HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdateSTAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
Page 1 of 6
Agenda Item 7.1
DATE:August 16, 2022
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT:Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdatePreparedby:Sai Midididdi,Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The City Council will receive an update on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and will inform future infrastructure and program and policy recommendations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Receive the report on the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update and provide feedback.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:None.
DESCRIPTION:BackgroundThe Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is a critical planning, policy,and implementation document that supports the City’s efforts to improve the safety and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means of transportation and recreation. This Plan updates and replaces the City’s 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Plan assesses existing system conditions through an inventory of existing infrastructure, programs,and policies related to biking and walking, analysis of bicycle level of traffic stress, evaluation of collision data, estimation of bicycle and pedestrian access and demand, and public input. The Plan results in a recommended biking and walking network and a prioritized list of projects to support biking and walking in Dublin.Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdateKey sections and recommendations of the Plan are summarized in the sections below.
154
Page 2 of 6
Community Engagement:The community engagement effort included the following virtual and in-person activities:
Project website and interactive map. The project website can be accessed at https://dublinbikeped.org/. The website provides information about the Plan, including the project timeline, engagement activities, and summaries of technical analyses, along with an interactive map that allows respondents to provide geographic input on key issues and opportunity locations for biking and walking throughout Dublin. Since going live in March 2020, the website received about 1,500 visits and almost 300 unique comments were posted on the map.
Public workshop. A virtual public workshop was held on September 2, 2020, from 6:00-7:00 p.m. There were approximately 45 members of the public in attendance. The meetingincluded a presentation, live polls, and a question-and-answer period. The meeting was recorded and is available online.
Public survey. A public survey was used to collect information from the public about their personal transportation preferences, travel habits, and issues and opportunities related to biking and walking in Dublin. The 17-question survey was distributed in summer 2020 and received almost 200 responses about travel behavior and mode preference, travel to school, challenges, barriers to access and mobility, and priorities for investments related to biking and walking.
In-person events. The project team participated in three in-person events as public health guidance due to the COVID-19 pandemic allowed. Flyers with the public survey link were handed out at the Farmers’ Market on May 27, 2021, and people were rewarded with giveaways for participation. The City partnered with Bike East Bay to hear from trail users at the Alamo Creek Trailhead as a part of the National Bike Month Activities in 2021. Draft network recommendations were shared at the St. Patrick’s Day Festival earlier this year.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. A TAC composed of staff from the cities of Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore, as well as AC Transit, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, BART, Dublin Unified School District, Dublin Police Services, Dublin Fire Services, and Caltrans were engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There were four TAC meetings over the course of the project between spring 2020 and 2022.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meetings. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) BPAC, which serves as Dublin’s local BPAC, was engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There have been five BPAC meetings with the fifth and final meeting held inJuly 2022.PlanVisionThe City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel and connect individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations.
155
Page 3 of 6
PlanGoals
Enhance Safety - Prioritize safety in design and implementation of biking and walking facilities.
Increase Biking and Walking - Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation.
Improve Connectivity - Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities.
Enhance Accessibility - Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities.
Prioritize Investments - Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including supporting programs and operation and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities.Existing Conditionsand NeedsAnalysisThe existing conditions and needs analyses were conducted to set the foundation the policy recommendations and provide the technical analysis to support the development of the prioritization framework and implementation strategy. This analysis covered:
Program and Policy Inventory. The project team reviewed bike- and pedestrian-related programs and policies from relevant planning documents and conducted benchmarking interviews with staff from seven City departments and the Dublin Unified School District to develop an updated inventory of existing programs and policies relevant to biking and walking and identify gaps or needs that could be addressed by the Plan.
Land Use and Demographic Analysis. The project team gathered and summarized land use and demographic data to provide background and context to inform the Plan development, including the demand analysis and prioritization.
Collision Analysis. The project team analyzed reported collision data from the six most recently available years (2014-2019) involving bicyclists and pedestrians. A citywideanalysis was conducted to identify corridors and locations with the highest concentration of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. These corridors are called high injury networks (HINs)(Figure 25, Page 66 and Figure 26, Page 67 in Attachment 1). The collision data was furtheranalyzed to identify any citywide trends based on temporal characteristics, lighting conditions, location characteristics (intersection versus segment), main cause of the collision, age, and gender.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis. The project team analyzed the bicyclist level of traffic stress (LTS) on the City’s existing roadway network (“on-street LTS”) and on the Class I path, or the shared–use path with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians away from the roadway like Iron-Horse Regional Trail, network (“path LTS”). Bicycle LTS methodology considers various roadway characteristics such as the number of vehicle travel lanes, speed of vehicle traffic, and presence and width of a bike facility to measure the stress a bicyclist feels while riding on a given facility. The goal of planning and
156
Page 4 of 6
designing a bicycle network is to enable people of all ages and abilities to feel safe and comfortable riding bicycles throughout the city. These LTS findings are useful for identifying high stress locations where installation of, or upgrades to, bicycle infrastructure would increase bicyclists’ comfort and safety.
Pedestrian Barriers Analysis. Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe crossing opportunities can create barriers to walking by requiring people to go out of their way to avoid the gap or by forcing people to walk in the street and increase exposure to vehicle traffic. The project team identified and mapped existing barriers to a safe and comfortable walking network in Dublin, including major arterials and freeways with high vehicle speeds and volumes, gaps in the sidewalk network, and locations with long crossing distances and limited street connectivity. The barriers analysis was used as one input into the Access and Demand Analysis.
Access and Demand Analysis. The ability of people to walk or bike to key walking and biking destinations was analyzed to estimate existing access to key destinations. The outputs from the land use and demographic analysis, collision analysis, barrier analysis, and bicycle LTS analysis were key inputs to estimate the share of the Dublin population that had comfortable access and could be expected to walk or bike to each activity center. Access to each destination was estimated for existing conditions with the existing networkand with network recommendations to understand the potential effect of Plan implementation on walk and bike mode share.Network RecommendationsPublic feedback and findings from the existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to thenetwork recommendations (Figure 3, Page 17 in the Executive Summary section and Figure 35, Page 80 in Network Recommendations section within Attachment 1), which include:
Corridor Projects. Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways that represented major barriers to biking and walking.
Point Projects.Point projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to biking and walking, including freeway crossings, high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions.Over 50 centerline miles and 54 point project locations were identified to increase low-stress bicycle connectivity and reduce barriers to walking by improving crossings and closing gaps in the network. A complete streets approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, pedestrian-, and transit-supportive investments are considered in each corridor and crossing project. The project recommendations are presented as a package, with concurrent improvements to support all three active and sustainable travel modes. Network recommendations include:
Shared Lane (Class III): 12.4 miles
Bike Lane (Class IIA): 4.0 miles
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB): 17.4 miles
157
Page 5 of 6
Path – Shared use path like Iron Horse Regional trail used by bicycles and pedestrians(Class IA): 7.9 miles
Complete Streets Study
o Upgrade to Separated Facility (Class I or Class IV): 9.2 miles
o Improvements to existing shared use paths adjacent to roadway: 4.9 miles
o Speed Reduction: 1.3 miles
Point Projects
o Interchange projects: 16 locations
o Crossing projects: 5 locations
o Intersection projects: 33 locationsProgram and Policy RecommendationsPublic feedback and findings from the program and policy review and existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to the program and policy recommendations. The recommendations are organized into eight topic areas and supported by specific strategies and actions to guide the work of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement infrastructure recommendations to encourage active transportation in the city.ImplementationStrategyThe project team developed and implemented a prioritization framework, prepared cost estimates, and identified funding sources. The prioritization framework considered factors including safety, social equity, connectivity, and network quality as well as previously identified projects and feasibility of implementation to identify the locations where investments should be prioritized. The infrastructure projects were divided into three tiers, representing:
Tier I Projects.High priority projects with likely funding or implementation sources.
Tier II Projects.High priority projects with no identified funding source.
Tier III Projects.Lower priority investments that support a full low-stress walking, biking, and rolling network across the City.The total cost of all the projects identified in this Plan is approximately $102 million (low cost) to $207 million (high cost). The low-end cost estimates assume implementation of projects by reorganization of the roadway through restriping and minor, quick-build treatments, such ascreating curb extensions using delineators and paint. The high-end cost estimates consider the need to move the curb thereby adding new bicycle facilities, upgrading bicycle facilities, updatingor adding pedestrian crossings, updating pedestrian facilities, adding street trees, redesigning interchange ramps, and adding signage. The cost estimates also include soft costs for Staff time, engineering, design support, construction management, and contingency.Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination offunding sources, including ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the
158
Page 6 of 6
City’s General Fund, developer funds, and State, regional, and federal grants. The Plan identifiespotential funding programs and relevant requirements.BicycleandPedestrianPlan: Supplemental DesignGuidanceThis document (Attachment 2) identifies relevant resources for a variety of design topics relevant to planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It provides specific planning and design recommendations for several key topics relevant to developing Dublin’s biking and walking infrastructure, including bikeway selection and facility design, bicycle facilities through intersections, accessible pedestrian signals, and crosswalk improvements.Next Steps and ScheduleThe draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will be presented to both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Community Services Commission for their feedback in fall 2022. The draft Plan will also go through the environmental clearance process and will be brought back to the City Council for adoption near the end of 2022.
STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The City Council Agenda was posted.
ATTACHMENTS:1) Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan2) Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Supplemental Design Guidance
159
DUBLIN BICYCLE AND DUBLIN BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRIAN PLAN
August 2022
Draft
160
2 City of Dublin2 City of Dublin Draft
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY OF DUBLIN
Melissa Hernandez (Mayor)
Jean Josey (Vice Mayor)
Shawn Kumagai (Councilmember)
Sherry Hu (Councilmember)
Michael McCorriston (Councilmember)
Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation Manager
Sai Midididdi, Project Manager
and Associate Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Laurie Sucgang, Assistant
Public Works Director
Andrew Russell, Public Works Director
Bridget Amaya, Parks & Community
Services Assistant Director
Hazel Wetherford, Economic
Development Director
John Stefanski, Assistant to City Manager
Michael Cass, Principal Planner
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community
Development Director
CONSULTANT TEAM
Kittelson & Associates—Amanda
Leahy, AICP; Laurence Lewis, AICP;
Camilla Dartnell; Mike Alston, RSP
Winter Consulting—Corinne Winter
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chris Stevens, Dublin Unified School District
Kevin Monaghan, Dublin Police Services
Bonnie S. Terra, Alameda
County Fire Department
Lisa Bobadilla, Transportation Division
Manager at City of San Ramon
Cedric Novenario, Senior Traffic
Engineer at City of Pleasanton
Julie Chiu, Associate Civil Engineer
at City of Livermore
Andy Ross, Assistant Planner
at City of Livermore
Christopher Marks, Associate
Transportation Planner at Alameda CTC
Sergio Ruiz, Branch Chief for Active
Transportation at Caltrans
Jake Freedman, East Alameda County
Liaison at Caltrans District 4
Mariana Parreiras, Project Manager at BART
Cyrus Sheik, Senior Transit Planner at
Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority
Chloe Trifilio, CivicSparks Fellow
ALAMEDA CTC BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Matt Turner (Chair), Castro Valley
Kristi Marleau (Vice Chair), Dublin
David Fishbaugh, Fremont
Feliz G. Hill, San Leandro
Jeremy Johansen, San Leandro
Howard Matis, Berkeley
Dave Murtha, Hayward
Chiamaka Ogwuegbu, Oakland
Nick Pilch, Albany
Ben Schweng, Alameda
161
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 Draft
Acknowledgments 2
Glossary 4
Executive Summary 6
1. Introduction 19
2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement 37
3. Walking & Biking in Dublin Today 46
4. Recommended Bicycle &
Pedestrian Networks 79
5. Recommended Programs,
Policies, and Practices 97
6. Implementation Strategy 108
Appendix 124
TABLE OF CONTENTS
162
2014 PLAN. The 2014
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, which is being
replaced by this plan.
ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION. Active
transportation includes personal
mobility devices of all kinds:
bicycles, wheelchairs, scooters,
rollerblades, skateboards,
hoverboards, e-bikes, e-scooters,
motorized wheelchairs, and
more. Emerging technology
and the availability of personal
mobility devices complicate
the definitions of bicycle and
pedestrian. This Plan recognizes
the high degree of overlapping
policy, programmatic, and
infrastructure needs among
active modes and considers
these a part of the bicycling
and walking ecosystem. Where
necessary, the Plan distinguishes
electric mobility such as e-bikes
and e-scooters to meet their
unique requirements and needs.
1 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507.
BICYCLE. A bicycle (or bike)
is a human-powered or motor-
powered, pedal-driven vehicle
with two wheels attached
to a frame. Bicycles can be
categorized in different ways,
including by function, number
of riders, general construction,
gearing, or means of propulsion.
The more common types include
utility or commuter, mountain,
road or racing, touring, hybrid,
cruiser, BMX, and electric. Less
common types include tandem,
low-riders, tall bikes, fixed gear,
folding, cargo, and recumbents.
Unicycles, tricycles, and
quadracycles are often referred
to as bicycles though they are
not strictly bicycles as they have
fewer or more than two wheels.
BICYCLE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS. Bicycle
level of traffic stress (LTS)
is an analysis approach that
quantifies the amount of comfort
and level of stress that people
feel when they bike on certain
streets based on interactions
with other travel modes,
traffic control, and roadway
characteristics. The methodology
was developed in 2012 by the
Mineta Transportation Institute
and San Jose State University.
BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY.
Bicyclist typology was developed
in 2005 in Portland, Oregon
to help understand how people
used bicycles for transportation
and what biking concerns and
needs they had.1 Based on this
research, bicyclists tend to
fall into one of four groups:
(1) Strong and Fearless—
willing to bicycle with limited or
no bicycle-specific infrastructure.
(2) Enthused and Confident—
willing to bicycle if some bicycle-
specific infrastructure is in place.
(3) Interested but Concerned—
willing to bicycle if high-quality
bicycle infrastructure is in place
(4) No Way No How—
unwilling to bicycle even
if high-quality bicycle
infrastructure is in place
COMPLETE STREET.
Complete Streets is an approach
to planning, designing, building,
operating, and maintaining
streets that enables safe access
for all people who need to use
them, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists and transit
riders of all ages and abilities.
https:/smartgrowthamerica.org/
what-are-complete-streets/
COMPLETE STREET
STUDY. A Complete Street
Study is recommended on
constrained corridors with
multiple competing priorities
where Class I or Class IV
facilities were identified as the
suitable facility to provide an
all ages and abilities network.
The Complete Street Study may
GLOSSARY
4 City of Dublin 4 City of Dublin Draft 163
include data collection, analysis,
concept design development,
and engagement and would be
intended to evaluate conditions
for people walking, biking,
taking transit, and driving
along the corridor and assist
decision-makers and the
public in selecting a preferred
alternative for implementation.
CURBSIDE
MANAGEMENT. An
overarching management
program and/or plan to guide
allocation and regulation of the
curbside for optimized mobility
and safety for people using the
curb space. Curb uses and users
include: bicycle infrastructure,
pedestrians and crossing
infrastructure, vehicle storage,
freight and passenger loading,
parklets, food trucks and mobile
vendors, among others.
ELECTRIC BICYCLE. An
electric bicycle has fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of
less than 750 watts. According to
Section 312.5 of the California
Vehicle Code, there are three
classifications of electric bicycles:
(1) A Class 1 electric bicycle,
or low-speed pedal-assisted
electric bicycle, has a motor
that assists only when the
rider is pedaling. That motor
ceases to provide assistance
when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 20 miles per hour.
(2) A Class 2 electric bicycle,
or low-speed throttle-assisted
electric bicycle, has a motor
that can be used to propel the
bicycle exclusively. The motor
is not capable of assisting
when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 20 miles per hour.
(3) A Class 3 electric bicycle,
or speed pedal-assisted electric
bicycle, has a motor that assists
only when the rider is pedaling.
The motor stops assisting
when the bicycle reaches the
speed of 28 miles per hour.
This class of electric bicycles is
equipped with a speedometer.
END-OF-TRIP FACILITIES.
Designated places—like secure
bicycle parking, locker facilities,
and changing rooms—that
encourage bicyclists, joggers, and
walkers to use sustainable modes
to travel instead of driving.
HIGH INJURY NETWORK.
The collection of worst-
performing street segments based
on severity and frequency of
pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
MICROMOBILITY. Any
small, low-speed, human or
electric-powered transportation
device, including bicycles,
scooters, electric-assist
bicycles (e-bikes), electric
scooters (e-scooters), and
other small, lightweight,
wheeled conveyances.
PEDESTRIAN. People who
travel by walking or jogging
and people who use a mobility
assistive device like walkers,
canes, crutches, wheelchairs,
or mobility scooters.
PERSONAL MOBILITY
DEVICE. Various mechanical
means of transportation
including seated and standing
traditional and electric
scooters, skateboards,
powered wheelchairs,
bicycles, and Segways.
ROLLING. Rolling as
a way to get around can
mean many things, like
bicycling, using a wheelchair,
scooting, skateboarding,
among other methods.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 Draft 164
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE NEED FOR A BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
In Dublin, residents and visitors walk and bike for
transportation and recreation. People walking and biking
are vulnerable road users, and the City needs a connected
network of quality infrastructure and amenities to support
safe travel by these sustainable modes. Walking and biking
for transportation improves health and well-being and
provides numerous environmental and economic benefits.
The City of Dublin’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
(Plan) is a critical planning, policy, and implementation
document that supports City efforts to improve safety
and attractiveness of biking and walking as a means
of transportation and recreation. This Plan builds
on, updates, and replaces the 2014 Dublin Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014 Plan) and makes
recommendations for infrastructure, programs, and
policies that support walking and biking in Dublin.
VISION STATEMENT
The City of Dublin is a vibrant
place where walking and biking are
safe, comfortable, and convenient
ways to travel. In Dublin, walking
and biking connects individuals,
inclusive of all ages and abilities,
to local and regional destinations.
6 City of Dublin 6 City of Dublin Draft 165
GOAL 1 GOAL 2 GOAL 3GOAL 3 GOAL 4 GOAL 5GOAL 5
Enhance Safety
Prioritize safety
in design and
implementation
of walking and
biking facilities.
Increase Walking and Biking
Support biking
and walking as
attractive modes of
transportation.
Improve Connectivity
Develop a bicycle and
pedestrian network
that provides well-
connected facilities
for users of all ages
and abilities.
Enhance Accessibility
Utilize principles
of universal design
to make biking and
walking a viable
transportation
option for all,
including people
with disabilities.
Prioritize Investments
Maintain sufficient
funding to provide
for existing and future
bicycle and pedestrian
needs, including
supporting programs
and operation and
maintenance. Leverage
biking and walking
projects to promote
economic activity and
social equity outcomes
among people of all
ages and abilities.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 Draft 166
ORGANIZATION
The Plan document is organized
in the following chapters:
INTRODUCTION —
Outlines the project’s
background, vision, planning
process, timeline, and goals.
COMMUNITY &
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT—
Summarizes the approach
to, and findings from,
community and stakeholder
engagement activities.
WALKING & BIKING IN
DUBLIN TODAY—Maps
and analyzes physical and
socioeconomic conditions
applicable to improving walking
and biking in Dublin. Evaluates
bicycle level of traffic stress,
collision history, high injury
streets, and other barriers
to walking and biking.
RECOMMENDED
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
NETWORK —Summarizes the
approach to developing network
recommendations and presents
the recommended citywide
bicycle and pedestrian network.
RECOMMENDED
PROGRAMS, POLICIES, &
PRACTICES —Summarizes
the approach to developing non-
infrastructure recommendations
and presents the program and
policy recommendations.
IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY—Summarizes the
prioritization framework and
presents a tiered list of projects
for implementation that considers
resource availability and
funding opportunities. Presents
cost estimates and identifies
potential funding sources for
these recommendations.
LOOKING AHEAD —
Recaps key findings from prior
chapters and discusses next
steps for Plan implementation.
TECHNICAL APPENDIX—
Includes bicycle and pedestrian
facility design guidelines
and provides memorandums
documenting technical analysis
and engagement activities.
PROCESS
FALL 2020
Project
Initiation
Baseline Inventory
& Needs Analysis
Public Participation via In Person Events and Workshops
Draft Plan
Final Plan &
Environmental Review
LATE 2021 EARLY 2022 SUMMER 2022
Network Recommendations
& Implementation Plan
8 City of Dublin 8 City of Dublin Draft 167
COMMUNITY &
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
At the outset of the planning
process, a community
engagement plan was created
to outline activities, methods,
and tools that would be used
for public and stakeholder
engagement. Due to the outbreak
of the coronavirus pandemic
and subsequent stay-at-home
orders, the community and
stakeholder engagement effort
included digital outreach.
In-person events were held
when it was safe to do so.
For more, see Chapter 2.
PROJECT WEBSITE
BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
TAC - Technical Advisory Committee
CCC - City Commission and Council
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4
20202020
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4
20212021
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3
20222022
TAC #1
MAR 4, 2020
TAC #2
SEP 15, 2020
TAC #3
JUN 3, 2021
TAC #4
MAR 15, 2022
CCC
AUG-SEP 2022Public
Survey
MAY - SEP 2021
Project
Start
Project
End
BPAC #1
SEP 17, 2020
BPAC #2
MAY 25, 2021
BPAC #3
OCT 21, 2021
BPAC #4
FEB 24, 2022
ST PATRICK’S
DAY POP-UP
MAR 12, 2022
BPAC #5
JUL 21, 2022
Online
Workshop &
FAQ Live
SEP 2, 2020 Farmers’
Market Pop-Up
MAY 25, 2021
Alamo Creek
Trailhead
Pop-Up
MAY 27, 2021
Stakeholder
Meetings
APR–MAY 2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 Draft 168
WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY
DUBLIN DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT
Dublin
Population
61,240
Dublin Population by
Race/Ethnicity
Dublin Population by Age
35%
7%
9%
24%
16%
8%
25-44
UNDER 5
65+
45-65
5-14
15-24
6%
2+ RACES
1.1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
49%
<1%
2%
ASIAN
<1% Hispanic or
Latino/a/x
AMERICAN
INDIAN AND
ALASKA NATIVE
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
OTHER
1.6% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
4%
BLACK/
AFRICAN
AMERICAN
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
39%
WHITE
6.5% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
48%
28%
7%
7%
5%
5%
ASIAN-INDIAN
CHINESE
(EXCEPT
TAIWANESE)
OTHER
ORIGINS
FILIPINO
KOREAN
VIETNAMESE
*rounded
Source: US Census American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2015-2019)
10 City of Dublin 10 City of Dublin Draft 169
23,000
Commute Snapshot
DRIVE ALONE
TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT,
CAR SHARE (E.G.,
GETAROUND, TURO),
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK COMPANY
(E.G., LYFT, UBER),
OR A TAXI
EITHER WALK
OR BIKE
OF HOUSEHOLDS
IN DUBLIN DO NOT
OWN A VEHICLE
DUBLINERS
COMMUTE OUTSIDE
THE CITY FOR WORK
MORE THANCARPOOL
69%
13%
2%
3%
&9%2015-2019 American Community Survey data
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 Draft 170
PROGRAM AND
POLICY NEEDS
• Additional resources,
including staff dedicated
to active transportation.
• Updated design guidance
and standards to incorporate
the innovations and changes
since the 2014 Plan.
• Enhanced coordination
across departments.
• Clearer processes and
stronger policies related
to pedestrian and bicycle
project maintenance, design
review, and implementation.
SAFETY AND
COMFORT
COLLISION ANALYSIS
FINDINGS
• 68 bicycle-involved collisions
over the 6-year period; 3 fatal
and severe injury collisions.
• 81 pedestrian-involved
collisions over the 6-year
period; 12 fatal and
severe injury collisions.
• People 15–24 years old
are overrepresented in
pedestrian and bicycle
collisions. They represent
25% and 18% of pedestrians
and bicyclists involved in
collisions, but make up just
8% of the city’s population
• 62% of the pedestrian
collisions occurred on just
8.4 miles of roadway that
comprise the pedestrian high
injury network (see Figure 25)
• 62% of the bicycle collisions
occurred on just 6.7 miles
of roadway that comprise
the bicycle high injury
network (see Figure 26).
BICYCLE LEVEL OF
STRESS ANALYSIS
• Low-stress on-street
facilities are typically local
residential streets without
dedicated bicycle facilities.
• Arterial streets, such as
Dublin Boulevard, are
typically higher-stress due
to high vehicular speeds,
high traffic volumes, or
multiple travel lanes.
• Sidepaths can be high stress
or low stress, depending on
path width, shoulder width,
and presence of wayfinding.
• Only 37 percent of collectors
and 7 percent of arterials in
Dublin are low stress. Many
businesses and services are
located on or near collectors,
and these desintations can
only be accessed with some
travel along or across the
collectors or arterials.
For more, see Chapter 3.
Figure 1. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification
LOW STRESS
STREETS
HIGH
STRESS
STREETS
Arterial Streets
Collector Streets
Residential Streets
0 30 60 90 120 150
Miles
*Miles do not include paths.
12 City of Dublin 12 City of Dublin Draft 171
WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS
SCHOOLS
Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary,
and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest
estimated walk access with around 36 percent
of students living within a 10-minute walk.
Access points on high-stress streets create a barrier and
reduce the likelihood of students to bike to school.
Figure 2. Bicyclist Typology
Table 18. Pedestrian Typology
Age Typology Walking
Characteristics
Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings
14 to 55
Teenage and Working Age Adults
Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk gaps, unsignalized crossings at major roads, and absence of midblock crossings
Over 55 Aging The limits experienced by young adults and adults and further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings
SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLINSHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN
• Dublin High,
• Frederiksen Elementary,
• Murray Elementary, and
• Wells Middle School.
BART
Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are
within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/
Pleasanton or West Dublin BART stations.
Less than one percent of “interested and concerned”
bicyclists have a low-stress bicycle route to BART.
JOB CENTERS
Access to job centers is limited by the distance
between employment and residential uses.
Job centers are located on high-stress
streets, which currently limit safe and
comfortable bicycle access to these sites.
PARKS
Almost 62 percent of residents live within
a 15-minute walk of a park.
Nearly 42 percent of residents have a low-stress bicycle route to a park.
For more, see Chapter 3.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 Draft 172
NETWORK
RECOMMENDATIONS
BICYCLE FACILITIES
The recommended new facilities
include the following:
Class I: 12.8 miles
Class II: 19.9 miles
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike Lane
Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike Lane
Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Class III: 12.4 miles
Class IV: 9.2 miles
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I FacilityClass II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
For more, see Chapter 4.
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES
The recommended pedestrian
and bicycle networks were
developed in tandem using a
complete street approach. A
suite of pedestrian treatments
is recommended along project
corridors so that when concept
designs are developed, bicycle
and pedestrian improvements
can be planned, designed, and
implemented at the same time.
Pedestrian improvements include:
• consistent sidewalk
• buffers with street trees
and green stormwater
infrastructure
• high-visibility crosswalks
• accessible curb ramps
• curb extensions
• reduced corner radii
• signal improvements
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Intersections and mid-block
locations in the city with
relatively high collision frequency
and severity relative to the rest of
the network have been prioritized
for safety enhancements.
The recommendations for
this Plan include 16 freeway
modernization improvements,
33 intersection improvements,
and 5 crossing improvements.
For more, see Chapter 4.
14 City of Dublin 14 City of Dublin Draft 173
PROGRAM AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Coordination and
Collaboration
Emerging
Technologies
Promotion and
Encouragement
Funding and
Implementation
Supporting
Infrastructure and
Amenities
Operations and
Maintenance
Data Collection
Design
For more, see Chapter 5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 Draft 174
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Table 1. Prioritization Factors and Variables
FACTOR VARIABLE
Safety High-Injury Corridors
Social Equity Youth and Senior Population
Connectivity Demand Analysis
Proximity to Schools
Quality of Service
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Sidewalk Gaps
Major Barriers Freeway Crossings
Consistency with Past Planning
Previously Identified Projects
TIER I Near-Term Project Cost
$21,085,000 -
$27,589,000
TIER II AND TIER IIILong-Term Investment Cost
$80,928,000-
$179,692,000
Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically
been funded through a combination of ballot measure
monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B, BB, and
Measure RR), the City General Fund, the Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, developer-
funded projects, and transportation impact fees,
with some funding from state, regional, and federal
grants. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
signed into law in November 2021, established more
than two dozen competitive grant programs for
infrastructure initiatives. These discretionary grants
and other funding sources are described in Chapter 6.
FUNDING IDENTIFIED IN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (2022-2027)
$1,879,684
for citywide bicycle and pedestrian projects.
$12,147,565
for street resurfacing.
PRIORITIZATION
FACTORS
COST
ESTIMATES
PRIMARY
FUNDING SOURCES
For more, see Chapter 6.
16 City of Dublin 16 City of Dublin Draft 175
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: ConsiderImprovements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Figure 3. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: ConsiderImprovements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also
include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks,
buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure,
high-visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb
extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 Draft 176
21
177
This chapter introduces the
project, including its background
and need, and sets the stage
for the analysis, findings, and
recommendations detailed
in subsequent chapters.
ABOUT THE PLAN
The City of Dublin’s Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan is a
critical planning, policy, and
implementation document
that supports the City’s
efforts to improve the safety
and attractiveness of biking
and walking as a means of
transportation and recreation.
This Plan updates and replaces
the City’s 2014 Plan by
building upon the 2014 Plan’s
goals and recommendations
and by using new guidance
documents. The update
will result in infrastructure
and program and policy
recommendations that support
walking and biking in Dublin.
THE 2014
BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN
MASTER PLAN
The 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, and the following
six goals included in the 2014
Plan, provides a baseline
for the updated Plan.
2014 GOALS
Goal 1: Support bicycling and
walking as practical, healthy,
and convenient alternatives to
automobile use in Dublin.
Goal 2: Implement a well-
connected active transportation
system to attract users of
all ages and abilities.
Goal 3: Incorporate the needs
and concerns of bicyclists and
pedestrians in all transportation
and development projects.
