HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Dublin Blvd. Traffic Study ` 5qo
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE : April 23 , 1984
SUBJECT: Public Hearing : Dublin Boulevard
Traffic Study
EXHIBITS ATTACHED : ✓1 ) Resolution Recommending Adoption of
Negative Declaration for Dublin
Boulevard Traffic Study
,Jl ) Summary of Recommended Improvements
3 ) Traffic Study
4 ) A strip map depicting improvements
will be displayed at the meeting
RECOMMENDATION: . 1) Hear Staff Presentation
2 ) Open Public Hearing
3 ) Take public testimony
4 ) Close Public Hearing
5 ) Adopt Resolution regarding Negative
Declaration
6 ) Accept traffic study and direct
staff to include recommended traffic
improvements (or as modified) into
the 5 year Capital Improvement
Program for future consideration.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Estimates have not been completed at
this time , but will be included in the review of the 5 year
Capital Improvement Program.
DESCRIPTION: The Dublin Boulevard traffic study has been
undertaken, at the direction of the City Council, as part of
the 1983-84 capital budget to determine deficiencies and
remedies for the existing Dublin Boulevard improvements , as
they are now configured with relation to traffic safety and
capacity.
On March 26 , a study session was noticed and held on this
subject to acquaint the fronting property owners and general
public as to the outcome and recommendations of the study .
A Negative Declaration has been written on this item because
of the recommendation for some minor widenings into private
property for turn lanes and some elimination of direct
access to businesses along the street . It is felt that the
increase in safety and capacity afforded by these
recommended improvements more than mitigates these negative
concerns .
A list of recommended improvements is attached to this
report for your review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. w' � COPIES TO:
RESOLUTION NO. - 84
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--------------------------------------
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR PA 84-019
DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act
( CEQA) , as amended together with the State ' s administrative
guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and City Environmental regulations, requires that
certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that
environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the Dublin Boulevard
Traffic Study was prepared by the Dublin Planning Department ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did review the Negative
Declaration and consider it at a public hearing on April 23 , 1984 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin City
Council finds that :
1 ) 'the project , PA 84-019 will not have any
significant environmental impacts and is
consistent with the information in the
Initial Study;
2 ) the Negative Declaration has been prepared
and processed in accordance with State and
local environmental law and guideline
regulations and that it is adequate and
complete .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of April,
1984
AYES .
NOES .
ABSENT :
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
(� I
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. )
LOCATION: City of Dublin
PROPONENT: Dublin Boulevard from Silvergate to Dougherty Road
DESCRIPTION: The project involves various traffic and safety
improvements along Dublin Boulevard, including
street widening, restriping, signalization, median
work, and other modifications . Improvements are to
be included in the City' s 5 year Capital
Improvement Program.
FINDINGS : The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment .
INITIAL STUDY : The Initial Study is attached with a brief
discussion of the following environmental
components :
MITIGATION MEASURES : None required
PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City
of Dublin Planning Staff, (415 ) 829-4916 .
SIGNATURE: DATE: 4 g`C
Laurence L . Tong,
Planning Director
DP 83-11 4
•r
CITY OF VU51-lt-1 PA No.
i
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sec-)
Based on the project information submitted in Section 1 General Data, the Planning Staff
will use Section 3, Initial Study, to determine whether a Negative Declaration or an
Environmental Impact Report is required.
SECTION 3. INITIAL STUDY ' - - to be completed by the PLANNING STAFF
Name of Project or Applicant:
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING -Description of project site before the project, including
information on: topography; soil stability; plants and animals; historical, cultural and (
scenic aspects; existing structures; and use of structures
�.
Description of surrounding properties, including information on: plants and animals;
historical, cultural, and scenic-aspects; type and intensity of land use--/and scale or b
d velopment.�h Cull-r l - �! te. I_7 d 41/110
r l( Z+CIjE '�'�,c 'z0 (� Sc lJw/ 1701 (Zn�
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS -
Factual explanatriions of all ai w rr except "no" are re-
quired on attached sheets. JE rcr l .'" n( '
• r�.r E
DIpACIS SCaT,>, OF I1N12ACT
NO QUALI= YES UN�C\Cxv�1
10
t 1 . ( 0
� t Ir✓ JE
0110 ] 0
1.0 WATER
1.1 llydrologle Balance Will construction of the project alter the hydro- I
logic balance?
1.2 Ground Water Will the project affect the quality or quantity of j
ground water supplies? '
1.3 Depth to Water Table Will the rote of water w4hdrowol change the depth L/
or gradient of tha water toble?
1.4 Droinoge and Channel Form Will construction impede the natural droinogc pattern VZ
or cause alteration of stream channel form?
1.5 Sedimentation Will construction in an area result in major sediment V-1, I
Influx into adjacent water bodies?
s 1.6 Flooding Will there be risk of loss of life or property due
to flooding?
:T A-5 _
t
UPACTS SCALE OF IMPACT
NO QUALIFIED YES UNrI�G4vN
NO
• ( (
OHEI
of 10
1.7 Wotar Qwlity Does drinking water supply foil to meet state and
federal standards?
Will sewage be inoje3,ately accommc�atcd and 1__' ) ) )
treated?
Will receiving waters fnil to meet local, st..'c and ) )
federal standards?
Will ground water suffer contamination by s-fu:e / )
seepo3s, intrusion of colt or polluted water from V
adjacent water bodies or from another ront.sminatcd ( ) )
oo•sifer? "
• 2.0 AIR . •
2.1 Air Pollution Will there be generorion and dispersior.of pillutonts r /s.wan(ff
• ( ( )
by Project related activities or in prox:r.it, to t!-.e ( )
project which will c-reed slate n:na'i-no a*: ) )
quality standards?
2.2 Wind Alteration Will structure and terrain-impede prevcilirc vein f ) )
now causing channeling along certain r_orri:)-s or I )
Obstruction of wind movements?
3.0 EARTH
Are there potent;
don rs related to:1 - f3il•ures?
3.1 Slope Stability po �' ap'
3.2 Foundation Support Will there be risk to life or property'3c-a�:e of ✓ ) )
excessive deformation of materials?
3.3 Consolidation Will there be risk to life or propert•/lscca,s:e cf ✓ ( )
excessive consoiidotion of foundatinr rnntn•iols?
3.4 Subsidence Is there risk of major ground svbsidr:ncr.nssnciated V-1, ( ) )
with the project? '
3.5 Seismic Activity Is there risk of damage or loss revdritsa frr.m Borth- ( ) )
quo'cc activity?
3.6 Liquefaction Will the project caasn or be.,.xnoscd !n liquefaction ) I )
of soils in slcpes or undar foundations?
3.7 Erod.-biliry Will there be s•_�bstantial loss of sni!e--n !o crn- ( I I
s!ruction practices?
3.8 Permeability Will the permeability of soils ossoc,'arw!svi'h the I I I
project present adversa conditions,elative tc de- I I
velopment of wells? i )
3.9 Lhsique Features Will any unique geological featuresbo domoJed 11__� ( )
or destroyed by project activities?
3.10 Mineral Resources Are there geologic deposits of potential r.,m-ereinl 1 ( )
.'c value close to the project?
) I )
4.0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Are there rare or endon ^red species r_nt?
4.1 Plant and Animal Species 9- W P" '^
Arc there species pre=nt which are po-tic,ilarly I I )
suseeptiole to impact from human oetiviry?
Is there vegetation pr,:s^nt: the !os:of which will ) ) )
deny rood or habitat to important wild:ife species?
Are there nuisance species of plant or niimzls For t/ ) ) )
which conditions will 1.e improved by tFe project?
r 4.2 Vegetative Community Types Are there any unusual populations of pinnts that may ✓ ( )
be of scientific interest?
Are there vegcrotive community types v,hich pro ) ) )
particularly sus cep:iblc to impact f;rm s:umon cc:ivity.
