictly examined the operational effects of removing a lane of traffic in each direction and did not model the improvements detailed in Companion Enhancements section of this memo. Based on an LOS E threshold, Alternative 2 operates acceptably based on Synchro level of service analysis; however, microsimulation indicated that each intersection on the study corridor would operate at LOS F3. The Synchro and microsimulation results differ, as microsimulation takes into account operational effects of adjacent intersections and accounts for queue spillback along the corridor. The forecasted left -turn volumes on to and off of Dublin Boulevard were observed to cause much of the delay and contributed substantially to queuing spillback at several intersections. Appendix A shows the SimTraffic queuing and level of service analysis for the Near -Term PM scenario and the Near -Term PM for Alternative 2. U „ M x , * 1,� VII, 17- Alternative 3 would direct through - traveling bicyclists onto nearby alternative routes that have lower traffic volumes, a narrower cross - section and dedicated bicycle facilities. As such, the proposal consists of wayfinding signs to provide directions to those routes. For those bicyclists accessing destinations along Dublin Boulevard and not well- served by alternative routes, "BICYCLES PERMITTED ON SIDEWALK" signage would be provided on the south -side sidewalk. By 2 The Near -Term PM Peak traffic volumes and Synchro network developed for the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP) were used as the baseline analysis. Phasing and coordination were optimized on Dublin Boulevard, and Existing PM traffic volumes from the DDSP were used at the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches to focus on operational considerations associated directly with the Dublin Boulevard study area. The DDSP model was not calibrated and validated, as that was outside the scope of this analysis. 3 As shown in Appendix A, between 5 and 10 percent of traffic at the San Ramon Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection are not served under the road diet scenario. Because not all autos are able to enter and exit the system, the reported level of delay of 69 seconds only applies to the vehicles served in the system and therefore does not reflect the field congestion and delays, and LOS F operations are expected. Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 11 of 16 installing signage about bicyclists using the pedestrian crossing phase and reinforcing the legality of sidewalk riding, bicyclists could be better accommodated until funding for right -of -way acquisition and sidewalk widening is secured. Alternative 3 can be viewed an interim option for a long -term Class I path proposal or until feasibility of Alternative 2 can be further assessed. Figures 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d present the wayfinding and sidewalk riding alternative. The wayfinding signage shown on these figures shows directions to West Dublin BART Station. No specific right -of -way acquisition would be required for this alternative. Vehicle delay could increase when the bicycle signal is actuated and a bicycle phase is provided in the signal cycle; therefore, additional analysis and review is required before implementing this improvement. The cost associated with the signage and bicycle signals is $1,202,000, of which $126,100 is signing related costs. The sidewalk riding option also provides a low degree of traffic stress. Because intersections would provide signalized bike crossings this would also reduce level of stress at intersections. LTS would be 1. However, the substandard sidewalk width, given that no widening is proposed, would likely increase the level of stress for both bicyclist and pedestrians. Weighing the pros and cons associated with each alternative, Fehr & Peers recommends seeking funding for preliminary design and engineering associated with the Alternative 1 — Class 1 Shared -use Path concept. This