Goal 4: Support infrastructure
investments with targeted
bicycle and pedestrian education,
encouragement, enforcement,
and evaluation programs.
Goal 5: Maximize multi-
modal connections in the
transportation network.
Goal 6: Improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety citywide.
NEW GUIDANCE
Since the 2014 Plan was
adopted, bicycle and pedestrian
planning and design guidance
and standards have evolved to
include innovative treatments
and guidance from local and
national agencies. Best-practice
documents should be considered
when implementing any bicycle
and pedestrian facility. The
latest versions of best-practice
design guides developed by
outside sources should be
1. INTRODUCTION
5. Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Networks
100 City of Dublin
TABLE 5-2 PROPOSED BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Project Name Proposal (Directions) Class Location Existing Conditions Recommendations Length
(miles)
Sierra Court Bicycle Lanes IIA
Sierra Court between
Sierra Lane and Dublin
Boulevard
Existing 50'+ curb-to-curb
distance with limited
parking utilization
Connection between Dougherty
Road/Iron Horse Trail and Civic
Plaza/Alamo Canal Trail 0.12
Sierra Lane Bicycle Lanes IIA
Sierra Lane between
Sierra Court and
Dougherty Road
Existing 50'+ curb-to-curb
distance with limited
parking utilization
Connection between Dougherty
Road/Iron Horse Trail and Civic
Plaza/Alamo Canal Trail
0.3
Silvergate Drive Bicycle Lanes IIA Woodren Court to San
Ramon Road
EB Bicycle Lane not striped;
WB bicycle lane striping
starts in channelized SB
right-turn lane
Proposed Class IIA EB between
Woodren Court and San Ramon
Road remove SB right slip lane
and restripe WB Class IIA Bicycle
Lane
0.06
St. Patrick Way Bicycle Lanes IIA
St. Patrick Way from
Regional Street to Essex
Development and
Golden Gate Drive to
Amador Plaza Road
Extends from Amador
Plaza Road to Golden Gate
Drive only; will be extended
to Regional Street with
West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART development.
Proposed Class IIA in both
directions to support “last mile”
connections to West Dublin
BART-Developer-Built Facility
0.25
Stagecoach Park /
Iron Horse Trail
Connector Shared-Use Path and Bridge I
From Stagecoach Road
along edge of
Stagecoach Park to Iron
Horse Trail
Significant grade issues;
Bridge needed across
Alamo Canal; Crosses land
owned by Southern Pacific.
Proposed Class I in coordination
with proposed Iron Horse Nature
Park. 0.06
Stagecoach Road Bicycle Lanes IIA
Stagecoach Road
between Alcosta
Boulevard and
Stagecoach Park
Low-volume collector
street; existing shoulder
can be re-striped as bicycle
lane.
Proposed Class IIA Bicycle Lanes 0.56
Prepared by:
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Prepared for the:
City of Dublin
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
Adopted by the City Council on Octobe
r
7
,
2
0
1
4
Dublin Existing Bikeways
Figure 4-5
Not to Scale
March 2014
U
U
U
DUBLIN B
L
I580
FA
L
L
O
N
R
D
I68
0
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
R
D
TA
SS
A
J
A
R
A
C
R
E
E
K
TR
A
I
L
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DRVIL
L
A
G
E
P
W
FA
L
L
O
N
R
D
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
IR
O
N
H
O
R
S
E
T
R
A
I
L
ALA
M
O
C
A
N
AL T
R
A
I
L
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
AMAD
O
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
B
L
AR
N
O
L
D
R
D
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
D
R
SIER
R
A C
T
POSI
T
A
N
O
P
W
TAMARACK DR
SIL
V
E
R
G
A
T
E
D
R
ST
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
DAVONA DR
P
E
P
P
E
R
T
R
E
E
R
D
YOR
K
D
R
PEN
N
D
R
MARTINELLI WY
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
S
T
A
R
W
A
R
D
D
R
A
M
A
D
O
R
P
L
A
Z
A
R
D
D
O
N
O
H
U
E
D
R
MAPLE DR
DUBLIN CT
IR
O
N
H
O
R
S
E
P
W
G
O
L
D
E
N
G
A
T
E
D
R
CIVIC
P
Z
GR
A
F
T
O
N
S
T
U Signalized Trail Crossing
Undercrossing
Existing Unsignalized Crossin
g
Crossing with Pedestrian Beac
o
n
Exiting Trail Crossings
Exiting Bikeways
CPath
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle Route
lass I
Class II
Class III
BART
City Limits
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 19 Draft 178
consulted regularly to ensure
information is up to date.
Relevant guidance includes:
• California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (2018)
• Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
Bikeway Selection
Guide (2019)
• FHWA Achieving
Multimodal Networks:
Applying Design
Flexibility and Reducing
Conflicts (2016)
• AC Transit Multimodal
Corridor Design
Guidelines (2019)
• National Association of City
Transportation Officials
(NACTO) Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2014)
• NACTO Transit Street
Design Guide (2016)
• NACTO Urban Street
Stormwater Guide (2016)
Relevant documents and
additional guidance is
presented in the Design
Guide (appendix D).
PROGRESS SINCE
THE 2014 PLAN
Since the 2014 Plan’s adoption,
the City and developers have
built 10.8 miles of the proposed
35.3 miles of bikeways.
They have built 7 of the 25
recommended pedestrian
projects, and 2 more are in
progress. The infrastructure
inventory is presented in
Figure 4. This Plan update
reevaluates recommendations
and carries forward relevant
projects from the 2014 Plan.
RELATIONSHIP TO
OTHER PLANS
Federal, state, and local agencies
develop policies and publish
plans to guide investment and
set transportation priorities.
Understanding how these plans
and policies relate and fit together
helps ensure recommendations
are consistent with and build
on prior planning efforts. This
section describes relevant plans
and policies. Table 2 presents
what aspects of the most relevant
existing policy and planning
documents were used to guide
this Plan’s policies and projects.
FEDERAL POLICIES
USDOT Policy Statement
on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Accommodation Regulations
and Recommendations.
In 2010, the United States
Department of Transportation
(USDOT) issued a policy
directive in support of walking
and bicycling. The policy
encouraged transportation
agencies to go beyond minimum
standards and fully-integrate
active transportation into
projects. As part of the statement,
the USDOT encouraged
agencies to adopt similar policy
statements in support of walking
and bicycling considerations.
Americans with Disabilities
Act—The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III
is legislation enacted in 1990 that
provides thorough civil liberties
protections to individuals with
disabilities with regards to
employment, state and local
government services, and access
to public accommodations,
transportation, and
telecommunications. Title III of
the Act requires places of public
accommodation to be accessible
and usable to all people,
including people with disabilities.
20 City of Dublin Draft 179
INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY
The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan produced a suite of infrastructure recommendations, including the following:
A recommended walking network consisting
of five main improvement types:
83 bikeway
infrastructure
projects, totaling
35.3 miles
Signalized Tassajara Creek trail crossing at Central Parkway.
The 2014 Plan recommended Tassajara Creek crossing
locations at Dublin Boulevard which have not yet been built.
WALKING NETWORK PROJECT TYPES
A recommended bikeway network with
the following intended focus:
CONNECTIONS TO KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS
COMFORT AND LOW LEVEL OF STRESS
CONNECTIONS TO REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
CONNECTIONS TO ADJACENT CITIES
BIKEWAY NETWORK PROJECT TYPES
Class IIA bike lane along Tassajara Road,
which was proposed in the 2014 Plan.
INTERSECTION
CROSSING
TREATMENTS
SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS
ADA
IMPROVEMENTS
SIGNAL
MODIFICATIONS
REMOVE
BARRIERS
Figure 4. Infrastructure Inventory
24 pedestrian infrastructure projects
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 21 Draft 180
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT TYPE PROPOSED BUILT IN PROGRESS
Intersection crossing treatments 12 2 0
Sidewalk improvements 2 0 1
ADA improvements 6 1 0
Signal modifications 4 1 0
Remove Barriers 3 3 1
Wayfinding signage 1 0 0
Total 28 7 2
Pedestrian projects proposed and built, by project type
Bicycle facilities proposed and built, by mileage
Some projects included multiple types and are double or triple counted into all relevant categories.
PROGRESS:
Proposed mixed facilities are listed by their highest proposed class (e.g., Class IIA/IIIA is listed as Class IIA)
8.1 10.8
16.4
10
8
6
4
2
0
Class IIIA Class IIA Class IIB Class I
0.8
4.0 4.8
2.0
9.2
0.8
2.43.3
5.4
2.7
Built To be Built by City To be Built by Developer
Built
To be Built
by City
To be Built
by Developer
22 City of Dublin Draft 181
!m !m!m!m!m
!m
!m
!m
!m!m!m
!m
!m!m !m!m!m!m
!m
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D EN W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
A M A D O R V A L L E Y B L
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
FCI
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SEBILLE
RD
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
1 2 T H S T
TOWER RD
SYRAHDR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
IN S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BL
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Proposed Bikeways, Built
Class I
Class IIA
Class IIB
Proposed Bikeways, Not Built
Class I
Class IIA
Class IIB
Class IIIA
[0 1 Mile
Pedestrian Intersection/Crossing Project
!m Not Built
!m Built
Pedestrian Corridor Projects
Not Built
In Progress
Built
Figure 5. 2014 Plan Proposed Bikeway Facilities
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 23 Draft 182
Table 2. Relevant Plans and Policies
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines
Project Recommendations or Concept Designs
Program Recommendations
STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES
California Green Building Code
Caltrans Toward an Active California (2017)
Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018)
Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2020)
Alameda Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (2019)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021)
MTC Active Transportation Plan
(in progress, anticipated 2022)
East Bay Regional Parks District
Master Plan (2013)
LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES
Local Roadway Safety Plan (in
progress, anticipated 2022)
Americans with Disabilities Act Transition
Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022)
24 City of Dublin Draft 183
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines
Project Recommendations or Concept Designs
Program Recommendations
LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES CONTINUED
Streetscape Master Plan (2009)
Complete Streets Policy (City Council
Resolution 199-12) (2012)
Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor
and Connectivity Studies (2013)
Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2014)
General Plan
Land Use &
Circulation (2014)
Circulation & Scenic
Highways Element
Schools, Public Lands,
& Utilities Element
Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022)
Iron Horse Regional Trail
Feasibility Study (2017)
Traffic Safety Study Update (2018)
Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond (2020)
Downtown Streetscape Master Plan (2020)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 25 Draft 184
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines
Project Recommendations or Concept Designs
Program Recommendations
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (2019)
Specific Plans
Dublin Crossing (2013)
Downtown (2014)
Dublin Village
Historic Area (2014)
Eastern Dublin (2016)
FEDERAL PLANS AND POLICIES
USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle
and Pedestrian Accomodation
Regulations and Recommendations
Americans with Disabilities Act
26 City of Dublin Draft 185
STATE AND REGIONAL
PLANS AND POLICIES
Complete Streets Act of
2008: California’s Complete
Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly
bill 1358) requires all cities to
modify the circulation element
of their general plan to “plan
for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that
meets the needs of all users”
when a substantive revision of
the circulation element occurs.
The law went into effect on
January 1, 2011. The law also
directs the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research to amend
its guidelines for the development
of circulation elements to
aid cities and counties in
meeting the requirements of
the Complete Streets Act.
Senate Bill 375/Assembly
Bill 32: California Assembly
Bill 32 requires greenhouse gas
emissions to be reduced by 28
percent by the year 2020 and
by 50 percent by the year 2050.
Senate Bill 375 provides the
implementation mechanisms for
Assembly Bill 32. Senate Bill 375
requires metropolitan planning
organizations and regional
planning agencies to plan for
these reductions by developing
sustainable community strategies
(SCS), which will be a regional
guide for housing, land uses,
and transportation and will
incorporate the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). A
key component of SCS is the
reduction of automobile trips and
vehicle miles traveled. Planning
for increases in walking,
bicycling, and transit use as
viable alternatives to automobile
travel are important components
of these SCS/RTP plans.
California Green Building
Standards Code: According
to Chapter 8.76 of the City
of Dublin’s Municipal Code,
bicycle parking and support
facilities in both residential and
non-residential development
shall conform to the California
Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen). The CALGreen
Code includes both mandatory
and voluntary measures. For
non-residential buildings, it is
mandatory that both short-term
and long-term bicycle parking is
provided and secure. Generally,
the number of long-term bicycle
parking spaces must be at least 5
percent of the number of vehicle
parking spaces. Schools have
additional requirements so both
students and staff have access
to sufficient bicycle parking.
Caltrans Toward an Active
California (2017): Toward an
Active California is Caltrans’s
first statewide policy and plan to
support bicyclists and pedestrians
through objectives, strategies,
and actions. Toward an Active
California introduces 4 new
objectives, 15 strategies, and 60
actions that are specific to active
transportation and serve as the
basis for Plan implementation.
Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan
(2018): This plan evaluates
bicycle needs on and across the
State transportation network
and identifies priority bicycle
projects. Projects are prioritized
as top tier, mid tier, and low
tier. The following projects are
recommended for Dublin:
FINAL MAY 2017
Plan Oversight
The plan was developed with support
from a Technical Advisory Committee,
that was selected to be broadly repre-
sentative of Caltrans, regional and local
transportation agencies, and partners
in related fields. Committee members
include:
» Representatives of each Caltrans
District
» Representatives of Caltrans Divisions
of Transportation Planning; Design;
Local Assistance; Maintenance;
Traffic Operations; Programming;
Environmental Analysis; Rail and
Mass Transportation; and Research,
Innovation and System Information
» California Highway Patrol
» California Department of Public Health
» California Department of Motor Vehicles
» California Transportation Commission
» California High Speed Rail Authority
» California Office of Traffic Safety
» City of San Luis Obispo
» Southern California Association of
Governments
» Sacramento Regional Transit District
» Rural Counties Task Force
» Nevada County Transportation
Commission
» California Bicycle Coalition
» California Walks
» UC Davis Sustainable Transportation
Center
» Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority
» Federal Transit Administration
Plan oversight was provided by a Policy
Advisory Committee, which included
the:
» Deputy Director of Planning & Modal
Programs
» Deputy Director of Project Delivery
» Deputy Director of Maintenance and
Operations
» Deputy Director of Finance
» Deputy Director of Sustainability
» Deputy Secretary of Housing and
Environment
CALTRANS DISTRICTS
TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA | 4
12
1
2
3
4
5
6 9
8
10
11
7
Ã1
£6
£50
£97
£101
£95
¥80
¥40
¥15¥5
¥10Long
Beach
Bakersfield
Lancaster
Chico
Monterey Salinas
Santa Cruz
San Bernardino
SantaBarbara
Fresno
Eureka
San Jose
Sacramento
San Diego
SanFrancisco
Los Angeles
TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA
| 12
1996
First bicycle signal head
installed in North America
in Davis, CA
2008Deputy Directive 64
released, requiring
complete streets integration
into all agency activities
2010
Smart Mobility Framework released
Complete Streets Implementation Acti
o
n
P
l
a
n
Complete Intersections Guide
1999
AB 1475 authorizes
the statewide Safe
Routes to School
program.
2007
Statewide Safe
Routes to School
program made
permanent
2009
Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program (P
S
I
P
)
launched, identifying and addressing problem
s
with pedestrian safety in California
The increasing rate of biking and
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
h
a
s
m
a
d
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
r
o
a
d
s
s
a
f
e
r
.
However, safety continues to be
a
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
.
BETWEEN 2005 AND 2014, THER
E
W
E
R
E
134,125 bicyclist-involved collisions and 136,618 pedestrian-involved collisions across California. That is an aver
a
g
e
o
f
37 and
bicyclist-involved
38
pedestrian-involvedcollisions per day collisions per dayTHERE WERE
1,351 bicyclist fatalities across California. That is more than 2.5 FATALITIES
PER WEEK
AND THERE WERE
6,874 pedestrian fatalities across
California. That is nearly 2 PEDESTRIANS
KILLED EACH DAY
IN 2014, NEARLY
14ROADWAY
FATALITIES in involved a pedestrian
Note, collision statistics typically exclude colli
s
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
r
a
i
l
s
o
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
25%
10%
SAFETY IS IMPROVINGRelative to the number of trips, bicycle and pedestrian fatalities have declined
PEDESTRIANRITRIAFATALITIEESSDECLINEEDD
BICYCLE E FATALITTIIEEESSSDECLINENEDD 40%
50%
BUT REMAINS A CHALLENGE
Bicycle and pedestrian fatalities an
d
s
e
r
i
o
u
s
injuries are an increasing share of the
t
o
t
a
l
ROAD
FATALITIES
DECLINED
PEDESTRIAN
FATALITIES
STAYED THE
SAME
BICYCLE E FATALITTIIEEESSSINCREAASSEEDDD
Data from SWITRS, 2005-2014,California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and National Household Travel Survey 200
0
-
2
0
0
2
&
2
0
1
0
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 27 Draft 186
• Top Tier Project: Santa Rita
Road and I-580 interchange
reconstruction (ramps
only); Class IIB facility
• Mid Tier Project:
Tassajara Creek and I-580
new separated crossing;
Alcosta Boulevard and
I-680 minor interchange
improvements (signage and
striping); Class II facility
• Low Tier Project: Demarcus
Boulevard and I-580 new
separated crossing
Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian
Plan (2020): This plan identifies
and prioritizes pedestrian needs
along and across the State
Highway System to inform future
investments. The plan’s main
output is a prioritized list and
map of location-based pedestrian
needs and a toolkit with
strategies to address those needs.
Alameda Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (2019):
The 2019 Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (CATP)
updates and combines the
Countywide Bicycle Plan and the
Countywide Pedestrian Plan. The
CATP analyzes low-stress bike
networks, identifies a countywide
high injury pedestrian and bicycle
network, evaluates major barriers
to the bicycle and pedestrian
network, and establishes a
framework for prioritizing
projects of countywide
significance to inform
decision-making about active
transportation funding at the
Alameda County Transportation
Commission. At the local level,
the CATP provides resources
to member agencies to help
advance projects that provide
complete, safe, and connected
networks for biking and walking,
including better connections to
the regional transit network.
Connectivity analysis presented
in the CATP indicate that
the east planning area, which
includes the City of Dublin,
generally has poor low-stress
connectivity in the rural and
outlying suburban areas and in
the business park portions of
Dublin and Pleasanton. Based
on the high-injury network
analysis completed in the
CATP, the combined bicycle
and pedestrian high-injury
network miles represent less
than one percent of the total
countywide high-injury network.
In the east planning area, Dublin
Boulevard from Arnold Road
to Hacienda Drive and Village
Parkway from Davona Drive
to Tamarack Drive have the
highest bicycle collision severity
scores. Dublin Boulevard was
identified as the street with the
most miles on the pedestrian
high-injury network.
The 2020 Countywide
Transportation Plan (2020):
The 2020 Countywide
Transportation Plan (2020
CTP) was adopted along
with the Community-Based
Transportation Plan and the
New Mobility Roadmap. The
2020 CTP covers transportation
projects, policies, and programs
out to the year 2050 for Alameda
County. The Community-
Based Transportation Plan is
an assessment of transportation
needs in the county’s low-income
communities and communities
of color with a focus on input
collected via community
engagement activities. The New
Mobility Roadmap provides a
foundation for agency policy,
advocacy, and funding decisions
to advance new mobility
technologies and services for
the Alameda CTC and partner
agencies, as well as the private
sector. The 2020 CTP 10-year
priority project list includes the
following projects in the City
of Dublin: Iron Horse Trail
Crossing at Dublin Boulevard,
Downtown Dublin Streetscape
Plan Implementation, Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station Active
Access Improvements, Safe
Routes to School Improvements,
Interchange modernizations at
I-580/I-680, I-580/Fallon/El
Charro, and I-580/Hacienda,
widening of Dougherty
Road, Dublin Boulevard,
and Tassajara Road and the
extension of Dublin Boulevard
North Canyons Parkway. To
28 City of Dublin Draft 187
Bay Area Metro Center – 375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105ABAG – Suite 700 – 415.820.6700 – info@bayareametro.gov – abag.ca.govMTC – Suite 800 – 415.778.6700 – info@bayareametro.gov – mtc.ca.gov
For moreinformation visit usat planbayarea.org.
October 21, 2021
Adopted
FINAL
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
R
E
P
O
R
T
DISTR
I
C
T4
FOR THE BAY AREAPEDESTRIAN PLAN2021
DISTRICT 4
MESSAGE FROM THE DISTR
I
C
T
4
D
I
R
E
C
T
O
R
I am pleased to present the Caltran
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Plan for the San Francisco Bay Are
a
.
T
h
i
s
P
l
a
n
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
s
t
h
e
2017 State Bicycle and Pedestrian
P
l
a
n
,
Toward an Active
California, which established statewide polic
i
e
s
,
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
and actions to advance active tra
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
safety, mobility, preservation, and eq
u
i
t
y
.
I
t
a
l
s
o
b
u
i
l
d
s
o
n
t
h
e
success and ongoing implementatio
n
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
1
8
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
4
Bike Plan.
The Caltrans Bay Area team is alread
y
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
incorporate pedestrian elements
i
n
t
o
o
u
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
a
n
d
embracing a complete streets appro
a
c
h
t
o
o
u
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
project development, operation, and
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
This plan provides valuable guidanc
e
b
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
a
n
d
prioritizing needs informed by our d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
u
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
agency and community partners.
The Pedestrian Plan will guide Caltran
s
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
to support walking and connect peop
l
e
w
i
t
h
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
while seeking to reconnect previous
l
y
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
Collaboratively working with our par
t
n
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
l
o
c
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
agencies, community organizations,
a
n
d
a
d
v
o
c
a
c
y
g
r
o
u
p
s
i
s
central to the development of this p
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
t
o
i
t
s
implementation. I would like to ackn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
t
h
a
n
k
a
l
l
w
h
o
participated in this process, with a spec
i
a
l
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
important role and contribution of the P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
P
l
a
n
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
Group in guiding the development of t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
We look forward to working with our lo
c
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
and communities on implementing the
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
P
l
a
n
.
Dina A. El-Tawansy
District Director
District 4 – Bay Area
WHERE IS CALTRANS
DISTRICT 4?
District 4 covers the Bay Area,
which includes the counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.
District 4 Director,
Dina A. El-Tawansy
SR 1 at Tam Junction. Photo by Sergio Ru
i
z
.
4 CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 / Pedestrian Plan for the Bay Area
/ SUMMARY REPORT
Plan Bay Area 2
0
5
0
In summer 2020, M
T
C
a
n
d
A
B
A
G
h
e
l
d
2
4
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
i
r
feedback via online
s
u
r
v
e
y
,
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
“
c
o
f
f
e
e
c
h
a
t
s
,
”
e
m
a
i
l
,
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
,
a
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
v
a
l
i
d
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
p
o
l
l
a
n
d
an online tribal sum
m
i
t
.
O
v
e
r
1
7
8
,
0
0
0
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
8
,
2
0
0
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
P
l
a
n
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
2
0
5
0
“wrapped up” its en
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
i
n
s
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
2
1
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
P
l
a
n
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
2
0
5
0
a
n
d
t
h
e
completion of the t
h
i
r
d
r
o
u
n
d
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
.
Photo: Peter Beele
r
2 3 4 ,00 0 +2 3 ,00 0 +TWO-THIRDS
OF EVENTS AND A
C
T
I
V
I
T
I
E
S
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
during Horizon an
d
Plan Bay Area 205
0
PARTICIPANTS IN
THE PLANNING
PROCESS
TARGETED TO
EQUITY PRIORITY
COMMUNITIES
AND OTHER
UNDERSERVED
GROUPS
450+
PUBLIC AND
STAKEHOLDER
EVENTS AND
ACTIVITIES
including in-pers
o
n
a
n
d
virtual workshop
s
,
p
o
p
-
u
p
events, and board
a
n
d
working group me
e
t
i
n
g
s
,
among others
19
complement these projects,
the 10-Year Priority Projects
and Programs, the 2020 CTP
includes a series of Strategies
that reflect guiding principles,
industry best practices,
and a gaps analysis of areas
that aren’t fully covered by
projects: safe system approach,
complete corridors approach,
partnerships to address
regional and megaregional
issues, transit accessibility
and transportation demand
management, and new mobility
and an automated, low-
emission and shared future.
MTC Plan Bay Area
2050 (2021): This plan
from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission
(MTC) is the region’s long-
range strategic plan. It is
focused on the interrelated
elements of housing, the
economy, transportation,
and the environment.
MTC Active Transportation
Plan (in progress,
anticipated 2022): This
forthcoming plan will guide
investments in infrastructure
and the development and
implementation of regional
policy. The plan supports the
Plan Bay Area 2050 strategy
to build a complete streets
network and helps to meet
goals to improve safety,
equity, health, resilience,
and climate change.
East Bay Regional Parks
District Master Plan (2013):
This policy document guides
future development of
parks, trails, and services.
LOCAL CITY PLANS
AND POLICIES
Streetscape Master Plan
(2009): This master plan
maximizes opportunities to
craft an urban image unique
to Dublin and opportunities
to maintain existing amenities
like street trees. Among
other goals, the plan aims to
coordinate improvements and
responsibilities for Dublin’s
streets and to strengthening
Dublin Boulevard’s streetscape.
In the context of active
transportation, this plan
is a valuable resource for
identifying and implementing
street improvements that
contribute to Dublin’s image.
Complete Streets Policy
(City Council Resolution
No. 199-12) (2012): The
City of Dublin’s Complete
Streets Policy identifies
complete streets planning
as a critical contributor to:
• Increase walking, biking,
and taking transit
• Reduce vehicle
miles traveled
• Meet greenhouse gas
reduction goals
Together, these targets aim
to benefit public health.
The policy emphasizes
community engagement,
sensitivity to land use and
context, and coordination
with nearby jurisdictions to
connect infrastructure across
city boundaries. The policy
names several improvements
that should be considered to
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 29 Draft 188
benefit all users of the street,
including sidewalks, shared use
paths, bike lanes and routes,
and accessible curb ramps.
Dublin Boulevard Bikeway
Corridor and Connectivity
Studies (2013): Completed in
2013, these two studies evaluated
options for improving bicycling
conditions on Dublin Boulevard,
particularly in Downtown
Dublin. A traffic analysis
determined that removing a
vehicle travel lane on Dublin
Boulevard would delay transit
service and worsen traffic during
peak periods. Community
members and local business
owners expressed concern that
this change would be a barrier
to visiting Downtown Dublin
by car. Ultimately, a shared-use
path running alongside Dublin
Boulevard and connecting to the
Alamo Canal Trail became the
long-term vision for bicycling
in Dublin. In the interim, the
City added sharrows (a Class III
facility) to Dublin Boulevard
between Dublin Court and
Tassajara Road and permitted
riding on sidewalks to make
bicycling a more comfortable
experience for all skill levels.
Pedestrian Safety Assessment
(2014): The University of
California, Berkeley Institute
of Transportation Studies
Technology Transfer Program
prepared this assessment for
the City of Dublin in 2014. The
assessment authors compared
different types of collisions that
occurred in Dublin with other
cities in California and found
that Dublin has a relatively high
number of collisions involving
pedestrians—particularly
young and old pedestrians—
and collisions involving high
vehicle speeds. Opportunities to
improve walking conditions in
Dublin include traffic calming
programs, transportation
demand management policies
and programs, and coordination
with health agencies. This
assessment also included
specific areas of Dublin where
improvements could benefit
pedestrian conditions. The
updated bicycle and pedestrian
plan reviewed these key areas.
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan (2014): Adopted
in 2014, Dublin’s 2014 Plan
established key goals and policies
to maintain and improve biking
and walking infrastructure.
The plan’s goals and policies
support its vision for Dublin.
The 2014 Plan inventoried
the bicycle and pedestrian
network and documented
potential improvements to
specific facilities. The plan
organized infrastructure projects
at key locations into four
tiers by priority and intended
to actualize the proposed
biking and walking network.
Programming opportunities
to attract biking and walking
trips are also identified in the
2014 Plan. In addition to listing
potential funding sources for
project implementation, the
Entrance to Iron Horse Trail
30 City of Dublin Draft 189
2014 Plan includes bicycle and
pedestrian design guidelines
that apply national resources
and best practices to project
implementation in Dublin.
General Plan Circulation &
Scenic Highways Element
and Schools, Public Lands,
& Utilities Element (2014):
The General Plan’s Land Use
& Circulation elements focus
on meeting the mobility needs
of all roadway users by any
mode and aligns with two key
documents: the City of Dublin’s
Complete Streets Policy and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
(a regional plan). The element
promotes the use of local and
regional trails and emphasize
improving experiences walking
and taking transit. The elements
prioritize two areas for active
transportation investments: the
Eastern Extended Planning
Area and Downtown Dublin.
.The elements’ guiding
policies that are the most
relevant to the Plan include:
• 5.3.1.A.3—Encourage
improvements in the
Enhanced Pedestrian
Areas to improve the
walkability of these areas.
• 5.5.1.A.1—Provide safe,
continuous, comfortable,
and convenient bikeways
throughout the city.
• 5.5.1.A.2—Improve
and maintain bikeways
and pedestrian facilities
and support facilities in
conformance with the
recommendations in
the Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
• 5.5.1.A.3—Enhance the
multimodal circulation
network to better
accommodate alternative
transportation choices
including BART, bus,
bicycle, and pedestrian
transportation.
• 5.5.1.A.4—Provide
comfortable, safe, and
convenient walking
routes throughout the
city and, in particular, to
key destinations such as
Downtown Dublin, BART
stations, schools, parks,
and commercial centers.
Parks and Recreation Master
Plan (2022): The Parks and
Recreation Master Plan (PRMP)
establishes goals, standards,
guiding policies, and an action
plan to guide the City of Dublin
in the acquisition, development,
and management (operations
and maintenance) of Dublin’s
park and recreation facilities
through the ultimate build-out of
the City in accordance with the
General Plan. This PRMP update
addresses the program and
facility needs of the anticipated
future population growth. The
development standards for new
parks and facilities are intended
to provide for quality parks,
trails, sports fields and recreation
and cultural facilities needed
at build-out in a manner that is
fiscally sustainable to operate
and maintain. Relevant goals
and objectives include exploring
improving/adding bike paths and
walking trails, and continuing to
maintain and improve existing
facilities, parks, trails, and
open spaces. The standards
and criteria for the City’s
parks and recreation facilities
include requirements for bicycle
parking, paving, and width.