Are th_:c mnjor trees or major vcgrtntion shot will ✓ ( ( )
b_cl-mr5'1y nf!rr.tr'I Fsy the prof^ct? _
{s.rr, the:,,! v:g=:c:i, ,,rnmmuniry tyn-:r•-• sFr.
• of which v;Il deny f"-.4 or ha4itn' In i '^. ''art v:i!d1i 7n ) )
specks, or to a:utistc.stip) num5 of,''��'•r.^.:c:s'-i71:•. .
4.3 Diversity is there subston:inl diversity insM_r:••.r' r r..rmi:y I I I
as rcffgcted in the m'm!se,and type of D!+fit .r ne-i—I ) I )
species present or the thrc dimensinnr.l errt:nq,r..^n: I I )
of plant species present?
( I )
) I I
A e
COMPONENT NT II LnAC`I5 SCATS OF LMPACT
NO QUALIFIED YES IJrffCNCXJN
h10
rx ' I � IF
o l f01
5.0 FACILITIES AND SERVICES I I
5.1 Educotionol Facilities Will projected enrollments adversely affect the ex-
fsting or proposed facilities in terms of spacing fur I !all octivities, Including classrooms, recreational �/ t I I
areas, and staffing needs? J�
Will the project impact tha p•Jpil/teocher ratio so It I I !
as to impede the learning process? I I
Is the school located such that it presents a hardship II
for a portion of the enrollment in terms of travel time, I I
distance, or safety hozards? I I
5.2 Commercial Facilities Will there be an inadequate supply of and access to I ! f
commercial facililies for the project?
5.3 Liquld Waste Disposal Are provisions for se.wge eopociry inadequate for ✓ I I I
the needs of the project without exceeding quality I I
stondards?
Will the project be exposed to nuisances and odors ✓
assaeioted with wastewater treatment plants?
5.4 Solid Waste Disposal Is there inadequate provision for disposal of solid
wastes generated by else project?
5.5 Water Supply Is there inodeguatc quantify or quality of water I I I
supply to meet the needs of thr,project?
5.6 Storm Water Drainage 'Hill storm water droinoge be inadequate to prevent
downstream flooding and to meet Federal State and V ! I I
local standards?
5.7 Police Will tha project's additional population, focilities, / ! I I
or other footures generate an increase in police service V r I I
or create o police ho=ofd? I
1 5.8 Fire Will the project's additional population, facilities, I I
or other features genefote an increase in fire services L// I I I
or create a fire hazard? ! I I
5.9 Recreation Will the project have inadequate facilities to meet V
the recreational needs of the residenh7 I I !
5.10 Cultural Facilities Will cultural facilities be unavailable to the project I I
residents?
6.0 TRANSPORTATION
611 Transportation Facilities Are the traffic demands on adjacent roads currently
at or above capacity? If not, will the traffic gen=
crated by Ilse project cause the adjacent roads to
reach or exceed capacity?
Are the other transportation facilities which serve the /
project inadequate to accommodate the project's �/
travel demands?
6.2 Circulation Conflicts Will design of the pruiect or conditions in the surround- ✓
mg area increase accidents due to circulation conflicts.
6.3 Road Safety and Design Will project residents and users be exposed to increased
accident risks dun to roadway and street design or lock V !
of traffic:controls?
7.0 HEALTH
7.1 Odors Will the project be exposed to or generate any intense ! I !
odors?
7.2 Crowding and Density Will the residents and users be exp-ised to crowding or I !
high density in their physicol livino environment?
7,7 Nuisances Will the project be exposed to or generate factors that
may bo considered as nuisances? !
7.4 Structural Safety Will design and proposed construction techniques foil v/
to meet store and local building codes? ! !
! I I
8.0 NOISE
8.1 Noise Levels Will the project be expos.-rf to rr gcncrote adverse ( ! !
noise levrls?
8.2 Vibrations Will the pr.oicct be exposed to vihrotirns nnnoying to ✓/
m ' ' !
huons? ! !
f _
I -
vt''. IYtli rf1YY)(s�r. IGr 1( 'ICV �3'J ,�, �G'.� .� '`•'1 / �ml/1.0-sCl`� /,' G_.� s�rV.
Coy 'r IMP.F M SCALE OF IMPACr
NO QUALIFIED YES UNrQ�1a�;I
NO
ollolo
IQ I� 15
9.0 CON1MUNITY CHARACTER
9.1 Community Organization Will the project disrupt on existing set of �` I
organizations or groups within trse community?
9.2 Homogeneity and Diversity Will the project change the character of the
community in Icons of distribution or concentration t/ ( ( I
of income, ethnic, housing, or age group?
9.3 Community StoSility and Will the project be nxpos_d to or generate on I {
• Physical Conditions orca of poor stobility onJ physical conditions? I I {
10.0 VISUAL QUALITY I 1 1
10.1 Views Will residents of the surrounding area be adversely
affected by views of or from the project? /
Will the project residents be adversely affected by V/'
I 1
views of or from the surrounding nreo?
10.2 Shadows Will the project be exposed to or generate excessive 1 1
shodows?
11.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL I 1
RESOI.i:CES I I {
11.1 Historic and Cultural Will the project involve the destruction or alter- 1 1 1
I 1 1
Resources at ion of a historic resource?
Will the project result in isolation of o historic ( ( I
resource from its surrounding environment?
Will the project introduce physical, visual, oudible / ( 1
or a!rnospherie elemcrsts thnt ore not in character with V ( I 1
o historic resource or its setting?
11.2 Archoeo!ogicol Sites Will the project involve the destruction or alteration ( (.
and Structures of on orcLiaeologicol resource?
i Will the project result in i»lotion of an archaeological ( ( (
resource?
Wili the project intro-luce physical, visual, audible I 1 1
or atmospheric elements that ore not in character with L
an archaeological resource or its setting? I 1
t t
12.0 ENERGY
12.1 Energy Requirements Are there potential problems w:Ih the supply of V 1 I 1
1 1 1
energy required for tine project?
Will the energy requirements excr.cd the capacity
of t!se s^fvicc utility company?
Will there be o net incroasc in energy used for the ('
project com?•sred to the no project olternative?
12.2 Conservation Measures Does the project planning onrl d:sign foil to include I ( {LIT
avoilab!c energy conzcrvntion meu;urn:? 1 1 I
13.0 LAND USE I 1 {
13.1 Site Hoards Do conditlons of the site, proposed site dcvelopmrnt,
or surrounding area create poten:iolly hozardousSitu- V I 1 1
otions?
13.2 Physical Threat. Will the project or the surrounding at r. create a feeling
of irssecurily and physical threat among the residents
and users? I I I
13.3 Sonitcry Londfill \Vil! !ho project bm exposed to stru,:tvrol dmmngc, / I I 1
noise, air, or virface nrd round wctcr pollution 1./
or other nuivmcc;asssciatcI wirh a sanitary landfill% r
13.4 Vlaterv.oys Will th.2 project offcct on existing -cler..ssy throuSh ( 1 I
filling, dredging, draining, culv._rting, v.l.Ic dis- ✓ I 1
charges, loss of visual quality or oth,:r land u-c I { {
--"-" practices?
• I ( 1
. I I {
Ca%T ANENT IMPACTS SCALE OF LI-2JA "
NO QUALIFIED YES L1�:ni:{xv11
NO
tit to
other Environmental ComponeMr.
C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE QUALI=
I NO M Li�I Y7�1N
(�) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish cr wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or' endangered plant-or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods
or California history cr prehistory?
(2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of ,long-term, environmental
goals?
(3) Does the project have impacts which are individually u
limited but cumulateively considerable? (A project ✓ {b`
may impact on two or more separate resources where
the impact on each resource is'relatively small, but-
where the effect of the total of those impacts on the
��.,, (m, "t _-ill%•C,
environment is significant.)