can be seen as a medium -term solution for the corridor. At the public workshop, some segments of the Dublin community indicated that Alternative 2 should continue to be considered as a longer -term vision for Downtown Dublin, as development occurs and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit mode share increase. Some segments of the Dublin Community indicated that auto access to Downtown businesses via Dublin Boulevard should not be impacted, and, as result, potential economic impacts should also be analyzed. Table 2 provides a summary of the alternatives. If Alternative 2 is considered as a long term vision for the corridor for the community, additional study to consider the potential for motorist travel pattern and travel mode choice changes in the JJ �,h,,/ � / /�i /1 � ,,:. i, r „ �r�rrrr. /i ✓r ,, /rl /, I /,�� r uawnrlc� ., w s� r , r r r,. ai rri / r srGp r„ rrrr .r.. ,,,,,,,, „ ., � /� /... .. ri // / ,: :....,,.rrr,. . ✓� / , I�ep� �. -„ / a � r e. , , , / –r„ / /�� %iiii������ r� /�� /�rr'+ ,i /f,� %j, i r /i <� /�� ��� /rfl,,. „� z r, ,, / , w / nu, �����������rl�� »�rrn�iiu�iar�ii���ir���r'>✓�y � r/ /r ,/ ! : / ,rir , ,,, ✓, ,/ „ / . ,,, / r, rill, r . ,,, . , �, .. r ,,, ,�,,. / / rr , „ , ,. // rrr, i ... ,/ iri / // <, / ,. //. ,i /,r.. /,. ,.< <, ,r,. ✓ , „o � / /�.. // �r;r a,/ :.,,, r <,.,. �/✓ � .r ".. A : ; ; � ,/ .. „ , � ",. � <, s i / r �� // ii /a /� ,, lo,;,. / ,a, , , ,.,...: r, (�� , „ <.fi r ,.a s �� , , % ' nr, �� /,! ,, a , �3a „ J �i oHl XAhemxrr ./ , / % � / �, / ,, ✓ / rrr � „ � , „/ , / r /,...,.: / N,. a� ,.. .dlYl1 � G(r", f1 ,J!Ili„ a nr h Ira, - ...., / . r ,.,. ✓.., , >il f10 r orri rr, ,, ,,,,, .r ,..,,,,. / r, / ���,�,.. l ,.. ✓y,.J,ri 1. /, ,. -„ ,/ I / /�r. a. >, - n:. ri / /.,, fir / . �. / r ,r /�,r rrcii %� // ,,,, , v/ , i„ ; "= rriii ✓Alter :.. % / /// o, `:.. // i � ,,,.� r. , ,/ /�, r 1. /li i , if , - / /r r � „✓ ✓�� , / //r �,, ��,,,,,,, r�r�,,,u / rr /��i�� / /ii , / /i,,, y / i/ o ,i � /rf� r rrr��r� �1. r'r ,.r�, r„ ,/ Ir /I /0 / %llll / /�f /11111 /rrr ✓l� / %/f ,L� /J / %�. rG. ��J�,/ 1.� /�/%,__ 1,... /, r, /,U/ir �/. � r, / / / „ <, � /��� / / ✓ /D/ %��� %lrv% ��� /li / %�r� / /ifr< /r���, ���i�, ��„ // /J, ��1, ,,, /, �r,,rr / � // I %„ l�^% % -, r „a»��ra,;, �, � r✓ . "/ r / / / / ///, , /r/ ,. r ✓, „r, , /ii � r rr - // � / D , rr <, , / / //% �/ f 1, /, � � / / / /// II ' r4r, I ii➢ r — ✓ . r /, ,r /, / /,r i r. /, / r,. /. rl //r ✓. , ,. r, r , o / ,. �.,., % (,r r, II � rrr. ,,.. ! r � ,,,,,, ,,, ,;,,; ,,, ror s � /: / / /,r3 A /.1.., /rJr,... r/ , ✓.,, /ifo.rl.. r r .r , ,u,,,,, iJ ir, ,rii, -; r J � r,,�„ r I ,I. / .. %% r, a / ,,,, / ,. ,.I � ✓. r. � rrr � ,,, , �- /i ,r.. rill/ // . //� // // , , ✓. iii � :, / „r r ' ,,,. rr/ v r .:::v- >%/ / /,, %/, i , , ✓,/ r . J rrrr / /,l // r' r/ ✓,'�>/ r/ % //� r, f ,r „r, �, �' /, r// Gf ,,.. /, / <. aiii � ,. V-00 �i ,,%�� r/ /,ii r,�, r ✓.,c, ?' ..r,r /��/ , /,,,,/ rA. /G W ,r r r� -! ,, ;r,, „ , r„ r �� / %r „� FEHRtPEERS ao o so 160 1” = 80' GRAPHIC SCALE DUBLIN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 3- SIGNING FIGURE 4A %/r „;: ,,�ri '.,,, ,, J /// 'v /ri / / ', ,%/ l /'• ., ;; „iii .,:. l/ / / /.r1 ,., %.. /.. /,,...,/ II lr !✓...u„ / .: +,;;, „ / /r // / ,,, s.:' , r „� < /// rM,,... /j/ i /% / 1„ „J ,r ,..., ,1 , ,,, ;,, %/ i / �� r /,,, ,,,,,,L,,,, / /i. i Rr. P,,. /l% r / / /, % / / / / /',,, I � ':•,iii. %� %% °.', ,.� a ,!� %l/ /✓ �,,. r,;,i„ /i // �/dG {Y, /% / /i... /% riji� J.:./ � Ul11111�111�J11�11177J1JJJJJ / /�iiai/ I,' ;:,o „ r.., 1 /�� * I, ,,,, ,,;; rti'"zt /Afl� lr;l / //i ,rr I r�..,,w.;� „ „�. , : , ,,, ,,, �r' ::r� � � ✓ ,,,, '� ;, % �, ./ a ,;;,,, /iii r0 ,�,f /,,,�� , //%, r, 1 ,, /, ,,�/ r r r,ir✓ ,t /, / /J� /1 rrr i ,o' n r� :� �/ % /�„ ,,.,, ..,,, , , ;� // ,'�. /., rio 1, %/ /ilrrD r/ oo �✓ / '(('% ,11�j ���... f s ,,, ',;,, ,.,,,,, � / /1r„ /// n .,, ✓r. ,- .;,.,.,,J /// , /i., I ✓iii.. r ,,. ,,1 � , . ,.. / r i /r r ,,. � . / l r v Q / / /�.,,, „ „„ ' �; r/ ��/ "'r r;',,; o. ,r Gi, i l ,�l ;,; )� ✓ r,.