Iron Horse Regional Trail
Feasibility Study (2017): Based
on a multimodal assessment and
community outreach processes,
this Feasibility Study arrives at
several key preferred alternatives
for the Iron Horse Regional Trail
and its crossings on Dougherty
Road, Dublin Boulevard, and
the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
station. A multi-use trail
separating people walking and
biking was preferred; a bicycle/
pedestrian bridge was preferred
for crossing Dublin Boulevard,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 31 Draft 190
while an at-grade crossing was
preferred for Dougherty Road.
Improvements near the BART
station are intended to both
enhance access to transit and
improve experiences for trail
users passing through the station
area. Improvements to the Iron
Horse Regional Trail contribute
to this Plan by making use of the
Trail easier and more convenient.
Traffic Safety Study Update
(2018): Collisions were studied
in the 2018 Traffic Safety Study
Update (Safety Study) to evaluate
safety performance on specific
street sections and intersections.
Overall, collisions had increased
at the time of the Safety Study,
likely as a result of population
increases and people living and
driving in Dublin, particularly
East Dublin. Recommendations
in the Update include continuous
bicycle lanes at Central Parkway
and Tassajara Road. The
collision analysis included
in this Plan supplements the
findings and recommendations
of the Safety Study.
Climate Action Plan 2030 and
Beyond (2020): The Climate
Action Plan 2030 and Beyond,
establishes the City’s vision for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by 2045. The CAP
names transportation as the
largest source of emissions in
Dublin and lays a plan for Dublin
to become carbon neutral by
2045. Zero-emission vehicles
and mode shift to biking,
walking, and transit trips are
key strategies to reduce Dublin’s
GHG emissions and meet
citywide targets. The CAP sets
measures to develop plans and
programs around transportation
demand management, transit-
oriented development, parking
management, and electric
vehicle infrastructure planning
to support mode shift and
electrification of Dublin’s vehicle
fleet. A shift to alternative,
active, shared, and electric
mobility will provide safer routes
between home, transit stops,
and other community amenities,
reduce GHG emissions, reduce
traffic congestion, improve
public health outcomes, and
have economic benefits.
Downtown Streetscape Master
Plan (2020): The Downtown
Streetscape Master Plan provides
direction for public and private
investment, specifically in regard
to the development of the public
realm and Downtown’s identity.
One of the plan’s key goals is
to develop pedestrian-oriented
environments on Commercial
Throughways and on Downtown
Local Streets. On these roadways
as well as on Crosstown
Boulevards and Parkways,
the plan also emphasizes
providing safe and comfortable
facilities and crossings for
people walking and biking.
Recommended improvements
within the Downtown area
are prioritized into four tiers
that can be matched to project
scale, budget, funding source,
and other opportunities. Tier 1
and Tier 2 street and pedestrian
enhancements are illustrated
on Figures 24, 25, and 27 and
include restriping/road diet
evaluation, sidewalk widening,
intersection and mid-block
crossing treatments, as well as art
and wayfinding opportunities.
Notable guidelines include
widening sidewalks to provide a
minimum 12-foot sidewalk with
minimum five- to six-foot clear
throughway zone for walking.
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBI
L
I
T
Y
S
T
U
D
Y
Final Report 33
Figure 7a: Precedent BEF Ratings
March 2017
City of Dublin Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Feasibility Study
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
WC14-3178
Project Partners
In Association with
:section title
34 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
Figure 7b: Precedent BEF Ratings
Oversized
32 City of Dublin Draft 191
Specific Plans
Four areas of Dublin have
specific plans that outline
guiding principles, policies,
and design guidance related
to active transportation:
Dublin Crossing, Downtown,
the Dublin Village Historic
Area, and Eastern Dublin.
Dublin Crossing (2013).
This Specific Plan focuses on
improving east-west connectivity
in the Dublin Crossing,
particularly between transit
stops, destinations, and trails. A
relevant guiding principle in this
Specific Plan is to make it easier
and more convenient for people
to access and use the Iron Horse
Regional Trail, the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART station, and
retail destinations without a car.
Downtown Specific Plan (2014):
Guiding principles, pertinent to
biking and walking in Downtown,
aim to create pedestrian-friendly
streets, enhance multimodal travel
options, and cultivate pedestrian
connections to retail destinations.
Transit-oriented development
and lighting should be scaled to
people walking in Downtown.
Pedestrian connectivity
between buildings, parking, and
sidewalks should be maintained
throughout Downtown, and
pedestrian amenities like street
furniture are encouraged.
Dublin Village Historic Area
(2014): Placemaking, creating a
positive experience for people
walking, and attracting people
to this area are key goals of
this Specific Plan. Creating
positive experiences for people
walking includes providing more
crosswalks and median refuges,
calming vehicle traffic, adding
pedestrian amenities or a plaza,
and implementing pedestrian-
scale lighting and wayfinding.
Eastern Dublin (2016): A
key goal in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan is to reduce reliance
on single-occupancy vehicles by
planning the area’s land uses to
naturally promote walking, biking,
taking transit, and ridesharing.
Notably, development with a
higher intensity is encouraged
near transit corridors in Eastern
Dublin. Relevant policies in
this Specific Plan include:
• Providing sidewalks
in the Town Center
and Village Center
• Requiring development to
balance pedestrian, bicycle,
and automobile circulation
• Creating a north-south
trail along Tassajara Creek
and other streams
• Establishing a bike network
that meets both travel needs
and recreational opportunities
• Providing bicycle parking
at key destinations
Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan (2019):
The purpose of the City’s Green
Stormwater Infrastructure Plan
(GSI) is to describe how the
City will meet requirements
specified in the Municipal
Regional Stormwater National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit (MRP), Order
No. R2-2015- 0049, NPDES
Permit No. CAS612008 issued
on November 19, 2015. This GSI
Plan demonstrates how the City is
meeting MRP requirements and
intends to use GSI to enhance
the urban environment.
Local Roadway Safety Plan
(anticipated 2022). The
Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP) provides a framework
to identify, analyze, and
prioritize roadway safety
improvements on local roads.
Americans with Disabilities Act
Transition Plan (anticipated
2022). The ADA Transition Plan
is a formal document outlining
the City’s compliance with ADA.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 33 Draft 192
VISION, GOALS,
& PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
To set a clear path forward, City
staff and the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) members outlined
the City’s purpose, vision, and goals
for this Plan.
PROJECT VISION
This Plan sets forth the following vision:
VISION STATEMENT
The City of Dublin is a vibrant
place where walking and biking are
safe, comfortable, and convenient
ways to travel. In Dublin, walking
and biking connects individuals,
inclusive of all ages and abilities, to
local and regional destinations.
1 Enhance Safety
Prioritize safety in design and implementation
of walking and biking facilities.
33 Improve Connectivity
Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides
well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities.
4 Enhance Accessibility
Utilize principles of universal design to make
biking and walking a viable transportation option
for all, including people with disabilities.
55 Prioritize Investments
Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing
and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including
program support, operation, and maintenance. Leverage
biking and walking projects to promote economic
activity and social equity in the community.
2 Increase Walking and Biking
Support biking and walking as attractive
modes of transportation.
GOALS
This Plan establishes the following five overarching goals related to the vision that guide
recommendations:
34 City of Dublin Draft 193
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Setting performance measures helps track progress toward goals and document the results of investments in
biking, walking, and rolling. The following performance measures and desired trends have been established to
track progress towards achieving the goals of this Plan:
Goal Performance Measure (Desired Trend)*
Enhance Safety
• Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations
• Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Increase users’ perception of safety
• Decrease average crossing distances
Increase Walking
and Biking
• Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities
Improve
Connectivity
• Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase number of crossing opportunities
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements
• Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces
Enhance
Accessibility
• Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues
• Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements
• Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair
Prioritize
Investments
• Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to build a
complete streets network
• Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation
infrastructure spending
*not in order of importance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 35 Draft 194
22
195
Inclusive and meaningful
community and stakeholder
engagement is necessary to
create a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan that is community-
suported and implementable.
A community and stakeholder
engagement plan was developed
at the outset of the planning
process to outline the activities,
methods, and tools that
would be used to engage the
Dublin residents and key
stakeholders. The community
and stakeholder engagement
plan established a framework
and identified opportunities
and specific milestones for
sharing information, soliciting
feedback, and collaborating
with agency stakeholders and
Dublin community members.
ENGAGEMENT
AND COVID-19
Due to the outbreak of
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
and the resulting stay-at-home
order initiated on March 17, 2020
in Alameda County that affected
the ability to conduct in-person
engagement, a hybrid approach
was used. Primarily digital
outreach methods were used
with in-person engagement when
possible to safely and effectively
reach a broad audience.
2. COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
To better understand Dublin’s walking and bicycling issues
and opportunities, stakeholders and community members
were engaged through the following methods:
The engagement timeline is shown in figure 5, and
specific activities are described in this section.
• Project website
• Interactive map
• Public survey
• Public workshop
• Pop-up events
• Stakeholder meetings
• Technical Advisory
Committee meetings
• Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee
meetings
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37
Photos from pop-up events at the St Patrick's Day Festival and Alamo Creek Trailhead
Draft 196
Figure 6. Public Engagement Timeline
PROJECT WEBSITE
BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian
Advisory Committee
TAC - Technical Advisory Committee
CCC - City Commission and Council
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4
20202020
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4
20212021
Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3
20222022
TAC #1
MAR 4, 2020
TAC #2
SEP 15, 2020
TAC #3
JUN 3, 2021
TAC #4
MAR 15, 2022
CCC
AUG-SEP 2022Public
Survey
MAY - SEP 2021
Project
Start
Project
End
BPAC #1
SEP 17, 2020
BPAC #2
MAY 25, 2021
BPAC #3
OCT 21, 2021
BPAC #4
FEB 24, 2022
BPAC #5
JUL 21, 2022
Online
Workshop &
FAQ Live
SEP 2, 2020 Farmers’
Market Pop-Up
MAY 25, 2021
St Patrick’s
Day Pop-Up
MAR 12, 2022
Alamo Creek
Trailhead
Pop-Up
MAY 27, 2021
Stakeholder
Meetings
APR–MAY 2021
38 City of Dublin 38 City of Dublin Draft 197
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND FINDINGS
Community feedback and findings are presented in this section.
Select quotes from community members are presented throughout the
Plan document. Supporting materials are included in appendix A.
PROJECT WEBSITE AND INTERACTIVE MAP
An interactive website was created to share key project milestones and
provide information about the Plan development and events. Since going
live in March 2020, the project website has received approximately 1,500
visits (with 2.7 actions per visit), 3,700 page views, and 123 data downloads.
The website also included an interactive online map on which
the public could identify desired improvements, gaps, and key
destinations in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network.
The online map received a total of 208 comments.
Map feedback was classified into four categories: barriers, ideas, praise,
and questions (figure 7). Nearly half of responses indicated a barrier
to walking or biking, and another third offered an idea to improve
walking and biking conditions. The remaining responses were either
praise for actions the City has taken to create a safe and connected
active transportation network and promote sustainable transportation
options or questions about the Plan or planning process. Responses
were analyzed to identify central themes for each of the four categories.
BARRIERS
Themes for each of the response categories were
generated from the subject matter of received
comments to summarize the most common kinds of
community input. The top five themes in the barriers category
are shown in figure 8 and listed in ranked order below.
Figure 7. Web Map Comments by Category
47%
BARRIER
33%
IDEA
13%
PRAISE
7%
QUESTION
35%
Figure 8. Barrier Themes in Comments
BIKE SAFETY
17%BIKE CONNECTIONS
14%MAINTENANCE
12%SIGNALS
8%PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
4%PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
4%DRIVING
<1%SIDEWALK DESIGN
<1%BIKE RACKS
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 Draft 198
35%35%
Bike Safety. Comments
that discussed bike safety
largely focused on a need
for greater separation
between bikes and vehicles,
traffic calming, lack of bike lanes, and
concerns about biking near on- and
off-ramps.
17%17%
Bike Connections.
Comments that discussed
bike connections largely
focused on consistent
connections to paths, across
over and under passes, and main bike
routes.
14%14%
Maintenance.Comments
that discussed maintenance
largely focused on poor
road conditions, debris in the road, and
broken sidewalk.
12%12%
Signals. Comments that
discussed signals largely
focused on issues with
signal bike detection at
intersections.
8%8%
Pedestrian Safety.
Comments that discussed
pedestrian safety largely
focused on dangerous
crossings.
IDEAS
Community members also
offered ideas. The top four
themes of these ideas are shown in
figure 9 and are listed in ranked order:
BIKE SAFETY
24%
26%
BIKE
CONNECTIONS
12%SIGNALS
12%BIKE
CONNECTIONS
8%PEDESTRIAN
AMENITIES
6%SIDEWALK
DESIGN
4%
4%
4%
DRIVING
TRAFFIC
CALMING
BIKE
AMENITIES
Figure 9. Idea Themes in Comments
MOST COMMON BARRIER LOCATIONS MENTIONED
In addition to the most common themes, there were also common locations identified by community comments. The top five locations for comments noted as barriers were:
1
DUBLIN
BOULEVARD
2
TASSAJARA
ROAD
3
FALLON
ROAD
4
AMADOR VALLEY
BOULEVARD
5
DOUGHERTY
ROAD
26%26%
Bike Lanes. Comments that
discussed bike lanes largely focused
on a need for greater connections
between important destinations and
along major roads and trails.
24%24%
Pedestrian Connections. Comments
that discussed pedestrian connections
largely focused on improving specific
sidewalk connections and creating
walking paths.
40 City of Dublin 40 City of Dublin Draft 199
? QUESTIONS
Three key question themes
emerged from the online map
responses; they are listed below
and illustrated in figure 11.
56%
Planning
Process.
Questions about
the planning
process had to do
with the reach of the survey, how
funding is being used efficiently,
and how the City plans to finish
certain projects.
33%
Connections.
Comments which
discussed bike and
walk connections
asked about
projects at specific locations,
including whether they were
planned or if they can be added
to the City’s efforts.
11%
Micromobility.
Questions about
micromobility
focused on legal
operating
requirements, including whether
electric scooters are allowed on
bike paths about whether electric
scooters are allowed on bike paths.
12%12%
Signals.
Comments which
discussed signals
largely focused on
safer intersections
through changes to signals timing.
12%12%
Bike Connections
Comments that
discussed bike
connections largely
focused on
connecting bike trails and lanes to
key destinations and each other.
22%22%
The remaining in
the ideas category
covered pedestrian
amenities, sidewalk
design, driving,
traffic calming, and bike
amenities.
PRAISE
Respondents praised
several key features
of Dublin’s existing walking and
biking network as well as the
City’s ongoing efforts to improve
it. The top three themes in the
praise category are shown and
listed in rank order in figure 10.
35%35%
General.
Comments that
were general were
focused on
appreciation for
the City’s efforts to improve bike
and pedestrian facilities.
35%35%
Bike Lanes.
Comments that
discussed bike
lanes were focused
on effective plastic
barriers, separated bike paths,
and green paint.
18%18%
Signals.
Comments that
discussed signals
were focused on
flashing lights at
intersections and well-placed
crossing buttons.
12%12%
The remaining
comments in the
praise category
covered existing
amenities and
connections.
35%
35%
18%
9%
9%
GENERAL
BIKE LANES
SIGNALS
CONNECTIONS
AMENITIES
Figure 10. Praise Themes
in Comments
56%
33%
11%
PLANNING PROCESS
CONNECTIONS
MICROMOBILITY
Figure 11. Question
Themes in Comments
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 Draft 200
PUBLIC SURVEY
A public survey was used to
collect information from the
public about their personal
transportation preferences,
travel habits, and issues and
opportunities related to walking
and biking in Dublin. The public
survey was distributed in Summer
2020 and was promoted on social
media and posted to the website.
A fact sheet with the survey link
and QR code was provided at
the Alamo Creek Trailhead and
Farmers’ Market pop-up events.
Approximately 200 responses
were received to the 17-question
survey, which covered travel
behavior and mode preference;
travel to school; challenges and
barriers to moving around Dublin;
and priorities for investments
related to walking and biking.
SURVEY RESULTS
General Travel Behavior
and Mode Preferences
When asked about modes taken
to work and school prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic, 33 percent
of respondents said they drove
alone, 17 percent used a bike or
scooter, and 17 percent walked.
These numbers stayed relatively
constant when respondents were
asked about the same behaviors
during COVID. The top reason
(22 percent) respondents gave
when asked why driving to work
was the best option was that
driving alone was the quickest
and most convenient option.
Around 10 percent of respondents
indicated safety, irregular work
schedules, and the need to make
additional stops as reasons they
chose to drive alone to work.
Of respondents who use a
combination of travel modes,
there were a similar number of
respondents across modes.
Travel to School
Approximately 38 percent of
respondents had school-age
children. Of those respondents,
approximately 40 percent
indicated that they used a
personal vehicle for school
drop-off/pick-up. Another 26
percent walked to school while
14 percent biked. Respondents
indicated the top three factors
discouraging walking or biking to
school were safety concerns (35
percent), distance or travel time
(18 percent), and lack of sidewalks
or curb ramps (13 percent).
Barriers to Walking
and Biking
When asked about barriers to
walking and biking, respondents
indicated that safety was a primary
consideration, followed by vehicle
speed. Responses were mixed on
the topics of street lighting and
maintenance, with a fairly even
split of people indicating it was
either not important, somewhat
important, or very important.
Most respondents were less
concerned with distance to their
destinat ions or available shade.
Investment Priorities
When asked what types of
improvements would encourage
walking or biking, 22 percent of
respondents indicated better/more
sidewalks and trails, 14 percent
indicated better/more bicycle
facilities, 11 percent indicated
slower vehicles and more traffic
calming, and 10 percent indicated
better maintenance of existing
facilities. When asked where the
City should prioritize walking
and biking improvements, the
top three responses (about 20
percent each) were high collision
locations; routes connecting
people to schools, libraries, parks,
and other key destinations; and,
along and across busy streets.
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
On September 2, 2020 a digital
workshop was held via Zoom
to inform the public about
the Plan and gather broad
community feedback. Forty-
two people attended the hour-
long Zoom workshop, which
included a presentation and a
question-and-answer period.
This workshop aimed to establish
a community understanding
of the planning process and to
obtain feedback on the project’s
vision and goals. The workshop
also included a poll, which asked
RESPONSES
were received to the
17-question survey
200
42 City of Dublin 42 City of Dublin Draft 201
participants questions about their
experiences on public streets,
their comfort with various
modes of micromobility, and
their demographic information.
The workshop also included a
poll asking participants about
their experiences walking, biking,
and using micromobility on
public streets, whether they feel
comfortable using these modes in
Dublin, and whether they would
want to see bike and scooter share
programs in Dublin. The poll
received 30 responses. Participants
of the poll were also asked how
they classify themselves in terms
of confidence using a bike in
Dublin, as well as how often they
ride a bike. Of the responses, the
most common confidence level
was Enthused and Confident
(47 percent), followed by
Interested but Concerned (27
percent), Strong and Fearless
(23 percent), and No Way, No
How (3 percent) (see figure 12).
POP UP EVENTS
Feedback was gathered at three
in-person events to understand
where people walk and bike and
what issues, concerns, ideas, and
priorities they have related to
walking and biking in Dublin.
FARMERS’
MARKET —25 MAY, 2021
Feedback was gathered on
existing conditions and needs.
Approximately 40 people
provided input, and participants
were rewarded with Carrot
Cash and giveaways.
ALAMO CREEK
TRAILHEAD —27
MAY, 2021
Dublin partnered with Bike
East Bay in an effort to hear
from trail users at the Alamo
Creek Trailhead as part of
National Bike Month Activities.
Feedback was gathered in real
time and flyers with the public
survey link were handed out.
ST PATRICK’S DAY
FESTIVAL—12
MARCH, 2022
Feedback was gathered on the
draft network recommendations
and additional comments on
program and policy priorities
for walking and biking in
Dublin. The St. Patrick’s Day
Festival in Dublin is one of
the biggest local community
events of the year. This two-
Figure 12. Poll Responses to Classification of
Bicyclist Types by Frequency of Bicycle Use
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 43 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 43 Draft 202
day celebration brings out
thousands of engaged residents
and visitors per day, making it an
important opportunity for the
City of Dublin to communicate
its plans and receive feedback.
The celebration had an added
importance this year as this
would be the first in-person
public event of this scale in
Dublin since 2019, making
for an excited and engaged
audience. Approximately
136 community members
provided feedback on possible
infrastructure improvements
for pedestrians and bicyclists in
Dublin, and this pop-up resulted
in 231 unique data points.
BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Alameda County
Transportation Commission
(Alameda CTC) Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC) involves interested
community members in Alameda
CTC’s policy, planning, and
implementation efforts related
to bicycling and walking. The
Alameda CTC BPAC includes
representatives from cities in
Alameda County, including
Castro Valley, Dublin, Fremont,
San Leandro, Berkeley, Hayward,
Oakland, Albany, and Alameda
and serves as Dublin’s advisory
body as Dublin does not
currently have a local BPAC.
The Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan Update was
brought to the Alameda CTC
BPAC five times during the
project. The group provided
feedback on key items throughout
the planning process, including
the technical analysis approach
and findings and program, policy,
and project recommendations.
Comments were addressed
and incorporated into the Plan
document. Meeting summaries
and supporting materials are
included in appendix A.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
A Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) was formed to provide
key guidance on the Plan. The
TAC included staff from City
departments, including Planning,
Economic Development, and
Parks & Community Service and
other agency representatives from
Dublin Unified School District,
Dublin Police Services, Alameda
County Fire Department,
San Ramon, Pleasanton,
Livermore, Alameda CTC,
Caltrans, BART, and LAVTA.
The team hosted five TAC
meetings over the course of
the project. The Plan process,
community engagement, existing
conditions and needs analysis,
prioritization framework,
and program, policy, and
project recommendations were
discussed during these meetings.
Comments were addressed
and incorporated into the Plan
document. Meeting summaries
and supporting materials are
included in appendix B.
Alamo Creek Pop Up Event
44 City of Dublin 44 City of Dublin Draft
203
204
This chapter provides an
overview of walking and biking
in Dublin and presents results
of the existing conditions and
needs assessment, which includes
relevant demographic data,
existing walking and biking
infrastructure, high injury bicycle
and pedestrian network, and
bicycle level of traffic stress
analysis. This inventory and
analysis of existing citywide
conditions sets the stage for
identifying strategic pedestrian
and bicycle investments and
informs the prioritization process
and network recommendations
presented in chapter 4.
Dublin
Population:
61,240
LIVING AND
WORKING IN
DUBLIN
This section discusses
demographics and transportation
data including race/ethnicity, age,
gender, mode share, and worker
inflow and outflow patterns.
The purpose of this information
is to provide background and
context describing people living
and working in Dublin as it
relates to walking and biking.
The data presented is obtained
from the California Communities
Environmental Health Screening
Tool (CalEnviroScreen),
Longitudinal Employer-
Household Data (LEHD)
from 2017, and the American
Community Survey five-
year estimates (2015–2019)
from the US Census.
RACE & ETHNICITY
The most common racial
background of Dublin residents
is Asian alone (49 percent)
and White alone (39 percent).
Approximately 6 percent of
Dublin residents identify as
being two or more races, and
4 percent of residents identify
as Black/African American
alone. Approximately 10% of
Dublin residents identify as
hispanic or latino/a/x. Dublin’s
population by race & ethnicity
is illustrated in figure 13.
GENDER
Dublin has an almost 50/50
split of people self reporting
as females vs males. Note
that American Community
Survey data is not available
for gender identity for the
years covered by this Plan.
AGE
The most common ages of
Dublin residents are 25–44 (40
percent) and 45–64 (24 percent).
Combined, ages 25–64 make up
64 percent of the population.
The Dublin population younger
than 15 accounts for 24 percent
of the total population, while
the population over 65 makes up
9 percent. Figure 13 illustrates
Dublin’s population by age.
ZERO-VEHICLE
HOUSEHOLDS
When compared with the
surrounding Alameda County,
Dublin has a lower proportion
of households without vehicles.
Overall in Alameda County,
10 percent of households do
not have a vehicle; in Dublin,
3 percent of households
do not have a vehicle.
3. WALKING & BIKING
IN DUBLIN TODAY
Source: US Census American Community
Survey Five-Year Estimates (2015-2019)
46 City of Dublin 46 City of Dublin Draft 205
Figure 13. Dublin Population by Race & Ethnicity Figure 14. Dublin Rounded Population by Age
35%
7%
9%
24%
16%
8%
25-44
UNDER 5
65+
45-65
5-14
15-24
OF RESIDENTS
FEMALE AND MALE
*gender identity data is not available
50/50*
Figure 15. Dublin Population by Gender
6%
2+ RACES
1.1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
49%
<1%
2%
ASIAN
<1% Hispanic or
Latino/a/x
AMERICAN
INDIAN AND
ALASKA NATIVE
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
OTHER
1.6% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
4%
BLACK/
AFRICAN
AMERICAN
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
39%
WHITE
6.5% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
48%
28%
7%
7%
5%
5%
ASIAN-INDIAN
CHINESE
(EXCEPT
TAIWANESE)
OTHER
ORIGINS
FILIPINO
KOREAN
VIETNAMESE
* 10.1% of Dublin's population identify as hispanic or latino/a/x
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 Draft 206
WORKERS
Based on the most recent LEHD
data available (2017), the net
inflow and outflow of Dublin
workers is the following:
• 16,042 people live elsewhere
and commute into Dublin
• 23,161 people live in Dublin
and commute elsewhere
• 1,484 people live and
work in Dublin
Only about 6 percent of
workers living in Dublin
also work in Dublin.
COMMUTE
MODE SHARE
Working Dublin residents use
various modes to travel to work
(see figure 17). The commute
data shown below provides a
basic understanding of how
people travel to and from work.
However, because the data comes
from the US Census—which
only provides journey-to-work
data for the primary mode of
transportation—information
on other trips, such as walking
or biking to connect to public
transit, are not represented.
Approximately 76 percent of
Dublin residents commute
to work by car, either alone
(67 percent) or in a carpool (9
percent). Public transportation is
the second most popular way to
commute at 15 percent. Walking
represents approximately 1
percent of commute modes.
Biking and riding a motorcycle
each represent less than
1 percent of all commute
modes. Additionally, about 7
percent of working Dublin
residents worked from home.
COMMUTING &
COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has
drastically transformed the
commuting and transportation
landscape as restrictions on non-
essential travel forced everyone
into unplanned lifestyle changes.
As we look to the future, it
is unclear how COVID-19
will change commuting and
teleworking patterns. Findings
Figure 16. Workers by Residence and Job Location Figure 17. Commute Mode
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD), 2017.Source: US Census American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (2015–2019).
CAR/TRUCK/VAN –
DROVE ALONE
PUBLIC TRANSIT (INCLUDING
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY
(UBER, LYFT) AND TAXI)
CAR/TRUCK/VAN –
CARPOOLED
WORKED AT HOME
WALKED
BICYCLE AND
MOTORCYCLE
67%
15%
9%
7%
1%
1%
People working
in Dublin
16,042
People Living
in Dublin
23,161
People
Living &
working
in Dublin
1,484
48 City of Dublin 48 City of Dublin Draft 207
from current research indicate
that teleworking will increase
relative to pre-COVID-19
conditions and people will be
more likely to walk/bike/drive
and less likely to take transit.2
BART STATION ACCESS
There are two BART stations in
Dublin: the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station and the West
Dublin BART Station. Based on
the ridership data presented in
BART’s Station Profile Survey
(2015), there were approximately
8,000 daily station entries at the
2 https://www.kittelson.com/ideas/will-covid-19-permanently-alter-teleworking-and-commuting-patterns-heres-what-1000-commuters-told-us/)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
and 3,700 daily station entries at
the West Dublin BART Station.
As shown in figure 18, 9 percent
of riders walk and 5 percent of
riders bicycle to the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station; 11
percent of riders walk and 4
percent of riders bicycle to the
West Dublin BART Station. A
total of 68 shared-use electronic
lockers operated by BikeLink
are provided at the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station, and
56 lockers are provided at the
West Dublin BART Station.
With almost 15 percent
of residents using public
transportation to get to work,
there is an opportunity to
encourage more people to walk
and bike to BART. This can
be accomplished by focusing
on convenient, safe first-mile
and last-mile connections
to these stations and secure
end-of-trip facilities.
PEDESTRIAN
AND BICYCLIST
TYPOLOGIES
People have varying abilities
and tendencies to walk or bike
and different sensitivities to
the presence and quality of
transportation infrastructure
based on age, gender, physical
mobility, and other factors.
A person’s income level,
race, and availability of
parking can help explain their
tendency to walk or bike.
Figure 18. Mode Split for BART Station Access in Dublin
Source: BART Station Profile Survey (2015)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 Draft 208
Pedestrian and bicyclist
typologies were developed
to understand the ability and
propensity of people living
within Dublin to walk or bike.
These typologies are used to
estimate the population of each
walker and bicyclist type within
the city’s census block groups
and more accurately estimate
the potential for bicycle and
pedestrian investments because
they account for neighborhood
populations rather than uniform
citywide demographics.
3 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507.
PEDESTRIAN
TYPOLOGY
The walking typology presented
in table 3 was determined based
on travel behavior research and
experience working on walking
infrastructure. As shown in table
3, the typology assigns walking
characteristics based on age
(under 14, 14–55, and over 55).
For many people with disabilities
and people over 55, the absence
of curb ramps and presence of
multi-lane crossings can be
barriers to walking.
BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY
The bicyclist typology, or “four
types” categorization, was
developed in Portland, Oregon in
2005 as an organizing principle for
understanding people’s relationship
to bicycling for transportation as
well as their concerns and needs
related to bicycling.3 Based on
this research, bicyclists can be
placed into one of four groups
based on their relationship
to bicycle transportation:
• No Way, No How, or
Non-Bicyclists. People
unwilling or unable to bicycle
even if high-quality bicycle
infrastructure is in place.
• Interested but Concerned.
People willing to bicycle
if high-quality bicycle
infrastructure is in place.
People in this type tend to
prefer off-street, separated
bicycle facilities or quiet
residential streets; they may
not bike at all if facilities
do not meet their needs for
perceived safety and comfort.Table 3. Pedestrian Typology
Age Typology Walking
Characteristics
Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings
14 to 55
Teenage and Working Age Adults
Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk gaps, unsignalized crossings at major roads, and absence of midblock crossings
Over 55 Aging
The limits experienced by young adults and adults and further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings
Figure 19. Bicyclist Typology
SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLINSHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN
50 City of Dublin 50 City of Dublin Draft 209
• Enthused and Confident. People
willing to bicycle if some bicycle-specific
infrastructure is in place. People in this
type generally prefer separated facilities
and are also comfortable riding in bicycle
lanes or on paved shoulders, if necessary.
• Strong and Fearless, or Highly
Confident. People who are willing
to bicycle alongside vehicle traffic
and on roads without bike lanes.
One end of the spectrum includes people
who are comfortable riding with vehicle
traffic, such as adult regular bike commuters.
These highly confident bicyclists are willing
to ride on roads with little or no bicycle
infrastructure. The other end of the spectrum
includes people who are not comfortable
riding with or adjacent to traffic. This group
often includes children, older adults, and
adults who ride infrequently. Typically, these
riders prefer off-street bicycle facilities or
biking on low-speed, low-volume streets. If
bicycle facilities do not meet their comfort
preferences, they may not to bike at all. The
middle of the spectrum includes bicyclists
who prefer separated facilities but are willing
to ride with or adjacent to traffic when
vehicle volumes and speeds are low enough
and separated facilities are not provided.
Table 4 shows the population share for
each typology and age group. These
population shares were extrapolated
to the City of Dublin population to
estimate the proportion of adults within
the typologies illustrated in figure 19.
EXISTING WALKING AND
BIKING NETWORKS
This section defines the features, conditions,
and types of walking and biking facilities in
Dublin (Figure 20). It includes and explains
maps of existing on-street bikeways, off-street
paths, sidewalks, crossings, and supportive
amenities and infrastructure—like walking-
and biking-oriented wayfinding, bike parking,
drinking fountains, and sidewalk benches.
Table 4. Bike Group Typology— City of Dublin Population Share of Bicyclist Type by Age
Bicyclist Type Share of Age Group
Under 5 6–18 18–34 35–54 55+Dublin adult (18+)
Strong and Fearless 0%0%11%2%0%4.1%
Enthused and Confident 0%0%7%12%7%10.3%
Interested but Concerned 0%100%61%59%46%58.1%
No Way, No How 100%0%21%27%47%27.6%
Total 100%100%100%100%100%
Source: Table developed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from data presented by Dill and McNeil
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 Draft 210
Figure 20. Existing Bicycle Network Map
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Existing facilities_07292022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022
Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 Feet
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Existing facilities_07292022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022
Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 Feet
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
DoughertyElem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
52 City of Dublin 52 City of Dublin Draft 211
MULTI USE PATHS
(CLASS I)
Multi use paths provide a
separate facility designed for
the exclusive use of bicycles,
pedestrians, and other non-
motorized uses with minimal
vehicle crossflows. Generally,
bicycle paths serve corridors not
served by streets or are parallel
to roadways where right of way
is available. These paths provide
bicyclists both recreational and
commute routes with minimal
conflicts with other road users.
Class IA Paths—Multiuse
paths along a separate
alignment. In Dublin, this
bikeway class exists on the
Iron Horse Trail and the
Martin Canyon Creek Trail.
Class IB Sidepaths —
Sidepaths that double as
sidewalks along the side of a
roadway. Examples include
segments along the north side
of Dublin Boulevard and the
west side of San Ramon Road.
Alamo Creek Trail, Dublin,
CA. Source: City of Dublin
Diagram of typical Class
IB path configuration
Class IB Path on San Ramon
Road, Dublin, CA. Source:
Kittelson & Associates, Inc
TYPES OF BIKEWAYS
Dublin’s existing bikeway system consists of a network of
bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. There are four types of
bikeways as defined by chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual (2017). In addition, the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (CTC) has adopted a set of sub-
classifications for each Caltrans classification. These sub-
classifications were designed to correspond with the previously
existing system and to incorporate emerging facility typologies.
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II FacilityKATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road. Person riding a bike
on a Class II facility separated from right-turning traffic.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 Draft 212
BICYCLE LANES (CLASS II)
Bicycle lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a dedicated
space for the exclusive or semi-exclusive bicycle use. Through-
travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited; vehicle
parking and pedestrian- and motorist-crossflows are permitted.
Class IIA—A conventional one-way striped bicycle lane.
Class IIB —Upgraded bicycle lane with a striped buffer or
green conflict markings. In Dublin, this bikeway class exists on
Dublin Boulevard from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon Road
and on Tassajara Road from Rutherford Drive to Fallon Road.
BICYCLE ROUTES (CLASS III)
Bicycle routes do not provide a dedicated
space for bicycles, but instead, bikes share the
lane with motorists and signs or pavement
markings indicate the bike route.
Class IIIA —Signage-only routes.
Class IIIB —Wide curb
lane or shoulder that may include signage.
Class IIIC —Route with standard shared lane markings (“sharrows”)
that can be used to alert drivers of the shared roadway environment
with bicyclists. This class of bikeway exists on Davona Drive.
Class IIB Facility on Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA. Source: Google Maps.Class III Facility in Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Diagram of typical Class
III bike lane configuration
Diagram of typical Class IIB bike lane configuration
54 City of Dublin 54 City of Dublin Draft 213
SEPARATED BICYCLE LANES (CLASS IV)
Separated bicycle lanes are bicycle lanes that provide vertical
separation from motorists on roadways. The separation may include
grade separation, flexible posts, planters, on-street parking, or other
physical barriers. These bikeways provide a greater sense of comfort
and security in comparison to standard Class II bike lanes. Class
IV facilities are especially relevant for high-speed or high-volume
roadways. Separated bike lanes can provide one-way or two-way travel.
SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE
In addition to the on- and off-street facilities, supporting infrastructure
is essential to promote walking and biking as viable modes of
transportation. Critical elements include end-of-trip facilities, such
as bicycle parking, showers, and lockers. Other critical infrastructure
elements include wayfinding, drinking fountains, seating, and shade.
BICYCLE PARKING
Secure short-term and long-term bicycle parking that can
accommodate a wide range of bicycles including children’s bicycles,
electric bicycles, and cargo bicycles, for example, are necessary to
support biking. Access to secure bicycle parking is one of the top
factors determining whether someone chooses to ride a bike or not.
New development provides key opportunities to ensure Dublin
adequately provides both short- and long-term bicycle parking.
Currently, Dublin follows parking requirements in Section 5.106.4
of the 2019 California Green Building Code. This code states that
Class IV Facility, San Diego, CA Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
Class I FacilitySeperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle ParkingMaintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I FacilityClass II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Bike Parking at Dublin Library Source: City of Dublin
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 Draft 214
short-term parking must be provided
for five percent of new visitor motorized
vehicle parking spaces being added, with
a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack.
The bicycle parking must be anchored
within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance.
Long-term bike parking must be provided
for new buildings with tenant spaces with
10 or more tenant-occupants, also at a 5
percent of vehicle parking space rate with a
minimum of one bicycle parking facility.
Short-term bicycle parking refers to
traditional bike racks, which may be
located on public or private property.
Bike racks serve people who need to park
their bikes for relatively short durations
of about two hours or less. Because short-
term bicycle parking does not provide
additional security, locked bicycles and
their accessories may be exposed to theft
or vandalism. However, short-term bike
racks are more numerous and conveniently
located near destinations. To deter theft or
vandalism, short-term parking should be
within eyesight of a building or destination
or located in well-traveled pedestrian areas.
Dublin has short-term bicycle parking in
the Downtown area as well as at many
local parks and community centers.
Long-term bicycle parking is the most
secure form of parking and ideal for
individuals who park their bikes for more
than a few hours or overnight. Because
long-term bike parking requires more
space than short-term racks, facilities may
be located farther away from the ultimate
destination. Long-term parking is also often
more expensive due to added security and
space requirements. Long-term parking
can consist of bike lockers, enclosed bike
cages, bike rooms, and bike stations, each of
which is discussed in the following bullets.
• Bike lockers are fully enclosed and
generally weather-resistant spaces
where a single bicycle can be parked
and secured by key or electronic lock.
Shared-use electronic lockers operated
by BikeLink are provided at the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station (68 lockers)
and West Dublin BART Station (56
lockers). The BikeLink system allows
users to pay by the hour for use of the
lockers through a membership card.
• Enclosed bike cages are multiple bike
racks contained by a fence. The enclosure
entrance is secured with a lock or key
code, but within the cage, bicycles are
exposed and secured to racks with
personal locks. Cages can be outdoors
(ideally with a roof for weather resistance)
or located in building parking garages
or utility rooms. Because contents are
visible through the cage and bikes inside
are accessible, the security of a bike
cage depends on good management of
access keys or codes. Bike cages are most
appropriate for closed environments
such as businesses, office buildings, or
multi-family developments with access
limited to owners, tenants, or employees.
• Bike rooms are bicycle racks located
within an interior locked room or a
locked enclosure. Because they house
bikes behind solid walls, bike rooms
are more secure than bike cages, where
bikes remain visible from the outside.
As with bike cages, bike room security
Short Term Racks at the Wave Dublin,
CA Source: City of Dublin
56 City of Dublin 56 City of Dublin Draft 215
depends on access key and
code management. Bike rooms
are most appropriate where
access is limited to owners,
tenants, or employees.
• Bike stations are full-service
bike parking facilities that
offer controlled access and
other supporting services like
attended parking, repairs,
and retail space. Bike stations
can offer services such as
free valet parking, 24-hour
access-controlled parking,
sales of bike accessories,
bike rentals, and classes.
Other Infrastructure
and Amenities
Skateboard and Scooter
Lockers should be provided
at key destinations with high
levels of skateboard and scooter
activity like schools, transit
stations, parks, and trailheads.
Showers, Lockers, and
Changing Rooms are important
end-of-trip amenities that
encourage bicycle commuting.
Some places of employment in
Dublin may provide showers,
lockers, and changing rooms.
However, the City does not
inventory such facilities. The
Shannon Community Center,
Dublin Civic Center, and the
high school and middle schools
all provide showers and lockers.
Maintenance Stations for
bicycles should be provided
throughout the city at key
destinations with high levels of
bicycle activity like trailheads,
employment centers, transit
stations, parks, and schools.
Maintenance stations may include
a repair stand with tools, such
as screwdrivers, flat wrenches,
pressure gauges, tire pumps,
and other equipment, to allow
people biking the opportunity
to make on-the-go repairs.
Wayfinding helps a high-quality
bicycling and pedestrian network
be easily navigable. Bicycle and
pedestrian wayfinding helps
residents, tourists, and visitors
find key destinations. Modern,
cohesive, multimodal sign
plans and designs distinguish
walking and bicycling routes,
highlight specific destinations,
and facilitate connections to
and from public transit stops.
BikeLink lockers at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station. Source: Kittelson * Associates. Inc.
Maintenance station on a trail. Source:
Kittelson & Assoicuates, Inc.
Wayfinding signage for West Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station. Source:
Kittelson & Assoicuates, Inc.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57 Draft 216
Wayfinding can also define
connections with popular
hiking trails and regional
trails. There is a need for a
comprehensive wayfinding
signage program in Dublin.
Lighting improves safety
and visibility for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Some routes
that are convenient during
the day are unusable in the
dark, limiting their utility and
effectiveness. Illuminating
trails and sidewalks reduces
the possibility of user
collisions with objects or each
other and makes deformities
or unevenness in the surface
more visible which can also
prevent falls and crashes. For
example, pedestrian-scale
lighting improvements on
Dublin Boulevard under the
I-680 overpass are needed to
improve visibility of people
walking along the corridor.
Pedestrian amenities
are a critical part of
pedestrian-focused design,
which prioritizes safety,
comfort, and quality of
service. Amenities like
planters, benches, drinking
fountains, restrooms, and
sidewalk trees all enhance
a walking environment.
Shared mobility allows
for flexible transportation
options and provides
bicycles and scooters to
community members who
would otherwise lack access
to these modes. Dublin
does not currently offer
shared mobility options.
KEY WALKING
AND BIKING
DESTINATIONS
The choice and ability to
walk and bike to essential
destinations greatly benefits
community members through
increased activity and
improved health. Walking
and biking also benefits
the broader community
by reducing in greenhouse
gas emissions and vehicle
congestion. People have
varying abilities and
tendencies to walk or bike
based on infrastructure
presence and quality. Land-
use patterns that determine
the distance between origins
and destinations as well as the
density, diversity, and intensity
of uses also shape people’s
walking and biking habits.
Key walking and biking
destinations were mapped.
Specific points of interest
were selected for consistency
with the Plan’s goals to
increase walking and biking
mode share to school,
transit, trailheads and
parks, and work. These
activity centers are shown
in figure 21 and include:
• Schools: All public K–12
schools within Dublin
Unified School District
• BART: West Dublin/
Pleasanton station and
Dublin/Pleasanton station
• Job Centers: Seven
job centers that include
Dublin’s largest employers
and concentrations
of employment
• Parks: Neighborhood
and community
parks in Dublin
Person with an e-scooter waiting to cross at
Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road.
Source: Kittelson & Associates. Inc.
58 City of Dublin 58 City of Dublin Draft 217
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 21. Land Use and Key Destinations Map
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\2
4\
24392 - D
ublin ATP\
gis\Task 4\Land U
se an
d Key D
estinations M
ap
.m
xd Date
: 7/19/
2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
WEST DUBLIN/
PLEASANTON
DUBLIN/
PLEASANTON
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 Draft 218
EXISTING
PROGRAMS
As shown in table 5, the City,
the school district, the Police
Services, Alameda CTC, and
nonprofit organizations provide
numerous programs that
support walking and biking in
Dublin. These programs play
an important role in promoting
active transportation and
fostering safe walking and
biking in the city. The City of
Dublin recognizes the critical
role that programs and policies
play in complementing physical
infrastructure to promote walking
and biking and will continue to
support and broaden the reach
of these existing programs.
Table 5. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Counts
Bicycle and pedestrian counts are included
in the City’s turning movement counts. Bike
counters collect data on the Iron Horse and
Alamo Canal trails. Bicycle and pedestrian
count data is also provided in environmental
documents and traffic studies.
Traffic and
Planning
Safe Routes to
School (SRTS)
SRTS establishes routes which maximize
safety for travel to and from schools as
well as educates school administrators,
parents, and children about vehicle,
bike, and pedestrian safety.
Dublin Unified
School District
(DUSD) with
support from
Alameda CTC;
several City
departments,
including Police,
Planning, and
Traffic
Bicycle Rodeo
and Safety
Program
Dublin Police Services has a Bicycle Safety
Program, which is offered to elementary
schools in Dublin. The program supports
safe bicycle riding and challenges students'
riding abilities in a safe and controlled
environment. Dublin Police Services
promotes bicycling by educating students
about riding safely and properly.
Police
Adult School
Crossing Guards
Crossing guards help children safely cross
the street at key locations on the way to
school. Crossing guards set an example of
how to safely cross the street, and they may
help parents feel more comfortable allowing
their children to walk or bike to school.
Police and Traffic
60 City of Dublin 60 City of Dublin Draft 219
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
National Bike
Month Activities
Sponsored by the City, National Bike
Month activities encourage people to
bike during the month of May. Promoted
events include cycling workshops, classes,
and giveaways. The City also sponsors
Bike to Work (or Wherever) Day, which
provides energizer stations and self-guided
rides, and Bike to Market Day, which
rewards bicyclists with “carrot cash” to
use at the Dublin Farmers’ Market.
Traffic and
Environmental
Programs
Walk and Roll
to School Week
During October, Walk and Roll to School
Week encourages the Dublin community
to walk, bike, skate, and ride scooters to
school. Dublin schools celebrate walking
and bicycling with promotional assemblies,
walking school buses and bike trains,
giveaways, and prizes. Dublin’s participation
is partially funded by Measure B/BB.
DUSD, Traffic
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Projects
Workshops
The City hosts biannual bicycle and
pedestrian workshops to share information
about new bicycle and pedestrian projects
and solicit feedback on current and future
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Traffic
Traffic Safety
Committee
The City’s Traffic Safety Committee—
comprised of representatives from Dublin
Police Services’ traffic unit, Public Works’
transportation staff, and City maintenance
staff—meets monthly to discuss public
comments on potential traffic safety issues
and to recommend appropriate actions.
Common inquiries include requests for
traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle
speeds, stop sign installations, and
new signs and pavement markings.
Police, Traffic,
Maintenance
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
Community
Rides and
Bike Clubs
Community rides help build both
community and physical skills among new
and continuing riders. They provide a
guided pathway for new bicyclists to gain
confidence riding and navigating the city
on a bike. Regular rides foster community
among riders, especially for youth looking
for physical and creative outlets outside
of school. During school, nonprofit
organizations also lead bike clubs at middle
and high schools, where staff provide
bikes and safety gear and take students on
group adventure rides. Community rides
can be offered to the entire community
or geared to women, queer-identifying,
or other less-likely-to-ride demographics
that are better served by a safe space that
celebrates and empowers rider identity.
Cycles of Change,
Bay Area Outreach
and Recreation
Program, Bike
East Bay,
Bike Education
Classes
One or more sessions, bike education classes
teach riders bike safety, bike mechanics,
theft prevention, and other useful skills.
Youth Bike Rodeos, Bike Mechanics Classes,
Adult Bike Safety Classes, and Family
Biking Workshops are a few examples
of the variety of different bicycle classes
offered by nonprofit organizations.
Cycles of Change,
Bike East Bay
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 Draft 220
BARRIERS
TO WALKING
AND BIKING
Barriers to a safe and
comfortable walking and
biking network in Dublin
take many forms, including
• High-stress streets with
multiple vehicle travel
lanes, high vehicle volumes,
high vehicle speeds, and
lack of separation between
vehicles and other modes.
• Conflicts between bicyclists
and turning or merging
vehicles at intersections
and interchanges.
• Linear barriers such as the
two major state highway
system facilities (Interstate
680 and Interstate 580) that
have limited and poorly-
designed crossings for
people walking and biking.
• Long crossing distances
and limited street
connectivity (e.g., cul-de-
sacs and long block lengths)
for people walking.
• Lack of east-west
connectivity that limits route
options for people walking
and biking and forces travel
along high-stress arterials
like Dublin Boulevard and
Amador Valley Boulevard.
"This stretch is scary for
bicycling when the lane
disappears with lots of traffic."
-community member quote
“A person in a wheel chair or
a parent with a stroller can’t
safety navigate the sidewalk.”
-community member quote
• Incomplete or broken
sidewalks, inadequate
sidewalk widths, missing or
outdated curb ramp designs,
and a limited number of
accessible pedestrian signals.
These conditions discourage
walking and biking and
can increase stress and
discomfort for those who
choose to walk and roll.
This discussion of barriers has
two key parts: first, a discussion
of safety barriers based on
bicyclist and pedestrian collision
statistics and citywide high-
injury networks; and second,
a discussion of pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity based on
the bicycle level of traffic stress
(LTS) analysis and pedestrian
crossing opportunities analysis.
VEHICLE SPEED
& SAFETY
As vehicle speeds increase,
the risk of serious injury or
fatality also increase. Increased
speeds also reduce the driver’s
visual field and peripheral
vision. Managing and reducing
vehicle speeds is imperative
to achieving safer streets.
62 City of Dublin 62 City of Dublin Draft 221
COLLISION ANALYSIS
Pedestrian and bicyclist
collision data from 2014 to
2019 from local police reports
and the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System capture
safety trends citywide. This
section describes the location,
severity, circumstances, and
timing of collisions involving
people walking and biking.
Findings from this analysis
will help determine streets to
prioritize to make it safer for
people walking and biking.
COLLISION TRENDS
Available variables in the
collision data helped identify
citywide trends. Pedestrian
and bicycle collisions were
analyzed separately based on
the following characteristics:
• Lighting conditions
• Location characteristics
(specifically intersection
versus segment collisions)
• Primary collision factors
cited by reporting officers
• Age and perceived gender of
people walking and biking
involved in collisions
The small size of each
dataset—68 bicycle collisions
and 81 pedestrian collisions
over six years—limits the
ability to find statistically valid
trends. However, even with
these limitations, the analysis
revealed several patterns that
reflect conditions in Dublin.
LOCATION
Table 6 and table 7 present
pedestrian and bicycle collisions
based on location and severity.
Intersection collisions are those
reported to have occurred
within a 250-foot intersection
influence area—all others are
considered segment collisions.
A majority of both pedestrian
and bicycle collisions happened
at intersections, where there
are more conflicts with motor
vehicle traffic than at other
locations along roadways.
Figure 22. Influence of Vehicle Speed on Driver’s
Cone of Vision & Pedestrian Survival Rates
Higher speeds
decrease the
chance that a
pedestrian will
survive a crash.
Higher speeds affect a driver’s ability to perceive,
focus on, and react to things in their line of vision.
15 mph 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph
75% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 32 mph.
50% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 42 mph.
25% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 50 mph.
Based on the Local Road Safety Analysis, which evaluates all collisions
on local roads within the City of Dublin between 2016 and 2020:
Pedestrian collisions
account for 28 percent
of all fatal and serious
injury collisions in
the City—that is more
than 10 percent higher
than the state average.
A disproportionate
share of fatal and
serious injury—
including pedestrian
collisions—occur
in dusk/dawn or
dark conditions.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 Draft 222
Table 6. Pedestrian Collisions by Location and Severity
Location
Fatal and
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other
Collisions
Total Reported
Collisions
Share of Total
Reported
Intersection 11 63 74 91%
Segment 1 6 7 9%
Total
Reported 12 69 81 100%
Table 7. Bicycle Collisions by Location and Severity
Location
Fatal and
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other
Collisions
Total Reported
Collisions
Share of Total
Reported
Intersection 2 50 52 76%
Segment 1 15 16 24%
Total
Reported 3 65 68 100%
Lighting
Lighting conditions are an
important factor for pedestrian
and bicyclist visibility and
personal security by enabling
people to see each other. Figure
23 presents pedestrian and
bicycle collisions by lighting
conditions. The majority of
bicycle and pedestrian collisions
occurred in daylight conditions.
All reported fatal and severe-
injury bicycle collisions occurred
in daylight conditions. When
collisions occurred in dark
conditions, they happened
primarily under streetlights.
Primary Collision Factors
Primary collision factors
(PCFs) are provided in the
data and aggregated based on
the section of the California
Vehicle Code that the reporting
officer records. For bicycle
collisions, the PCFs were
• Automobile right of way
violation (26 percent of
collisions), which indicates
one of several California
Vehicle Violation codes
regarding a failure to yield
right of way to oncoming
traffic. This action may come
from either the bicyclist
or motorist involved.
• Improper turning (16
percent of collisions),
which indicates a motorist
committed a hazardous
violation while turning.
• Other hazardous movement
(12 percent of collisions),
an aggregated violation
category that indicates a
hazardous movement on the
part of either the bicyclist
or motorist involved.
The PCFs cited most frequently
for pedestrian collisions were
• Pedestrian right of way
violation (27 percent
of collisions), which
indicates a driver violated a
pedestrian’s right of way.
• Other improper driving
(20 percent of collisions)
represents an aggregation
of motorist violations.
• Automobile right of way
violation (14 percent of
collisions), which indicates
Figure 23. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Lighting Conditions
NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding
Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database.
64 City of Dublin 64 City of Dublin Draft 223
one of several California
Vehicle Violation codes
regarding a failure to yield
right of way to oncoming
traffic. This action may come
from either the pedestrian
or motorist involved.
• Pedestrian violation (6
percent of collisions), which
indicates a pedestrian violated
laws regarding right of way.
Age of Parties Involved
Figure 24 compares the ages
of people walking or biking
involved in collisions to Dublin’s
population. Age data was
only available for 76 percent
of pedestrians and for 63
percent of bicyclists involved
in collisions. This comparison
reveals that people aged 15–24
are overrepresented in bicycle
and pedestrian collisions.
Although they make up just
eight percent of the city’s
population, people in this age
group represent 25 percent
and 18 percent of pedestrians
and bicyclists involved in
collisions. Similarly, people aged
45–64 are underrepresented
among pedestrian and bicyclist
collisions (at 12 percent each),
despite making up 25 percent
of Dublin’s population.
Gender of Parties Involved
Additionally, gender was reported
for 78 percent of bicyclists
involved in collisions and for
59 percent of pedestrians.
Available data reveals that men
represented approximately 60
percent of pedestrians involved
in collisions and 83 percent of
bicyclists involved in collisions.
HIGH-INJURY
NETWORK
An analysis of the citywide
roadway network was conducted
to identify a set of bicycle
and pedestrian high-injury
streets, together called a high-
injury network (HIN). This
HIN constitutes the worst-
performing segment locations
based on collision severity and
frequency of collisions involving
people walking and biking.
Figure 24. Age of Parties Involved in Collisions
NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding
Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database.
“Every time I cross here,
I almost get hit by a car
trying to enter the freeway.”
-community member quote
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 Draft 224
Figure 25. Pedestrian High-Injury Network Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Pedestrian and Bicycle High Injury Network Combined- Final.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Pedestrian High Injury Network Figure 5
Pedestrian High Injury NetworkDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMW
ELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Pedestrian and Bicycle High Injury Network Combined- Final.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Pedestrian High Injury Network Figure 5
Pedestrian High Injury NetworkDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
DoughertyElem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
62 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred on 4 percent of Dublin's roads (8.4 miles)
71 percent of the pedestrian high injury streets has four or more vehicle through lanes
66 City of Dublin 66 City of Dublin Draft 225
Figure 26. Bicycle High-Injury Network Map
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final_20200623.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Bicycle High Injury Network
Figure 8
Bicycle High Injury NetworkDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e T
r
ail§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final_20200623.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Bicycle High Injury Network
Figure 8
Bicycle High Injury NetworkDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
DoughertyElem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
62 percent of bicycle collisions occurred on 3.5 percent of Dublin’s roads (6.7 miles)
88 percent of the bicycle high injury streets has four or more vehicle through lanes
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 Draft 226
High Injury Streets
Table 8 provides the extents of
each high injury street along with
the total mileage (measured as
centerline miles).
HIGH INJURY
NETWORK
CHARACTERISTICS
• 62 percent of pedestrian
collisions occurred on
4 percent (8.4 miles)
of Dublin’s roads.
• 62 percent of the city’s
bicycle collisions occurred
on 3.5 percent (6.7 miles)
of Dublin’s roads.
Dublin’s pedestrian and bicycle
HINs overlap for many of their
segments. About 10 miles or
just over 5 percent of Dublin’s
roadways appear in either the
bicycle HIN, pedestrian HIN, or
both. This means that 66 percent
of Dublin’s bicycle collisions
and 66 percent of its pedestrian
collisions occur on just 10
percent of streets in the city.
Key Characteristics of
the Pedestrian HIN
• Approximately 40 percent
of the pedestrian HIN has
a speed limit of 35 miles
per hour. Additionally, 32
percent of the HIN mileage
consists of roads with speed
limits of 40 or 45 miles per
hour. The remainder of the
HIN has speed limits of
25 or 30 miles per hour.
• Approximately 55 percent
of the pedestrian HIN
consists of roads classified
as arterial roads; the
remaining roads are collector
or residential streets.
• Approximately 47 percent
of the HIN has five or six
vehicular through lanes.
Another 24 percent of the
network has four vehicular
through lanes. The remainder
of the HIN consists of roads
with two or three lanes.
Table 8. High Injury Streets
Roadway Extents
Pedestrian High Injury Streets
Amador Valley Boulevard I-680 to Burton St.
Arnold Road I-580 to Dublin Blvd.
Bent Tree Drive Fallon Rd to Sugar Hill Terr.
Burton Street Amador Valley Blvd. to Tamarack Dr.
Dublin Boulevard Hansen Dr. to Grafton St.
Hacienda Drive I-580 to Dublin Blvd.
Regional Street Southern extents to Amador Valley Blvd.
Tamarack Drive Canterbury Ln. to Brighton Dr.
Tassajara Road Dublin Blvd. to Gleason Dr.
Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to Davona Dr.
Total Mileage: 8.4 miles
Bicycle High Injury Streets
Amador Valley Boulevard San Ramon Rd. to Penn Dr.
Dublin Boulevard Silvergate Dr. to Myrtle Dr.
Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to City Limits (N)
Total Mileage: 6.7 miles
66 percent of bicycle collisions and 66
percent of pedestrian collisions occur
on just 10 percent of streets in the City.
68 City of Dublin 68 City of Dublin Draft 227
Key Characteristics of
the Bicycle HIN
• Approximately 78 percent
of the bicycle HIN mileage
consists of roads with speed
limits of 35 or 45 miles per
hour. The remainder of
the HIN has a speed limit
of 30 miles per hour.
• The bicycle HIN is nearly
evenly divided between
arterial and collector
roadways, with 54 and 46
percent, respectively.
• Approximately 88 percent of
the HIN has four or more
vehicular through lanes.