(4) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adversa effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
D. MITIGATION MEASURES - Discussion of the ways to mitiga'e the significant effects
identified, if any: `
i
E. DETE MINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation:
The City of .Dub(ih ;finds that there will not be any significant effect. The par-
ticular characteristics of this project and the. mitigation ensures incorporated into
the design of the project prorid.: `he `actual basis for the finding. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION sS is_QUIRED.
F-I .. The City of PLAblill 'finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RE°ORT (S REQUIRED**
Signature and date: (Z- _
Name and title:
6C
s
ir
� �
7�M- C--c7**NOTE: Where a project is revised in resccnse to an Initial Study so thc1 poi ,-.:Dial adverse
effects are mitigated to a point where no significant environmental effects would occur, a
revised Initial Study will be prepQred and a Negative Declaration will be require: iis`ead of
DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY
Summary of Recommended Improvements
I Traffic signals and Lighting
A) Add signals at Clark Avenue and at Dublin
Court.
B) Modify existing signals to allow for
additional lanes and intersection
configurations .
C) Interconnect all signals for traffic
progression.
D) Install street lighting in the medians .
II Stripe for 6 lanes between San Ramon Road and Village
Parkway. This will include pavement widening at Crown
Chevrolet to the existing adopted improvement line .
III Medians
A) Close median breaks just east of Amador Plaza
and between Dublin Court and Dougherty Road.
B) Install protected left turn medians with the
two new signal installations .
C ) Install median between Sierra Court and Dublin
Court to restrict access at the most easterly
Dublin Sports Grounds driveway.
D) Relocate the median between Donlon Way and San
Ramon Road and relocate the northerly bike
path behind the sidewalk .
IV Widen the pavement for right-turn lanes westbound at
San Ramon Road, both directions at Regional Street,
southbound on Dougherty Road approaching Dublin
Boulevard and westbound at Village Parkway.
V Widen the pavement and provide sidewalks in those areas
not already widened to the adopted 100 foot right-of-
way .
VI Revise traffic striping in those areas indicated on the
strip map to achieve the recommended study lanes .
VII Remove the traffic island at the northeast corner of
Village Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.
VIII Although not a part of the traffic study, it is
proposed to landscape the medians and sidewalk areas .
I�
r
Dublin Boulevard Traffic Stu' dy:, ,. -. ,
In The = k
City of . Dublin :. ',',, ,* .
-'a
. 3
March 1984
TRANSPORTATION -CONSULTANTS
Walnut Creek • Sacramento '
i
DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY
I
IN THE
CITY OF DUBLIN
By
TJKM Transportation Consultants
675 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite B211
Walnut Creek, California 94596
MARCH 1984
15706
P
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I INTRODUCTION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ...... ... 1
II EXISTING CONDITIONS ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ..... .... 3
Existing Roadway. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . ...... .... 3
Daily Traffic Volumes.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. .. . . . . . ........ . 4
Traffic Accidents ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. ..... .. . 4
Peak Hour Traffic. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . . ...... ... 5
III FUTURE CONDITIONS ... . . . . ... . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . ........ . 7
Land Use... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . ... . . . ..... .... 7
Traffic Projections... . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. .. . . .. ...... . .. 8
f Future Intersection Levels of Service... . . . ..... . . . ...... .. 8
IV RECOMMENDATIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . ...... .. 10
Street Width... . . . . . . . .. . . . .... ..... 1U
Intersection Configuration ... . . . . .... . . . . . ..... . . . ....... .. 10
Access. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . ..... .... 12
Signalization... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. ...... . 13
Dublin Boulevard Extension . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . ...... ... 14
Bus Stops . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. .. ... . . . . ........ 15
Parking. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .. 16
Lighting. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . ...... 16
Improvement Projects and Priorities... .. . . .. . . . .. ......... . 17
I
APPENDIX A Description of Intersection Capacity Analysis
i
TABLES FOLLOWING PAGE
I Dublin Boulevard Plan Line Study Capacity Analysis ... ........ 6
II Land Use and Trip Generation... . . . . .. .. . .. . ... . . . .. . . ........ 7
III Left and Right Turn Lane Storage Lengths.. .... .... . . ......... 12
FIGURES
1 Possible Future Land Use and Traffic Zones. .. . . . . . . . . ........ 7
i
DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY
I INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of Dublin has requested that a
comprehensive traffic study be performed of Dublin Boulevard so that
short term and long term transportation and land use issues could be
addressed. This report constitutes a summary of the study.
The study had several purposes :
1. To define the future street and lane requirements for Dublin
Boulevard within the Dublin City limits . The specific area is
between Dougherty Road and the City 's southwestern boundary, which
is approximately 700 feet west of Silvergate Drive.
2. To resolve traffic access issues along Dublin Boulevard.
3. To determine signalization requirements at intersections along
Dublin Boulevard.
4. To review and determine striping needs on a short term basis .
5. To review and recommend short term and long term lighting needs
along Dublin Boulevard.
6. To define and recommend short term and long term improvement
projects for Dublin Boulevard.
The methodology of the study consisted of determining the existing
traffic conditions along Dublin Boulevard primarily in the form of peak
hour counts , 24 hour counts and existing traffic capacities . The future
land use possible for the study area was analyzed to determine
generalized traffic patterns in thp- future. Capacity analyses of the
-1-
future traffic were conducted and a recommended street system was
determined.
All other issues related to the purpose of the study described above are
also addressed in this report. The study was a cooperative effort with
participation as follows : Land use estimation by the City of Dublin
Planning Director, the Contra Costa County Planning Department and
Ulayney-Dyett Urban and Regional Planners ; traffic projections and
recommendations and report preparation by TJKM Transportation
Consultants ; and preparation of drawings depicting future street
requirements by Santina and Thompson.
i
f
i
I
I
-2-
II EXISTING CONDITIONS
i
Existing Roadway
I
As depicted on the aerial photographs which accompany this report ,
Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Village Parkway is a four-lane
i
roadway with raised medians . Between Village Parkway and Dublin Court ,
it is a four-lane roadway with a center two-way left-turn lane. East of
Dublin Court , it is a four-lane roadway with raised medians . Between
Donlon Way and Hansen Drive, it has two eastbound lanes, one westbound
lane , and a center two-way left-turn lane. West of Hansen Drive, it is
a two-lane undivided roadway. There is a separate bike lane on each
side of Dublin Boulevard west of San Ramon Road.
i
! A six-phase traffic signal exists at the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and San Ramon Road , with split-phasing for Dublin Boulevard
! approaches. For maintenance and operation purposes , this signal is
under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation.
Five - phase signals exist at the intersection of Dublin
! Boulevard/Regional Street and Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive A
six-phase traffic signal exists at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard
and Village Parkway, with split-phasing for Village Parkway approaches .
A four-phase traffic signal exists at the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road. These four traffic signal installations
are under the jurisdiction of the City of Dublin. The Silvergate Drive,
Hansen Drive, Donlon Way, Amador Plaza Road , Clark Avenue, Sierra Court
and Dublin Court intersections are regulated by STOP signs protecting
Dublin Boulevard traffic . A new traffic signal is currently under
construction at Amador Plaza Road . When completed, it will have
five-phase operation .
!
! -3-
i
Daily Traffic Volumes
Daily traffic volumes are a measure of the use of the roadway and are
helpful in determining lane requirements . At the present time, the
daily volume on Dublin Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Dublin Court
is approximately 26,600 vehicles per day ( vpd) . Between Dublin Court
and Clark Avenue , there are between 20,000 and 21 ,000 vpd. Between
Clark Avenue and Village Parkway, there are approximately 24,200 vpd.
Between Village Parkway and Regional Street , there are approximately
19 ,500 vpd. Between Regional Street and San Ramon Road there are
I approximately 24,200 vpd. From San Ramon Road to Silvergate Drive, the
volume gradually decreases from 11,000 to 1,800 vpd. West of Silvergate
iDrive , there are only approximately 300 vpd.
