HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.3 Dublin Blvd Traffic Study 6tt1ofDtwa/P
V
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting Date: November 8, 1982
SUBJECT Traffic Study - Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : Dublin Boulevard/Silvergate Drive Study dated 11/4/82;
Plans for each alternative
RECOMMENDATION Receive presentation from Road Department and consider alternatives
(1-4■1A,c
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Undetermined at this time
DESCRIPTION At its meeting of October 25, 1982 the City Council directed Staff
to have the Dublin/Silvergate intersection traffic study on the
agenda for November 8, 1982. The Alameda County Road Department
has identified four alternatives for redesigning the intersection.
A memo identifying each alternative and the advantages and
disadvantages of each is included in the packet. Although the
Road Department is recommending Alternative #2, Staff has no
recommendation at this time because the traffic counts and cost
estimates of each alternative will not be available until Monday.
The Road Department will be present at the City Council meeting
to review each of the alternatives and discuss its recommendation.
1
COPIES TO: Ward Tanneberg
ITEM NO. 5 5 V
November 4, 1982
DUBLIN BOULEVARD - SILVERGATE DRIVE STUDY
Alternative I
Existing with Mr. Burton's proposal
Disadvantages: (i.) Tight alignments for N/B and S/B thru traffic.
(ii) Westerly leg of Dublin Boulevard is not radial to intersec-
tion; tight left turn and visibility for left turn from
westerly leg of Dublin Boulevard.
(iii) Merging of E/B traffic from Dublin and Silvergate.
(iv) Largr
(v) NeDublin
Boulevard on the easterly leg.
Advantages: (i) E/B movement on the westerly leg of Dublin Boulevard does not
have to stop.
Alternative II
Provide a radius of 340' and acquire some right of way from a vacant lot.
Disadvantages: (i) Need R/W from a vacant lot.
(ii) Eliminate parking for a short stretch on Silvergate.
(iii) Bike path on Dublin Boulevard has to stop at Silvergate on the
easterly side or use sidewalk for bike path.
(iv) Need widening on DubhinsPeedmforathrudtraffic (currentvspeede.
(v) Only provide 32 m.p
limits: Silvergate, 25 m.p.h.; Dublin, 35 m.p.h.).
(vi) Traffic on the westerly leg of Dublin Boulevard must stop.
Advantages: i) Improve the alignment
(ii) Westerly leg
(iii) Only one vacant lot is affected in R/W acquisition; R/W cost
about $500.
Alternative III
Provide a radius of 4 lots.
00' and acquire right of way from a vacant lot and one
or two other improved
Disadvantages: (i) Need R/W from one vacant lot and other improved lots; sidewalk
and traffic will be close to these homes.
• (ii) Eliminate parking for a short stretch of Silvergate.
(iii) Unless more R/W is acquired, bike path must stop at Silvergate
on the easterly side.
(iv) Need most widening and improvements.
(v) Traffic on the westerly leg of Dublin Boulevard must stop.
(i) With superelevation of 4%, may achieve a design speed of 35
Advantages: m.p.h.
(ii) Westerly leg of Dublin Boulevard is radial to intersection.
0
Dublin Boulevard - Silvergate Avenue Study Cont. Page 2
Alternative IV
Disadvantages: (i) Alignment of R = 280' is still tight, will provide a design
speed < 30 m.p.h.
(ii) Traffic on westerly leg of Dublin Boulevard has to stop.
(iii), Eliminate parking for a short stretch of Silvergate.
(iv) Unless R/W is acquired, bike path must stop at Silvergate on
easterly side.
Advantages: (i) No R/W is acquired.
(ii) Not very expensive.
(iii) Improve existing alignment to a design speed of nearly 30
m.p.h.
(iv) Westerly leg of Dublin Boulevard is radial to intersection.
TAT#2A27-28
4:) 4:1 November 3, 1982
DUBLIN AND SILVERGATE
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Design Speed ! Continuity of Loss of
Alternative Need R/W for Thru Traffic Cost Bike path on N/side Parking
I
R = 160'± No 23 m.p.h. Least; only No No
striping
Cost
II
R = 340' Yes, from a 32 m.p.h. Affordable No, unless more Yes
vacant lot R/W acquired
III yes, from a 35 m.p.h. Most expens- No, unless more Yes
R = 400' vacant lot and sive R/W acquired
from one or two
improved lots
IV + No 30 m.p.h. Affordable No, unless R/W Yes
R = 280'- is acquired
Present
Design
Recommendation: Alternative II
Cost to redo intersection 200' into each leg = $100,000