BICYCLE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
LTS METHODOLOGY
People on bikes are vulnerable
street users. The presence of
any one of several factors can
make people feel unsafe or
uncomfortable. Bicycle level of
4 This report uses an on-street LTS methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) and documented in the Low-Stress Bicycling
and Network Connectivity report published in 2012. This methodology was further refined by Dr. Peter Furth of Northeastern University in 2017. See
Mekuria, Mazza C., “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” (2012), All Mineta Transportation Institute Publications., Book 4. http://scholarworks.
sjsu.edu/mti_all/4 and http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/, specifically “Version 2.0,” published in June 2017.
traffic stress (LTS) measures the
stress imposed on bicyclists by a
road segment or crossing.4 The
LTS methodology was used to
classify Dublin’s intersections
and on-street roadway and path
segments as one of four levels
of traffic stress. Classifications
range from LTS 1 to LTS 4, with
1 being the most comfortable/
least stressful and 4 being least
comfortable/most stressful.
ON-STREET ROADWAY
SEGMENT LTS
METHODOLOGY
The on-street roadway segment
LTS methodology provides
criteria for three bicycle facility
types: bike lanes alongside a
parking lane, bike lanes not
alongside a parking lane, and
mixed traffic (i.e., no bike lanes
present). On-street roadway
segment LTS analysis considers
several factors that affect bicyclist
comfort, including the number
of vehicle travel lanes, vehicle
volume, vehicle speed, presence
and width of bike lanes, presence
and width of parking lanes, and
presence and type of separation
between the bike lane and vehicle
travel lanes (see figure 27).
Path LTS Methodology
The path LTS methodology
was created to account for the
various design factors that affect
quality of service and bicyclists’
stress on the Class IA paths and
Class IB sidepaths in Dublin.
The analysis considers segment
characteristics, including path
width, shoulder width and
separation, and wayfinding.
The analysis also considers
intersection/crossing elements,
such as traffic control, crossing
distance, geometric elements,
pavement markings, and signage.
Figure 27. Roadway Characteristics Used to Calculate Bicycle LTS
NUMBER
OF LANES
SPEED OF
TRAFFIC
NUMBER OF
VEHCILES
PRESENCE
& WIDTH OF
BIKE LANES
PRESENCE
& WIDTH OF
PARKING +
BIKE LANES
PRESENCE &
PHYSICAL BARRIER
BETWEEN BIKE
LANES & VEHICULAR
TRAFFIC
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 Draft 228
Crossing LTS Methodology
A crossing LTS analysis was
conducted for street and path
intersections located along
high-stress facilities (segments
that scored LTS 3 or LTS
4) since it is likely that the
characteristics of a high-stress
segment can affect the bicyclist
experience when crossing
from a low-stress street. The
crossing methodology analyzes
intersections and crossings
for the following situations:
• Intersection approaches
for pocket bike lanes
(bike lanes that are to
the left of a dedicated
right-turn vehicle lane)
• Intersection approaches
for mixed traffic in the
presence of right-turn lanes
• Intersection crossings for
unsignalized crossings
without a median refuge
• Intersection crossings for
unsignalized crossings
with a median refuge
These situations do not describe
all crossing circumstances.
For example, in Dublin,
many Class I facilities cross at
signalized intersections. These
situations are covered in the
path LTS methodology.
LTS RESULTS
The LTS analysis was conducted
using a spatial database with
inputs obtained through a
combination of field review,
Google Earth aerial review,
and City input. Assumptions
were applied to fill data
gaps where necessary.
The on-street and path LTS
results, presented together on
figure 28, illustrate citywide
bicycle level of traffic stress and
network connectivity. To simplify
the level of detail shown, the
directionality of the on-street
LTS has been suppressed. Each
on-street segment is displaying
its highest (i.e., worst) LTS
value. Refer to appendix C
for the full set of LTS maps,
including directional LTS.
• On-Street Level of Traffic
Stress. Low-stress streets
in Dublin are typically local
residential roads without
dedicated bicycle facilities
where vehicle speeds and
volumes are low. Higher
stress streets are often arterial
roads like Dublin Boulevard,
which are less comfortable
for bicyclists, due to the
relatively higher vehicular
speeds, higher traffic
volumes, and the number of
vehicle travel lanes. These
higher stress streets present
barriers to low-stress travel
where they intersect with
low-stress facilities and create
islands isolated by high-stress
segments and crossings.
• Path LTS . Class IA multiuse
paths most frequently score
an LTS 2 given their width,
shoulder, and wayfinding
presence. Class IB side paths
frequently score an LTS 3
with no wayfinding present
along their segments. Path
crossings vary, but they
rarely exceed LTS 3 except at
intersection crossings with
high speeds, high volumes,
and no crossing markings
or signage. Although path
LTS values were assessed
for every path crossing
location, only crossings
with scores lower than their
connecting path segments
are mapped in the results.
In other words, the mapped
crossings are those which
degrade the neighboring
segment path LTS.
• Low Stress Islands. Figure
29 presents Dublin’s network
of low-stress facilities and
highlights where gaps
and islands exist. Fallon
Road, Tassajara Road, San
Ramon Road, and Dublin
Boulevard are prime
examples of low-stress gaps
in the on-street network.
In Dublin, most streets are
residential streets. Nearly all of
those streets (98 percent) are low
stress because of their low speeds
and volumes. With generally
higher speeds and volumes,
70 City of Dublin 70 City of Dublin Draft 229
Figure 28. On Street and Path LTS Combined Map
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
AR
N
O
L
D
R
D
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
POSITANO P W
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIE
R
R
A
C
T
FA
L
L
O
N
R
D
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
R
D
NORTHSIDE DR
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
D
R
AMAD
O
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
B
L
BR
A
N
N
I
G
A
N
S
T
SC
H
A
E
F
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BA
R
N
E
T
B
L
CR
O
A
K
R
D
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
R
L
E
T
T
D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOW
E
R
R
D
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLST
E
R
L
I
N
G
R
D
Mar
t
i
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
Ala
m
o
C
a
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
F
A
L
L
C
R
EEK R D
C
RO
MWELL
AV
HAVE
NPL
BA
R
N
E
T
B
L
CROAKRD
FCI
6TH ST
ASPENST
DI
A
NA
LN
SEBILLE
RD
Q
U
A
R
T
Z
C
I
RAN
G
E
R
D
SCHAEFERLN
1 2 T H S T
ALBROOK
DR
VALLEY VISTADR
DUBLIN BL
P
E
N
N
DRV
I
LLAGEPW
WILDWOODRD
CENTRAL P
W
BENTTR
E
E
D
R
D
O
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
P O S I TANOPW
FAL
L
O
N
R
D
TASSAJA R A R D
V I T T O RI A LP
I N SPIRAT
I
O
N
DR §¨¦680
§¨¦580
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:
\
2
4
\
2
4
3
9
2
-
D
u
b
l
i
n
A
T
P
\
g
i
s
\
T
a
s
k
3
\
1
3
A
l
l
L
T
S
C
O
m
b
i
n
e
d
.
m
x
d
D
a
t
e
:
5
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
2
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Shared Use Path
(Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Sidepaths
(Class IB)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Path Crossings
!LTS 1
!LTS 2
!LTS 3
!LTS 4
Existing Bicyclist Level of Traffic StressDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 13
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
AR
N
O
L
D
R
D
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
POSITANO P W
V
I
L
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIE
R
R
A
C
T
FA
L
L
O
N
R
D
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
R
D
NORTHSIDE DR
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
D
R
AMAD
O
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
B
L
BR
A
N
N
I
G
A
N
S
T
SC
H
A
E
F
E
R
R
A
N
C
H
R
D
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BA
R
N
E
T
B
L
CR
O
A
K
R
D
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
R
L
E
T
T
D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOW
E
R
R
D
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLST
E
R
L
I
N
G
R
D
Ma
r
t
i
n
C
a
n
y
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
Ala
m
o
C
a
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
Ir
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
F
A
L
L
C
R
EEK R D
C
RO
MWELL
AV
HAVE
NPL
BA
R
N
E
T
B
L
CROAKRD
FCI
6TH ST
ASPENST
DI
A
NA
LN
SEBILLE
RD
Q
U
A
R
T
Z
C
I
RAN
G
E
R
D
SCHAEFERLN
1 2 T H S T
ALBROOK
DR
VALLEY VISTADR
DUBLIN BL
P
E
N
N
DRV
I
L
LAGEPW
WILDWOODRD
CENTRAL P
W
BENTTR
E
E
D
R
D
O
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
P O S ITANOPW
FAL
L
O
N
R
D
TASSAJA R A R D
V I T T O RI A LP
I N SPIRAT
I
O
N
DR §¨¦680
§¨¦580
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:
\
2
4
\
2
4
3
9
2
-
D
u
b
l
i
n
A
T
P
\
g
i
s
\
T
a
s
k
3
\
1
3
A
l
l
L
T
S
C
O
m
b
i
n
e
d
.
m
x
d
D
a
t
e
:
5
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
2
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Shared Use Path
(Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Sidepaths
(Class IB)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Path Crossings
!LTS 1
!LTS 2
!LTS 3
!LTS 4
Existing Bicyclist Level of Traffic StressDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 13
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 Draft 230
Figure 29. Low Stress Islands Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2 Existing Low-Stress Network and Modeled Activity CentersDublin, California
[
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_Existing low-stress network + all activity centers.mxd Date: 6/9/2022
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D EN W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e T
r
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IB S egment
LTS 1
LTS 2 Existing Low-Stress Network and Modeled Activity CentersDublin, California
[
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_Existing low-stress network + all activity centers.mxd Date: 6/9/2022
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
72 City of Dublin 72 City of Dublin Draft 231
collector and arterial roadways
are higher stress for bicyclists
unless they have appropriate
facilities. Only 37 percent of
collectors and 7 percent of
arterials in Dublin are low stress
(see figure 30). Many businesses
and services are located on
or near collectors, and these
desintations can only be accessed
with some travel along or across
the collectors or arterials.
The goal of planning and
designing a low-stress bicycle
facility network is to enable
people of all ages and abilities
to feel safe and comfortable
riding bicycles throughout the
city. These LTS findings are
useful for determining and
locating appropriate low-stress
bicycle facilities in the city.
Dublin’s extensive network
of low-speed and low-volume
local neighborhood streets
already create a backbone for
a low-stress biking network;
however, these streets are isolated
pockets throughout the city and
remain separated by high-stress
arterial and collector streets.
By enhancing low-stress streets
and adding separated bicycle
facilities on targeted segments
of higher-speed and higher-
volume collectors and arterials,
Dublin can support a more
connected, low-stress bicycle
network that better serves key
destinations throughout the city.
PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIVITY
Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe
crossing opportunities can create
barriers to walking by requiring
people to go out of their way
to avoid the gap or by forcing
people to walk in the street and
increase their exposure to vehicle
traffic. These barriers to walking
were mapped in figure 31.
Figure 30. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification
LOW STRESS
STREETS
HIGH STRESS
STREETS Arterial Streets
Collector Streets
Residential Streets
0 30 60 90 120 150
Miles
*Miles does not include paths.
"You can't use the sidewalk
without tripping on a
jagged piece of concrete."
-community member quote
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 Draft 232
!èéëìí!èéëìí !èéëìí
./0""$
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
89:m89:m
89:m 89:m89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Pedestrian Crossing Barriers_updated for Plan.mxd Date: 7/29/2022
!èéëìí Major street barrier - signal with no major street
crossings
./0""$Major street barrier -- all-way stop, no marked
crossings
Major street barrier - side-street stop control
Not a barrier - full accessibility
89:m Not a barrier- RRFB
Roadways/Paths
Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street)
Paths
Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at
nodes
Sidewalk gap on major road
Pedestrian Demand Analysis FrameworkCrossing BarriersDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 7
Figure 31. Pedestrian Crossing Barriers Map
!èéëìí!èéëìí !èéëìí
./0""$
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
89:m89:m
89:m 89:m89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Pedestrian Crossing Barriers_updated for Plan.mxd Date: 7/29/2022
!èéëìí Major street barrier - signal with no major street
crossings
./0""$Major street barrier -- all-way stop, no marked
crossings
Major street barrier - side-street stop control
Not a barrier - full accessibility
89:m Not a barrier- RRFB
Roadways/Paths
Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street)
Paths
Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at
nodes
Sidewalk gap on major road
Pedestrian Demand Analysis FrameworkCrossing BarriersDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 7
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
74 City of Dublin 74 City of Dublin Draft 233
WALKING AND
BIKING ACCESS
The ability of people to walk or
bike to key walking and biking
destinations was analyzed to
estimate existing access to key
destinations. This analysis was
used to identify barriers in the
existing network and highlight
locations where investments
would have the greatest potential
to close gaps in the network and
increase access and mode share.
The share of the Dublin
population that could be
expected to walk or bike to each
activity center was estimated
based on pedestrian and bicyclist
typology, distance to the
destination, and the quality of
available infrastructure. These
estimates of walk and bike access
were determined by four inputs:
• Demographic data: Dublin
residents were grouped
into walking and biking
typology groups based on
age. Groups exhibit different
propensities to walk or bike
and respond differently to
supportive infrastructure.
• Network distance to
destination: The actual
network distance between
city parcels and each activity
center was calculated using
the shortest available route.
• Barriers and impediments:
For walking, uncontrolled
crossings of major roads
were identified as blocking
or impeding an available
walking route. For biking,
a high LTS score (3 or
4) blocks or impedes
available routes. Barriers
block access and require a
different route; impediments
increase the perceived travel
distance, which decreases
the likelihood of walking
or biking. Populations
experience barriers and
impediments differently.
For example, uncontrolled
crossings of major roads
can create inaccessible
routes for young children
and older adults, but are
merely inconvenient for
teenagers and adults who
are more likely to be able
to cross. Pedestrian and
bicyclist typologies were
used to capture such
differences in experiences.
• Mode share data: Kittelson
used data from the National
Household Travel Survey
(NHTS), BART station
profile surveys, the American
Community Survey (ACS),
and Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) mode share surveys
to estimate the percentage of
people walking and biking
and the relationship between
mode share and destination
distance. The percentage of
the population estimated to
walk or bike varies based on
the perceived distance to the
destination. For example,
more people walk for a half-
mile trip than a one-mile trip.
The analysis was conducted
using a four-step process
illustrated in figure 32.
WALKING AND
BIKING DEMAND
ANALYSIS PROCESS
The methodology analyzes
existing walking and biking
access to key destinations using
historical travel pattern and
count data, demographic data,
and infrastructure data. This
analysis did not consider other
factors that influence mode
choice decisions like access or
ability to ride a bicycle, income
and wealth, disability, and trip
chaining characteristics. This
analysis indicates the magnitude
of existing and potential
latent demand for walking
and biking based on a set of
informed assumptions about
the known relationship between
infrastructure and mode choice.
Existing demand is summarized
in this section, and the detailed
methodology and outcomes
are presented in appendix D.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 Draft 234
WALK ACCESS
• Schools: Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary,
and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated walk shares
with around 36 percent of students living within walking
distance. Other schools similarly exhibit high estimated walk
shares, due in part to the localized nature of their student
population compared to middle and high schools.
• Transit : Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are
within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/Pleasanton
or West Dublin BART stations. Over 40 percent of Dublin
residents live more than two miles from either BART station.
• Job Centers: The walk share estimates range from 4 to
9 percent for each job center. The limited walkability
of these sites is largely the result of the distance
between the employment and residential uses.
• Parks and Open Space: Access for each resident was determined
by the nearest City park. The analysis measured perceived
distance to any park for each resident rather than to a specific
park. Almost 25 percent of Dublin residents live within one-
eighth of a mile from a park, and 62 percent of residents live
within a one-mile perceived walking distance of a park.
Figure 32. Walking and Biking Demand Analysis Process
Categorize city population into walking and biking typologies at Census block level
Assign and apportion population by typology to residential buildings
Calculate network distance to points of interest and percieved distance based on Infrastructure factors and walking and biking typology
Using a distance/ mode split lookup table, estimate the mode share to points of interest.
Calibrate based on existing mode split and travel data
04 Aggregate Results
03 Network Analysis
02 population Assignment to Buildings
01 Demographic Analysis
Youth Walk Access to
Cottonwood Creek School
Walk Access
for Adults
to BART
Walk Access to BART for
Youth, Older Adults, and
People with Disabilities
Figure 33. Walk Access
Note: Full size graphics are
included in the appendix.
76 City of Dublin 76 City of Dublin Draft 235
BIKE ACCESS
• Schools: Access points to
Dublin High, Frederiksen
Elementary, Murray
Elementary, and Wells
Middle School are provided
on high-stress streets
(streets with LTS scores of
3 or 4). High-stress streets
create an access barrier and
reduce the propensity of
students to bike to school.
Amador Elementary and
Kolb Elementary exhibit
the highest estimated bike
share with 14 percent
of students having low-
stress bicycle access.
• Transit : Based on the
bicyclist typology and
available infrastructure,
approximately 12 percent
of Dublin residents have
a bike route matching
their stress tolerance and
can access one of the two
BART stations within an
approximately 15-minute
ride at a 10-mile per hour
pace. Less than one percent
of interested and concerned
bicyclists have a low-stress
bicycle route to BART.
• Job Centers: The share of
population with an available
and acceptable bicycle route
varies from 18 percent to
37 percent; the resulting
bike share estimates range
between 1 and 3 percent for
each job center. Limitations
to bicycle access at these
sites is primarily the result
of being located on major
arterials, which are typically
high-stress streets.
• Parks and Open Space:
Access for each resident
was determined by the
nearest City park. The
analysis measured perceived
distance to any park for each
resident rather than to a
specific park. In Dublin, 42
percent of Dublin residents
have an acceptable bicycle
route to a park. Nearly 40
percent have no available
low-stress route, and the
remaining residents would
not choose to bike if a low-
stress route were available.
Bike access to BART for (left to right)
“interested but concerned”, “enthused and
confident”, and “strong and fearless” riders.
Illustrates the barriers to access for the
“interested and concerned” group, Dublin’s
largest population of bicyclists. Note: Full
size graphics are included in the appendix.
Figure 34. Bike Access to BART
Bike access to BART for
“interested but concerned”
Bike access to BART for
“enthused and confident”
Bike access to BART for
“strong and fearless”
BART BART access pointsaccess points
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77 Draft 236
4
237
This chapter presents the recommended
citywide bicycle and pedestrian networks.
These networks represent the City’s vision
for walking and biking infrastructure in
Dublin, with new and improved facilities
to create safe and comfortable connections
to key destinations for users of all ages
and abilities. Public feedback and findings
from the existing conditions assessment,
high-injury network, bicycle level of traffic
stress, pedestrian connectivity, and demand
analysis contributed to developing the
recommended network shown in figure 35.
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
The network was developed in three phases:
• Phase 1: Network Framework
• Phase 2: Network Evaluation
• Phase 3: Network Refinement
The following sections describe the
process and outputs of each phase.
PHASE 1: NETWORK PHASE 1: NETWORK
FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK
The active transportation network
framework includes a variety of sources of
data and information including community
feedback, related plans and projects,
existing conditions and needs analysis,
and evaluation of destinations and barriers
documented in the preceding chapters.
PHASE 2: NETWORK PHASE 2: NETWORK
EVALUATIONEVALUATION
The Plan’s vision includes creating a safe and
comfortable walking and biking network
that can be enjoyed by all. Ultimately,
the goal of the low-stress network is to
enable a wider cross section of the city’s
population to feel comfortable and safe
while making trips by bike and on foot.
With the vision of an all ages and abilities
active transportation system in mind, criteria
from the Federal Highway Administration’s
Bikeway Selection Guide were used to select
initial low-stress facility recommendations
for all streets in Dublin. These initial
recommendations will help the largest
segment of the population to feel comfortable
while walking and biking (see figure 35).
Speed and volume roadway operational
characteristics were used to determine the
appropriate low-stress bicycle facility type.
4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE 4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE
& PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS& PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS
“Bike lanes and
separate pedestrian
path are great”
-community
member quote
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 Draft 238
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: ConsiderImprovements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Figure 35. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 8/2/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: SeparatedFacility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: ConsiderImprovements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
DoughertyElem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also
include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks,
buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure,
high-visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb
extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements
80 City of Dublin 80 City of Dublin Draft 239
Figure 36. Preferred Bikeway Type
PHASE 3: NETWORK PHASE 3: NETWORK
REFINEMENTREFINEMENT
Once the low-stress facility
was determined, a high-
level feasibility assessment of
each corridor was conducted
to evaluate the potential
implications of installing the
low-stress facility. For example,
assessments considered whether
vehicle parking or vehicle travel
lanes would need to be removed
to install a low-stress facility. For
locations where implementation
of the all ages and abilities low-
stress facility would be more
challenging, potential parallel
routes were sought to provide
similar quality of access as the
constrained corridor. Constrained
or challenging corridors were
identified and recommended
for further evaluation as part
of a complete streets study.
The resulting project list was
refined to address feedback
from City staff, TAC, BPAC,
and community members.
23
BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION
Figure 9: Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core,
Suburban and Rural Town Contexts
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Separated Bike Lane
or Shared Use Path
Bike Lane
(Buffer Pref.)
Shared Lane
or Bike
Boulevard
10k
9k
8k
7k
6k
5k
4k
3k
2k
1k
0
1 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed.
2 Advisory bike lanes may be an option where traffic volume is <3K ADT.
3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.
Notes
Source: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration,
Bikeway Selection Guide, FHWA-SA-19-077, February 2019, https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf.
"Would love to see separated
bike lanes with street trees
and widened sidewalks."
-community member quote
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81 Draft 240
NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
COMPLETE STREET APPROACHCOMPLETE STREET APPROACH
A Complete Street approach was taken during the development
of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, and pedestrian-
supportive investments are included in each corridor and
crossing project and transit-supportive elements will be
further considered along transit corridors as part of design
development. The following list illustrates the range of treatments
that may be applied to corridor and crossing projects:
• Advance yield markings
• Curb extensions
• Median refuges or crossing islands
• Centerline hardening5
• Intersection daylighting6
• Narrow vehicle travel lanes
• Traffic control modifications (e.g., stop sign, signal)
• Signal timing and phasing modifications
(e.g., restrict right turn on red)
5 Centerline Hardening. A left-turn traffic-calming treatment that
features a vertical element, such as a bollard, rubber curb, or concrete
curb installed along the centerline at intersection departures to force
drivers to approach the turn at a steeper angle and slower speed.
6 Intersection Daylighting. A strategy to increase visibility
at intersections by prohibiting parking (e.g., installing red
painted curb) at least 20 feet in advance of a crossing.
• Sidewalk widening
• Added or upgraded bike facility
The project recommendations are presented as a
package, with concurrent improvements to support
all three active and sustainable travel modes.
CORRIDOR PROJECTS CORRIDOR PROJECTS
Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways
that represented barriers to walking and biking.
Recommended corridor projects are summarized in table 9 and
presented by location in table 10.
Table 9. Project Type by Length
Project Type Miles
Shared Lane (Class III)12.4
Bike Lane (Class IIA)4.0
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)17.4
Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)9.2
Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements
to Existing Sidepaths (Class IB)4.9
Path (Class IA)7.9
Speed Reduction Evaluation 1.3
Total 55.6*
* Corridor projects are not double counted in this total
if they represent multiple project types.
82 City of Dublin 82 City of Dublin Draft 241
Table 10. Recommend Projects by Location
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
SEGMENT PROJECTS
S-1
Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack
Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Grafton
Street, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street
Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming,
striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways
S-2 Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan Street
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible,
provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add
vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future
S-3 Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Gleason Drive
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible,
provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add
vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future
S-4 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible,
provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add
vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future
S-5 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Altamirano Ave
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide
wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation
to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities
to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-6 Grafton Street Kohnen Way Antone Way Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping
S-7 Tassajara Road, Dougherty
Road, and Hacienda Drive Southern City Limits Dublin Boulveard Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara,
Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings
S-8 Tassajara Road North Dublin
Ranch Drive Rutherford Drive
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible,
provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add
vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future
S-9 Village Parkway Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or
Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-10
Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack
Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive,
Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street
Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and
designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways
S-11 Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley
Boulevard
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities
to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-12 Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin
Ranch Drive Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83 Draft 242
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
S-13 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or
Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-14 Amador Valley Boulevard Stagecoach Road Dougherty Road
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or
Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-15 Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern City Limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the
I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether
Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this location,
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is
anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7.
S-16 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive San Ramon Road
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or
Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-17 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive Western extent
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or
Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-18 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern city limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the
I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine
whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate for this
location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment.
S-19 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara Road
Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and
implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements,
intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.
S-20 Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension
S-21 Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive Northern City Limits Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities
S-22
Various locations: N Dublin Ranch Drive, S Dublin Ranch Drive, Hansen
Drive, Starward Drive, San Sabana Road, Southwick Drive, Hibernia Drive,
Donohue Drive, Keegan Street, Peppertree Road, Madden Way, Kohnen
Way, York Drive, Maple Drive, Inspiration Drive, and Vomac Road
Study opportunities, create designs, and implement traffic calming and
signs to create Class III Bikeways along the identified roadways
S-23 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-24 John Monego Court Dublin Boulevard Southern extent Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-25 Sierra Lane Sierra Court Dougherty Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-26 York Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Poplar Way Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-27 Hibernia Drive Dublin Boulevard Summer Glen Drive Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
84 City of Dublin 84 City of Dublin Draft 243
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
S-28 Shannon Avenue Vomac Road Peppertree Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-29 Glynnis Rose Drive Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-30 Central Parkway 500' west of Croak Road Croak Road Extend bike lanes and sidepaths along Central Parkway to Croak Road
S-31 Croak Road/
Volterra Drive Volterra Court Dublin Boulevard
If Croak Road is improved south of S Terracina Drive, add low
stress bicycle facilities based on anticipated speeds, volumes,
and FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommendations
S-32 Central Parkway Iron Horse Parkway Tassajara Road Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities
to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-33 Central Parkway Tassajara Road Fallon Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to
lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-34 Gleason Drive Fallon Road Brannigan Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to
lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-35 Amador Plaza Road Southern Extent Amador Valley
Boulevard
Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to
lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-36 Silvergate Drive San Ramon Road Peppertree Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to
lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-37 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or
Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-38 Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive Northern City Limits Improve wayfinding and signage for parallel path on east side;
restripe to upgrade Class IIA facilities to Class IIB facilities
S-39 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Gleason Drive
Add a Class IIB bike lane where no bike lane currently exists or improve
adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity
by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping
improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.
S-40 Stagecoach Road Amador Valley Boulevard Northern City Limits Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-41 Sierra Ct Dublin Boulevard Northern extent Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-42 Amador Valley Boulevard Village Parkway Stagecoach Road Upgrade from Class IIA to Class IIB Bicycle Lane
S-43 Bent Tree Drive Fallon Road East Sugar Hill
Terrace Restripe to a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-44 Hacienda Drive Gleason Road Dublin Boulevard As a follow up to S-3, evaluate opportunities to lower the
speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-45 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or
Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85 Draft 244
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
S-46 Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or
Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-47 Hacienda Drive Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580
overcrossing, conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class
I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this location,
and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is
anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7.
S-48 San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the
I-580 overcrossing, and conduct a complete streets study to determine
whether Class I or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for
this location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
S-49 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road
Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and
striping improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.
S-50 Clark Ave/Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Upgrade from Class IIB to Class IV Bicycle Lane
S-51 Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Dougherty Road
Upgrade to separated Class I facilities providing sufficient space to reduce conflicts
between people walking and biking; evaluate opportunities to improve walkability
by reducing obstructions; enhance median and lighting along Dublin Boulevard
under I-680; improve sidewalk connection across commercial driveway and at bus
stop (east of Regional Street); add pedestrian-scale lighting under I-680 Overpass.
Install barrier in median underneath overcrossing to prohibit pedestrian crossings.
S-52 Martinelli Way and
Iron Horse Parkway
BART Station on Iron
Horse Parkway Hacienda Drive
Add Class I facilities on both sides of the road on Martinelli Way and
support the Class I facilities by adding signage, wayfinding, and crossing
improvements at the intersections; connect to the BART Station by providing
continuous Class I or Class IIA facilities along Iron Horse Parkway.
S-53 Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley
Boulevard Add bike lanes with the implementation of the Golden Gate extension project
Trail Projects
T-1 Iron Horse Regional Trail Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to
create park space and trail access and connectivity improvements
T-2 Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road
T-3 East of Tassajara
approximately 500 ft Dublin Boulevard Central Parkway With development, add Class I connection between Dublin
Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road
86 City of Dublin 86 City of Dublin Draft 245
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
T-4 Dublin Creek Trail Amador Plaza Road San Ramon Road Add trail connection along Dublin Creek along the Zone
7 channel, to connect at San Ramon Road
T-5 San Ramon Bike Path Shannon Community
Center Create connection to Shannon Community Center from the San Ramon Bike Path
T-6 Alamo Canal Trail Dublin High School
and Village Parkway
Alamo Canal Trail
between Cedar Lane
and Ebensburg Lane
Add Class I facility along east side of Village to connect to the Alamo Canal Trail
T-7 Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road Village Parkway
As recommended in the 2014 plan, widen existing sidewalk
and add signing and striping treatments to create a shared
use path on the south side of Dublin Boulevard.
T-8 Alamo Canal Trail/
Civic Plaza
Village Parkway/
Clark Avenue Alamo Canal Trail
Add a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the canal to create Class
I connection between Village Parkway/Clark Avenue at Alamo
Canal Trail at the Dublin Public Safety Complex Site
T-9 Dublin Boulevard
Extension Fallon Road Collier Canyon
Park (Livermore)
Create Class I connection along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension
corridor from Fallon Road to Collier Canyon Parkway (Livermore)
T-10 Brannigan Street Central Parkway Gleason Boulevard Through development, add Class I facility on the west side of
Brannigan St. from Central Parkway to Gleason Boulevard
T-11 Central Parkway Emerald Glen Park/
Tassajara Road Brannigan Street Add Class I connection and street crossing enhancements on the north side of
Central Parkway from Emerald Glen Park/Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
T-12 Dublin High School Iron Horse Trail Village Parkway Add Class I connection along the south side of the school grounds and
Dublin Swin Center from Iron Horse Trail to Village Parkway
T-13 Tassajara Creek Dublin Boulevard Pleasanton
Study options for gap closure to provide a bicycle and pedestrian
overcrossing and shared use path from Tassajara Creek at
Dublin Boulevard south over I-580 into Pleasanton
T-14 Nielson Elementary
School Amarillo Road Mape Memorial
Park Path
Add Class I connection along the southern edge of Nielson
Elementary to connect Amarillo Road with the existing path
along Mape Memorial Park to san Ramon Road
T-15 Altamirano Street Dublin BART station Martinelli Way Add Class I connection along Altamirano Street between
the Dublin BART station and Martinelli Way
T-16 Croak Road Dublin Boulevard Positano Parkway Add Class I connections along Croak Road from
Dublin Boulevard to Positano Parkway
T-17 Positano Parkway Croak Road La Strada Drive Add or improve trails along Positano Parkway to
connect to the trail on Croak Road
T-18 Tassajara Creek Trail Tassajara Road Trailhead Wallis Ranch
development trails
Add Class I connection between the existing Tassajara Creek trailhead
on Tassajara Road and trails in the Wallis Ranch development
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87 Draft 246
POINT PROJECTSPOINT PROJECTS
Crossing projects were identified at locations that represented
major barriers to walking and biking, including freeway crossings,
high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations
that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions.