•,, ,r„ /” tiI „�IIII r / / //J l� .... /� / / /f.:��„ , ,(r. '. ,' / rr � / /�� /� /„ ,,,;�' ,/� .. ,o� � r / /i, r r •_.(y��' Ij� °, � ,t ��Ec�” "6 ,,,, r,w I %. MEMS,, i ' ;,r, � 1 ,.., � „r � �' /l11J1 1, ����/ � ,e , >; � /�� , � J /,, / rr, ,... ,✓ / / / of , , , , al /ir r� , ,il�'J i. JJ ,��,. > //, n, � �� r % /D�� / /:.. /� r. ����; rl'•r. -r rr; %r �I //r /r e�o�H: P�rars� nrv4 Ex71N',r,�15..� 1W Jr� �l� J �f "'Ul�a��.;: / m __ ___. r .wis /... f fii�ll�.Jd/IIR° I i� // � ��I/ r, . �II'�I /Ji /h I J rflli�� /✓ I •„ ,,., �} fI // � 5„ OY r //q ii ,,J11 �� //� k�� / r// �r' v w iii r �/ t„ u'✓�J „ri. . , , I �¢ (/, �r/ // / 1p /I ( "r ��ii /� j�/ �lao l� %n;• q„ rr a �f ��lllOP FEHRtPEERS 1" = 80' GRAPHIC SCALE DUBLIN 6OULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 3- SIGNING FIGURE 4B fl"l /rll „111,1 //h r „ ; nl�, ,o ,,: /r�H - , / ,.,,,, , �Nllll //�e11 /cl Jr/ rii�. I / �.�, ✓ /r/ '., ,�(il�.'s� , �! . , 7 «0� s�N o .,« al?�.,�r % / /�IIl /l« ,r„ ,r,,, ;', ,,/ r rP t�i mi m '%/ /;« 1;,;,,,,,,, ,,,, U - %�„ ���� rJr // ,r r /; ;%•' >% <.� H �.. � r, ',, fe/111D,, ,,, . „ ,I r, ,- �il(ll+� /`. ' 0 /i m w ; %Ji% // /II ���/ / % / / // -� /,/ �/ / /i/ /io /� /' / / , J / ✓/ ; ,,,, ., ',.. , /ia „yr�nrir�m; , ,,, ,,,.:. �. e ;' ... w z i/ '� // 1q /' // / �� /�« r / /// /, / / � // ✓/ /�- // �� / /��� / /r /� n; "iii , ' — r r r r r a 1 i I r ,�, ,/ / : „ / ,J <.. r, / ... /i ,,,, / /i / /,.. �i a r.. , , r I . !✓,� � /��, / / /i /r > ial6�lulil(,iurGr�rat�Ir4i�Fil. ,,. c,,� 1�1 /���� %�I�(���� / / /(i/�r � / ���r✓ � 6 JII %J 11'u�'� /�� ir(� o, / /// �' // m ,...,. ,.. .,,;' % /'� ��� % / % % %,/ ✓:/ //� -�^"- J'r, / /, i /i,o /.;oil ria r, w , ,,, .,,. ,,, ..; Irarrm � r % /,d.'d r �r f r, / / % % /%l / ✓ /oi / J _ _ / r FEHRtPEERS so 0 80 160 ..... wa� 1” = 80' GRAPHIC SCALE DUBLIN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 3: SIGNING FIGURE 4C DUBLIN BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVE 3: SIGNAGE F E H R PEERS PROPOSED WAYFINDING PLAN TO ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FIGURE 4D Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 12 of 16 corridor is advisable. Opportunities for balancing transit travel time with the road diet, such as queue jump lanes and transit signal priority, may also be considered with this additional study. This study should be completed before Alternative 1 is implemented, given the high costs associated with Alternative 1 and the potential for Alternative 2 to become a Mid -term solution if it is found to be feasible upon further study. In the near -term, the City should consider implementing Alternative 3 — Signage. The City can install wayfinding signs and stripe proposed bicycle facilities on alternative routes in order to provide desirable alternative routes to Dublin Boulevard. With the installation of bicycle signals, the City can sign the existing sidewalk with "BIKES PERMITTED ON SIDEWALK" signs to reinforce the legitimacy of sidewalk riding on Dublin Boulevard in addition to path crossing signs at driveways. Concurrently, the complementary projects proposed with all three alternatives could also move forward to preliminary design and engineering as funding allows. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Considerations Companion Enhancements Shared Use Path • Curb extensions and reduced curb radii Design Signal modifications to provide improve pedestrian signal phasing • 8' shared path for bicyclists and pedestrians • 5' landscaped buffer separating roadway and path Buffered Bicycle Lane • 7' Bicycle Lane In Each Direction • 4' Striped Buffer between Bicycle and Travel Lanes Level of Traffic ✓Lowest Stress ✓ Low Stress Facility Facility Stress for ✓ Good for Many ✓Good for All Ages Bicyclists and Abilities Ages and Abilities Sidewalk Riding & Wayfinding • No change to existing sidewalk dimensions • Reinforce that bicycles are allowed on sidewalk • Limited Change from Existing Ferd Del Rosario June 6, 2013 Page 13 of 16 