In a generalized sense , maximum traffic capacities for various types of
roadways are as follows :
Two lanes .. . . . . . . .. . . . 15,000 vehicles per day
Four lanes divided ... . 30,000 vehicles per day
Six lanes divided ... . 40,000 vehicles per day
Based on these generalized capacity figures , it can be seen that present
traffic volumes along Dublin Boulevard are less than the maximum
capacities .
Traffic Accidents
i
A review of reported traffic accidents is a means of determining
generalized existing safety problems in a street network. Traffic
accidents frequently occur due to driver error and inattention . In
addition , road and vehicle defects are sometimes factors in the traffic
accident involvement . The 1982 and 1983 summaries of reported traffic
accidents for Dublin Boulevard were reviewed as a part of this study.
In 1982 , 10 vehicle accidents occurred at the Dougherty Road
intersection ; 12 vehicle accidents occurred at the San Ramon Road
-4-
intersection; 9 vehicle accidents occurred at the Regional Street
intersection ; 11 vehicle accidents occurred mid-block between Dougherty
Road and Dublin Court ; and 3 vehicle accidents , 2 of them fatal ,
occurred mid-block between Dublin Court and Sierra Court. None of the
other intersections on Dublin Boulevard had more than 4 accidents in
1982.
In 1983 , 8 vehicle accidents occurred at the Dougherty Road
intersection , including 3 injury accidents ; 11 vehicle accidents
occurred at the San Ramon Road intersection , including 4 injury
accidents; 9 accidents occurred at the Regional Street intersection ,
including 3 pedestrian injury acci dents ; 5 accidents occurred at the
f
Village Parkway intersection, including 1 pedestrian injury accident and
2 other injury accidents ; and 4 accidents occurred mid-block between
i
Dougherty Road and Dublin Court . None of the other intersections on
Dublin Boulevard had more than 5 accidents in 1983.
i
i
The typical traffic accident at these accident concentration locations
was classified as a broadside type. There were a few rearend, sideswipe
and other types of accidents as well . A large percentage of the
accidents that occurred on Dublin Boulevard had a primary collision
factor of either "unsafe speed" or "followed too close".
Access control measures recommended in this report should reduce
accident rates at mid-block locations. Recommended improvements for the
Dougherty Road intersection could provide a safer operational
environment for traffic. Also, the removal of the traffic island
located in the northeast corner of the Village Parkway intersection , as
recommended in the report , could reduce the number of accidents
occurring at the intersection.
Peak Hour Traffic
i
An investigation was made of both a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow
at all intersections along Dublin Boulevard. The purpose of such counts
-5-
i
is to determine lane-by-lane traffic flow, relative traffic flow among
various approaches to an intersection , and overall traffic levels within
an intersection . In most urban areas , including Dublin Boulevard,
intersections are the points of most limited traffic capacity .
Locations between intersections usually do not suffer congestion-related
problems . Peak hour movements at the intersections are also useful in
analyzing the operation of traffic signals.
I
Following the completion of the existing traffic counts during the peak
i hours, the traffic capacity of each intersection was determined. The
{ method of intersection capacity analysis utilized in this study is the
critical lane method in which the volume and capacity of each critical
signal phase at an intersection are eval uated to produce an overall
intersection volume to capacity ratio. Each ratio has a comparable
"level of service" rating which provides a single letter evaluation of
the traffic at the intersection during the evaluated hour. The ratings
vary from Level of Service A (with very good traffic conditions) to
Level of Service F (with very poor traffic conditions) . A complete
description of the capacity analysis is shown in the Appendix A.
The first 2 columns in Table I on the following page list the existing
volume-to-capacity ratios at ten intersections along Dublin Boulevard.
All intersections were evaluated as though they were currently regulated
by traffic signals. Even though this does not exactly simulate existing
field conditions, it provides a relative analysis of all intersections
for comparative purposes . Not surprisingly, the intersection of Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty oad is the
g y poorest intersection during the p.m.
period. During the p.m. peak hour, the intersection is operating at
Level of Service F. The San Ramon intersection also operates at poor
conditions in the evening peak hour during which time Level of Service E
operation exists . Level of Service C exists during the p.m. peak hour
at the intersections of Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway and Dublin
Boulevard/Regional Street. All of the other intersections operate at
Levels of Service A or B throughout the day.
i
-6-
i
I
TABLE I
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN BOULEVARD PLAN LINE STUDY
PEAK HOUR CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Future
Existing Future Mitigated
AM PM PM PM
Dublin Boulevard at
Hansen Drive 0.42 A 0.24 A 0.58 A 0.58 A
� Donlon Way 0.37 A 0.43 A 0.96 E 0.76 C
San Ramon Road 0.82 D 0.96 E 1.39 F 1.09 F
l Regional Street 0.42 A 0.78 C 1.09 F 0.89 D
Golden Gate Drive 0.40 A 0.62 B 0.87 D 0.76 C
Amador Plaza Road 0.37 A 0.56 A 0.90 D 0.84 D
Village Parkway 0.37 A 0.76 C 1.00 E 0.83 D
Sierra Court 0.46 A 0.55 A 0.67 B 0.67 B
Dublin Court 0.31 A 0.44 A 0.61 B 0.61 B
Dougherty Road 0.62 B 1.57 F 1.36 F* 0.87 D
See Appendix A for Level of Service descriptions .
* Improved from existing due to interim intersection modifications
scheduled for 1984.
i
1 -
i
I
i
III FUTURE CONDITIONS
Land Use
In order to determine future traffic volumes on Dublin Boulevard and its
intersections, it was necessary to estimate the possible future land use
development in those currently vacant areas directly and indirectly
affecting traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Table II on the following page
i
lists the possible land use development in the study area . A total of
49 such uses are identified including several proposed residential
i subdivisions . In some cases a variety of land use possibilities exists
for a given area based on allowances within existing general plan and
zoning designations and the practicalities of future development. For
the purposes of this study, the higher traffic generation use was
evaluated. However, in very few cases was the higher traffic producing
use significantly higher than the alternate land use.
It should also be pointed out that under this method of analysis , the
complete accuracy of the prediction for a possible land use is not
essential . Since most of the traffic evaluated is already on the street
and a number of future land use developments are considered , the
relative impact of any one development is not substantial . Note that
the first portion of Table II gives specific details on the possible
development areas , and the final portion gives additional background
information of those developments.
Figure 1 portrays the location of each of the developments and the
residential subdivisions considered in this analysis . In addition ,
Figure 1 shows the 12 traffic zones comprising the study area . The
traffic zones have been established for the ease of distributing and
I
assigning future traffic to the planned street network.