The recommended crossing projects are
presented in table 11 and includes:
• Interchange projects to modernize and improve multimodal
access and traffic safety, lessening the barriers to walking and
biking that are posed by the I-580 and I-680 freeways.
• Crossing projects to improve connections to and along
existing Class I paths and trails or to provide mid-
block connections across existing roadways.
• Intersection projects to improve safety for people
walking and biking by modifying intersection
signal timing, geometry, signing, or striping.
Table 11 outlines the recommended crossing projects by location.
Table 11. Recommended Crossing Projects by Location
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
Freeway Crossing Projects
FC-1
San Ramon Road
at southbound
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-2
San Ramon Road
at northbound
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
FC-3
San Ramon Road
at I-580 westbound
ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-4
St. Patrick Way at
I-580 ramp terminal
and entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-5
Dougherty Road at
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-6
Dougherty Road at
I-580 westbound
ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-7
Dougherty Road
at I-580 eastbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-8
Hacienda Drive at
I-580 westbound
ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-9
Hacienda Drive at
I-580 eastbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-10
Hacienda Drive at
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-11
Tassajara Road at
I-580 westbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-12
Tassajara Road at
I-580 westbound
ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-13
Tassajara Road at
I-580 eastbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-14
Fallon Road at I-580
westbound ramp
terminal and entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
88 City of Dublin 88 City of Dublin Draft 247
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
FC-15
Fallon Road at
I-580 eastbound
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
FC-16 Village Parkway at I-680
NB ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal
to provide safe crossings
Pedestrian Crossing Projects
C-1
Regional Street
between Dublin
Boulevard and Amador
Valley Boulevard
Provide mid-block crossing (RRFB
or other actuated treatment)
C-2 Dublin Boulevard and
Iron Horse Trail
Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing
to connect to Don Biddle Community Park
C-3 Sierra Court cul-de-sac Add connection from Sierra Court to the
Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network
C-4 Tassajara Creek Trail
and Dublin Boulevard
Study the feasibility of improving the crossing
of Tassajara Creek Trail at Dublin Boulevard
by providing better connections to the existing
crossing at John Monego Court. Provide
wayfinding and signs to direct people biking and
walking between the trail and the intersection.
C-5 Tassajara Creek Trail
and Tassajara Road
Improve connections to nearby crossings or
add crossing at Tassajara Road and Tassajara
Creek Trail (south of Rutherford Drive) to
provide access to the trailhead; improve
general access to and connectivity from the
trail to Tassajara Road and local destinations
Intersection Projects
I-1 Central Parkway/
Aspen Street
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility
of people walking/biking, especially to school
I-2 Grafton Street/
Antone Way
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility
of people walking/biking, especially to school
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-3 Amador Valley
Boulevard/Burton Street
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility
of people walking/biking, especially to school
I-4 Village Parkway/Amador
Valley Boulevard
Improve safety for people walking and biking
by implementing strategies like protected
intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip
striping through the intersection, bike boxes,
leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning
movements. Remove slip lanes; reduce curb radii
on all corners; install curb extensions on the SE
and SW corners; install directional curb ramps.
I-5 Village Parkway/
Tamarack Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-6 Village Parkway/
Brighton Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-7 Dublin Boulevard/
Hibernia Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-8 Dublin Boulevard/
Arnold Road
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 89 Draft 248
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-9 Dublin Boulevard/
Hacienda Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-10 Dublin Boulevard/
Village Parkway
Improve safety for people walking and biking
by implementing strategies like protected
intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip
striping through the intersection, bike boxes,
leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning
movements. Reduce width of SB right-turn lane
and reduce turning radii; remove NB right-turn
slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb radii
on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks.
I-11 Grafton Street/Madden
Way/Kohnen Way
Provide higher visibility crossing treatments,
especially to support access to the school
I-12 Antone Way/
Bridgepointe Lane
Provide higher visibility crossing treatments,
especially to support access to the school
I-13 S Dublin Ranch Drive/
Woodshire Lane
Provide higher visibility crossing treatments,
especially to support access to the school
I-14 Tassajara Road and
Palisades Drive
Add Class I signage, striping, and signal
changes to create visibility of people walking
and biking across the existing Tassajara Road
and Palisades Drive signalized crossing
I-15 Martin Canyon Creek
Trail at Silvergate Drive
Provide Class I facilities on the west side of
Silvergate Drive and make intersection changes
at Hansen Drive and Bay Laurel Street to
provide comfortable connectivity to the existing
stop controlled intersection at Hansen Drive
I-16 Gleason Drive/
Grafton Street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-17 Gleason Drive/
Brannigan street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-18 Central Parkway/
Brannigan street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-19 Dublin Boulevard/
Brannigan street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-20 Central Parkway/
Hibernia Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-21 Central Parkway/
Hacienda Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
90 City of Dublin 90 City of Dublin Draft 249
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-22 Dublin Boulevard/
Regional Street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-23 Tassajara Road/
Gleason Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-24 Fallon Road /
Central Parkway
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-25 Dublin Boulevard/
Golden Gate Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-26 Fallon Road /
Dublin Boulevard
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-27 Dublin Boulevard/
San Ramon Road
"Reduce curb radii on all corners; install
directional curb ramps at all corners
Subject to further analysis, remove NB overlap
phase; install pedestrian countdown signals and
audible warning signs
Stripe crosswalk on south leg
subject to further analysis"
I-28
San Ramon Road/
Amador Valley
Boulevard
Consider adding leading pedestrian intervals
for all approaches; Consider removing slip
lanes on NW and NE corners and add curb
extensions on SW, NW, and NE corners
pending additional engineering analysis;
Consider striping crosswalk on south leg
pending additional engineering analysis
I-29 Regional Street/Amador
Valley Boulevard
Consider modifying signal to include
leading pedestrian interval on EB and
WB approaches; Consider protected left-
turn phasing for NB and SB traffic.
I-30
Amador Valley
Boulevard/
Amador Plaza
Mark crosswalk on east leg of intersection;
Widen median and add median tips as feasible to
provide 6' pedestrian refuge; Reduce curb radii
I-31 Dublin Boulevard/
Amador Plaza Road
Improve safety for people walking and biking
by implementing strategies like protected
intersection treatments, signing, bike lane
skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by
separating bicyclists and pedestrians from
turning movements. Reduce curb radii on all
corners and install directional curb ramps.
I-32 St. Patrick Way/
Golden Gate Drive
Install wayfinding signage to West Dublin
BART; install bulb-outs at all corners;
construct directional curb ramps
I-33
Amador Valley
Boulevard/
Donohue Drive
Reduce curb radii on all corners; widen
medians and add median tips; install
directional curb ramps on all corners
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 91 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 91 Draft 250
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONSOTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to this Plan’s specific recommendations for projects, there
are a number of steps that the City can undertake to improve walking
and biking in Dublin. The City should implement the program and
policy recommendations and the best practices described in the
engineering and design guide. Additionally, the City can continue
to implement projects from other previous or parallel planning
efforts, including those shown in figure 37 and listed below:
• Dublin Downtown Streetscape Plan
• BART Station Access Projects
• Iron Horse Regional Trail Projects
• Dublin Safe Routes to School Projects
• Local Road Safety Plan Projects
INCREASED ACCESS TO DESTINATIONS
With implementation of the network recommendations, low-
stress biking and comfortable walking and rolling access to key
destinations would increase. Existing biking access to BART was
compared to biking access with the implementation of the project
recommendations. Bicycle access to BART with the existing
network and implementation of network recommendations
is summarized in table 12 and shown in figure 39.
As demonstrated by this analysis, network recommendations
would increase potential bicycle access to BART by almost
600 percent, providing 71 percent of Dublin residents with a
travel route along streets that match their stress tolerance.
Table 12. BART Access by Bicyclist Type
Bicyclist Type
Share of Bicyclist Type with
Suitable Access to BART
Existing
Network
Recommended
Network
No Way, No How 0%0%
Interested but Concerned 0%8%
Enthused and Confident 36%51%
Strong and Fearless 52%52%
Total Across all Biker Types 6%12%
Share of population with bicycle
routes available that are suitable
to their Traffic Stress tolerance
12%71%
92 City of Dublin 92 City of Dublin Draft 251
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\PastPlan Locations.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Projects from Other PlansDublin, California
[0 3,000 FeetSchools
BART Stations
Class IA Multi-use Path
Class IA Multi-use Path -
Under Construction
Class IB Sidepath
Class IB Sidepath -
Under Construction
Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations
BART Station Access Project Locations
Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations
District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations
Safe Routes To School Project Locations
Figure 37. Recommended Projects from Other Plans Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
NO
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n H
o
rs
e T
r
ail
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\PastPlan Locations.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Projects from Other PlansDublin, California
[0 3,000 FeetSchools
BART Stations
Class IA Multi-use Path
Class IA Multi-use Path -
Under Construction
Class IB Sidepath
Class IB Sidepath -
Under Construction
Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations
BART Station Access Project Locations
Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations
District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations
Safe Routes To School Project Locations
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
DoughertyElem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93 Draft 252
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
k kkk
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
M A D D EN W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
SE
D
R
IN S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike ex polygons_interested_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022
Level of Traffic Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Existing NetworkDublin, California
[k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
k kkk
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike ex polygons_interested_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022
Level of Traffic Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Existing NetworkDublin, California
[k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
Figure 38. Existing Bike Access to BART Network
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
DoughertyElem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
94 City of Dublin 94 City of Dublin Draft 253
k kkk
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D EN W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
NO
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
IN S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n H
o
rs
e T
r
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike Recommended network polygons ibc_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022
Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Recommended NetworkDublin, California
[
Figure X
k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
k kkk
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike Recommended network polygons ibc_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022
Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Recommended NetworkDublin, California
[
Figure X
k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
Figure 39. Recommended Bike Access to BART Network
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
DoughertyElem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Dublin residents with a bicycle route along streets that match their level of traffic stress tolerance would increase from 12 percent to 71 percent.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95 Draft 254
5
255
This chapter presents the Plan’s recommended
programs, policies, and practices. It provides
recommendations for new programs,
continuation of existing programs, or expansion
of existing programs to encourage active
transportation in the city. It also discusses
recommended policies that the City should
implement as well as best practices that the
City can undertake in developing programs
to encourage active transportation in the city.
The recommendations are organized into
the following categories, which consist of
focused topic areas and recommendations:
This chapter also references the Engineering
and Design Guide, which was developed as part
of this project, as a resource for recommended
practices. The guide is included in appendix E.
5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, 5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS,
POLICIES, AND PRACTICESPOLICIES, AND PRACTICES
Coordination and Collaboration
Emerging Technologies
Promotion and EncouragementFunding and Implementation
Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities
Operations and Maintenance
Data Collection Design
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97 Draft 256
A walk- and bike-friendly Dublin requires investing
in infrastructure as well as ongoing programs that
encourage and support more people to choose sustainable
transportation options. To advance the vision and mission
of this Plan, the City of Dublin must envision new policy
and program initiatives and expand existing ones.
The following program and policy recommendations
are based on feedback from stakeholder interviews
as well as guidance from the technical advisory
committee, the bicycle and pedestrian advisory
committee, a public survey, and online and in-
person public engagement. Recommendations are
organized into eight topic areas, each of which are
supported by specific strategies and actions.
• A strategy is a high-level approach to reach an
outcome that works toward larger goals.
• An action is a specific step that advances the strategy.
These strategies and their actions will guide the
work of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian programs
and activities and complement the infrastructure
recommendations presented in the previous section.
Many factors contribute to the success of a specific
action, or strategy—including partner agency
support, funding opportunities, and alignment with
technological advancement and industry change.
Dublin, CA Source: City of Dublin
98 City of Dublin 98 City of Dublin Draft 257
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Establish protocols and procedures
for coordination of bicycle and
pedestrian projects with external
agency stakeholders. Utilize existing
regional channels, such as the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council, to
coordinate bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects that abut or
intersect jurisdictional boundaries.
Coordinate with the East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD) to provide
park access opportunities with local
trails and bike paths and promote green
transportation access and compliant
accessibility from public transit stops
to the regional parks and trails. This is
consistent with Public Access 5 and Public
Access 7 in the EBRPD Master Plan.
Designate a City staff member and
work with DUSD to designate a district
staff person who is responsible for
coordinating issues related to school
connectivity and Safe Routes to School.
Develop language for implementing
easements and private property paths
and coordinate with developers to advance
completion of bicycle and pedestrian
connections through and along private
property. While the Plan includes specific
recommendations for Class I multi-use
paths, there is a larger need to highlight
the opportunities that new development
provides to create active transportation
and greenway connections. Future
developments should identify how trails can
be implemented to complete connections
with existing neighborhoods and across
barriers. The City should consider how
easements can be developed for the use
of paths on private property as part of
the development review process. Future
development sites, especially along Dublin
Boulevard, should be evaluated to include
or contribute to paths that provide better
linkages along and across the street.
Partner with advocacy groups and
community-based organizations to
increase awareness of and build support
for pedestrian and bicycle projects.
Advocacy groups and community-based
organizations are trusted partners that can
highlight and elevate community voices.
These alliances promote stronger, more
meaningful collaborations that can be
crucial to advancing active transportation
projects and improving project outcomes.
Work with Dublin Police Services to
develop priorities and strategies to
promote traffic safety (e.g., focused
enforcement), particularly on high-
injury streets and near schools.
COORDINATION AND
COLLABORATION
Establish effective coordination processes and partnerships to advance bicycle and pedestrian projects.
The City cannot reach its goals without the
support of other key agencies: those who own,
operate, and manage streets and trails, those
who provide transit service within the city,
and the agencies who fund plans, projects, and
programs that advance transportation goals and
objectives. The Alameda County Transportation
Commission, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Caltrans, East Bay Regional Parks
District (EBRPD), Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART), Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA), Alameda County Flood
Control District (ACFCD), United States
Army Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
(Camp Parks), Dublin Unified School District
(DUSD), and adjacent jurisdictions all play
critical roles in how streets and trails function.
Because the reach of this Plan covers all city
streets and trails regardless of ownership, the
jurisdictional roles and responsibilities of agency
partners at both the project and system-wide
planning level are important and invaluable.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99 Draft 258
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Develop and maintain a spatial
database and inventory of pedestrian
and bicycle facilities and amenities,
including pedestrian-oriented lighting, curb
ramps, crosswalks, traffic control devices,
bicycle parking, maintenance stations, and
multimodal count and vehicle speed data.
Develop a data collection plan and
standard operating procedures for
collection of (1) speed survey data, especially
along high-injury segments and other priority
locations, such as streets near schools, and
(2) bicycle and pedestrian counts, especially
at activity centers and other priority
locations, such as streets near schools.
Complement the City’s bi-annual
bicycle and pedestrian workshops
with a written summary documenting
progress implementing pedestrian and
bicycle projects in the City. Post the
newsletter online, through social media
channels, and provide a subscription option
to facilitate distribution of information
to interested community members.
Ensure that transportation impact
analysis (TIA) conducted for new
development adheres to the City’s TIA
Guidelines (2021), addresses safety
and comfort of people walking and
biking, and includes the collection
of bicycle and pedestrian counts. The
safety analysis should be data-driven and
generally follow best practices outlined in
the FHWA’s Incorporating Data-Driven
Safety Analysis in Traffic Impact Analysis:
A How-To Guide. https://safety.fhwa.dot.
gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa19026.pdf.
DATA
COLLECTION
Routinely collect trip and facility information to track trends, evaluate projects, and prioritize investments.
Data is crucial to make an evidence-
based case for active transportation.
Surveys, counts, and infrastructure
data provide essential information
about the built environment and user
habits and experiences. This data can
then help explain how projects affect
neighborhoods and work toward
achieving City and agency goals. By
collecting location-specific data related
to transportation behaviors, project
design elements can be analyzed for
their effectiveness and take advantage
of opportunities to refine a project’s
design. Data can also help communicate a
project’s effects to the public and decision
makers as well as track trends over time.
100 City of Dublin 100 City of Dublin Draft 259
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Adhere to recommendations in the
Design Guide as part of the Plan.
Additionally, the City should incorporate best
practice design guidance coinciding with Plan
updates (at a minimum) and make updates as
needed to reflect changes in transportation
options, local, State, and national best
practices, and new information as a result
of research and evaluation of available
data. Require new infrastructure projects
to adhere to the Design Guide established
by this Plan by implementing a design
review process that ensures compliance,
including for construction work zones. This
recommendation is consistent with Climate
Action Plan 2030 Measure SM-7: Develop
a Built Environment that Prioritizes Active
Mobility and supporting actions that improve
the pedestrian experience and create a built
environment that prioritizes active mobility.
Develop design standards for the
incorporation and use of pedestrian-scale
lighting on new and reconstructed public
streets, private streets, and within private
development projects. Lighting can enhance
the built environment and increase safety
and security of people walking and biking.
Pedestrian-oriented facility and intersection
lighting helps motorists to see people walking
and biking and avoid collisions. Pedestrian
walkways, crosswalks, transit stops, both sides
of wide streets, and streets in commercial
areas should be well lit with uniform
lighting levels to eliminate dark spots.
Establish a list of approved traffic
calming strategies and devices to be
routinely considered with restriping and
other roadway improvement projects.
Continue to include bicycle and
pedestrian considerations during review
of new development. Follow best practices
for site access and driveway design. example:
consolidate or eliminate existing curb cuts
and minimize new curb cuts; improve
driveway sightlines; and, require parking
ramps to include mirrors and messaging
to prioritize people walking and biking.
Rather than alerting people walking
and biking that a car is approaching,
messaging should alert drivers that a
pedestrian or bicyclist is approaching.
Coordinate pedestrian and bicycle design
with the City’s Climate Action Plan and
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan.
DESIGN
Go beyond minimum design standards to incorporate safe walking and biking facilities into transportation projects.
Upcoming capital projects should be Upcoming capital projects should be
influenced by the Design Guide, which influenced by the Design Guide, which
references the priority networks defined in references the priority networks defined in
this Plan, namely the pedestrian priority this Plan, namely the pedestrian priority
network and the all ages and abilities network and the all ages and abilities
network (for biking and micromobility). network (for biking and micromobility).
Design decisions are often most difficult Design decisions are often most difficult
where these two priority networks overlap where these two priority networks overlap
with major arterials, particularly when the with major arterials, particularly when the
public right of way is constrained. While public right of way is constrained. While
challenging, these corridors, provide the challenging, these corridors, provide the
greatest opportunity to make bold changes greatest opportunity to make bold changes
that will advance mode shift goals, that will advance mode shift goals,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and
decrease vehicles miles travelled (VMT). decrease vehicles miles travelled (VMT).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101 Draft 260
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Develop flexible policies to support
development of emerging technologies
and alternative modes of transportation,
including shared autonomous vehicles,
connected vehicles, and micromobility-share
services. Policy topics to consider include
general provisions, operations, equipment
and safety, parking and street design,
equity, communications and community
engagement, data, and metrics. Consistent
with Strategy 3—Sustainable Mobility and
Land Use in the Climate Action Plan 2030,
the City will work with micromobility
and last-mile transportation providers to
allow the use of scooters and bike share
programs in specific Dublin locations.
Monitor and evaluate the impact of
emerging transportation technologies,
such as bikeshare, scooter share, and electric
bikes, on walking and biking in Dublin.
Formulate partnerships to advance
implementation of innovative,
ambitious, and scalable pilots, such as
micromobility services and mobility hubs.
Leverage, manage, monitor, and design
for new and emerging technologies
that increase visibility and comfort of
pedestrians and bicyclists. For example,
assess digital wayfinding tools that provide
real time information, explore emerging
technology such as adaptive lighting, and
test new technologies related to pedestrian
and bicycle detection and data collection.
Build a culture of continuous
improvement in knowledge, education,
and communications around technologies
that advance transportation options. Support
and create opportunities for staff training
and capacity building through payment of
professional memberships and participation
in conferences, webinars, and trainings.
Develop policy for use of e-bikes and
personal mobility devices on multi-
use paths and trails, and conduct public
safety, education, and outreach campaigns
to raise awareness of path etiquette.
EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES
AND INNOVATIONS
Leverage emerging transportation technologies to support travel by sustainable modes.
Today’s rapidly advancing technology
simultaneously provides opportunities
for transformational change and
introduces new challenges. Adapting
to such change requires anticipating
and keeping pace with technology and
being responsive to community needs.
The greatest challenge is to safely,
efficiently, and equitably transition
to a transportation future in which
everyone benefits from transformational
transportation technologies, including
ride-hailing, car-sharing, micromobility
options, mobile fare payment apps,
multimodal trip planning apps,
real-time travel information apps,
e-commerce apps, and grocery or meal
delivery services, just to name a few.
102 City of Dublin 102 City of Dublin Draft 261
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Incorporate proposed bicycle and
pedestrian projects identified in this
Plan into the development review processes.
Develop clear direction for City staff and the
development community for implementing
bicycle and pedestrian projects.
Continue to apply for local, state,
and federal grants to support
active transportation network
improvements and programming.
Leverage potential grant and
alternative funding strategies. Utilize
dedicated funding for bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure projects.
Add priority bicycle and pedestrian
projects identified in this Plan to the
Capital Improvement Program.
Develop strategies for rapid network
implementation and interim, or quick-
build, design treatments. Utilize a
quick-build approach, focusing on signing,
striping, and markings and lower cost
infrastructure modifications to implement
near-term treatments that improve safety
outcomes for people walking and biking.
Broaden public involvement efforts
and seek to engage the community
and solicit feedback on an ongoing
basis. The City strongly encourages public
comment, input, and involvement in a
wide range of transportation issues. To
increase opportunities for community
engagement, the City should continue
to - provide multiple opportunities and
various forums for feedback throughout
the project process, provide regular/routine
communication with the community on
upcoming, in progress, and completed
projects and proactively involve the
public in the decision-making process.
FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Increase investment in walking and biking infrastructure and supporting programs. Identify and allocate resources to implement Plan recommendations.
Walkable and bikeable communities
have considerable economic
benefits. In addition to capital
gains, investment in placemaking
and active transportation yield
intangible, societal benefits. However,
investments in active transportation
infrastructure and supporting
programs consistently fall short of
other transportation investments,
and there is a demonstrated need to
increase the funding and resources
allocated to walking and biking.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103 Draft 262
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Utilize flexibility created through the
passage of Assembly Bill 43 to set safe
speed limits in key areas within the
city. The City should implement changes
authorized in AB 43 and utilize guidance
outlined in City Limits from the National
Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO) to reduce default speed limits
(1) on streets designated as safety corridors
or high injury corridors (streets that have
the highest number of serious injuries and
fatalities); (2) in designated slow zones; and
(3) on other designated corridors using
a safe speed study. Under the provision
that went into effect in January 2022, the
City should move to lower speed limits
by 5 miles per hour (from 25 mph to 20
mph or from 30 mph to 25 mph) in key
business activity districts, streets where
at least half of the property uses are
dining or retail. Under the provision that
goes into effect in June 2024, the City
should reduce speeds by 5 mph on streets
designated as safety corridors according
to a definition that will be established by
Caltrans’s roadway standards manual.
Develop policy and guidance for
modifications to traffic signal operations,
including implementing leading pedestrian
intervals, providing automatic recall,
installing accessible pedestrian signals,
implementing no right turn on red, and
implementing protected-only left-turn phases.
Establish, update, and implement
maintenance policies and standards
for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
City right of way. Review the existing
Class I Facility Maintenance Plan (2015),
and develop a standard maintenance plan
for bicycle facilities of all types in the city
that accounts for factors such as signing
and striping maintenance and sweeping
protocols. Continue to collaborate with
East Bay Regional Parks District to
coordinate maintenance efforts for off-
street facilities in the city. When deciding
which facilities to maintain first, prioritize
facilities with the highest ridership and those
that provide access to schools, business
districts, major employers, major transit
centers, and other important destinations.
OPERATIONS
AND MAINTENANCE
Prioritize operations and maintenance of walking and biking infrastructure to make walking and biking safe and attractive options.
When people decide to walk and bike,
the condition of sidewalks, crosswalks,
signals, bike lanes, bikeways, and
trails are key factors. Inadequately
maintained sidewalks and bicycle
facilities create hazardous conditions
and disrupt network connectivity.
Facility quality also influences travel
choice and behavior. Implementation of
pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly signal
timing operations and maintaining good
sidewalk, street, and trail conditions
are critical components of an accessible
bicycle and pedestrian network.
104 City of Dublin 104 City of Dublin Draft 263
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Continue to create a digital and
printed citywide pedestrian and
bike network and amenities map.
Coordinate with local organizations to
create programs and events that support
active transportation and enhance the
built environment. Sample topics include
open streets, slow streets, temporary
street closures, and pavement to parks,
parklets, and plazas. This recommendation
is consistent with the Downtown Dublin
Streetscape Plan Guideline 3.2.6 Parklets
and Guideline 3.2.7 Street Closures.
Continue to partner with Alameda
CTC and DUSD to deliver Safe Routes
to School assessments and programs.
Encourage all Dublin schools to participate.
Consider steps to becoming a Bicycle
Friendly Community through the
League of American Bicyclists. The
program provides a roadmap to improving
conditions for bicycling and guidance
to help make a community’s vision for a
better, bikeable community a reality. A
Bicycle Friendly Community welcomes
bicyclists by providing safe accommodations
for bicycling and encouraging people to
bike for transportation and recreation.
Encourage businesses to be recognized
as Bicycle Friendly Businesses through the
League of American Bicyclists. The program
recognizes employers for their efforts to
encourage a more welcoming atmosphere
for bicycling employees, customers, and the
community. Interested business can apply
here: https://www.bikeleague.org/business.
Develop and implement a citywide
transportation demand management
(TDM) program to support additional
transportation options, incentives to choose
sustainable modes, and supplemental
infrastructure improvements identified
in this Plan. The TDM program should
include guidance for staff on requirements
for new development, including bicycle
parking and policy strategies (such
as density bonus for vehicle parking
reductions) and vehicle parking strategies
(such as shared and priced parking).
This recommendation is consistent with
(1) Measure 3: Develop a Transportation
Demand Management Plan in Strategy 3:
Sustainable Mobility and Land Use Measure
and (2) Measure ML-2: Reduce Municipal
Employee Commute GHG Emissions; and
(3) the Climate Action Plan 2030. The TDM
Plan will identify strategies to help facilitate
the move from single-occupancy vehicles
to less carbon intensive transportation
modes, like walking and biking.
PROMOTION AND
ENCOURAGEMENT
Encourage and promote increased use of sustainable travel modes, especially walking and biking.
Active travel, including walking and
biking, benefits physical and mental
health as well as the environment. To
promote active travel, the City must
provide convenient, safe, and connected
walking and biking infrastructure. But
implementing programs and campaigns
that provide targeted information or
incentives can also motivate people to
walk or bike. The recommendations focus
on non-infrastructure or programmatic
elements that emphasize active travel
as a convenient and healthy option.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 105 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 105 Draft 264
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Require short-term and long-term parking
that accommodates various types of
bicycles, skateboards, and scooters. Install
new short- and long-term parking to meet
the recommendations and requirements
outlined in the Design Guide (appendix #).
Consider adding or improving
bicycle parking and other bicycle
amenities, such as maintenance stations,
in City parks, at trailheads, at community
centers, and in high travel areas.
Develop a bicycle and pedestrian
wayfinding plan and install wayfinding
throughout the city. The plan should refer
to and coordinate with recommendations
identified in the Public Art Program and
Downtown Dublin Streetscape Master
Plan. This recommendation is consistent
with the Downtown Dublin Streetscape
Plan Guideline 4.2.2 Wayfinding.
SUPPORTING
INFRASTRUCTURE
AND AMENITIES
Provide supportive infrastructure and amenities to make walking and biking convenient and comfortable.
On any given street, careful and thoughtful
design of the built environment affects
accessibility, legibility, a sense of place,
and security. The features that give a
street character are often found in the
frontage or amenity zones; key elements
include supporting infrastructure like
lighting, wayfinding, bicycle parking,
benches, green stormwater infrastructure,
transit stops, and mobility hubs.
106 City of Dublin 106 City of Dublin Draft 265
6
266
This Plan’s infrastructure and
programmatic recommendations
provide strategies and actions
to help Dublin become a
more walkable and bikeable
city. Implementation of these
recommendations will occur over
time, depending on available
resources and funding sources.
This chapter provides an
overview and outcomes of the
prioritization process, estimated
project costs, and a matrix of
applicable funding sources to
advance implementation.
PRIORITIZATION
PROCESS
The project recommendations
include a total of 55.6 miles
across 53 segment projects; 18
trail projects; 16 freeway crossing
7 Peter A. Lagerwey, et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook,
NCHRP Report 803, Project No. 07-17 (2015), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf.
projects; 5 pedestrian crossing
projects; and 33 intersection
projects. Prioritizing these
projects is essential to optimize
use of staff time and resources.