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Considerations Companion Enhancements Shared Use Path • San Ramon Road improvements Requires Right -of- on SE corner Way Acquisition to require right -of- Accommodate Key way acquisition Sidewalk Widening Considerations Signal Signal Modification modification Necessary to necessary to Introduce Bicycle improve Signals walkability Changes $1,075,900 (no bike signals) Costs $5,091,000 $1,744,000 (with bike signals Phasing/Vision All Phases Mid -Term Buffered Bicycle Sidewalk Riding Lane & Wayfinding • Converts Travel Improves Bicycle Lane to Buffered Safety at Bicycle Lane Intersections • Provides continuous Limited Additional bicycle lanes for Changes almost 5 miles $1,462,000 $1,202,000 Long -Term Vision with Near -Term Near -Term additional Study 1. Costs represents planning -level cost estimates associated with the conceptual designs for each alternative. Costs for each alternative include the companion enhancement treatments. Striping and curb works costs at Village Parkway are assumed under the Village Parkway priority project improvements. Signal modification costs at Village Parkway associated with bicycle signals are included this analysis. APPENDIX A: SIMTRAFFIC RESULTS 100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 I Walnut Creek, CA 94596 I (925) 930 -7100 I Fax (925) 933 -7090 www.fehrandpeers.com NEAR -TERM NO PROJECT 100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 I Walnut Creek, CA 94596 I (925) 930 -7100 I Fax (925) 933 -7090 www.fehrandpeers.com SimTraffic Performance Report 3/26/2013 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 74.9 68.4 22.4 80.1 26.3 13.5 376.8 77.3 19.9 55.4 31.3 13.3 Vehicles Exited 114 249 353 1001 364 254 500 974 865 183 659 83 Hourly Exit Rate 114 249 353 1001 364 254 500 974 865 183 659 83 Input Volume 115 253 342 1064 378 250 575 1030 882 189 660 87 % of Volume 99 98 103 94 96 101 87 95 98 97 100 96 Denied Entry Before 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 80.2 Vehicles Exited 5599 Hourly Exit Rate 5599 Input Volume 5825 % of Volume 96 Denied Entry Before 1 Denied Entry After 0 8: Dublin Boulevard & Reaional Street Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 128.5 42.9 44.5 99.7 39.4 64.4 399.6 379.8 367.9 44.0 51.8 22.1 Vehicles Exited 224 1063 303 111 1252 135 311 55 77 149 74 198 Hourly Exit Rate 224 1063 303 111 1252 135 311 55 77 149 74 198 Input Volume 239 1071 306 115 1274 140 352 65 86 154 71 198 % of Volume 94 99 99 97 98 96 88 85 90 97 104 100 Denied Entry Before 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 5 9 0 0 0 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 87.6 Vehicles Exited 3952 Hourly Exit Rate 3952 Input Volume 4072 % of Volume 97 Denied Entry Before 7 Denied Entry After 47 Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report 3/26/2013 9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Performance by movement 66.9 Vehicles Exited 3469 Hourly Exit Rate 3469 Delay /Veh(s) 120.8 87.2 102.1 57.7 28.0 30.6 98.7 86.7 91.2 30.9 34.6 7.5 Vehicles Exited 126 1169 147 98 1150 37 309 18 286 61 4 64 Hourly Exit Rate 126 1169 147 98 1150 37 309 18 286 61 4 64 Input Volume 120 1186 150 96 1177 40 310 16 285 62 5 61 % of Volume 105 99 98 102 98 93 100 111 100 98 84 105 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 66.9 Vehicles Exited 3469 Hourly Exit Rate 3469 Input Volume 3508 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 87.0 68.1 89.8 100.8 29.0 12.3 111.7 53.2 22.8 68.6 58.4 41.7 Vehicles Exited 213 1190 166 337 850 184 239 195 371 192 131 101 Hourly Exit Rate 213 1190 166 337 850 184 239 195 371 192 131 101 Input Volume 210 1225 172 341 859 177 248 206 353 190 130 109 % of Volume 102 97 97 99 99 104 96 95 105 101 101 93 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 59.0 Vehicles Exited 4169 Hourly Exit Rate 4169 Input Volume 4220 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 9 Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report Page 