-7-
TABLE II
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS FOR THE DUBLIN PLAN LINE STUDY TJKM
+---------LAND USE DATA--------------- +--DAILY VTE PER---+ -----qDT------+ +--P.-M. PEAK HOUR---+
- -- ----- Units final
ZONE ID No. Description 1000 sf Uts Units Stalls 1000 sf Unit Stall PDT %Disc PDT %qDT Total In Out
----- --- -----------
------------r----M------ar-
---
------------
1-A Tract 4668 85 11 935 935 10 94 62 32
I-B Tract 4802 84 13 924 924 10 92 61 31
1-C Tract 4749 78 11 858 858 10 86 57 29
I-D Tract 4959 40 11 440 440 10 44 29 15
1-E Tract 4011 48 11 528 528 10 53 35 18
1-F Nielsen 261 11 2871 2871 10 287 189 98
1-G Townhouses 129 9 1161 1161 a 93 61 32
1-H Barran 112 9 1008 1008 B 81 53 27
1-I Multi-Family 378 9 3402 3402 8 272 180 93
' 1-J Multi-Family 56 9 504 504 8 40 2' 14
1-K Single Family 42 11 462 462 10 46 30 16
13093 1188 704 404
2 2-A Multi-Family 133 9 1197 1197 8 96 63 33
2-9 Office 66.0 12 792 10 713 20 143 29 114
2-C Office 12.0 12 144 10 130 20 26 5 21
2-D Office 50.0 12 600 10 540 •20 108 22 86
2-E Apartments _ 288 8 2304 2304 8 184 122 63
2-F Commercial 120.0 80 9600 35 6240 15 936 468 468
11123 1493 708 X784
3 3-A Commercial 65.0 50 3250 35 2113 15 317 158 158
3-B Commercial 175.0 50 8750 35 5688 15 853 427 427
3-C BART Station 1250 4 5000 15 4250 IS '638 319 319
3-D Motel 80 10 800 800 15 120 60 60
12850 1928 964 •964
4 4-A Office 37.0 12 444 10 400 20 80 16 64
4-B Off�re 15.0 12 180 10 162 20 32 6 26
4-C Commercial 26.0 50 1300 35 845 15 127 63 63
4-D Commercial 24.5 50 1225 35 796 15 119 60 60
2203 359 146 `213
5 No New Development
6 6-A Multi-Family 121 9 1089 1089 8 87 57 30
6-B Multi-Family 53 9 477 477 8 38 25 13
6-C Single Family 26 11 286 286 10 29 19 10
==1852 154 102 52
7 No New Development
8 8-A Office 20.0 12
Lt. Industrial 20.0 6 120 10 108 20 22 4 240 10 216 20 43 4 35
8-B Office 23.4 12 7
281 10 253 20 10 10
14
Lt. Industrial 12.6 6 76 10 68 20 14 3 ll
8-C Office 68.0 12 816 10 734 20 147 29 118
Lt. Industrial 36.5 6 219 10 197 20 39 8 32
1576 315 663 6252
9 9-A Motel 150 10 1500 1500 15 225 113 313
9-B Office 40.0 12 480 10 432 20 86 17 69
Research 16.3 6 98 10 88 15 13 3 11
i 9-C Office 169.0 12 2028 10 1825 20 365 73 292
3845 690 6205 X484
10 10-A Lt. Mfg 157.0 6 942 10 848 15 127 19 10B
Office 17.0 12 204 10 184 20 37 7 29
10-B Lt. Industrial 78. 12 3 6 470 10 423 20 85 17 68
Office 8.7 104 10 94 20 19 4 15
10-C Lt. Industrial 39.2 6
235 10 211 20 42 8 34
Office 4.4 12 52 10 47 20 9 2 8
10-D Lt. Industrial 107.6 6 645 10 581 20 116 23 93
Office 57.9 12 695 10 626 20 125 25 100
10-E Lt. Industrial 74,5 6 447 10 402 20 Be 16 64
Office 8.3 12 99 10 89 10-F Lt. Industrial 82.4 6 494 10 445 20 18 4 14
I Office 9.2 12 110 10 99 20 c0 1� _ 16
6II4048 767 147 629
11 11-A Single Family 150 11 1650 1650
8 4416 4416 10 165 2 56
552 33
Apartments 8 353 33 129
11-8 Multi-Family 1106 9 9954 9954 8 796 526 271
11-C Townnouses 309
11-D Multi-Family 53 9 2487 2781 8 222 147 76
11-E Multi-Family 42 9 378 378 8 30 2d j0
619656 1605 1060 546
12 12-A Condos 250 9 2250 2250 B 180 119 61
12-9 Townhouse% 27 9 243 243 B 19 13 7
12-C Duple.es 180 ISO a 14 to 5
12-D Single Family 132 20 11 1452 1452 19 145 96 49
64125 6359 •237 122
i ,
V°� ��+ Ike, }<•'•`h A .Fy ,YOrr.�C!�' 4,f�?�'w s
in-
"•tl4;+<0� �'++ �� 'JAN Mrs\n• op^.3 {°*� '�'° ( .:{?:•�':?�
N
mo
t
c
a g
a
•o
RAW
• � sw F 1� >
1'
P a
4
A
r 1 \� �• r 4
e
}
1
r
0
�} ��`' }l.j[•7tr�iiti;:iii�':i
t
}
"n
a
U
� I
� 3
+
\
i F
•':ii{:r:�Bpi;iitii?::i•'i?
1
F+
}n
t
W"
S
S
P° a
e
P�
' 1
°•rr
i• b
°
9 `
h °°
f}`•6 `Fp
1
+
r
\•`' :{•CA W PARKS••.••.•••U.•S.ARMY•.':1��;[�::
•� o Y Ol0
cs p« ,�� �<+.aw'� g••'�O %? !4;' 4M�@�::��_ s� i z:�:iii:i•}ii:y':�'�tii::::�i?'.:•:•::.::::::..•.:..
•�"'r .+�'si sr`0'•P NATlONA a 1p: .,•*-•' r+'<:Y:' 1
J`
a:.
'9
M
1 M
u
Cr } <` �0 ''!�J•a' `!.''::.; HOUSE'::: I
<« \•��',< �; CLUB::
ref µ rr�'� -��:,:r,.;'`:.i .`;lo..: I .........;.•.;
f 6.31° 1 j••":::::.::::�:-:'.:':.
1 C
i�:•::::: :'•::'
.�� i� 6l. J`JA, 'O 14!•A 7 19 O t<•0 .�':• .:.T..::::•::.'.::;.;:;:..:•':.'
1A •
�UFtl ❑
- IB °r\\ <.�''�epcnta. pro,.. 6� rc
.:...:-:::::: •:.:sii::+: :YOUTH
�1� I� _ •R ..•ir` °. .c., 1 .�:CAAlP- �:::::r......, .
CEVTEA
b a_
P'
6
�A-
c "o e
HE
- a -
d I{
O � "°.- o,,..iy _ O \ � , _ _ _ �\ .:.::.:::.:..PARKS:.:.:'.:.:.:�::��:::.:::::'.:•.:::.:::::
`t b
I
I
£ 4n
\I
Q"
n -
�J•
F - -
•c
nR
•C
co
+
nU�
E
If Fl-G]""'u e,,..a,° '.,. '�b °�i §.= e4 s '• 9 .o' ?n.�_ c 111 fii`c �_::.:'t•.
4 8C
I 11 i s .sw•• 'cc ^., �µ h \ N I, r* 8 ':�U.S.•�ARMY•:.::r::{.:::>i;r::i:ii�':�::4
avtpc"rt" •_i'rr«o cP _ � *c,�% .-� � 'i?S':-::�:.'�::i':•:'�': �ci�
I •+'°y I:`'w..o a ° ?IH �4l \ � �+7e'c,`.�w Icr a` p :{:�'i:>i:'i;?:``�i i?;.
IJ X DUBLIN
1K 10
F tj I�A
•.
L .•
3 t -
t$OM
R�
KEY: o
OTraffic Zone
- Number And Boundary
(\ `
IA = Possible Land Use Development(See Text)
i
DUBLIN BOULEVARD TRAFFIC STUDY
POSSIBLE FUTURE LAND USE F I G U R E�4u AND TRAFFIC ZONES 1
Walnut Crook,Cs.
Traffic Projections
E
Future traffic volumes were determined by adding existing traffic to the
traffic resulting from the possible developments described in the
previous section . Various traffic generation rates were used according
to the specific land use considered . The following trip generations
rates were used in this study:
Daily Traffic Generation Rate
�- Land Use Trips per day
Residential
Single family 11 per unit
Town Homes and Condominiums 9 per unit
Apartments 8 per unit
Offices 12 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Commercial
Community Commercial 80 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Regional CorTMnercial 50 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Motel 10 per unit
BART station 4 per parking stall
Light Industrial 6 per 1,000 sq. ft.
For the purposes of this evaluation , land use Area 3C depicted in
Figure 1 was assumed to be a future BART station . Although the station
location has not been formally adopted , it is a logical site currently
being considered in the BART extension studies , and it is included in
this study in order to determine worst case analyses of Dublin Boulevard
traffic conditions.