The National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 803:
ActiveTrans Priority Tool
(APT) prioritization process
was used to identify priority
locations for pedestrian and
bicycle projects that improve
conditions for people walking,
biking, and rolling in Dublin.7
The prioritization process and
outcomes are summarized in this
section and additional discussion
is provided in appendix F.
The APT methodology uses
a standard set of terms and
definitions to describe the
different steps in the process.
The following definitions
apply within the APT:
• Factors are categories used
to express community or
agency values considered in
the prioritization process and
contain groups of variables
with similar characteristics.
• Weights are the numbers
used to indicate the relative
importance of different
factors based on community
or agency values.
• Variables are characteristics
of roadways, households,
neighborhood areas, and
other features that can be
measured, organized under
each factor. The terms
variables and evaluation criteria
may be used interchangeably.
• Scaling is the process
of making two variables
comparable to one another
(e.g., number of collisions
versus population density).
The prioritization factors and
evaluation criteria (or variables)
shown in table 13 align with
the Plan’s goals, and they were
developed in collaboration
with the City, the Technical
Advisory Committee and the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee. Variables were given
equal weight in the analysis.
6. IMPLEMENTATION 6. IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGYSTRATEGY
108 City of Dublin Draft 267
Table 13. Prioritization Factors and Variables
FACTOR VARIABLE NOTES PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE
Safety High-injury
corridors
Prioritize locations identified along the bicycle and pedestrian high-
injury networks. This variable aligns with the goal enhance safety.
Social Equity
Youth
and senior
population
Prioritizes locations with high scores indicating where
investment would promote positive outcomes for vulnerable
road users (youth and senior populations). This variable aligns
with the goals improve connectivity and enhance accessibility.
Connectivity
Demand
analysis
Prioritize locations with high potential for walking
and biking to unlock latent demand. This variable
aligns with the goal improve connectivity.
Proximity
to schools
Prioritize locations within one mile of schools to provide
increased opportunities to bike and walk to school. This
variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity.
Quality of Service
Bicycle level of
traffic stress
Prioritize locations based on the presence of existing high-stress riding
facilities. This variable aligns with the goal increase walking and biking.
Sidewalk gaps Prioritize locations with sidewalk gaps that may create barriers for
people walking. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity.
Major Barriers Freeway
crossings
Prioritize improving safety and quality of service for
ramp terminal intersection and freeway crossings. This
variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity.
Consistency with
Past Planning
Previously
identified projects
Prioritize locations of pedestrian and bicycle projects that were identified
in the previous plan. This variable aligns with the goal prioritize investments.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 109 Draft 268
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
After applying the evaluation
criteria and conducting the
prioritization analysis, three tiers
of recommendations emerged.
The infrastructure projects
were divided into three tiers,
representing the following:
• Tier I: High priority projects
with likely funding or
implementation sources
• Tier II: High priority
projects with no identified
funding source
• Tier III: Lower priority
investments that support
a full low-stress walking,
biking, and rolling
network across the City
TIER I PROJECTS
Nine segment projects, one trail
projects, two crossing project,
and three intersection projects
were identified as Tier I projects.
The Tier I projects include a
complete streets study, striping
and signage for high-stress streets
scheduled for repaving over
the next three years, four new
actuated crossings near schools,
and a bicycle and pedestrian
overcrossing bridge. Tier I
projects, those most likely to be
implemented in the next several
years, are shown in figure 40.
TIER II PROJECTS
Ten segment projects, one
crossing project, and seven
intersection projects were
identified as Tier II projects. Tier
II projects were identified using
the same prioritization criteria
and framework as Tier I projects,
with input from City staff and
through public engagement.
Tier II projects are high priority
projects that may require
additional feasibility analysis
and concept design development
prior to implementation. The list
of Tier II projects is presented in
Table 15 and the comprehensive
prioritized list of projects is
presented in Appendix C.
TIER III PROJECTS
Tier III projects include the
remaining recommendations
that increase the safety and
comfort of people walking,
biking, and rolling in the city.
While Tier III projects are not
listed in the implementation
plan projects in Table 15, they
can be found in the full list of
projects provided in Table 6 in
the Recommended Bicycle and
Pedestrian Networks section.
110 City of Dublin Draft 269
CITYWIDE
POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS
A total of 41 strategies and
actions were recommended in one
of eight policy and program topic
areas. These recommendations
will guide the City’s bicycle
and pedestrian programs and
activities and complement the
infrastructure recommendations.
COST ESTIMATES
The total cost of all the
projects identified in this Plan
is between $102 and $207
million (see table 14). This
cost includes adding bicycle
facilities, upgrading bicycle
facilities, updating or adding
pedestrian crossings, updating
pedestrian facilities, adding street
trees, redesigning interchange
ramps, and adding signage.
Table 14 shows the estimated
cost for all projects, including
planning-level costs and soft costs
for engineering, design support,
and contingency. Although the
cost estimates vary most based
on bicycle facility type and how
that facility will be implemented,
pedestrian and transit costs are
equally important and included
on a per-mile basis in each cost
as well. Costs for the individual
corridors can be found in the full
project list in appendix G. Cost
estimates’ high ends consider a
need to move the curb, therefore
upgrading all pedestrian facilities
(sidewalks, street trees, ADA
ramps, etc.) while the low costs
can be implemented through
restriping the roadway. If all
segment projects were able to be
implemented through roadway
reorganization, restriping, or
minor additional treatments,
it would cost approximately
$102 million to implement the
Plan. If reconstructing the curb
to implement each segment
project, the Plan is expected
to cost about $207 million.
Planning-level cost estimates
vary depending on project
context, which includes type
of facility, existing conditions,
right of way acquisition, and
desired functional and aesthetic
improvements like landscaping
or hardscaping. Project costs
were adjusted to include variable
costs for engineering, design
support, and contingency.
Cost estimates were calculated
using a combination of inputs
from the City and the Federal
Highway Administration
(FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle
Safety Guide. Moving forward,
the City will need to develop
detailed estimates during the
preliminary engineering stage to
calculate more accurate project
costs. These more-detailed
estimates are important due to
the varying costs of obtaining
right of way, construction,
drainage, and grading. Right of
way should also be considered
in preliminary engineering, as
the listed cost estimates do not
include right of way costs. Many
projects can be implemented
without purchasing additional
right of way by reallocating space
within the existing right of way.
Cost estimates for support
programs are not provided, as
the costs to implement these
programs can vary greatly.
Prior to implementing support
programs, the City should outline
the necessary element of each
program and establish a cost.
For example, to understand
what an open streets or slow
streets program would need, the
City could consider questions
such as how often streets would
need to close and how much
those closures would cost.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 111 Draft 270
Table 14. Total Project Costs
PROJECT TYPE MILES LOW COST HIGH COST
Shared Lane (Class III) 12.4 miles $1,698,000 $1,698,000
Bike Lane (Class IIA) 4.0 miles $4,177,000 $17,757,000
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) 17.4 miles $3,239,000 $39,421,000
Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV) 9.2 miles $12,118,000 $45,161,000
Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements
to Existing Sidepath (Class IB) 4.9 miles $5,460,000 $8,307,000
Shared Use Path/Paved Trail (Class IA)7.9 miles $40,428,776 $40,550,480
Speed Reduction Evaluation (exclusively)1.3 miles $139,000 $2,753,000
Freeway Crossing Projects 16 $17,840,000 $17,840,000
Pedestrian Crossing Projects 5 $9,520,000 $9,520,000
Intersection Projects 33 $7,393,000 $24,274,000
Total $102,013,000 $207,281,000
112 City of Dublin Draft 271
Table 15. Implementation Plan List: Tier I and Tier II Projects
PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - LOW COST- HIGH
S-1 Tier I Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming,
striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways
Various locations for Class III facilities/
neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive,
Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street,
Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way,
South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street
$25,000
(Study)
$25,000
(Study)
S-2 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible,
provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add
vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future
Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan
Street $239,000 $239,000
S-3 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible,
provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add
vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future
Hacienda Drive Southern
City Limits Gleason Drive $106,000 $106,000
S-4 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible,
provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add
vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future
Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara
Road $229,000 $229,000
S-5 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide
wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add vertical separation
to convert to Class IV in the future and evaluate opportunities
to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
Arnold Road Dublin
Boulevard
Altamirano
Ave $53,000 $53,000
S-6 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping Grafton Street Kohnen Way Antone Way $42,000 $42,000
S-7 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on
Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings
Tassajara Road,
Dougherty
Road, and
Hacienda Drive
Southern
City Limits
Dublin
Boulveard $150,000 $150,000
S-8 Tier I
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible,
provide wide buffer (greater than 3') for potential to add
vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future
Tassajara Road North Dublin
Ranch Drive
Rutherford
Drive $138,000 $2,784,000
S-9 Tier I
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I
or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this
location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Village Parkway Amador Valley
Boulevard
Northern
City Limits $945,000 $4,803,000
S-10 Tier II Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and
designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways
Various locations for Class III facilities/
neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack Drive,
Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania
Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South
Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street
$691,000 $691,000
S-11 Tier II
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities
and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit
or provide Class IV or Class I facility
Village Parkway Dublin
Boulevard
Amador
Valley
Boulevard
$91,000 $1,826,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 113 Draft 272
PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - LOW COST- HIGH
S-12 Tier II Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin
Ranch Drive
$18,000
(Study)
$18,000
(Study)
S-13 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I
or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this
location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Dougherty Road Dublin
Boulevard
Southern
city limits $274,000 $1,393,000
S-14 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I
or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this
location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Amador Valley
Boulevard
Stagecoach
Road
Dougherty
Road $331,000 $1,680,000
S-15 Tier II
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially
across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete streets
study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate for this location, and implement the
chosen separated bicycle treatment. This project is anticipated
to be implemented after the lower cost solution in S-7.
Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern
City Limits $505,000 $2,567,000
S-16 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I
or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this
location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Dublin Boulevard Inspiration
Drive
San Ramon
Road $1,212,000 $6,161,000
S-17 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I
or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this
location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Dublin Boulevard Inspiration
Drive
Western
extent $1,653,000 $8,401,000
S-18 Tier II
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially
across the I-580 overcrossing, conduct a complete
streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV
facilities are most appropriate for this location, and
implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment.
Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern
city limits $1,322,000 $6,721,000
S-19 Tier II
Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way
bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs for and
implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements,
intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.
Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara
Road $238,000 $1,583,000
S-20 Tier II Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern
city limits $80,000 $1,640,000
S-21 Tier II Work with Contra Costa County to design
and implement Class IIB facilities Tassajara Road Palidsades
Drive
Northern
City Limits $80,000 $1,640,000
T-1 Tier I
Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature
Park Master Plan to create park space and trail
access and connectivity improvements
$11,560,000 $11,560,000
T-2 Tier II Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road Downtown
Dublin Regional Street Amador
Plaza Road $764,767 $764,767
114 City of Dublin Draft 273
PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - LOW COST- HIGH
T-3 Tier II With development, add Class I connection between Dublin
Boulevard and Central Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road
East of Tassajara
approximately
500 ft
Dublin
Boulevard
Central
Parkway $620,753 $620,753
C-1 Tier I Provide mid-block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment)
Regional Street
between Dublin
Boulevard and
Amador Valley
Boulevard
$320,000 $320,000
C-2 Tier I Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing to
connect to Don Biddle Community Park
Dublin Boulevard
and Iron
Horse Trail
$6,318,000 $6,318,000
C-3 Tier II Add connection from Sierra Court to the
Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network
Sierra Court
cul-de-sac $2,132,000 $2,132,000
C-4 Tier III
Study the feasibility of improving the crossing of Tassajara
Creek Trail at Dublin Boulevard by providing better
connections to the existing crossing at John Monego Court.
Provide wayfinding and signs to direct people biking
and walking between the trail and the intersection.
Tassajara Creek
Trail and Dublin
Boulevard
$123,000 $123,000
C-5 Tier III
Improve connections to nearby crossings or add crossing
at Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek Trail (south of
Rutherford Drive) to provide access to the trailhead;
improve general access to and connectivity from the
trail to Tassajara Road and local destinations
Tassajara Creek
Trail and
Tassajara Road
$627,000 $627,000
I-1 Tier I
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of
people walking/biking, especially to school
Central Parkway/
Aspen Street $320,000 $320,000
I-2 Tier I
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of
people walking/biking, especially to school
Grafton Street/
Antone Way $320,000 $320,000
I-3 Tier I
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other
actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of
people walking/biking, especially to school
Amador Valley
Boulevard/
Burton Street
$320,000 $320,000
I-4 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes,
leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements. Remove slip lanes;
reduce curb radii on all corners; install curb extensions on
the SE and SW corners; install directional curb ramps.
Village Parkway/
Amador Valley
Boulevard
$123,000 $972,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 115 Draft 274
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\TierI Projects_05202022.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Tier I ProjectsDublin, California
[0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Figure 40. Priority Projects Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
D UB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLET
T D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\TierI Projects_05202022.mxd Date: 5/20/2022
Tier I ProjectsDublin, California
[0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
DoughertyElem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
116 City of Dublin Draft 275
PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - LOW COST- HIGH
I-5 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.
Village Parkway/
Tamarack Drive $123,000 $972,000
I-6 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.
Village Parkway/
Brighton Drive $123,000 $972,000
I-7 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.
Dublin
Boulevard/
Hibernia Drive
$123,000 $972,000
I-8 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.
Dublin
Boulevard/
Arnold Road
$123,000 $972,000
I-9 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike
boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.
Dublin
Boulevard/
Hacienda Drive
$123,000 $972,000
I-10 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes,
leading pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists
and pedestrians from turning movements. Reduce width
of SB right-turn lane and reduce turning radii; remove
NB right-turn slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb
radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks.
Dublin
Boulevard/
Village Parkway
$123,000 $972,000
Total Tier I $21,085,000 $27,589,000
Total Tier II and Tier III $80,928,000 $179,692,000
Total (all tiers) $102,013,000 $207,281,000
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 117 Draft 276
FUNDING SOURCES
Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded
through a combination of ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County
Measure B and BB), the City General Fund, developer-funded projects,
and State, regional, and federal grants. There are many funding sources
and programs available at the federal, state, regional, countywide, and
local levels for pedestrian and bicycle projects. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) alone identifies almost 20 different sources across
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) funding programs
that can be used to support active transportation improvements such as
bike racks for transit vehicles and new sidewalks and separated bike lanes.
On November 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL), also called the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA). The law authorizes $1.2 trillion for federal investments in
transportation, broadband access, clean water, and electric grid renewal.
The USDOT will distribute funds over five years through more than two
dozen targeted competitive grant programs for initiatives like better roads
and bridges, investments in public transit, and resilient infrastructure.
This program and other relevant funds are summarized in table 16 along
with current funding levels, applicable project type, and limitations.
Table 16. Funding Sources
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
LOCAL
General Fund Capital improvements without
other funding sources regularly
available. Relevant projects receiving
funding through the General Fund
as identified in the 2022-2027
Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) include Citywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Improvements, Downtown
Dublin Street Grid Network, and
San Ramon Trail Lighting.
Approximately $700,000
was allocated to projects
that included bicycle and
pedestrian enhancements
in 2021-2022 and a total
of $342,000 has been
allocated over the 2022-
2027 period, per the CIP.
Impact Fees
& Developer
Mitigation
Capital improvements, including
streetscape enhancements, that
would improve conditions for
people walking and biking.
Current impact fees include Eastern
Dublin Transportation Impact Fee,
Western Dublin Transportation
Impact Fee, Dublin Crossing
Transportation Fee, Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee,
and Dublin Crossing Fund.
Impact fees contributed
$2,400,000 in 2021-2022
and are anticipated to
fund almost $1,000,000
of pedestrian and bicycle-
related projects 2022-2027.
The St Patrick Way Extension
is a developer-funded
project (about $3,750,000)
that includes pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
COUNTYWIDE AND REGIONAL
118 City of Dublin Draft 277
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Measure B and
Measure BB
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program:
Capital project, programs, and
plans that directly address
bicycle and pedestrian access,
convenience, safety, and usage.
Cannot be used for repaving an
entire roadway or for programs
that exclusively serve city staff.
Local Streets and Roads Program:
Capital projects, programs,
maintenance, or operations that
directly improve local streets and
roads and local transportation.
Cannot be used for programs
that exclusively serve city staff.
MEASURE B: $1,400,000
allocated in 2021-2022
& $300,000 allocated in
2022-2027 to Annual Street
Repaving, Citywide Bicycle
and Pedestrian Improvements
and the Iron Horse Trail
Bridge at Dublin Boulevard.
MEASURE BB: $6.5 million
of Measure BB funds was
allocated to bicycle and
pedestrian projects in 2021-
22, including $5.2 million
from Measure BB Grants.
Approximately $4.7 million
has been allocated in 2022-27.
Measure RR Projects are required to make
the BART system safer, more
reliable, and to reduce traffic.
$1,500,000 allocated to Iron
Horse Bridge at Dublin
Boulevard in 2021-22 and
no funding is allocated
to bicycle or pedestrian
projects in 2022-27.
One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG)
Local street and road maintenance,
streetscape enhancements, bicycle
and pedestrian improvements,
Safe Routes to School projects,
and transportation planning.
Most projects must be in a
priority development area (PDA)
or have a connection to one.
$916 million in OBAG
2 regionwide8
$750 million in OBAG 3 for
projects from 2023-26 with
additional funds anticipated
through the 2021 Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.9
8 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-2
9 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-3
10 https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/transit-21st-century/funding-sales-tax-and-0.
11 https://www.dublin.ca.gov/1955/Pavement-Management-Program
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Transportation
Development
Act (TDA)
Article 310
Design and construction of
walkways, bike paths, bike lanes,
and safety education programs.
Project must be in an adopted
plan. All projects must be
reviewed by Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (BPAC).
$3 million annually every
2–3 years regionwide
STATEWIDE
Statewide Gas
Tax Revenue
Construction, engineering,
and maintenance.
Ineligible expenses include
decorative lighting, transit facilities,
park features, and new utilities.
$2 million allocated in
2021-22 and $3.7 million
allocated in 2022-27.
Road
Maintenance
and
Rehabilitation
Account
(RMRA)
Road maintenance and rehabilitation,
safety improvements, railroad grade
separations, traffic control devices,
and complete streets components.
If it has a pavement condition index
(PCI) of 80 or more, a city may
spend its RMRA funds on other
transportation priorities. Dublin
has a PCI greater than 80.11
1.8 million in 2021-22 and
$5.6 million in 2022-27 for
Annual Street Resurfacing
and Iron Horse Bridge
at Dublin Boulevard
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 119 Draft 278
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Active
Transportation
Program
(ATP)12
Infrastructure projects and plans,
including bicycle and pedestrian
projects, active transportation plans,
quick build projects, and Safe Routes
to School Plans, as well as education
and encouragement activities.
Funding cannot be used for funded
projects or for cost increases. Scoring
criteria favors projects located
in or benefiting equity priority
(disadvantaged) communities.
$1.65 billion for Cycle
6 (2023) up from $223
million in Cycle 5.
The State budget bill added
$1 billion in June 2022 after
applications were submitted.
Biannual program
Sustainable
Communities
Multimodal transportation and
land use planning projects that
further the region’s Sustainable
Communities Strategy.
Requires 11.47 percent local match.
$29.5 million, split between
statewide and regional
competitive funds
Strategic
Partnerships
Planning efforts that identify and
address statewide, interregional, and
regional transportation deficiencies
on the state highway system in
partnership with Caltrans.
Requires 20 percent local match.
Would require Dublin to apply
as sub-applicant to Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC).
$4.5 million, $3 million
of which is dedicated to
projects related to transit
12 https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program
13 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/SHOPP/2018_shopp/2018-shopp-adopted-by-ctc.pdf
14 https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/stip/2022-stip/2022-adopted-stip-32522.pdf
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
State Highway
Operation and
Protection
Program
(SHOPP)13
Repair and preservation, emergency
repairs, safety improvements,
and some highway operational
improvements. Elements include
pavement, bridges, culverts, and
transportation management systems.
Projects must be on the California
State Highway System.
$18 billion statewide
for 4 years
Portfolio updated
every 2 years
State
Transportation
Improvement
Program
(STIP)
Any transportation project
eligible for State Highway
Account or federal funds.
Projects need to be nominated
in Regional TIP, but MTC may
nominate fund categories.
$71 million for
Alameda County14
Updated every 2 years
FEDERAL
Active
Transportation
Infrastructure
Investment
Program
Projects that connect active
transportation infrastructure.
$1 billion nationally
Highway
Safety
Improvement
Program
(HSIP)
Focuses on infrastructure treatments
with known crash reduction
factors, such as countermeasures
at locations with documented
collision and safety issues.
$263 million allocated
statewide for 2022
Rebuilding
American
Infrastructure
with
Sustainability
and Equity
(RAISE)
Major infrastructure projects,
especially with road, bridge, transit,
or intermodal components.
Minimum grant size of $5 million.
It is possible to propose a program
(or network) of projects that address
the same transportation challenge.
$2.275 billion nationally
120 City of Dublin Draft 279
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Safe Streets
& Roads for
All (SS4A)
Comprehensive safety action plan
development and implementation.
$6 billion nationally
PROTECT
Resilience
Grants
Transportation resilience planning
and project implementation.
$1.4 billion nationally
Reconnecting
Communities
Removing or retrofitting highways
to restore community connectivity.
$1 billion nationally
SMART
Grants
Demonstrating projects utilizing
innovative technology to improve
transportation efficiency and safety.
$1 billion nationally
National
Infrastructure
Project
Assistance
grants
program
(Mega)
Highway or bridge project, including
grade separation or elimination
project. Supports large, complex
projects that are difficult to fund
through other means and that are
likely to generate national or regional
economic, mobility, or safety benefits.
Minimum grant size of $100 million.
It is possible to propose a program,
or network, of projects that address
same transportation challenge.
$5 billion nationally
(2022–2026)
Nationally
Significant
Multimodal
Freight and
Highways
Projects grants
program
(INFRA)
Multimodal freight and highway
projects of national or regional
significance to improve the safety,
efficiency, and reliability of the
movement of freight and people in
and across rural and urban areas.
Minimum project size of $100
million. A network of projects
can be proposed that address
same transportation problem.
$7.25 billion nationally
(FY 2022–2026)
15 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.cfm.
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Healthy Streets
Program
Projects that reduce the urban heat
island and improve air quality.
$500 million
Bridge
Investment
Program
Bridge replacement, rehab,
preservation, and protection.
$15.8 billion
Congestion
Management
& Air Quality
(CMAQ)
Transportation projects or programs
that contribute to attainment of
national air quality standards.
Must reduce air pollution and
be included in the regional
transportation plan.
Estimated $2.54 billion
nationally in 2022,
$506 million of which
apportioned to California
Surface
Transportation
Block Grant
(STBG)
Improve conditions and performance
on any federal-aid highway,
bridge, or tunnel projects on a
public road; includes pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure.
In general, funds aren’t used
on local roads, but there are
many exceptions to this.15
$13.835 billion estimated
nationally in 2022;
$1.2 billion of which is
apportioned to California
Divided into population-
based and statewide funds.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 121 Draft 280
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
Setting performance measures
helps track progress toward goals
and document the results of
investments in biking, walking, and
rolling. Performance measures and
monitoring also helps to identify
opportunities for improvement.
Table 17 presents the performance
measures and desired trends that have
been established to track progress
toward achieving this Plan’s goals.
Table 17. Goals and Performance Measures
GOAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE AND DESIRED TREND
Enhance Safety
• Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations
• Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Increase users’ perception of safety
• Decrease average crossing distances
Increase Walking
and Biking
• Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities
Improve Connectivity
• Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase number of crossing opportunities
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements
• Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces
Enhance Accessibility
• Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues
• Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning
surfaces
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements
• Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair
Prioritize Investments
• Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to
build a complete streets network
• Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation
infrastructure spending
122 City of Dublin Draft 281
LOOKING AHEAD
Walking and biking allow residents and visitors of Dublin to travel throughout the city in a way that promotes a
sustainable, healthy, and vibrant community. This Plan helps foster a safe and connected multimodal transportation
network and establishes Dublin’s vision and comprehensive approach to improving walking, biking, and rolling.
The ultimate goal is a universally-accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated system that promotes active and
sustainable transportation as a convenient alternative to motor vehicles. The Plan’s performance measures
allow for the ongoing tracking of progress towards implementation of the following goals:
GOAL 1 GOAL 2 GOAL 3GOAL 3 GOAL 4 GOAL 5GOAL 5
Enhance Safety Increase Walking and Biking Improve Connectivity
Enhance Accessibility Prioritize Investments
The Plan provides for both near-term and long-term infrastructure investments to achieve the Plan’s vision and
goals as well as policy and programmatic recommendations that encourage and support walking, biking, and rolling.
Together, these components create a comprehensive approach that will guide, prioritize, and implement a network
of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, and public health in Dublin.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 123 Draft 282
APPENDIX
A. Community Engagement Summary
B. Existing Conditions
a. Program and Policy Review
b. Demographic Analysis
c. Collision Analysis & High Injury Network
d. Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
e. Demand Analysis
C. Network Recommendations
a. Prioritization Framework
b. Project List
c. Cost Estimates
D. Engineering & Design Guide
283
DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN DUBLIN PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN: AND BICYCLE PLAN: SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN GUIDANCE DESIGN GUIDANCE
June 2022
Draft
Attachment 2
284
2 City of Dublin Draft
INTRODUCTION
This guide was developed as a reference document
for best practices in planning and designing bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. It first provides resources
relevant to planning and designing pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, including a list of specific design
topics and guidance document recommendations to
consult. It then provides specific planning and design
recommendations for several key topics relevant to
developing Dublin’s biking and walking infrastructure.
RESOURCES 3
DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE 4
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE 14
BIKEWAY SELECTION ...................................15
ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS ........25
CROSSING SELECTION .................................27
BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH
INTERSECTIONS ............................................31
285
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 3 Draft Draft
KEY RESOURCES
• AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Fourth Edition
(2012 ) – likely to be replaced by the Fifth Edition in 2022
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition (2014)
• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013)
• FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (2018)
• CalTrans Highway Design Manual (2018)
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015)
• FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009)
• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 4 (2019)
SUPPLEMENTAL
RESOURCES
• TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings.
Washington D.C.: TCRP and NCHRP, 2006.
• Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the
Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Available: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/A-08_
RES-3765_complete_streets.pdf 2006.
• Complete Streets Checklist Guidance Resolution 4493, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, Available: https://mtc.
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-05/MTC-
Administrative-Guidance-CS-Checklist.pdf (2022)
RESOURCES
The following resources should be used as references for best practices in planning and design for pedestrian facilities.
286
Draft
2
DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE
287
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 5 Draft Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Sidewalks and
Sidewalk Zones
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Guide for the Planning Design and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Pages 37– 44; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
street-design-guide/street-design-elements/sidewalks/
Chapter 3.2; Pages 54 - 70
Pedestrian
Wayfinding
Seamless Seattle Pedestrian Wayfinding Strategy (2019)
Global Street Design Guide (2016)
Global Street Design Guide | Global
Designing Cities Initiative
Wayfinding Strategy_July2019_
SDOT Edit.pdf (seattle.gov)
6.3.9; Page 91;
https://globaldesigningcities.org/wp-content/uploads/
guides/global-street-design-guide-lowres.pdf
Street Furniture Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilities in the Public Right-of-way (2013)
https://www.access-board.gov/
prowag/preamble-prowag/
Page 70; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/
preamble-prowag/#r212-street-furniture
Pedestrian Scale
Lighting
FHWA Lighting Handbook (2012)
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/
lighting_handbook/pdf/fhwa_handbook2012.pdf
Street Design Manual: Lighting Update (2016)
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/street_
design_manual_-_lighting_update_2016_2.pdf
Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Pages 75-78
Pages 2-3
Chapter 3.2.11, Page 65
288
6 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Crosswalk
Markings
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/
part3/part3b.htm#section3B18
Uncontrolled
Crossing
Enhancements
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013):”
https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/
FHWA Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked
Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (2005)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/
research/safety/04100/04100.pdf
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-
design-guide/intersection-design-elements/
crosswalks-and-crossings/midblock-crosswalks/
Pages 49 - 61
Special Paving
Treatments
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System (2013)
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=39
Crossing Islands NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Page 116; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/
crosswalks-and-crossings/pedestrian-safety-islands/
In-Street
Pedestrian
Crossings Signs
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/
part2/part2b.htm#section2B12
289
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 7 Draft Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Reduced Radii and
Sidewalk Corners
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Pages 117-118/ https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/intersection-
design-elements/corner-radii/
Curb Extensions,
Including
Chicanes
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Guide for the Planning Design and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Pages 45- 50; https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/street-design-
elements/curb-extensions/
Chapter 2.6.2 Page - 43
Curb Ramps Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilities in the Public Right-of-way
https://www.access-board.gov/
prowag/preamble-prowag/
Pages 36 – 37;
https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/preamble-
prowag/#r304-curb-ramps-and-blended-transitions
Right-Turn
Slip Lane
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System (2013)
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=24
Advanced Yield
Markings
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/
part2/part2b.htm#section2B11
Advanced
Warning Signs
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
Sign R1-5a
290
8 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Crossing Types:
RRFB, PHB,
Grade Separated
Crossings,
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
Sections 4C.05, 4C.06, 4F.01, 4L.03
Pedestrian
Signal Timing
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: https://nacto.
org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of
Pedestrian Facilities
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
NACTO pages 125 – 134; https://nacto.
org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
intersection-design-elements/traffic-signals/
Chapter 4.1.2 – Page 101
4E.06; https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
htm/2009/part4/part4e.htm
Leading
Pedestrian
Intervals
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: https://nacto.
org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Page 128; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/
traffic-signals/leading-pedestrian-interval/
Signal Phasing-
Protected Left
Turns and Split
Phasing
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and
Countermeasure Selection System (2013)
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=51
291
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 9 Draft Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Bus Stop
Accessibility
Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop
Accessibility and Safety (2 https://www.nadtc.
org/wp-content/uploads/NADTC-Toolkit-for-
the-Assessment-of-Bus-Stop-Accessibility.pdf
ADA Accessibility Guidelines (2002):
Adaag 1991 2002 (access-board.gov)
Page 10
Section 10.2; https://www.access-board.
gov/adaag-1991-2002.html#tranfac
Bikeway selection FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/
tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf
Also see supplemental guidance pages XYZ
Pages 22-23
Class I Shared Use
Path & Shared Use
Path Features
Guide for the Planning Design and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Chapter 3.2.14 Page 70
Grade Separation Guide for the Planning Design and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Pages 94 - 98
Curb Ramps Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG) (2013) https://www.access-board.gov/
files/prowag/PROW-SUP-SNPRM-2013.pdf
R304; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/
chapter-r3-technical-requirements/#r304-
curb-ramps-and-blended-transitions
292
10 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Crossing
Treatments
Guide for the Planning Design and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Chapter 3.3 Page 74,80;
Chapter 3.4 Page 90
Bicycle Signal
Heads
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Page 91; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/
Unsignalized
Intersections
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Page 105; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/
Sidepaths AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities (2012)
Chapter 5, Page 8
Sidepath
Intersection
Design
Considerations
AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities (2012)
Chapter 5, Page 42
Class IIA
Bicycle Lanes
AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for-
the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/
Urban Bicycle Design Guide https://nacto.org/
publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Chapter 4, Pages 11 -22
Pages 1 – 21/https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/
293
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 11 Draft Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Bicycle Facility
Design
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/ftp/dtsd/
bts/environment/library/PE/AASHTO-
GreenBook-7th-edition(2018).pdf
Page 119/https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/
Chapter 4 Page 77; Chapter 5 Page 8;
Chapter 6 Page 7; Chapter 9 Page 156
Bicycle Parking AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for-
the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/
Transit Street Design Guide https://nacto.org/
publication/transit-street-design-guide/transit-streets/
Chapter 6
Chapter 4 Page 105
Bicycle Facility
Maintenance
AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for-
the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/
Chapter 7
294
12 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Bicycle Signals AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities:
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for-
the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Chapter 4 Page 43
MUTCD Figure 9C-7 (bicycle detector
pavement markings); Section 4D.08
through 4D.16 (signal placement)
Pages 91 – 111; https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/
Restriping to Add
Bicycle Facilities
FHWA: Incorporating On-Road Bicycle
Networks into Resurfacing Projects, 2016
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/
resurfacing_workbook.pdf
Entire document
Stormwater
Management
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Pages 65 – 70; https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/street-design-
elements/stormwater-management/
295
2
Draft
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE
296
14 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bike paths provide a completely separated facility designed for
the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with minimal or no
conflicting motor vehicle traffic. Generally, these corridors are
not served by streets, and the path may be along a river, converted
rail right-of-way, or powerline, or other car-free corridors.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Class IA paths may provide connectivity between
neighborhoods or communities, to parks or recreational
areas, along or to rivers or streams, or to other destinations
without travelling along a roadway corridor.