2 SimTraffic Performance Report 3/26/2013 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 78.9 23.5 26.2 61.1 19.6 11.2 70.5 63.5 4.4 84.7 55.6 20.9 Vehicles Exited 373 973 275 210 1047 329 68 28 9 301 81 239 Hourly Exit Rate 373 973 275 210 1047 329 68 28 9 301 81 239 Input Volume 377 981 280 201 1051 335 66 28 8 307 78 242 % of volume 99 99 98 105 100 98 103 99 112 98 104 99 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 35.2 Vehicles Exited 3933 Hourly Exit Rate 3933 Input Volume 3955 % of volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 2 Total Zone Performance Delay/ Veh (s) 1922.6 Vehicles Exited 670 Hourly Exit Rate 670 Input Volume 21579 % of volume 3 Denied Entry Before 8 Denied Entry After 58 Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report 3/26/2013 Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Directions Served L L T T R R L L L T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 108 120 201 210 132 136 521 553 548 572 248 337 Average Queue (ft) 40 62 107 112 67 74 313 338 358 217 78 327 95th Queue (ft) 81 108 168 180 115 120 561 579 594 496 175 357 Link Distance (ft) 2489 898 898 587 587 587 587 1202 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 24 5 2 0 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 325 325 325 325 350 225 325 Storage Blk Time ( %) 55 0 0 0 2 0 17 Queuing Penalty (veh) 190 0 2 0 4 0 60 Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Directions Served L T T T R R T T T L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 350 2582 2441 2494 232 135 193 184 149 135 144 180 Average Queue (ft) 346 1791 1318 1110 87 56 56 46 24 66 71 88 95th Queue (ft) 371 3204 2682 2571 187 113 185 172 123 119 123 151 Link Distance (ft) 2489 2489 2489 163 163 163 1202 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 24 5 2 11 4 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 325 425 425 350 350 Storage Blk Time ( %) 55 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 190 0 2 0 Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 193 214 69 Average Queue (ft) 101 121 22 95th Queue (ft) 167 184 55 Link Distance (ft) 1202 1202 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1000 Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report 3/26/2013 Intersection: 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Directions Served L T T TR L T T T TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 300 548 507 521 232 273 383 504 629 150 779 115 Average Queue (ft) 254 319 299 331 123 150 203 267 389 148 707 28 95th Queue (ft) 349 523 456 452 220 250 357 442 617 154 881 75 Link Distance (ft) 587 587 587 1226 1226 1226 735 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 1 0 0 44 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 250 250 125 125 Storage Blk Time ( %) 22 3 3 2 1 73 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 78 8 8 5 3 110 6 0 Intersection: 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Directions Served L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 150 351 149 Average Queue (ft) 101 87 83 95th Queue (ft) 163 233 146 Link Distance (ft) 1140 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 125 Storage Blk Time ( %) 10 1 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 26 5 4 Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report Page 5 Queuing and Blocking Report 3/26/2013 Intersection: 9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Directions Served L T T TR L T T TR L T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 273 873 879 889 220 338 347 359 125 506 125 125 Average Queue (ft) 129 400 408 444 90 163 187 199 118 303 79 48 95th Queue (ft) 248 973 982 1005 176 301 319 329 137 503 136 102 Link Distance (ft) 1226 1226 1226 549 549 549 532 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 225 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time ( %) 1 23 1 5 38 0 9 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 31 2 6 118 2 30 Intersection: 9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 