Future Intersection Levels of Service
Table I , following page 6, indicates the resulting traffic conditions at
10 intersections when the new traffic is added to existing traffic along
Dublin Boulevard. Two different conditions are analyzed. In the first
case , the future traffic is analyzed- on the existing street network
except that a new I-680 interchange with ramps at Village Parkway and
-8-
e
i
i Amador Plaza Road was assumed. In the second case described in the
Table as "future mitigated" with the assumed new interchange , the
recommended widening for the street network is tested and evaluated.
Not surprisingly, when future traffic is added to the existing street
network , most intersections operate at undesirable or unacceptable
traffic conditions during at least the evening peak hour period. In
addition, at many of the intersections, conditions are also unacceptable
in the morning peak period. The obvious conclusion is that some sections
of Dublin Boulevard need to have additional traffic capacity. Specific
recommendations for improved capacity are described in the next section
of the report .
t
-9-
i
IV RECOMMENDATIONS
Street Width
The plans accompanying this report indicate recommended lane patterns
for Dublin Boulevard in the study area. The recommended lane pattern is
as follows : From Donlon Way to San Ramon Road , a four-lane divided
facility is recommended. In this area, pavement exists to accomplish
this . From San Ramon Road to Village Parkway, a six-lane divided
facility is recommended. In most cases , the additional lanes can be
obtained by restriping the existing pavement . However , between Golden
Gate Drive and Amador Plaza Road, there is a 390 foot segment of Dublin
Boulevard which has a pavement width of only 74 feet between curbs which
is not sufficient to accommodate a six-lane divided facility.
Therefore , it is recommended that the pavement of this segment be
widened to have at least an 62 foot width.
I
From Village Parkway to Dublin Court , the lane pattern should remain as
four lanes divided with sections of center two-way left-turn lane. An
eastbound auxiliary lane is recommended between Dublin Court and
Dougherty Road. In addition, various right and left turning lanes and
widening of narrow areas are recommended as described in the following
secti on .
Sidewalks should be provided throughout on both sides of Dublin
Boulevard. Presently, sidewalks are lacking on the north side of Dublin
Boulevard near the Dublin Sports grounds and on the south side near the
Foremost McKesson Research and Development Center.
Intersection Configuration
Following the analysis of specific traffic movements Y P during peak hours
at each of the study area intersections, it is possible to recommend
specific numbers of turning lanes as well as the length of the turn
lanes.
-10-
i
At Donlon Way, the westbound approach should be restriped to retain two
through lanes and one left-turn lane.
i
I
At San Ramon Road , the eastbound approach should be modified by moving
the median and restriped to contain two through lanes, two left-turn
lanes and one right-turn lane . In addition , an additional right-turn
lane for the westbound approach is recommended. These improvements will
necessitate relocating the existing bike lane west of the intersection.
_ At Regional Street , separate right-turn lanes for both eastbound and
westbound approaches are recommended. However, the provision of these
additional right-turn lanes can occur at a later date than the
restriping effort required to provide three through lanes in both
directions on Dublin Boulevard.
At Amador Plaza Road , left-turn lanes for both northbound and southbound
approaches on Amador Plaza Road are recommended and are being striped
with the Amador Plaza Road signal under construction.
At Village Parkway, it is recommended that the eastbound approach be
restriped to contain two left-turn lanes and two through lanes . One
left -turn lane , one right-turn lane , and three through lanes are
recommended for the westbound approach . The traffic island located in
the northeast corner of the intersection should be eliminated for
o traffic safety reasons .
At Clark Avenue , left-turn lanes for both northbound and southbound
approaches on Clark Avenue are recommended.
At Dougherty Road , restriping the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard
to contain two right-turn lanes , one left-turn lane , and one through
lane is recommended. The westbound approach on Dublin Boulevard should
be widened to provide a dual left-turn lane. The northbound approach on
Dougherty Road should be restriped to 'contain a dual left-turn lane, a
through lane , and a through and right-turn combination lane. The
-11-
I
i
southbound approach on Dougherty Road should be restriped to contain a
left -turn lane , a right-turn lane , and three through lanes . The
eastbound left-turn storage capacity on Dublin Boulevard should be
increased.
Table III on the following page describes the recommended length of
right-turn lanes and left-turn lanes for Dublin Boulevard. These
numbers have been derived from the estimated projected future turning
movements at each intersection.
i
Access
At the present time, there are many driveway access points on both sides
of Dublin Boulevard. At some locations, left-turn movements in and out
of driveways are a barrier to safety and capacity. Therefore , left-turn
movements should be prohibited at certain access points.
i
The closing of the median opening west of Amador Plaza Road, serving the
Dublin Cinema, is recommended. The Cinema should obtain an alternative
access point on Amador Plaza Road.
I
The median opening between Dougherty Road and Dublin Court should be
closed. It is recommended that U-turns be allowed in the eastbound
direction at the intersection of Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard.
Also , the left-turn storage capacity of the westbound approach at Dublin
Court should be increased to accommodate the anticipated resulting
volume increase.
A signalized entrance 400 feet west of Sierra Court was required of the
proposed developer of an office complex on a 10-acre site located on the
south side of Dublin Boulevard adjoining the Dublin Sports Grounds.
However, this proposed signalized location is too close to the Sierra
Court intersection , where signalization is currently warranted . If
signals were to be installed at both intersections to properly regulate
traffic flows , specific coordination patterns would have to be applied
-12-
i
i
TABLE III
RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM
LEFT TURN AND RIGHT TURN LANE
STORAGE LENGTHS (FEET)
Eastbound Westbound
L/T R/T L/T R 1
(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet)
Dublin Boulevard at
Hansen Drive - - - -
Donlon Way 50 - 250 -
San Ramon Road 300(2) 400 700(2) 400
Regional Street 300 300 200 150
Golden Gate Drive 150 - 200 -
Amador Plaza Road 200 - 250 -
Village Parkway 250(2) - 150 350
Sierra Court 300 - 150 -
0u'U lin Court 250 - 200 -
Dougherty Road 250 1 Block(2) 150(2) -
I
1
R/T = Right turn lane
L/T = Left turn lane
(2) = 2 lanes, each of recommended length
i
I
i
at the expense of through traffic progression on Dublin Boulevard.
Therefore , an entrance approach on Dublin Boulevard opposite Sierra
Court is recommended for the proposed project site. At the previously
proposed entrance location , no median opening should be provided .
Consequently , only right-turn movements would be permitted. The
developer would need to acquire the right-of-way through the sports
grounds and should make proper arrangements with the Dublin-San Ramon
Services District (DSRSU) .
It is also recommended that left-turn movements be prohibited at the
driveway access point located at the east end of the Dublin sports
grounds parking lot . In order to preclude left-turn movements and
provide safe operation , special channelization should be provided on
Dublin Boulevard to replace the center two-way left-turn lane in front
of the access point.
Signalization
In addition to existing traffic signals along Dublin Boulevard at San
Ramon Road , Regional Street , Golden Gate Drive , Village Parkway and
Dougherty Road , future traffic signals will be needed at , in order of
priority, Amador Plaza Road (now being installed), Sierra Court , Dublin
Court and Clark Avenue . It may not be possible to install the needed
traffic signals in the order of priority. The detailed signal design
requirements at each of the future signals will need to be determined at
the time of the signal installation. Also, it may not be appropriate to
install traffic signals until street improvements in the immediate
i vicinity are made .
In addition to the new signals , it will become very important to
coordinate signals along Dublin Boulevard. This will be especially
important following the installation of signals at Amador Plaza Road.