COST ESTIMATE:
$2.2M per mile , including design and construction for the path,
assuming the inclusion of two high visibility actuated crossings
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• The width of a shared-use path may vary based on expected
bicyclist and pedestrian volume and right-of-way constraints. For
accessibility purposes, trails should be limited to 5% grade.
• Where right-of-way or other physical constraints exist, sidepaths
may be provided adjacent to the roadway. Information about
these facilities, Class IB facilities, are provided on the next page.
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II FacilityKATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)Class III Facility Class IV Facility
BIKEWAY SELECTION
CLASS IA: BIKE PATHS OR SHARED USE PATHS
Iron Horse Regional Trail, Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
297
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 15 Draft Draft
PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS:
• A 12- to 14-foot path is desirable. The higher the
anticipated volumes of users, the greater the width
should be to accommodate these users comfortably.
• Pedestrian-scale lighting improves visibility,
particularly at intersection crossings, tunnels,
underpasses, trail heads, and rest areas.
• A shy distance of at least one foot allows adequate
lateral clearance for the placement of signs or other
vertical objects. If objects are shorter than 3 feet tall,
they may not present an obstruction for cyclists.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
• While the width may vary along a path, a path should be at
least 10 feet wide except in rare cases and for short distances.
• Path crossings may be designed with yield, signal, or stop
control depending on path volume and traffic volume on the
crossing street. Refer to MUTCD 9C.04 for more information.
298
16 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Sidepaths are shared use paths that exist within a roadway
corridor. They provide dedicated space for bidirectional
travel for people walking, biking, using mobility devices,
or using scooters or other micromobility devices.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Sidepaths are applicable in areas with few motor vehicle driveways
or access points on roadways with operating speeds above 35
miles per hour and serving above 6,500 vehicles per day, but other
treatments (generally sidewalks and Class IV facilities) are typically
preferred for safety and comfort. Sidepaths can be used along high
speed and/or volume roadways to provide a completely separated
space outside of the roadway for people walking and biking.
COST ESTIMATE:
$2.6M per mile , including design and construction
for the path and a planted buffer
CLASS IB: SIDEPATHS
Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II FacilityKATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)Class III Facility Class IV Facility
299
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 17 Draft Draft
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• In many situations, especially urban areas or denser or
destination focused suburban areas, providing dedicated
walking and biking facilities that are separate from each other
is preferred to combining these modes on a sidepath.
• As motor vehicle speeds and volumes increase, providing
more separation between the roadway and the path will
provide higher comfort for those using the path.
• One key concern with providing sidepaths instead of directional
bicycle facilities is the lack of driver awareness about contraflow
bicycle traffic (higher speed traffic than pedestrians, which are
expected to travel bidirectionally) at intersections and access points.
If a motor vehicle is turning left, they are more likely to be aware of
or look for traffic traveling toward them. Skip striping and signs that
indicate two-way bicycle travel through crossings at intersections
is key to creating awareness of the birdirectional traffic. At
intersections, treatments like leading pedestrian and bicycle intervals
can also help increase the visibility of crossings bicyclists. Sidepaths
must be appropriately designed at access points or intersections.
• Like for a Class IA facility, the width of a sidepath
may vary based on expected bicyclist and pedestrian
volume and right-of-way constraints.
• When providing sidepaths, a critical consideration is the connection
to other biking facilities. If a sidepath connects to a uni-directional
bike lane at an intersection, the design of the intersection should
consider the efficiency and safety of connecting bicyclists to the
infrastructure they will need to use to continue on their path.
Diagonal crossings can reduce the need for two-stage crossings,
which can slow bicyclists and increase crossing exposure. Pavement
markings and signs can also be effective in guiding bicyclists for
how to make the connection and provide continuity and clarity to
these transitions, which can otherwise be uncomfortable or unclear,
and may encourage crossing in ways or locations that increase
exposure or the number of potential conflict points. Striping on
the ground to encourage separation between people walking and
biking in different directions, especially at intersections or areas with
higher volumes can create clarity and decrease conflicts between
these modes. The maximum grade of a side path should be 5%,
but the grade should generally match the grade of the roadway.
Where the roadway grade exceeds 5%, the sidepath grade may
as well but it must be less than or equal to the roadway grade.
PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS:
• A 12- to 14-foot path is desirable. The higher the anticipated
volumes of users, the greater the width should be to
accommodate these users comfortably.
• Pedestrian-scale lighting improves visibility for and of the users,
and is particularly important at intersection crossings and in areas
with access points or driveways.
• A shy distance of at least one foot allows adequate lateral
clearance for the placement of signs or other vertical objects.
If objects are shorter than 3 feet tall, they may not present an
obstruction for cyclists.
• Biking and walking facilities should be provided on both sides of the
street to provide access to destinations along both sides of a street.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
• While the width may vary along a path, a path should be at
least 10 feet wide except in rare cases and for short distances.
• Path crossings may be designed with yield, signal, or stop
control depending on path volume and traffic volume on the
crossing street. Refer to MUTCD 9C.04 for more information.
300
18 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bike lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a designated right-
of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel by motor
vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited, but vehicle parking may
be allowed on either side of the bikeway, and drivers may cross
through for turning movements. Class IIA facilities are bike
lanes without a buffer, while Class IIB facilities include a buffer
between motor vehicle traffic and the dedicated bike lane.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bike lanes are appropriate on streets with moderate traffic
volumes and speeds: typically between 25-35 mph and 3,000
to 6,500 vehicles per day. Class IIB facilities are preferred
for these conditions, but if constraints do not allow for a
buffer to be added, Class IIA facilities can be provided.
COST ESTIMATE:
$225,000 – $5,500,000 per mile including design and construction;
the lower end of the estimate is based on the ability to restripe
existing roadway to add bicycle lanes, while the high end of the
estimate is based on the need to widen the roadway to add facilities,
including a full reconstruction of a planter strip and sidewalk.
CLASS IIA AND CLASS IIB FACILITIES:
BIKE LANES AND BUFFERED BIKE LANES
Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc
301
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 19 Draft Draft
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
A buffer provides a more comfortable facility, so if space is
available, a buffer should be provided. A buffer becomes more
necessary when speeds and volumes are at the high end of
the ranges provided in the “typical application” above.
PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS:
When a bike lane is placed next to active street
parking, a parking-side buffer is preferred.
When steep grades are present, consider providing the next
level of separation uphill (i.e., add a buffer, or physically
separate the bike lane). It may be appropriate to mix
facilities for opposite directions along a steep grade.
The desired minimum width of a bike lane is 6 feet. When adjacent
to parking, the recommended width from curb face to the far
edge of the bike lane is 14.5 feet (12 feet minimum). With high
bike volumes, a 7-foot travel area width is recommended.
At intersections with right-turn vehicle lanes, it is recommended that
the bike lane transitioned to the left of the lane (see below) using
dotted white lines, appropriate signage, and colored pavement.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
When buffers are used, they shall be marked with 2 solid
parallel white lines, at least 18 inches apart. If the buffer is at
least 3 feet wide, use diagonal or chevron hatching inside.
302
20 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bike routes or bicycle boulevards provide a shared right-of-way with
motorists. They are designated by signs or permanent markings,
which may include shared-lane markings (“sharrows”) to alert
drivers of the shared roadway environment. Because the right-
of-way is shared, vehicle speeds on Class III bikeways should be
managed through the use of traffic calming or traffic diversion.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bike routes are appropriate only in the presence of low speeds
and low traffic volumes: typically below 25 miles per hour and
3,000 vehicles per day. They are most applicable on streets
where no centerline is present. Outside of these circumstances,
a designated lane or other facility is appropriate.
COST ESTIMATE:
$40,000 – $135,000 per mile including design and construction,
depending on the need to add traffic calming elements.
BENEFITS:
On streets that are already low speed and volume,
bike routes can provide bike connectivity for people
all ages and abilities at a relatively low cost.
CLASS III BIKE ROUTES/BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
303
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 21 Draft Draft
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
To ensure the selected facility retains its low speed and
low-volume character, bicycle boulevards should be
supported with traffic calming measures and volume
management measures (e.g., restricting vehicle access).
The level of stress of bicycle boulevards are typically determined
by major street crossings, which should be designed to
promote the desired level of traffic stress (i.e., controlled).
PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS:
Bike routes should be direct, as bicyclists are unlikely to adhere to a
path that requires significant out-of-direction travel. Ideally a bicycle
boulevard would be parallel and proximate to a major vehicle route.
Signs and pavement markings should be used to identify the bike
route. Wayfinding signs are recommended to guide bicyclists
to destinations and through any turns in the route (refer to
CAMUTCD 9B.20). Chevron pavement markings can guide
bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow
for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel side-by-side within the
same traffic lane, and alert road users of their presence.
To create a shared street environment, it is most
appropriate to use roadways that do not have a
striped centerline as neighborhood bikeways.
Typically, minor streets along the bicycle boulevard
should be controlled to minimize delay for bicyclists
and encourage use of the bicycle boulevard.
Required elements:
Place sharrow pavement markings at least every
250 feet and after each intersection.
304
22 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Separated bikeways provide physical separation from vehicular
traffic. This separation may include grade separation, flexible
posts, planters or other inflexible physical barriers, or on-street
parking. These bikeways provide bicyclists a greater sense of
comfort and security, especially in the context of high-speed
roadways. Separated facilities can provide one-way or two-way
travel and may be located on either side of a one-way roadway.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Separated bikeways are appropriate for higher volume
and speed settings including above 35 miles per hour
and serving 6,500 or more vehicles per day.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,100,000 – $5,700,000 per mile including design and
construction; the lower end of the estimate is based on the
ability to reorganize existing roadway to add separated
bike lanes, while the high end of the estimate is based on
the need to widen the roadway to add facilities, including
a full reconstruction of a planter strip and sidewalk.
CLASS IV: SEPARATED BIKEWAY/CYCLE TRACK
San Diego, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
Source: City of Dublin
305
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 23 Draft Draft
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
Separated bikeways are appropriate at speeds and volumes where
bike lanes or buffered bike lanes do not adequately address the
comfort needs of the Interested but Concerned biking population.
These facilities are more appropriate than shared-use paths if
pedestrian and bicyclist volumes are expected to be relatively high
or there are significant access points or driveways along a road.
Two-way separated bikeways are appropriate along routes with
many destinations on only one-side of the road, incidences
of wrong-way riding, along one-way streets, or in locations
where they facilitate connection to a shared-use path.
PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS:
The type of separator can impact the comfort of bicyclists
along a separated bikeway. Elements with higher mass
and height can provide higher comfort. Planted separators
can also improve the aesthetics along a corridor.
Along separated bikeways, intersections may provide the most
exposure to cyclists. Including protected intersection treatments
can improve the comfort along the entire route and make the
facility more appropriate for people of all ages and abilities.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
Physical separation may be provided by flexible delineators,
parked cars, bollards, planters, or parking stops. When parked
cars provide separation, a buffer width of at least 3 feet
should be provided for bicyclists to avoid the “door zone.”
The riding area for one-way lanes should be at least 5 feet
wide (7 feet if along an uphill grade). For two-way bikeways,
the preferred width is 12 feet (10 feet minimum).
In constrained environments, consider removing a travel lane,
reducing the bike lane width, or reducing the sidewalk buffer
width. Sidewalk accessibility requirements must be maintained,
and adequate street buffer is essential for the safety of bicyclists.
Klamath Falls, OR. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
306
24 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
An accessible pedestrian signal (APS) is a pedestrian signal that uses
audible tones or messages and/or vibrotactile surfaces to communicate
crossing information (e.g., WALK and DON’T WALK intervals)
to those walking who are vision impaired or blind. Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act requires newly constructed and reconstructed
public facilities to be accessible to all members of the public. APS
should be installed wherever pedestrian signals are installed.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
The factors that make crossing at a signalized location difficult
for pedestrians who have visual disabilities include: quiet car
technology including through electric vehicles, high right turn
on red or continuous right-turn movements, complex signal
operations, traffic circles, wide streets, or low traffic volumes
that make it difficult to discern signal phase changes.
APS should be provided everywhere a signalized crossing opportunity
is provided. Greater consistency can provide more expectations.
COST ESTIMATE:
Costs range from $550 to $1,150 per signal in locations
where pedestrian signal poles already exist; up to
eight APS units are needed per intersection.
ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS
Source: Accessforblind.org
BENEFITS:
Without APS, those with visual
disabilities generally determine
if they’re able to cross a street by
initiating a crossing when they hear
traffic stop and traffic perpendicular
to them move, but this does not always
provide sufficient information needed
to safely or efficiently cross. When it
does provide accurate information,
it may require the pedestrian to need
to wait an additional signal cycle.
APS has been shown to reduce
the number of crossings during a
DON’T WALK phase, provid more
accurate judgements of the WALK
phase, and reduce delay of crossing.
It can also reduce delay and reduce
conflicts due to a misunderstanding
of crossing opportunities.
307
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 25 Draft Draft
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
When APS cannot be implemented everywhere, it should be
prioritized in areas with the following characteristics:
• Very wide crossings,
• Crossings of major streets where minor streets
have minimal or intermittent traffic,
• Complex or uncommon intersection types,
• Low volumes of through vehicles,
• High volumes of turning vehicles,
• Split phase signal timing,
• Exclusive pedestrian phasing, Leading pedestrian intervals, and
• Proximity to major pedestrian destinations like
BART stations, parks, downtowns, etc.
PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS:
An alert tone may be used to alert pedestrians
to the beginning of the walk interval.
Locator tones should help those with visual impairment find
pushbuttons, and APS should be clear to which crossing leg the
audible signal is associated. It is preferred for APS pushbutton
poles to be at least 10 feet apart to improve clarity for which
crossing leg is associated with each audible signal. Including
the name of the street to be crossed in an accessible format,
such as Braille or raised print on the pushbutton, can help
provide clarity for which crossing the APS is associated.
Pushbuttons for accessible pedestrian signals should be located as
close as possible to the crosswalk line furthest from the center of the
intersection and as close as possible to the curb ramp. In addition
to being more useful, the closer to the crossing that it is located,
the quieter it can be. It should be within 5 feet of the crosswalk
extended or 10 feet of the edge of curb, shoulder, or pavement.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
• Where two accessible pedestrian signals are separated by a
distance of at least 10 feet, the audible walk indication shall be
a percussive tone. Where two accessible pedestrian signals on
one corner are not separated by a distance of at least 10 feet,
the audible walk indication shall be a speech walk message.
• If speech walk messages are used to communicate the walk
interval, they shall provide a clear message that the walk interval
is in effect, as well as to which crossing it applies. Speech
walk messages shall be used only at intersections where it is
technically infeasible to install two accessible pedestrian signals
at one corner separated by a distance of at least 10 feet.
• If two accessible pedestrian pushbuttons are placed less than
10 feet apart or on the same pole, each accessible pedestrian
pushbutton shall be provided with the following features:
Pushbutton locator tone, tactile arrow, speech walk
message, speech pushbutton information message
• If the pedestrian clearance time is sufficient only to cross from the
curb or shoulder to a median of sufficient width for pedestrians
to wait and accessible pedestrian detectors are used, an additional
accessible pedestrian detector shall be provided in the median.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
NCHRP Web-Only Document 150: Accessible
Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices
https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/164696.aspx
308
26 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Providing visible pedestrian crossings is critical to
allowing those who travel by foot or mobility device
to have access to their destinations. Uncontrolled
pedestrian crossing locations correspond to higher
pedestrian crash rates than controlled locations,
often due to inadequate pedestrian crossing
accommodations (FHWA, 2018). The type of crossing
provided should be appropriate for the context
of the roadway that is being crossed. The higher
the speeds, volumes, and number of lanes on the
roadway, the greater the need for higher visibility
crossing elements. Providing regular crossings with
the correct crossing features based on the roadway
context supports a safe, convenient, and comfortable
walking environment, leading to more people walking
to meet everyday needs and thus contributing to the
health, sustainability, and vibrancy of a community.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Mid-block and unsignalized intersections; crossings
should be provided with regular spacing and should
especially be provided to access key destinations
like transit stops, schools, trailheads, parks, and
grocery stores. Different crossing types and
countermeasures are appropriate based on the
roadway context. Figure X provides the appropriate
crash countermeasures by roadway feature.
CROSSING SELECTION
16
Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
Select Countermeasure(s)
Table 1 provides initial countermeasure
options for various roadway conditions. Each
matrix cell indicates possibilities that may
be appropriate for designated pedestrian
crossings. Not all of the countermeasures
listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be
installed at a crossing.
For multi-lane roadway crossings with
vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked
crosswalk alone is typically insufficient
(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more
substantial crossing improvements (such as
the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also
needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian
crash potential.
Roadway Configuration
Posted Speed Limit and AADT
Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000
≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph
2 lanes
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes with raised median
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes w/o raised median
(1 lane in each direction with a
two-way left-turn lane)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ lanes with raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ lanes w/o raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Given the set of conditions in a cell,
# Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate
treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location.
Signifies that the countermeasure should always be
considered, but not mandated or required, based upon
engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled
crossing location.
Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should
always occur in conjunction with other identified
countermeasures.*
The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure
is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may
be considered following engineering judgment.
1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on
crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels,
and crossing warning signs
2 Raised crosswalk
3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign
and yield (stop) line
4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
5 Curb extension
6 Pedestrian refuge island
7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)**
8 Road Diet
9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)**
Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature.
*Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures.
**It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.
This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners.
Source: FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
APPLICATION OF PEDESTRIAN CRASH
COUNTERMEASURES BY ROADWAY FEATURE
309
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 27 Draft Draft
HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS,
PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE CROSSWALK
APPROACH, ADEQUATE NIGHTTIME LIGHTING
LEVELS, AND CROSSING WARNING SIGNS PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND
Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc
RAISED CROSSWALK
Source: Federal Highway Administration
RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACON
Source: City of Dublin
310
28 City of Dublin Draft
ADVANCE YIELD HERE TO (STOP HERE FOR)
PEDESTRIANS SIGN AND YIELD/STOP LINE ROAD DIET
Source: MUTCD
Source: Federal Highway Administration
IN STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON
Source: Michigan Complete Streets Coalition
311
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 29 Draft Draft
CURB EXTENSION
Source: City of Dublin
312
30 City of Dublin Draft
In locations where there is dedicated space for bicyclists along a
roadway, it is important to maintain the bicycle facility through
the intersection to clearly provide the intended use of the space,
enhance bicyclist comfort, increase motorist yielding behavior,
and highlight conflict zones. There are several elements that can
support bicyclist movements through intersections including
bicycle lane markings, skip striping, green paint, bike boxes, two-
stage left turn boxes, protected intersection elements , intersection
approach considerations, and traffic control considerations.
BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH INTERSECTIONS
313
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 31 Draft Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Intersection crossing markings indicate where a bicyclist will be
travelling through an intersection to clearly mark the intended use,
enhance cyclist comfort, increase motorist yielding behavior, and
highlight conflict zones. They are generally made up of green “skip
striping” paint, green bike lane paint, and/or bicycle lane markings.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Through intersections or across driveways
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,500 - $4,000 per approach
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
When colored paint is used for bicycle facilities, it should be
green to avoid confusion with other traffic control markings.
INTERSECTION CROSSINGS MARKINGS
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
314
32 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A bike box is a dedicated area at the head of a traffic lane at a
signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible
way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Signalized intersections with higher volumes of bicyclists and right-
turning vehicles, typically along Class II or Class III facilities.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,000 each
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• “Wait Here” pavement markings can be placed in advance of the
bike box as reinforcement for drivers not to impede the bike box
• A STOP HERE ON RED (MUTCD R10-6 or R10-
6a) sign can be used at the advance stop bar, with an
EXCEPT BICYCLES (MUTCD R3-7bp) plaque below.
• Green paint highlights bike boxes for visibility.
• Right turn on red and bike boxes are not compatible.
Use approved MUTCD “NO RIGHT TURN
ON RED” signs shall be used (R10-11).
• A bike box shall include an advance stop line at least
10 feet in advance of the intersection stop line, with at
least one bicycle pavement marking in the box.
• FHWA requires a bicycle pavement marking within bike boxes.
BIKE BOXES
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc .
315
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 33 Draft Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Two-stage turn queue boxes offer bicyclists a dedicated space to make
left turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from a right side cycle
track or bike lane or right turns from a left side cycle track or bike lane.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes are commonly used to facilitate
a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic at a signalized
intersection. They may also be used for turns at midblock
crossing locations, for right turns from a left-side bike lane, or
to facilitate a proper angle across tracks (streetcar, train, etc.)
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,000 each
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
The turn box should be sized to provide room for waiting cyclists,
up to 10 feet wide and 6.5 feet deep but not less than 3 feet deep.
11 • Appropriate signage may be used to indicate the two-stage
turn is provided (MUTCD D11-20L or D11-20R, see below).
The bicycle symbol and left-turn arrow marking shall be provided
within the box, which shall be bounded by solid white lines on all sides.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
FWHA’s Interim Approval for Option Use of
Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes (IA-20)
TWO STAGE TURN QUEUE BOXES
San Diego, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
316
34 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A protected intersection provides physical separation for bicyclists
and pedestrians up to and through an intersection and provides
bicyclists and pedestrians with the right of way over turning vehicles.
The physical separation between people driving and people biking
or walking creates a setback, which is intended to control speeds,
promote visibility, and reduce conflicts among motorists, cyclists,
and pedestrians. Protected intersections generally also provide
shorter crossing distances for people walking and biking.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Intersections with higher speeds and volumes, especially
at intersections where Class IV bikeways are present, or
a high incidence of bicycle or pedestrian crashes.
COST ESTIMATE:
$100,000 per intersection
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Intersection crossing markings for bicyclists and
pedestrians provide directional guidance for where each
should cross. Green cross bike or skip striping and/or
bike markings can provide clear guidance to people biking
and allow drivers to anticipate bicyclists in this space.
• Radii should be small enough to discourage passenger
cars from turning faster than 10 mph.
• Wider pedestrian islands support higher volumes of people
walking and biking. Pedestrian crossing islands should be
at least 6 ft wide to provide an accessible waiting area.
PROTECTED INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc .
• A modified “Turning Vehicles Yield to Bikes and Pedestrians”
sign (R10-15)17 is recommended where a signalized intersection
allows right turns with bicycle and pedestrian movements.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Reference the following NACTO guidance: https://nacto.org/
publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/protected-intersections
317
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 35 Draft Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A bicycle lane approach to intersections can take different forms
depending on the type of lane, existence of turn lanes, and other
roadway features. In locations where a right turn lane is added, the
roadway can include a mixing zone in the approach to keep bicyclists
to the left of the right-turning vehicles. Depending on the geometry
of the roadway, the bicycle lane may maintain as a straight line or
may transition with a diagonal at the beginning of the turn lane.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Intersections with right turn lanes adjacent to a bike lane.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,500 - $4,000 per approach
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• The merge/conflict area can be highlighted with
markings, including green paint and skip striping.
• The right turn lane should be as short as practical to encourage slow
vehicle speeds when merging across the bike lane. The merge area
should also be no more than 100 feet long for the same reasons.
• A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right
of a right-turn lane (MUTCD 9C.04) unless the movements
are separated by different traffic signal phases.
• Use “BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD
TO BIKES” (MUTCD R4-4) at the beginning
of the right turn lane and merge area.
INTERSECTION APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS
Source: NACTO
• In cases where space is especially constrained (13’ is not
available for both a right turn lane and bike lane), a shared
right turn/through bike lane may be provided.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
AASHTO Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities, 2012, pgs 422 - 427
318
36 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bicycle signals offer a bicycle-exclusive phase at signalized
intersections. Bicycle signals can improve safety and operations
at intersections by removing bicycle and vehicle time conflicts
in time or defining different needs from other road users.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bicycle signals are most appropriate at locations with high
bicycle and right-turning vehicle volumes, and often is used
to provide a through phase for bicyclists separate from
the right-turn phase for motorists. A bicycle signal can be
triggered by loop detection, push-buttons, or video detection.
Automatic bike detection discourages red-light running.
COST ESTIMATE:
$27,000 - $78,000
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• At intersections with right-turning vehicles, right-
turns on red should also be prohibited to prevent
conflict with the bicycle movement.
• MUTCD Figure 9C-7 provides guidance on
bicycle detector pavement markings.
• Some existing bicycle signal designs shields the bicycle
signal from drivers’ line of sight to avoid potential
confusion. NACTO recommends that bicycle signal heads
be separated laterally from motor vehicle signal heads by
at least two feet to increase road user comprehension.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSIDERATIONS
Source: NACTO
• Section 4D.105(CA) Bicycle/Motorcycle Detection Standard:
01 All new limit line detector installations and modifications
to the existing limit line detection on a public or private
road or driveway intersecting a public road shall either
provide a Limit Line Detection Zone in which the Reference
Bicycle Rider is detected or be placed on permanent
recall or fixed time operation. Refer to CVC 21450.5.
319
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 37 Draft Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Short-term and long-term bicycle parking is an essential
part of a successful bicycle system. A lack of secure and
convenient bicycle storage can discourage cycling.
CONTEXT:
Short-term bicycle parking is intended to be used for a few
hours at most and is provided in public space. Often this is
provided along the curb or furniture zone of a street. -
Long-term bicycle parking is intended to be used for longer than
several hours. It should be sheltered or indoors to provide greater
security.- A bike corral, or multiple bike parking spaces on the
street along the curb, can be an efficient use of space. Bike corrals
can store up to 12 bicycles in a single vehicle parking space.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bicycle parking should be provided at or near all destinations to
allow people to bike to access those destinations. The amount
and type of bicycle parking should be dependent upon the type
of destination. Short term parking should be provided.
COST ESTIMATE:
$27,000 - $78,000
.
BICYCLE PARKING
Source: City of Dublin
320
38 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Bike racks should be securely fastened to the ground to prevent
a bike from being stolen by removing the rack. Adding a
crossbar below where the bike would likely be fastened to
reduce the ability to remove the bike rack from the ground
to slip a lock off and including internal cabling to make it
more challenging to cut through can further reduce theft
and increase the security of the bike parking system.
• Bike racks should accommodate U-shaped locks and support
the bicycle at two points above its center of gravity to allow
the frame and both wheels to be locked. Wave bike racks
generally do not allow for this and should be avoided.
• Long-term parking should be included as a requirement
in all buildings where people travel to spend more than
several hours, including multi-family housing, places of
work, schools, hospitals, and other destinations.
• Long-term parking requirements should be based on household
units, trip generation, employees per square footage, and
visitation rates. It should be easy to find, direct, and accessible
without stairs. It is preferred that it can also be accessed by use of
automatic doorways and entryways to limit the need for someone
to open a door and hold their bike, which may not be possible.
• Long-term parking should accommodate e-bike charging by
locating electrical outlets near the parking spots and should
include spaces for longer bicycles, including cargo bikes or bike
trailers. If mounted bicycle parking is provided, there should also
be horizontal floor parking available for larger bikes or those that
can not lift their bike. For double-decker bicycle racks, a lift-
assisted mechanism should be provided to access the upper tier.
Source: City of Dublin
321
Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 39 39 City of Dublin Draft Draft 322