94 Average Queue (ft) 33 95th Queue (ft) 74 Link Distance (ft) 232 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report 3/26/2013 Intersection: 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road iii ii o 0 0 r i Directions Served L T T TR L T T T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 250 574 600 583 325 834 600 394 164 200 559 432 Average Queue (ft) 195 405 429 453 295 406 229 191 55 186 320 156 95th Queue (ft) 285 665 665 675 379 825 512 334 126 227 597 310 Link Distance (ft) 549 549 549 1086 1086 1086 535 535 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 6 6 8 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 28 29 36 18 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 300 350 175 Storage Blk Time ( %) 10 21 28 0 0 41 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 35 44 81 0 0 84 8 Intersection: 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road r � � i l Directions Served L L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 160 174 511 Average Queue (ft) 84 118 210 95th Queue (ft) 144 190 434 Link Distance (ft) 1688 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time ( %) 1 2 19 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 6 35 Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report Page 7 Queuing and Blocking Report 3/26/2013 Intersection: 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Directions Served L L T TR L T T T R L T T Maximum Queue (ft) 254 276 555 619 225 461 355 342 154 143 48 67 Average Queue (ft) 145 161 295 359 163 177 111 135 44 59 14 16 95th Queue (ft) 233 253 545 619 246 360 248 247 111 119 40 46 Link Distance (ft) 1086 1086 1086 0 1944 1944 1944 2 303 303 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 6 12 4 5 Zone Summary Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 200 425 150 Storage Blk Time ( %) 0 0 6 2 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 21 3 0 0 0 Intersection: 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Directions Served R L L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 20 237 388 266 150 Average Queue (ft) 1 140 174 89 100 95th Queue (ft) 15 243 357 202 162 Link Distance (ft) 1711 1711 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 225 125 Storage Blk Time ( %) 0 4 8 2 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 12 4 5 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 1169 Near -Term PM No Project SimTraffic Report Page 8 NEAR -TERM WITH PROJECT 100 Pringle Avenue I Suite 600 I Walnut Creek, CA 94596 I (925) 930 -7100 I Fax (925) 933 -7090 www.fehrandpeers.com SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 3/26/2013 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 77.8 108.2 22.5 50.4 30.6 17.6 281.4 57.0 18.5 160.4 31.1 11.8 Vehicles Exited 121 288 409 1050 367 249 584 1136 986 193 710 94 Hourly Exit Rate 104 247 351 900 315 213 501 974 845 165 609 81 Input Volume 115 253 342 1064 377 250 575 1030 882 189 647 87 % of Volume 90 97 103 85 83 85 87 95 96 87 94 93 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 68.9 Vehicles Exited 6187 Hourly Exit Rate 5303 Input Volume 5812 % of Volume 91 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 1 8: Dublin Boulevard & Reaional Street Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 211.2 117.2 117.9 130.3 32.4 35.0 274.9 263.3 215.5 192.8 152.1 120.9 Vehicles Exited 245 1118 321 113 1328 144 324 60 87 145 68 186 Hourly Exit Rate 210 958 275 97 1138 123 278 51 75 124 58 159 Input Volume 239 1071 306 115 1255 140 352 65 86 154 71 198 % of Volume 88 89 90 84 91 88 79 79 87 81 82 80 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 13 55 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 12 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 113.9 Vehicles Exited 4139 Hourly Exit Rate 3548 Input Volume 4053 % of Volume 88 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 109 SimTraffic Report Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 3/26/2013 9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 306.6 249.9 261.8 69.7 25.2 25.0 165.3 157.4 143.4 35.3 28.4 10.3 Vehicles Exited 117 1109 143 93 1187 44 351 20 315 72 6 71 Hourly Exit Rate 100 951 123 80 1017 38 301 17 270 62 5 61 Input Volume 120 1175 150 96 1163 40 310 16 285 62 5 61 % of Volume 84 81 82 83 87 95 97 106 95 100 107 100 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 6 46 6 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 142.2 Vehicles Exited 3528 Hourly Exit Rate 3024 Input Volume 3482 % of Volume 87 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 66 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 110.4 77.3 83.6 315.6 68.7 32.1 196.8 111.1 64.1 152.8 108.0 101.9 Vehicles Exited 196 1164 163 318 868 182 255 215 397 194 134 112 Hourly Exit Rate 168 998 140 273 744 156 219 184 340 166 115 96 Input Volume 210 1206 172 341 859 177 248 206 353 190 130 109 % of Volume 80 83 81 80 87 88 88 90 96 87 88 88 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 5 28 6 2 3 1 6 4 7 2 2 2 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 107.0 Vehicles Exited 4198 Hourly Exit Rate 3598 Input Volume 4202 % of Volume 86 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 68 SimTraffic Report Page 2 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 3/26/2013 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Performance by movement Delay /Veh(s) 216.5 29.5 22.3 119.7 92.0 46.8 890.4 315.8 277.2 135.4 278.4 325.5 Vehicles Exited 356 968 276 211 1161 375 38 26 7 320 72 222 Hourly Exit Rate 305 830 237 181 995 321 33 22 6 274 62 190 Input Volume 377 981 280 201 1051 335 66 28 8 307 78 242 % of volume 81 85 84 90 95 96 49 79 75 89 79 79 Denied Entry Before 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Denied Entry After 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 8 2 15 3 12 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Performance by movement Delay/ Veh (s) 112.0 Vehicles Exited 4032 Hourly Exit Rate 3456 Input Volume 3955 % of volume 87 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 55 Total Zone Performance Delay/ Veh (s) 2310.6 Vehicles Exited 627 Hourly Exit Rate 537 Input Volume 21504 % of volume 2 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 299 SimTraffic Report Page 3 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 3/26/2013 Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Directions Served L L T T R R L L L T R L Maximum Queue (ft) 99 217 312 351 218 130 274 489 515 493 250 337 Average Queue (ft) 40 67 144 146 75 67 205 267 294 200 112 310 95th Queue (ft) 82 142 278 297 166 110 314 443 458 378 235 406 Link Distance (ft) 1750 899 899 169 584 584 584 1209 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 24 1 1 16 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 325 325 325 325 250 350 225 325 Storage Blk Time ( %) 48 0 1 1 0 3 7 5 0 16 Queuing Penalty (veh) 165 0 1 4 0 11 25 13 1 54 Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Directions Served L T T T R R T T T L L T Maximum Queue (ft) 350 1835 1827 1706 286 233 197 201 191 282 279 373 Average Queue (ft) 327 1214 951 610 110 97 77 74 60 119 123 106 95th Queue (ft) 424 2318 2063 1651 220 197 224 217 185 280 287 301 Link Distance (ft) 1750 1750 1750 169 169 169 1209 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 24 1 1 16 8 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 325 425 425 350 350 Storage Blk Time ( %) 48 0 0 3 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 165 0 2 5 7 Intersection: 7: Dublin Boulevard & San Ramon Road Directions Served T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 310 195 90 Average Queue (ft) 93 108 22 95th Queue (ft) 200 173 59 Link Distance (ft) 1209 1209 Upstream Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 1000 Storage Blk Time ( %) Queuing Penalty (veh) SimTraffic Report Page 4 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 3/26/2013 Intersection: 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Directions Served L T TR L T T TR L T R T L Maximum Queue (ft) 300 624 628 253 274 664 632 150 1025 126 150 150 Average Queue (ft) 247 443 453 127 192 277 287 147 906 38 98 114 95th Queue (ft) 360 732 725 241 316 556 542 158 1290 99 188 173 Link Distance (ft) 584 584 544 1226 1226 243 936 112 8 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 0 8 7 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 57 75 54 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 51 45 1 1 250 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 100 250 250 Storage Blk Time ( %) 0 125 125 9 125 Storage Blk Time ( %) 24 17 0 3 3 6 53 73 1 1 31 Queuing Penalty (veh) 127 40 10 10 28 110 4 3 82 Intersection: 8: Dublin Boulevard & Regional Street Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 932 149 Average Queue (ft) 270 63 95th Queue (ft) 838 129 Link Distance (ft) 1152 275 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 4 243 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 125 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 125 Storage Blk Time ( %) 2 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 3 Intersection: 9: Dublin Boulevard & Golden Gate Drive r � OWN Directions Served L T TR L T TR L T R L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 275 1227 1246 243 458 471 125 548 125 125 107 Average Queue (ft) 134 783 782 83 201 196 119 358 82 47 35 95th Queue (ft) 288 1515 1497 178 370 370 137 596 140 99 81 Link Distance (ft) 1226 1226 552 552 544 243 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 11 8 0 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 75 54 0 1 8 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 225 100 100 200 Storage Blk Time ( %) 0 43 0 9 48 0 15 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 53 2 11 145 0 50 0 SimTraffic Report Page 5 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 3/26/2013 Intersection: 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T R L L Maximum Queue (ft) 249 585 609 325 1116 1154 349 200 582 595 157 175 Average Queue (ft) 174 466 473 312 915 766 58 185 400 210 95 116 95th Queue (ft) 286 726 725 399 1419 1326 198 240 704 441 169 201 Link Distance (ft) 552 552 1091 1091 547 547 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 12 11 34 9 17 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 80 75 228 61 61 5 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 300 350 175 150 150 Storage Blk Time ( %) 7 37 67 1 2 0 55 2 10 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 77 289 4 4 0 114 5 25 31 Intersection: 10: Dublin Boulevard & Amador Plaza Road Directions Served TR Maximum Queue (ft) 891 Average Queue (ft) 321 95th Queue (ft) 910 Link Distance (ft) 1700 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time ( %) 19 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 SimTraffic Report Page 6 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 3/26/2013 Intersection: 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Directions Served L T TR L T T R L T T L L Maximum Queue (ft) 300 1065 1052 225 1903 1889 450 171 315 68 249 1438 Average Queue (ft) 280 700 610 158 748 724 115 110 123 16 129 459 95th Queue (ft) 370 1314 1201 272 1873 1826 365 202 339 49 235 1347 Link Distance (ft) 1091 1091 2380 2380 308 308 1729 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 5 0 2 1 19 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 40 1 0 0 5 6 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 275 200 425 150 225 Storage Blk Time ( %) 62 1 3 39 13 0 49 5 0 2 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 303 2 16 78 42 0 7 3 0 4 9 Intersection: 11: Dublin Boulevard & Village Parkway Directions Served T R Maximum Queue (ft) 1431 150 Average Queue (ft) 563 125 95th Queue (ft) 1524 189 Link Distance (ft) 1729 Upstream Blk Time ( %) 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 125 Storage Blk Time ( %) 3 51 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 40 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 2926 SimTraffic Report Page 7