At that time , the coordination of San Ramon , Regional , Golden Gate,
Amador Plaza , and Village Parkway si gn'al s will be very desirable. In
order to accomplish this, an interconnect system should be considered
-13-
i
along Dublin Boulevard. This will consist of cable within the street
right away connecting each of the signals along the street. In order to
provide overall coordination , connection with the City of Pleasanton
i
traffic signal master should be accomplished . Both the City of
Pleasanton and the City of Dublin have previously discussed such a
concept . The computer master is currently installed at the Pleasanton
City Nall and has been operating since June 1983. It would be possible
to coordinate the signals along Dublin Boulevard following a completion
of detailed arrangements and agreements between the two cities. As
intersections are brought into system operation , it will be necessary to
jrevise and upgrade some of the existing signal controllers.
Dublin Boulevard Extension
An extension of Dublin Boulevard to the east , passing the Sout h er n
Pacific Railroad tracks , has been proposed. The draft General Plan for
the City of Dublin calls for the extension of Dublin Boulevard easterly
from its present terminus at Dougherty Road possibly as far east as the
City of Livermore near the airport.
The purpose of this extension is to provide access to potentially
developable land north of I - 580 and east of Dougherty Road. An
additional purpose of the extension is to provide for property that is
developed to the east not to be totally reliant upon the I-580 freeway
for the east-west access . Finally, the extension of Dublin Boulevard
-.- could serve as a bypass route for I-580 in times of emergencies when the
freeway might have to be closed.
To fulfill all these functions, a roadway having from four to six lanes
and a right of way of approximately 100 to 110 feet would be required.
i
It is stressed that such a roadway would be necessary only upon
development of lands east of the Southern Pacific Railroad in area now
owned by County of Alameda (Santa Rita jail site), or the United States
Government (Camp Parks ) . East of Tassajara Road , the extension of
Dublin Boulevard would pass through privately owned property. Since the
j -14-
i
1
1 '
i roadway would not be needed until development of land which is not
expected in the immediate future, the purpose of planning at this time
is to establish the future alignment of the roadway so that as
development and redevelopment occurs in the area through which the
roadway passes , proper accommodation for the future facility can be
I made.
i
The existing intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road/Scarlett
Court will need to be modified further when the extension is planned in
detai 1 .
i
i
I Bus Stops
I Bus routes along Dublin Boulevard have been and will be an important
element of the transit network serving Dublin . With the restriping of
Dublin Boulevard (between San Ramon Road and Village Parkway) to a
i six-lane divided facility, bus stops and parking spaces along both sides
of that segment would have to be removed.
f
A survey was conducted in February, 1984, on the park-and-ride demand
near existing bus stops along Dublin Boulevard . The survey results
showed that, on a weekday, there was a total of approximately 100 cars
parked near the bus stops by park-and-ride commuters using the BART
express buses. Less than 10 percent of those park-and-ride commuters
used the on-street parking spaces on Dublin Boulevard . The Regional
Street stop, a transfer point , is the most heavily used bus stop on
Dublin Boulevard. Approximately 60 to 80 cars were parked on private
property along Regional Street, on a weekday, by bus commuters . In the
I. proximity of each of the other bus stops , no more than five cars were
I parked by park-and-ride commuters , and none was parked on Dublin
Boulevard. Therefore , the removal of on-street parking stal 1 s is not
expected to affect the park-and-ride commuters significantly.
The City of Dublin is currently considering the establishment of a
transit authority. Specific routes , stops and schedules have not been
-15-
�I
established but may be in the near future. It is recommended that the
i
decision on the final location of any required indented bus stops be
deferred until the transit authority establishes the bus routes.
The existing bus stops situated on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon
Road and Village Parkway should be relocated and be replaced by indented
on-street bus turnouts . Two sets of turnouts should be provided , one
between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive and the other east of
Amador Plaza Road near the Dublin Cinema. The existing locations of the
i Regional Street stops should be abandoned since they are too close to
i the major Dublin Boulevard intersections at Regional Street and San
Ramon Road. The stops recommended between Regional Street and Golden
j Gate Drive would serve as the future transfer point , and therefore
i
should have sufficient storage length to accommodate three buses .
Commuters using the recommended stop near the Dublin Cinema would have
the advantage of using the Cinema ' s excess parking facility during
daytime , if the usage is agreed upon by the Cinema' s owner . As an
alternate , the provision of an interim park and ride lot at the future
Dublin BART station could be considered.
i
Parking
Additional parking spaces should be provided for the Dublin Sports
Grounds. However, no additional on-street parking should be permitted.
i
The development of off-street parking is , therefore , recommended. This
would be the responsibility of the DSRSD.
i
Lighting
The existing lighting system on Dublin Boulevard is inadequate except at
the San Ramon intersection . Additional street lights should be
installed at a spacing of approximately 300 feet along the raised
I
medians. Lighting at all intersections 'should be emphasized.
� -16-
i
f
i
Improvement Projects and Priorities
i P
Extensive funding requirements are necessary to improve Dublin Boulevard
i
to its ultimate recommended width . It is logical to stage the
improvements of Dublin Boulevard so as tb resolve the highest priority
problems first . Areas felt to require attention on a short term basis
include the improvement of the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road
'i
intersection , the restri pi ng and signalization of the Amador Plaza Road
intersection (now under contract) , and the signalization of the Sierra
i Court intersection . Longer term needs include the restriping of Dublin
Boulevard to accommodate six through lanes, signalization and median
modification near Dublin Court , and the improvement of the intersections
i
at Donlon Way, San Ramon Road, Regional Street , Village Parkway and
Clark Avenue.
The most urgent needs at the Dougherty Road intersection consist of
acquiring provisions for an additional eastbound right-turn lane, a
northbound dual left-turn lane , and two northbound through lanes.
Improvement of the Amador Plaza Road intersection is presently
proceeding and is scheduled to be completed in the near future.
Signalization of the intersection at Clark Avenue should be accomplished
concurrently with the provisions of left-turn lanes on the northbound
and southbound approaches . At other locations requiring lane changes
and new signals , both types of improvements should be coordinated.
i
j These projects should be prioritized with other needed improvements in
i
the City of Dublin and incorporated into the updated five year Capital
Improvement Program.
Sidewalks and widening of Dublin Boulevard between Village Parkway and
i
Dougherty should be considered concurrent with development in the area.
I
-17-
i
i
I
n
J
APPENDIX A
- f
i
i
I '
1
L f
I i
I
1
APPENDIX A 1
1
DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
f
TJKM utilizes a method of intersection capacity analysis known variously
as the critical lane method , critical movement summation or by other
�. descriptions. A variation (and derivation) .of the TJKM method, known as
the critical movement analysis , is described in Interim Materials on
Highway Capacity, Transportation Research Circular 212, January i
published by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy ,
of Sciences. The TJKM method is similar to the Planning Applications
1 method of Signalized Intersection Analysis described in Circular .212. i-,,-.1;.
The method sums the volume-to-capacity ratio, of °each:`governing` (or
critical ) signal phase at an intersection to `produce :an overall
intersection vol ume-to-capacity ratio : When the ratio �bf -vol ume :and
capacity reaches unity, . the intersection is "at capacity"',and ,.is ;;
described as operating at Level of Service E and approachi ng' Level -of
Service F conditions. See the table "Levels of Service and Volume to a
Capacity Ratios" for the relationship between the level of - service ' '
rating and vol ume-to-capacity ratio.
A sample calculation is shown on the accompanying 'computer; printout
TJKM Intersection Capacity Analysis . This example .describes_'a
hypothetical intersection of A Street and B Street, `which is * regulated i
by three phase traffic signals. The first phase is '-for southbound . a
traffic only and 'contains three lanes . Right:,turn *movements in the
right lane (189 vehicles) have a smaller per lane volume than in the two
remaining lanes (226 vehicles) . Therefore , the length of the signal
phase is governed by the traffic in the two left lanes. The capacity :of.
Phase 1- is 2,600 vehicles per hour of green, the volume 'is 452 vehicles:
and the resulting volume-to-capacity ratio is 0.174. Phase 2,' .the
northbound movements , . has 2 lanes and a volume-to-capacity ratio •of
0.168. For Phase 3, the westbound through plus right traffic-,cannot , . =.
proceed through the intersection at the same time as the .eastbound ;left
turn movement, even through they are on the same signal phase .
Practically, the left turners and opposing through .traffic alternate as
gaps in traffic allow.. The total Phase 3 capacity requirement is the
sum of the westbound through and right combined , 0 .205 , and -*the
eastbound left, 0.08. The four critical movements are summed, along
with an allowance for yellow time (assumed to be lost time for vehicle
movement) to obtain the overall intersection volume-to-capacity rating.'
In the example , the intersection rating of 0.73 equates to a Level Hof
Service C designation.
The advantages of this type of capacity calculation is ' its direct ,: :. : a
relationship to actual intersection operations and the ease with which
changes in volume or capacity (or both) can be analyzed. In addition, ,
the level of accuracy of this method is comparable to that of ,the }
traffic projection process used to determine future or project traffic
volumes.
' 1
_ _ a
i
LEVELS OF SERVICE AND VOLUME-TO-CAPAC ITY RATIOS
LEVEL
OF
SERVICE DESCRIPTION V/C RATIO
i
A Free flow (relatively) . If signalized , conditions 0.00 - 0.60
are such that no approach .phase is fully utilized
by .traffic and no' vehicle waits through more than
one red indication. . Very slight or no delay.
B Stable flow. If signalized , an occasional approac.h 0.61 . 0.70 j
phase is fully utilized; vehicle platoons are -
formed. This level is suitable operation for .rural
design purposes. Slight delay.
C Stable flow or operation . If signalized , drivers 0.71 0:80 :
occasionally may have to wait through.more .than' one,
red indication . This level is suitable operation
for urban design purposes. Acceptable delay.
D Approaching unstable flow or operation ; queues '0.81 - 0.90 3
develop , but are quickly cleared. Tolerable delay.
E Unstable flow or operation ; the
intersection-has 0.91 1.00
reached ultimate capacity ; this condition is* not
uncommon in peak hours. Congestion and intolerable
delay.
F Forced flow or operation . ... Intersection operates 1.00+
below capacity. Jammed. -
Source : Highway Capacity Manual , HRB Special Report 87
TJKM INIERSEC11ON CAPACITY ANALYSIS MOVEMENT VOL. CAPACITY ADJ. VOL. V/C
--------------------------------------------------
JUHISDICI'ION: TJ)M SAMPLE COUNT NUMBER: I NB HIGHT (R) ( 10 1 1500 I 10 1 .007
INTERSECTION: A STREET 8 D STREET COUNT DATE: 3/14/83 THRU (T) I 484 1 3000 1 484 I .161
CONDIIION: P.M. PEAK HOUR--EXISTING TIME OF COUNT= 4:00-6:00PM LEFT (L) I 10 1 1500 I 10, I .007 _
DATE ANALYZEDt 6/6/83 PEAK HOUR: 4:JO-5:30PM T + R I 494 i 3000 { 494 1 .165
a=a=cas=:zozo==a=:s=c=aa=z=s:==c::=a:= T + L 1 494 1 3000 1 494 I .165
RIGHT THRU LEFT T + R + L i 504 1 3000 I 504 1 .168
189 225 227 ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 I I I - SB RIGHT (R) I 189 1 1375 1 79 ■ 1 .057
1 I I ^ NORTH THRU (T) I 225 1 1500 1 225 1 .15
1 <--- v ---> i LEF1 (L) I 227 1 2600 1 227 1 .087
LEFT 110 --- 1 1 1.1 2.1 1.1 --- 2 RIGHT T + R . 1 0 l 0 I 0 1 0
STREET NAMES T + L I 452 1 2600 1 452 I .174
THRU 623 ---> 2 (N0. OF LANES) 2.1<--- 644 THRU A STREET T + R + L 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 0
--------------------------------------------------
RIGHT 15 --- 1 1.1 2.2 1.1 1 --- 11 LEFT SPLIT PHASE? EB RIGHT (R) 1 15-1 1375 1 0 ■ 1 0
I <--- ^ ---> 1 0 THRU (T) 1 623 1 3300 1 623 1 .189
v I I I v (0=NO.1=YES) LEFT (L) 1 110 1 1375' 1 110 1 .08
I I I T + R 1 01 0 I 0 10
10 484 10 T + L I 0 1 0 I 0 1 0
LEFT THRU RIGHT T + R + L I 0 1 0 I 0 1 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
¢ STREET NAMEt u STREET SPLIT PHASE? 1 WB RIGHT (R) 1 2 1 1500 I 2 1 .001
r_ocsass=axaacsssas...===s======sa THRU (T) I 644 I 3150 1 644 1 .204
1 CRITICAL 1 CAPACITY OF I V/C OF LEFT (L) 1 11 1 . 1375 I 11 1 .008
MOVEMENT I VOLUME I CRITICAL MOVEMENT 1 CRITICAL MOVEMENT T + R I 646 1 3150 . 1 646 1 .205
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- T + L I 0 1 , 0 1 0 1 0
NB RIGHT (R) I d I 0 i 0 T + R + L I 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
THHU (T) I 0 I 0 I 0 --------------------------------------------------
LEFT (L) I ! 0 I 0 I 0
T + R I 0 I 0 1 0 --THRU-- --TURN-- RELATIONSHIP OF
T + L I 0 1 0 1 0 NO. OF NO. OF V/C LOS
T + R,+ L 1 504 1 3000 1 .IE•8 LANES CAP. LANES CAP. .001 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 .605 2
SB RIGHT (R) 1 0 I 0 1 0 .9 . 0 .9 0 .705 3
THRU (T) I 0 1 0 I 0 1 1650 1 1375 .805 4
• LEFT (L) { 0 I 0 1 0 1.1 1500 1.1 1500 .905 5
T + R I 0 1 0 I d 1.9 0 1.9 0 1.01 6
T + L 1 452 1 2600 1 .174 2 3300 2 2475
T + R + L I 0 I 0 1 d - ';2.1 3150. 2600 YELLOW TIME
---------------------------------
-1.2 3000 2.9. -= 0, ADJUSTMENTS
' ED RIGHT (R) 1 0 I 0 1 0. ,2.9 0 = 3 3575 .001 .1
THRU (T) 1 - 0 I 0 :: 1 0 :;. -3 4950 3.1 3700= : :725 .0?
LEFT- (L) I l ,, a 110 _ 1 s... ; 1375 ?+„':F 1 - .08 ;" ..3:1='4800 '?:.N" 999 0 ; '.745'1:.08
-T + R 1 0 I 0 I 0 3.2.4650 .765 .07
T + L 1 0 :_ I 0 rI 0 - 3.9 0
.785 .06
T ♦ R L 1 0 I 0 1:,-.: 0 4 6600 .805; .05
- - - - _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 't 4.1 6450 825 ' .04
WB RIGHT (R) I 0 I 0 1 ' - - 0 - - - - - ,:'4.2 6300 :845 .03
THRU (T) 0 1 . _. 0 4.9- g ::.865 .02
LEFT (L) 1 0 ci 0 1 0 5 8250 ;° ;'':` •.885 '•.01
T + R 1 646 ' - ) 3150 I .205 5:1'8140 .895 0
T + L I 0 I 0 1 0 5.2:7
950 = ?•;9999 0
T + R'+ L {
. ■■.aa=saa=:va iva¢.sa s s=oaaoasao. --(.fit . '" M VOLUME WAS ADJUSTED FOR
VOLUME-10-CAPACITY RATIO FOR THE INTERSECTIONt I '. .63 i ' RIGHT TURNS ON RED.
ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST YELLOW TIMEt " I .10' '
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
rrrr TOTAL VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIOt 1 .73
1JKM / dnp83
34r■ INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICEt