Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-19-22 PCSC Agenda PacketCELEBRATING 44) YEARS 1982 — 2022 Council Chamber Civic Center 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 www.dublin.ca.gov DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Regular Meeting of the DUBLIN PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION Monday, September 19, 2022 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Location: Council Chamber Civic Center 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 2.1 Public Comment At this time, the public is permitted to address the Parks and Community Services Commission on non-agendized items. Please step to the podium and clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Commission may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Recording Secretary's Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a future Parks and Community Services Commission agenda. The exceptions under which the Commission MAY discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3). 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are typically non -controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Parks & Community Services Commission with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Parks & Community Services Commission who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Chair to remove the item. 3.1 Approval of the August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 19, 2022 Dublin Parks and Community Services Commission Agenda 1 1 The Commission will consider approval of the minutes of the August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting. Staff Report Attachment 1 - August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 3.2 Tri-Annual Parks and Community Services Department Report for May through August 2022 The Commission will receive the Department Tri-Annual Report on classes, activities, and events from May through August 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. Staff Report 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update The Commission 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. Staff Report Attachment 1- Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Attachment 2 - Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Supplemental Design Guidance Attachment 3 - August 16, 2022, Item 7.1 City Council PowerPoint Presentation 7.2 ePACT Software The Commission will receive a report on the ePACT software being used by the Parks and Community Services Department to support recreation programming. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. Staff Report 8. OTHER BUSINESS Brief information only reports from the commission and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by the commission related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234). September 19, 2022 Dublin Parks and Community Services Commission Agenda 2 2 9. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability -related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk's Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Mission The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champions a culture of diversity and inclusion. September 19, 2022 Dublin Parks and Community Services Commission Agenda 3 3 CELEBRATING DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Agenda Item 3.1 STAFF RHO RT Parks and Community Services Commission DATE: September 19, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Commissioners FRO M : Jackie Dwyer, Parks & Community Services Director SU B.ECT: Approval of the August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Prepared by: Jennifer Li Marzi, Senior Office Assistant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Commission will consider approval of the minutes of the August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. DESCRIPTION: The Commission will consider approval of the minutes of the August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Commission Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Attachment 1 - August 15, 2022 Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2 4 Page 2 of 2 5 Attachment 1 St MINUTESOFTHEPARKSAND CALIFORNIA DUBLIN COMMUN ITY LIRVICES COMMISSION Regular Meeting: August 15, 2022 A Regular Meeting of the Dublin Parks and Community Services Commission was held on Monday, August 15, 2022, in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Commission Chair Kristin Speck. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Attendee Name Kristin Speck T' Status Commission Chairperson Present Sameer Hakim Commission Vice Chair Present ioseph Washington Commissioner Present Matthew Giller Commissioner Present Vimal Pannala Commissioner Present Advaith Anoop Krishna Student Representative Present Richard Thornburg Alternate Commissioner Present Daniel Colley Alternate Commissioner Present 2. Oral Communications 2.1. Public Com m ent —None. 3. Consent Calendar 3.1. Approval of the May 16, 2022, Parks and Community Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 3.2 Dublin Library Quarterly Report for April —June 2022 The Commission voted to approve the Consent Calendar. RESULT: MOVED BY: SECOND : AYES: ABSENT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] Matthew Giller, Commissioner Joseph Washington, Commissioner Krishna, Speck, Hakim, Giller, Pannala, Washington 4. Written Communication —None. 5. Public Hearing —None. 6. Unfinished Business —None. Page 1 of 1 6 7. New Business 7.1 Little Library Temporary Public Art Program Shaun Chilkotowsky, Heritage and Cultural Arts Manager, presented a functional Tempoary Public Art Program featuring little library boxes that will be placed at 10 public parks throughout Dublin. The Commission asked clarifying questions and provided feedback. 7.2 Don Biddle Community Garden Andrea Dwyer, Recreation Manager, introduced Nicki Wanzenried, Recreation Coordinator, who gave a presentation on the Don Biddle Community Park Guidelines and garden use. The Commission asked clarifying questions and provided feedback on the project. 8. Other Business The Commissioners provided brief informational reports about other events and meetings attended. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Minutes prepared by Recreation Technician, Jennifer Li Marzi Chairperson Parks & Community Services Commission ATTEST: lick ie Dwyer Parks and Community Services Director Page 2 of 2 7 CELEBRATING Agenda Item 3.2 STAFF REPO RT DUBLIN Parks and Community cervices Commission CALIFORNIA DATE: September 19, 2022 T O : Honorable Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jackie Dwyer, Parks & Community Services Director SUBJECT: Tri-Annual Parks and Community Services Department Report for May through August 2022 Prepared by Elisabeth Hogue, Office Assistant II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Commission will receive the Department Tri-Annual Report on classes, activities, and events from May through August 2022. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. DESCRIPTION: The following summarizes the classes, activities, and events conducted by the City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department from May through August 2022. Parks There are several Dublin park projects currently in the works. Don Biddle Community Park will host its grand opening on September 24, 2022; park amenities include basketball courts, tennis courts, and a community garden. Construction on the remaining 14 acres of Fallon Sports Park, which includes a cricket field, two little league baseball fields, four sand volleyball courts, and five multi -use batting cages, continues with an anticipated opening on October 22, 2022. The newest park addition, Jordan Ranch Neighborhood Square, has begun the planning phase by hosting a public Zoom meeting to review survey results on June 28 and an onsite community outreach meeting on August 13 with three comprehensive designs that neighboring residents provided feedback on. Recreation Classes Recreation camps and classes had a higher -than -average number of programs since the Page 1 of 9 8 coronavirus pandemic. Sports superseded all categories. Skyhawks, Arora Tennis, and Chris Meredith were the top three instructors with the highest camp registrations, with a total of 1,176 participants. Table 1: Recreation Class Participation Numbers Category Camps Classes Total Contracted Fitness (Yoga, Zumba, Gymnastics, & Martial Arts) 29 52 81 Contracted Sports (Basketball, Tennis, Soccer, Multi -Sports, & Golf) 1,259 602 1,861 Contracted Leisure Classes (STEM, Enrichment, & Life-long Learning) 333 65 398 Contracted Aqua Aerobics - 542 542 Contracted Cultural Arts (Arts, Theater, Dance, & Performing Arts) 356 61 417 Totals 1,977 1,322 3,299 Family Services Afterschool Programs Afterschool Recreation and Afterschool LEAD (Leadership Experience and Development) finished off the 2021-22 school year in June (Session III) and started the 2022-23 school year in August (Session I). Participant numbers are trending higher for the new school year than last year. Table 2: Afterschool Recreation Participation Numbers School Session III Session I Amador 17 31 Cottonwood 12 18 Dougherty 28 25 Dublin 37 35 Frederiksen 27 18 Green 23 35 Murray 19 N/A Totals 163 162 Table 3: Afterschool LEAD Participation Numbers School Session III Session I Cottonwood 0 1 Fallon 4 8 Wells 2 5 Totals 6 14 Summer Camps Page 2 of 9 9 Summer Camps were in operation from June 6 through August 5, 2022. Participants had the choice of four different camps. The two full -day options were Camp Shannon and Camp Splash. Camp Shannon, located in the Nature Nook at the Shannon Community Center, provided campers with various activities, including Tasteful Tuesdays and Offsite Park Thursdays. Camp Splash, located at The Wave, gave campers the morning to participate in crafts, group games, and outdoor play, and the afternoons were enjoyed in the waterpark. The two half -day options were Camp Sunrise and Camp Shamrock. Camp Sunrise offered two locations, Emerald Glen Park and Shannon Community Park. This half - day option gave parents who did not need full daycare an option to allow their children to enjoy a fun and eventful camp experience. Campers spent each day participating in group games, sports, and arts and crafts while having the ability to explore the parks. Camp Shamrock, for preschool - aged campers, was located at the Shannon Community Center and provided preschool campers with all the same activities as other camps, including Tasteful Tuesdays, where crafts were created to be eaten. Table 4: Summer Camp Program Participation Numbers Program June July August Camp Shannon 137 65 15 Camp Splash 151 139 36 Camp Sunrise - Shannon 173 140 9 Camp Sunrise - Emerald Glen 140 116 12 Camp Shamrock 100 102 18 Totals 701 562 90 Preschool The Dublin Elementary School preschool was relocated to Nielsen Elementary School. Table 5: Fall Winter & Spring Preschool Participation Numbers Program Session III Session I Dublin El/Nielsen (4 days/week, 4-year-olds) 22 11 Shannon Center (2 days/week, 3-year-olds) 16 22 Shannon Center (2 days/week, 4-year-olds) 24 13 Shannon Center (3 days/week, 3-year-olds) 20 22 Shannon Center (3 days/week, 4-year-olds) 25 24 Totals 107 92 Page 3 of 9 10 Youth Advisory Committee On May 14, 2022, the Youth Advisory Committee hosted a new event, the Youth Hackathon & Start -Up Pitch event, at the Dublin Senior Center. Sixty-four registered participants ranging from ages 11-14 competed. The theme was sustainability in urban development. The 18 formed teams had approximately 2.5 hours to brainstorm a problem, create a technical solution, create a slide deck, and then present for two minutes in this competition. Projects ranged from incentivizing water purification or growing trees to an app solving droughts in Alaska. One project created by two 12-year-olds was an app that scans a piece of garbage, identifies if it is recycled, compost or garbage then uses GPS to direct you to the nearest receptacle for the item. The Committee recruited 13 judges, including the founders of Youth Coding Workshops, an employee from Lawrence Livermore Lab who works with women in STEM, and three directors in tech companies located within the Tri-Valley. Mayor Hernandez appointed committee members for the 2022-23 term at the June 7, 2022, City Council meeting. Youth and Adult Sports The Junior Warriors youth basketball summer clinics returned after being canceled in 2020 and 2021. This summer was the largest number of participants to ever take part in the clinics, with 253 boys and girls in grades K-8th. The Dublin Youth Sports League User Groups quarterly communications meeting was held on August 25, 2022. Groups discussed Summer and Fall schedules and took a tour of Fallon Sports Park to discuss usage. User groups will assist staff with park events during the grand opening of Fallon phase III on October 22, 2022. The next meeting is scheduled for January 19, 2023. Table 6: Facility/Picnic Area Reservations Facility Rental Location May June July Aug Total Hours Reserved Dublin Sports Grounds 988 578 445 1067 3,078 Fallon Sports Park 2,846 771 1,372 1,203 6,192 Ted Fairfield Park 92 93 23 6 214 Emerald Glen Park 362 471 322 373 1,528 Cricket Batting Cages 178 232 250 172 832 Stager Gym 165 230 119 41 555 Picnic Rentals 939 791 919 598 3,247 Total Hours 5,570 3,166 3,450 3,460 15,646 Dublin Trail Challenge The first Dublin Trail Challenge was held July 1 through August 31, 2022, kicking off National Page 4 of 9 11 Parks Month with a fun way to explore the 26 miles of trails in Dublin and encourage residents to work on physical and mental health. This event had 763 registered participants, and those who complete the challenge will receive a commemorative t-shirt. The Wave The Wave summer season was an overall success represented in available features, ticket sales, and amenity reservations throughout the season. Cabanas and luxury loungers were again popular and expanded when three additional cabanas were installed and opened at the beginning of July. For the first time since 2019, staff was also able to bring back the sale of swim diapers, sunscreen, towels, locker rentals, and the two speed slides on the top deck of the slide tower. Concessions thrived and used a new commercial fryer and warming system, drastically reducing wait times. KKIQ radio station attended three promotional days and provided live personalities from the pool deck, helping to advertise the facility hours and offerings. There were no major accidents or injuries to report, and there were no feature closures during the season. Competition Swimming Programs The Green Gator swim team returned for a full competitive season for the first time since the pandemic. The team entered the Valley Swimming League, comprising eight teams within the Tri- Valley area. The Green Gators took 3rd place at the league championships and led a team of 148 swimmers. The parent board and volunteers were able to bring back their annual fund-raising swim-a-thon event and end -of -season celebration. The Junior Green Gator program introduces new swimming athletes to the competitive swimming environment. The skills and knowledge they obtain during the program make it a great funnel opportunity for future Green Gator athletes. Two age groups and four sessions were held during the summer 2022 season, with a total of 170 participants in the program. Swim Lessons The Wave implemented a digital report card system, providing a passing rate of 40%. This was the first summer to offer private swim lessons since the summer of 2019. There were 224 private swim lesson registrations. Marketing The Wave worked with the KKIQ radio station for radio ads throughout the summer. The season ended with Channel 2, KTVU Zip Trips conducting a live broadcast from the facility on Friday, August 12, 2022 with free admission to the public. The Wave was then voted the top place for family fun by viewers, and also won Parents Press, Family Favorite Award, Best of East Bay 2022. Table 7: Wave Programs Participation Numbers Program Total Participation Waterpark (5/28-8/5) 39,921 Fitness Swimming (5/1-8/5) 2,681 Swim Lessons (5/1-8/4) 2,319 Competitive Swimming (5/23-7/28) 381 Birthday Parties 153 Total 45,302 Page 5 of 9 12 Private Rentals/Banquet Facilities Table 8: Facility Rentals Facility Rentals Shannon Community Center - Non -Profits 11 Shannon Community Center - Private Rentals 46 Dublin Senior Center - Non -Profits 3 Dublin Senior Center - Private Rentals 22 The Wave - Community Room - Non -Profits 12 The Wave - Community Room - Private Rentals 15 The Wave - Boardwalk (New) 2 Dublin Library - Non -Profits 47 Dublin Library - Private Rentals 12 Civic Center- Regional Meeting Room - Non -Profits 56 Civic Center - Regional Meeting Room- Private Rentals 7 Total 226 Senior Center The following are highlights of activities at the Senior Center. • The Dublin Senior Center Foundation's Bingo on Wednesdays is slowly regaining popularity and now averages 51 players weekly. • Table Tennis remains a popular program, consistently averaging 13 players each weekday and 16 on Saturday. • The Mills Line Dance class continues to be one of the most popular classes at the Senior Center. This class averages over 35 participants each week. • "Finding Wellness" seminars hosted by Senior Support of the Tri-Valley at the Dublin Senior Center are well attended, with an average of 20 participants registered. • On June 14, 2022, 11 travelers of the Dublin Senior Center Day trip program partnered up with travelers from the Pleasanton Senior Center by sharing a bus, visiting the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and Roaring Camp Railroad. • On June 16, 2022, the Senior Center held its annual volunteer recognition event. Barbeque lunches and giveaways were provided to over 60 attendees. Volunteers are great assets and assist staff regularly with the daily operations of the Dublin Senior Center. In partnership with Open Heart Kitchen, the lunch program continued daily. The Senior Center served a daily average of 25-40 lunches before COVID-19 and now regularly serves more than 175 lunches per day as a walk-up program. Table 10: Onen Heart Kitchen Lunches Served OHK Lunch Program May June July August Total Lunches Served 3,435 3,615 3,252 4,140 14,442 Page 6 of 9 13 Heritage Park and Museums Beginning in August, hours were adjusted to Tuesdays and Thursdays from 4:00pm - 8:OOpm and Saturdays 9:00am - 12:O0pm. Self -guided tour pamphlets are also available at the Murray School House and Kolb House for patrons to use anytime. On display in the small classroom is the exhibit Dublin, 4Oth Anniversary. This temporary exhibit celebrating Dublin's 40th anniversary of incorporation will run through the end of 2022. Visitors can learn about how Dublin was incorporated as a city and enjoy a display of photos and historical items. Guided Trips and Tours School field trips and private tours have returned. Dougherty Elementary School brought five classes of third grade students to Heritage Park in May. Students were given an educational tour of the facilities and participated in hands-on activities such as gold panning, pioneer style laundry, and tractor drawn wagon rides. Additionally, Heritage Park hosted three other groups for private tours. Events Weekend Wonders, a new monthly program, kicked off this summer at Heritage Park. On July 16, participants learned how to make ice cream the old-fashioned way by using a hand -crank machine and were able to enjoy the rewards of their labor. On August 6, participants learned how to make corn husk dolls, known to be one of the first toys made by Native Americans. Afterward, they had the opportunity to take wagon -drawn tractor rides and view the exhibits in the museums. In August, the much -requested Jam Band program returned. The Murray School House Museum will again be used by musicians looking to jam with friends on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. Public Art Utilizing the Arts Space Grant Program, the Dublin Arts Collective hosted a "Paint Out" event at Heritage Park from April 30 to May 1, 2022. Registered artists were allowed to paint anywhere in Dublin for the event and then were given space at Heritage Park to display and sell the work they created. On July 1, the temporary art lawn exhibit was displayed as part of the celebration of the City's 40th anniversary. The four sculptures are displayed at Civic Center, Dublin Library, The Wave, and Shannon Community Center. Page 7 of 9 14 "Picture This" is a temporary public art program that features oversized painted wooded picture frames in prominent locations around Dublin and the Tri-Valley. This exhibit is now on display and will remain up through early fall. This is a unique project in that the City collaborated with neighboring Cities to participate in a regional temporary art program. There are eight painted frames in Dublin, with an additional 23 on display throughout the region, including Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, and Danville. Special Events On May 14, the City partnered with APAPA to host a city -sponsored Asian Heritage Celebration performance at Dublin High School featuring community groups performing music, dance, and martial arts. On May 15, the City partnered with Radiance Ballet to provide a community performance of Cinderella. Farmers Market The Dublin Farmers Market was held every Thursday evening starting April 7 and will continue until September 29 at Emerald Glen Park. The free summer concerts series began June 16 with a special theme, LGBTQ+ Night. The concerts continued each week at the Farmers Market through August 4. The concerts packed the outdoor amphitheater each night. Picnic Flix The City's outdoor Picnic Flix movie series returned this summer and drew large crowds to Emerald Glen Park. These events took place every Friday night from June 17 to July 22. The movie nights brought in an estimated 600-800 attendees each night. The attendees enjoyed a variety of food and snack options from various local food vendors. Scavenger Hunt Staff hosted the "Dublin through the Decades" game this summer as part of the City's 40th anniversary activities. Community members were encouraged to use the Goosechase app to participate in a photo -gathering scavenger hunt that took them around the City guided by photos of the past. The goal was to find the location of the old photo and then take a photo of what it looks like today. Participants that finished the game were rewarded with Dublin -branded items and coupons to The Wave. Over 250 participants started this challenge, with 159 fully completing and collecting prizes. Family Campouts These events allow families to experience outdoor camping right here in Dublin. The campouts were held at Jordan Ranch Park, Alamo Creek Park, and Schaefer Ranch Park. Each location Page 8 of 9 15 featured a unique form of entertainment, barbeque dinner cooked by the Dublin Lions Club, games and crafts, marshmallow roasting, and a light breakfast on Sunday morning. The combined attendance at all three campouts was 658 campers. Ruby Affair On August 6, the Ruby Affair was held at Heritage Park. This formal event was in celebration of Dublin's 40th anniversary. Over 150 guests enjoyed the outdoor setting at Heritage Park, a catered dinner, live music, and dancing. Upcoming Events September 10 - Splatter at Emerald Glen Park September 24 - Grand Opening of Don Biddle Community Park October 1 - Senior Information Fair at the Dublin Senior Center October 8 - Harvest Fair at Heritage Park October 22 - Floating Pumpkin Patch October 22 - Grand Opening - Fallon Sports Parks Phase III STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Commission Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 9 of 9 16 CELEBRATING DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Agenda Item 7.1 STAFF RHO RT Parks and Community Services Commission DATE: September 19, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jackie Dwyer, Parks & Community Services Director SU ELECT: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update Prepared by: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Commission 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: Background The 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 Update Key sections and recommendations of the Plan are summarized in the sections below. Community Engagement:: Page 1 of 6 17 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 meeting included 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 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 in July 2022. • City Council Information Session. The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was presented to City Council on August 16, 2022 and received positive feedback. Attachment 3 shows a copy of the PowerPoint that was presented at that meeting. Page 2 of 6 18 Plan Vision The 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. Plan Goals • 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 Conditions and Needs Analysis The 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 citywide analysis 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 further analyzed 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 Page 3 of 6 19 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 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 network and with network recommendations to understand the potential effect of Plan implementation on walk and bike mode share. Network Recommendations Public feedback and findings from the existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to the network 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: Page 4 of 6 20 • Shared Lane (Class III): 12.4 miles • Bike Lane (Class IIA): 4.0 miles • Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB): 17.4 miles • 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 locations Program and Policy Recommendations Public 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. Implementation Strategy The 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 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 as creating 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, updating or adding pedestrian crossings, updating pedestrian facilities, adding street trees, redesigning Page 5 of 6 21 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 of funding sources, including ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the City's General Fund, developer funds, and State, regional, and federal grants. The Plan identifies potential funding programs and relevant requirements. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance This 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 Schedule As a next step, the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will be presented to the Planning 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 Plan 2) Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Supplemental Design Guidance 3) August 16, 2022, Item 7.1 City Council PowerPoint Presentation Page 6 of 6 22 * LT IINip K 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 GME 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 2 City of Dublin DRAFT 24 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 D of t Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 Ea CICESARI 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 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.' 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 Roger Geller, "Four Types of Cyclists," Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507. 4 City of Dublin 26 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. D of t Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 BaUll\FaWRY NEED 1 RA B P1'D FED:S I1 4PNIVT8IU1 LAN 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. ioe‘ 6 City of Dublin 1 Et 28 AT, Enhance Safety Prioritize safety in design and implementation of walking and biking facilities. • • ore 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. et, 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 aintenance. 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 29 FRIES Project Initiation FALL 2020 Network Recommendations & Implementation Plan Baseline Inventory & Needs Analysis ?i4AP EARLY 2022 Draft Plan Public Participation via In Person Events and Workshops 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. Final Plan & Environmental Review SUMMER 2022 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. • s 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. 8 City of Dublin 30 • I I & STMEEaCER 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. 1 Project Start Online Workshop & FAQ Live SEP 2, 2020 1/4-1-011 Stakeholder Meetings APR -MAY 2021 BPAC #1 SEP 17, 2020 PROJECT WEBSITE 1011 COD TAC #1 TAC #2 MAR 4, 2020 SEP 15, 2020 Alamo Creek Trailhead Pop -Up MAY 27, 2021 Farmers' Market Pop -Up MAY 25, 2021 cos TAC #3 JUN 3, 2021 BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee TAC - Technical Advisory Committee CCC - City Commission and Council f BPAC #2 MAY 25, 2021 Public Survey MAY - SEP 2021 ST PATRICK'S DAY POP-UP MAR 12, 2022 f BPAC #4 FEB 24, 2022 • BPAC #3 OCT 21, 2021 itt BPAC #5 JUL 21, 2022 cos TAC #4 Project End tips CCC MAR 15, 2022 AUG-SEP 2022 af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 V\PLNNS& BIF1NGIN am NICIDV aELJNEEM3ERPFHCS\PP3-01- 0 o Dublin Population 1TriiriT' 61240 Dublin Population by Age CJ/o 15-24 35% 25-44 *rounded Source: US Census American Community Survey 5 year Estimates (2015-2019) 4% BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x V/o 2+ RACES 1.1 % Hispanic or Latino/a/x 3g/o WHITE 6.5% Hispanic or Latino/a/x Dublin Population by Race/Ethnicity 111 7% FILIPINO 5% VIETNAME��SppE 5/o KOREAN OTHER 1 ORIGINS N 2% OTHER 1.6% Hispanic or Latino/a/x <1% AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x `ice/0•••••• ASIAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x CHINESE (EXCEPT TAIWANESE) 48 /0 ASIAN-INDIAN . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . .. 10 City of Dublin af EEI Commute Snapshot 69Yo&DRIVE ALONECARPOOL 13% TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT, CAR SHARE (E.G., GETAROUND, TURO), TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (E.G., LYFT, UBER), ORATAXI • r� 43.) EITHER WALK OR BIKE 270 2015-2019 American Community Survey data MORE THAN OCO DUBLINERS COMMUTE OUTSIDE THE CITY FOR WORK �09 OF HOUSEHOLDS 3/QJWN N DUBLIN DO NOT A VEHICLE Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 El FRTRoMPND RECYNEECS • 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. SoFETYPND GCMTRT C13.JJVc iPLlrL1VS RN DNt • 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). CrCLBAEL cP(V'L L�+C/� O ff+ S I H± S • 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 11 0 30 Arterial Streets Collector Streets Residential Streets 60 90 120 150 Miles *Miles do not include paths. 12 City of Dublin 34 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. • Dublin High, • Murray Elementary, and • Frederiksen Elementary, • Wells Middle School. Ba \I 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. JCB 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. F R\7 Almost 62 percent of residents live within a 15-minute walk of a park. Table 18. Pedestrian Typology Age Typology Walking Characteristics Under 14 Youth 14 to 55 Limited by multilane crossings 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 2. Bicyclist Typology Low Stress Tolerance 27.6% 58.1% ENTHUSED AND CONFIDENT 10.1% High Stress Tolerance SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN Nearly 42 percent of residents have a low -stress bicycle route to a park. For more, see Chapter 3. 4.3% �af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 NEMCRK FE 0B El atlE F'UUh16 The recommended new facilities include the following: Class I: 12.8 miles Class II: 19.9 miles Class III: 12.4 miles Class IV: 9.2 miles For more, see Chapter 4. EMS,I INN F UUh1ES 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 9:01 IMRRa6V6N1S 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 36 Coordination and Collaboration Data Collection Design Emerging Technologies Funding and Implementation Operations and Maintenance Promotion and Encouragement Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities For more, see Chapter 5 af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 i IVFLEIVENTATI STFNEY -= FCH11zAT1cN O 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 ocr LSI I MES TIER I Near -Term Project Cost $21,085,000 - M/,589,000 TIER II AND TIER III Long Term Investment Cost $179,692,000 For more, see Chapter 6. PRIVITY R.KINGS1FCES 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,M,684 for citywide bicycle and pedestrian projects. $14565 for street resurfacing. 16 City of Dublin af 38 Figure 3. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities 1.1111110*- 3 Reserve Forces Training Area BROOEP ]TH ST .1E7 EAtittn Io 3.300 Feet 0 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 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 Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath 151 Schools BART Stations Parks Craft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 39 1. I NIR1100%1 This chapter introduces the project, including its background and need, and sets the stage for the analysis, findings, and recommendations detailed in subsequent chapters. rB.ICJ 1 R'l V 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, 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. 5. PROPOSED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS DU CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Duel dopteci byN vCounui on October], 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. 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 Eaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 19 41 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). FR3E 9NCE 11-E2014 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. RIOCAE-IPTO C I ERRfitS 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 Dal 42 Figure 4. Infrastructure Inventory !rt DUBLIN CALIFORNIA The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan produced a suite of infrastructure recommendations, including the following: WALKING NETWORK PROJECT TYPES A recommended walking network consisting of five main improvement types: AmINTERSECTION CROSSING TREATMENTS ij SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS •4 SIDEWALK iiii REMOVE A IMPROVEMENTS J. f BARRIERS ADA V IMPROVEMENTS 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. • 24pedestrian infrastructure projects BIKEWAY 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 Class IIA bike lane along Tassajara Road, which was proposed in the 2014 Plan. 83 bikeway infrastructure projects, totaling 35.3 miles Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 21 43 PROGRESS: Pedestrian projects proposed and built, by project type PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT TYPE PROPOSED BUILT IN PROGRESS + Intersection crossing treatments 12 2 0 71 Sidewalk improvements 2 0 1 L- ADA improvements 6 1 0 Signal modifications 4 1 0 T"f Remove Barriers 3 3 1 Wayfinding signage 1 0 0 Total 28 7 2 Some projects included multiple types and are double or triple counted into all relevant categories. Bicycle facilities proposed and built, by mileage Built To be Built by City To be Built by Developer 10 8 6 4 2 0 9.2 4.8 4.0 3.3 0.8 0.8 Class IIIA Class IIA Class IIB Proposed mixed facilities are listed by their highest proposed class (e.g., Class IIAIIIIA is listed as Class IIA) 2.7 5.4 Class I 2.4 To be Built by City To be Built by Developer 22 City of Dublin Daft 44 Figure 5. 2014 Plan Proposed Bikeway Facilities Proposed Bikeways, Built Class I Class IIA Class IIB Proposed Bikeways, Not Built ▪ • Class ▪ • Class IIA ▪ • Class IIB ▪ • ClasslllA 0 J) I Mile 0 Pedestrian Intersection/Crossing Project • Not Built • Built Pedestrian Corridor Projects Not Built In Progress Built �nArIaN4 DUBLIN BL ♦Dougherty Hills ♦Open Space ♦ OZ if -,,,A/* • %a. 4 ♦o ■ • I itrN sl o ■N DSSBVN ■■ ♦ • ■ •.• • t ' R � • • Pas Reserve Forces o 'r+i4� ■ . • qv ♦ ♦ "Training Area m rA ♦ ■ ` a�• } .� ♦ ■ Dk ♦ e ♦ ain sr aaoo�GLL . ■ • . ♦ • ve • 4Y ■ ♦^�^ • 1 Pam' rrRsr ADDBN� y R•• i■ :�44 ooR ♦ oLEA ON DR r•�ir� ♦��♦ n ■ ▪ 0 9 a PAP ♦ o c1Rsr p /a, ■ ■ ♦�^ Fallon •♦♦j♦ n ♦ os`" I _ 1 ♦ • /��'%rti o Emerald ■ I. . ; .. i 1 SParkportsi . ■ ►� ♦ 11 ■ , ♦� ■ p` '`�s��.r/rrn■► ■ ■ a Glen Park _ _ ■ ■ In �i' ` •y °P +. �~ ■ CENTRALPW a • ♦ + II II • S L •,y,, ■�ERB.�VI DUBLIN: ■ • • •�, 0 0 9Ni �� = civic Plozg +♦ . RLc.r crl�� i ■ ■ Oar I: w� . r • v�rvj•I.�•� .♦ • - f/SIDE DR ♦�a. ... �.iilLi¢ it.rI • a Craft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 23 45 Table 2. Relevant Plans and Policies Plan Bicycle Policies P .TATE 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) destrian olicies Relevance to Current Plan Facility/ Network Maps Project Design Recommendations Program Guidelines or Concept Recommendations Designs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 City of Dublin Daft 46 Relevance to Current Plan Plan Project Bicycle Pedestrian Facility/ Design Recommendations Program Policies Policies Network Maps Guidelines or Concept Recommendations Designs 'LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES CONTINUED Mk 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 47 Plan Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Relevance to Facility/ Network Maps Current Plan 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 Daft 48 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 Plan Oversight VI TOWARD CALIFORNIApP 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, .Cartfamia roach safer. 4,25 % a T 10 % 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: Daft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 27 49 • 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 1-680 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 Daft 50 MESSAGE FROM THE DISTRICT 4 DIRECTOR 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 Daft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 29 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 Entrance to Iron Horse Trail 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 30 City of Dublin Daft Ea 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, Craft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 31 co 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. 32 City of Dublin Daft 54 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. Daft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 33 M9CIN GaL9 NEWES 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. FFOJILTMSCN 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. COILS This Plan establishes the following five overarching goals related to the vision that guide recommendations: 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 program support, operation, and maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity in the community. 34 City of Dublin Dal 56 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 00 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 O • 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 • 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 ill O Prioritize Investments *not in order of importance Eaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 35 2 �1tNW& srp tc-cEER ir 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. IENGCEMENT PNDcD D19 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. EN3AGEMENTPCTIMTI ES 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 web site • Interactive map • Public survey • Public workshop • Pop-up events • Stakeholder meetings • Technical Advisory Committee meetings • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee meetings Photos from pop-up events at the St Patrick's Day Festival and Alamo Creek Trailhead � af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37 59 Figure 6. Public Engagement Timeline Project Start Go Online Workshop & FAQ Live SEP 2, 2020 • • tk BPAC #1 SEP 17, 2020 Stakeholder Meetings APR -MAY 2021 PROJECT WEBSITE • Alamo Creek Trailhead Pop -Up MAY 27, 2021 Farmers' Market Pop -Up MAY 25, 2021 • , BPAC #2 tom) tom) tom) "A‘ /-a /-• TAC #1 TAC #2 TAC #3 MAR 4, 2020 SEP 15, 2020 JUN 3, 2021 MAY 25, 2021 F Public Survey MAY - SEP 2021 • • BPAC #4 FEB 24, 2022 BPAC #3 OCT 21, 2021 • St Patrick's Day Pop -Up MAR 12, 2022 • • BPAC #5 JUL 21, 2022 Project End te) tip TAC #4 CCC MAR 15, 2022 AUG-SEP 2022 BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee TAC - Technical Advisory Committee CCC - City Commission and Council 38 City of Dublin Dal 60 CIA/NLNlYFEEDYCKPND R NJ NE 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. 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 ii&a. 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 Figure 8. Barrier Themes in Comments 17% BIKE CONNECTIONS 14% MAINTENANCE 12% SIGNALS 8% PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ■ ▪ DRIVING <'P/o SIDEWALK DESIGN BIKE RACKS 4% PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 35% BIKE SAFETY 7% QUESTION 13% PRAISE 33% IDEA af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 61 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. 17/0 Bike Connections. Comments that discussed bike connections largely focused on consistent connections to paths, across over and under passes, and main bike routes. Maintenance.Comments that discussed maintenance largely focused on poor road conditions, debris in the road, and broken sidewalk. Signals. Comments that discussed signals largely focused on issues with signal bike detection at intersections. 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: 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: (.% f 1A IN TASSAJARok FALLNJ A/PDMALEY 131I3-HRf Y B3l.LEuRD ItD FOD BILE D FCC 40 City of Dublin Bike Lanes. Comments that discussed bike lanes largely focused on a need for greater connections between important destinations and along major roads and trails. Pedestrian Connections. Comments that discussed pedestrian connections largely focused on improving specific sidewalk connections and creating walking paths. Figure 9. Idea Themes in Comments IG /0 SIGNALS HA) BIKE SAFETY fliBIKE /0 CONNECTIONS �r�p BIKE IG /0 CONNECTIONS PEDESTRIAN ay PEDESTRIAN ap SIDEWALK V /0 DESIGN 4% DRIVING TRAFFIC 4)/0 CALMING 4 BIKE /0 AMENITIES Signals. Comments which discussed signals largely focused on safer intersections through changes to signals timing. Bike Connections Comments that discussed bike connections largely focused on connecting bike trails and lanes to key destinations and each other. The remaining in the ideas category covered pedestrian amenities, sidewalk design, driving, traffic calming, and bike amenities. ligPRAISE 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. General. Comments that were general were focused on appreciation for the City's efforts to improve bike and pedestrian facilities. Bike Lanes. Comments that discussed bike lanes were focused on effective plastic barriers, separated bike paths, and green paint. Signals. Comments that discussed signals were focused on flashing lights at intersections and well -placed crossing buttons. The remaining comments in the praise category covered existing amenities and connections. QUESTIONS Three key question themes emerged from the online map responses; they are listed below and illustrated in figure 11. 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. 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. 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. Figure 10. Praise Themes in Comments 3/OGENERAL 35%BIIO LANES f/BSIGNALS IaP/ CONNECTIONS AMENITIES Figure 11. Question Themes in Comments PLANNING /OPROCESS CONNECTIONS MICROMOBILITY Yaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 63 RBJJCaREY 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. RESPONSES were received to the 17-question survey 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 destinations 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. RBJCVVCFK1-;P 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 42 City of Dublin Dal 64 Figure 12. Poll Responses to Classification of Bicyclist Types by Frequency of Bicycle Use Daily or nearly daily, 5 A few times per week, 4 A few times per year, 3 A few times a month, 2 ■ Enthused and confident ■ No way, no how 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 A few times per week, 4 A few times per year, 2 A few times a non... 1 A few times per week, 4 A few times per year, 1 ■ Interested but concerned ■ Strong and fearless 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). PCP LDENTS 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. Project Overview — Why a BPMP Update? 2012 Complete Streets Policy 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Dublin General Plan and Various Specific Plans 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 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 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- 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. El CKLEPND CUMl I P V�P/1_J1/I J�R-�I+ l.0 1VI I i IV III cE 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 Alamo Creek Pop Up Event 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. P1_/J1/IS R( l.k.WIV1 IVElII CB 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. 44 City of Dublin Dal 66 67 3: \NUING& KNG IN QHJNTCEA( 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. 0 llf O Dublin Population: I 61,240 Source: US Census American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates (2015-2019) U\A WThNGIN JN 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. 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. CENIR 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. PCE 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. OEFON9-IQE Fa.EEI-@C6 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. 46 City of Dublin Dal 68 Figure 13. Dublin Population by Race & Ethnicity 4% BLACK/ AFRICAN AMERICAN <1% Hispanic or Latino/ax p/ V /0 2+ RACES 1.1 % Hispanic or Lati�noo//aa/x JCJ /0 WHITE 6.5% Hispanic or Latino/a/x //0 FILIPINO 5/0— VIETNAMESE - 5Y0 KOREAN OTHER 1 ORIGINS N 2% OTHER 1.6% Hispanic or Latino/a/x <1% AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE <1% Hispanic or Latino/a/x • ASIAN • <1% Hispanic or ■ Latino/a/x • • • • • • • CHINESE • (EXCEPT ■ TAIWANESE) ■ • • • 48 /0 ASIAN-INDIAN * 10.1 % of Dublin's population identify as hispanic or latino/a/x Figure 14. Dublin Rounded Population by Age 8% 15-24 35% 25-44 .%o 5-14 411— UNDER /0 g/0 65+ 41111 % 45-65 Figure 15. Dublin Population by Gender • OF RESIDENTS FEMALE AND MALE *gender identity data is not available af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 69 Figure 16. Workers by Residence and Job Location Fbopl e Living & Feopl ewo' king wa- ki ng F e Living in ad in in Qabl in in aibl in 16,042 1,484 23,161 Source: Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamic (LEHD), 2017. 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. CUMNE MIE9-WE 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 Figure 17. Commute Mode 67% CAR/TRUCK/VAN - DROVE ALONE Arn PUBLIC TRANSIT (INCLUDING /%TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (UBER, LYFT) AND TAXI) Ino/ CAR/TRUCK/VAN - .7 /0 CARPOOLED I7% WORKED AT HOME %WALKED ID/ BICYCLE AND I /°MOTORCYCLE Source: US Census American Community Survey Five -Year Estimates (2015-2019). 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. NG& r-� f Q ON 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 48 City of Dublin Dal 70 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.' BoR SFA I N AIE S 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 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. Figure 18. Mode Split for BART Station Access in Dublin Drop off/Taxi/Other Drive alone/carpool Motorcycle/motorized scooter Transit Bicycle Walk • West Dublin Dublin/Pleasanton 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. 24% 30% 0% 1% • 1% 4% 4% 5% 51% 60% M� I f�lPN P(\D O L 1 ST Th=aGGES 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. Source: BART Station Profile Survey (2015) 2 https://www.kittelson.com/ideas/will-covid-l9-permanently-alter-teleworking-and-commuting-patterns-heres-what-1000-commuters-told-us/) af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 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. Table 3. Pedestrian Typology 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. 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, unsignalizec 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 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.' Based on this research, bicyclists can be placed into one of four groups based on their relationship to bicycle transportation: Figure 19. Bicyclist Typology NO WAY, NO HOW 27.6% Low Stress Tolerance 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. 58.1% 10.1% SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN 3 Roger Geller, "Four Types of Cyclists," Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507. High Stress Tolerance 4.3% 50 City of Dublin aft Table 4. Bike Group Typology— City of Dublin Population Share of Bicyclist Type by Age Bicyclist Type Under 5 6-18 Share of Age Group 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% 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 Source: Table developed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from data presented by Dill and McNeil 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. E SD 1 C API V I..I G 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. �af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 so Figure 20. Existing Bicycle Network Map Dougherty Hills Open Space � I BLI BL Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ATH Si LTH 5T o HORIZON PW of Biddle 2 OrDUBLIN BRODER BL GLEASON DR Emerald Glen Park Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class lB Bidepath I Mile 0 Schools BART Stations Palls 52 City of Dublin Daft 74 I ES CF B FE/ Y S 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. Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road. Person riding a bike on a Class II facility separated from right -turning traffic. 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. Diagram of typical Class IB path configuration Alamo Creek Trail, Dublin, CA. Source: City of Dublin Class IB Path on San Ramon Road, Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 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. Diagram of typical Class IIB bike lane configuration Class IIB Facility on Tassajara Road, Dublin, CA. Source: Google Maps. 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. Diagram of typical Class III bike lane configuration Class III Facility in Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 54 City of Dublin Daft 76 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. Class IV Facility, San Diego, CA Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. aFFCRnNGiN=PASrr 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 Bike Parking at Dublin Library Source: City of Dublin Eaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 651 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 Short Term Racks at the Wave Dublin, CA Source: City of Dublin 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 56 City of Dublin Daft 78 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 dam' Assoicuates, Inc. 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. 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. P DEl NG LSI I NVTI 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 80 Figure 21. Land Use and Key Destinations Map i Alameda County 1— Sp T�1S"v flan .. n., DU5I IN AI. San Ramot WEST DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON WeIISMlWE/I Contra Costa County Parks Reserve Forces Training Area RRODER BE GLEASON DR ST DUBLIN/ PLEASANTON Pleasanton James D agn®rry Elem CEN • • le nor Mur F Son Midd Dublin Crossing OILIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 I Mile 0 Shared Lane (Class III) Downtown Dublin Bike Lane (Class IIA) Employment Centers Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) Parks Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Schools - Existing Class IB Sidepath BART Stations � af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 81 B4 SH FR:ERLAS 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 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 School (SRTS) Bicycle Rodeo 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' Police and Safety riding abilities in a safe and controlled environment. Dublin Police Services promotes bicycling by educating students about riding safely and properly. Program Adult School 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 Crossing Guards 60 City of Dublin Dal 82 Program Description Managing Department / Organization Offering Services National Bike 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 g Month Activities Walk and Roll 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, DUSD, Traffic to School Week walking school buses and bike trains, giveaways, and prizes. Dublin's participation is partially funded by Measure B/BB. 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 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 Committee 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 Craft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 83 BL\FRE TO LKI C 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 ad 84 Figure 22. Influence of Vehicle Speed on Driver's Cone of Vision & Pedestrian Survival Rates Higher speeds affect a driver's ability to perceive, focus on, and react to things in their line of vision. 15 mph Higher speeds decrease the chance that a pedestrian will survive a crash. 20 mph 11 fr • • 30 mph 40 mph • • • • • • • • itt itt itt 75% of pedestrians will SURVIVE a crash at 32 mph. 50 % of 25 % of pedestrians will pedestrians will SURVIVE a crash SURVIVE a crash at 42 mph. 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. 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. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 85 Table 6. Pedestrian Collisions by Location and Severity Fatal and Location Severe Injury Collisions Other Total Reported Share of Total Collisions Collisions 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 Fatal and Location Severe Injury Collisions Other Total Reported Share of Total Collisions Collisions Reported Intersection Segment 2 1 50 15 52 16 76% 24% Total Reported 3 65 68 100% Figure 23. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Lighting Conditions 70 60 50 m g 43 LL G 30 o 20 u 10 0 Daylight 14t 13% a% 4t Dark - Street Lights Dusk- Dawn • Pedestrian Collisions • Bicycle Collisions 1, Dark- No Street Dark- Street Lights Lights Not Functioning Lighting Conditions NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database. 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 64 City of Dublin Daft 86 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. HC-#INJLRY NETIACFK 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 0 0 N 40% 35% 30% - 25% Q 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 18% Under5 29% 8% 35% 9% 4% I ■ 5-14 years old 15-24 ye ars old 25-44 years old 45-64 years old 65+years old • Pedestrians Involved • Bicyclists Involved • Dublin Population Share (63% age reported) (76% age reported) 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 Eaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 87 Figure 25. Pedestrian High -Injury Network Map Alameda County Contra Costa County QP spots ore !` Dougherty i--� Open5poce hParks Reserve Forces Training Area m o pJe� Civic Plaza q. BRIGHTONUR tEmerald MADDEN WY Fallon GLEASON OR ) BTH SE PROMBL tiP ]iH Si Biddle L ark DUBLIN BL Pleasanton 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 Livermore 1 Mile 0 Pedestrian High Injury Network 66 City of Dublin Daft 88 Figure 26. Bicycle High -Injury Network Map San Ramon Alameda County Dougherty Hills Open Space Civic Plaza Contra Costa County Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ]STH si rH Si sc HORIZON PW o o 0 'ion Biddle c a Park DUBLIN BL sCABIE,TCrWI Pleasanton GLEASON OR pfg Emerald Glen Park CENTRS.L PW ryO4THSLDE DR QP SNocs ore Livermore 0 I Mile 0 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 High Injury Network Daft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 89 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. Amador Valley Boulevard Total Bicycle Mileage: 8.4 miles High Injury Street 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. 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. 68 City of Dublin Daft 90 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. El CrI I E L`BR � T�O -FRCSIr 7 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 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 Figure 27. Roadway Characteristics Used to Calculate Bicycle LTS NUMBER OF LANES 11 PRESENCE & WIDTH OF BIKE LANES f4:014:P. SPEED OF TRAFFIC 1-01-"?". PRESENCE & WIDTH OF PARKING + BIKE LANES 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' NUMBER OF VEHCILES PRESENCE & PHYSICAL BARRIER BETWEEN BIKE LANES & VEHICULAR TRAFFIC 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. 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. Eaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 91 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 Daft 92 Figure 28. On Street and Path LTS Combined Map Alameda County San Ramon Dougherty Hill ( Open Space �AoN 4 **ril4 ® \� BRIGH'O�E��A,;* m P,i 411,w1\ I o.� oc *9! Pleasanton Contra Costa County LIER CANYON RO Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 On -Street LTS LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Shared Use Path Sidepaths (Class IA) (Class IB) LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Path Crossings LTS 1 • LTS 1 LTS 2 • LTS 2 LTS 3 • LTS 3 LTS 4 • LTS 4 Daft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 93 Figure 29. Low Stress Islands Map Alameda County DUBLI San Ramon BRIGHTOr erty Hills Open Space SIERRPS'4— Dublin Sports S� 1, Contra Costa County Parks -rve Forces Tr:I ing Area GFH ST��o 0 170'. I D, Pleasanton BRODER BL GLEASON OR / Emerald Glen Park PW Level of Traffic Stress Scores LLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 72 City of Dublin Daft 94 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 Figure 30. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification LOW STRESS STREETS HIGH STRESS STREETS 11 0 30 Ar Cc Re terial Streets llector Streets sidential Streets 60 90 120 150 Miles *Miles does not include paths. 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. WIHAlN Cal\MTIM TY 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. "You can't use the sidewalk without tripping on a jagged piece of concrete." -community member quote af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 95 Figure 31. Pedestrian Crossing Barriers Map San Ramon Alamedalk County DUBLIN BL • • Dougherty Hills T Open Space 1\\ • Contra Costa County Parks Reserve Forces Training Area BRODER BL QO� • `�/ ® �GLEASONpB 1• PAP• / \\\0 6TH ST —// • o• \ rvoR¢oN Pwi. /Emerald k'RK U / Q �9P _ 1 F[ - ' Glen Pork / W \��on Biddle ?��� CENTm LPW o / \\Park G -/ I O S�ERRP 0 oue IN BL r�,d-_ro_ o 0 8TH ST TrH ST o �� o Civic Plaza CT I Pleasanton 'eMADDEN wv ° O Fallon d Sports ••__�' Park COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 0 1 Mile 0 0 • • Major street barrier - signal with no major street Roadways/Paths crossings - Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street) Major street barrier -- all -way stop, no marked crossings Paths Major street barrier - side -street stop control Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at nodes - Sidewalk gap on major road Not a barrier - full accessibility Not a barrier- RRFB 74 City of Dublin Daft 96 V Y'1__f V El MN:718=S 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. VAN CPC �D l 1.nL.N Val G S I�+ PN 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. �af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 97 Figure 32. Walking and Biking Demand Analysis Process 01 Cernogr Tphic Pnai1 ysis Categorize city ; population ; into walking • and biking typologies • at Census block level 02 pcpul at icn Pssi gnrnent t o Bji 1 di ngs Assign and : apportion : population : by typology : to residential buildings 03 NAv cr k Pnal ysis Calculate :network :distance to :points of :interest and :percieved ;distance ;based on :Infrastructure ;factors and :walking and ; !biking typology O4PggregateFtsults Using a distance/ mode split lookup table, estimate the mode share to points of interest. Calibrate based on existing mode split and travel data VAKPOCESS • 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 33. Walk Access Walk Access for Adults to BART 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 Youth Walk Access to Cottonwood Creek School y4Y Pea.o,ton Walk Access to BART for Youth, Older Adults, and People with Disabilities Parks * BART Access - Sidewalk gap on major road - Major Streets (Crossing Barriers Present) Aamon Note: Full side graphics are included in the appendix. 76 City of Dublin Dal 98 Access Distance 0 - 1/4 miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles ElKEPCIESS 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. Figure 34. Bike Access to BART 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. BART access points - 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles • 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. Bike access to BART for "interested but concerned" • 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. Bike access to BART for "enthused and confident" • 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 "strong and fearless" Eaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77 99 100 4 RECAMENEEDBOICLE & FE6TR/JNEFWRS 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. NEN\CRKEEvELCFMENT 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. FHoffi't NEl1ACFK RRo11/3IVCK 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. 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. "Bike lanes and separate pedestrian path are great" -community member quote Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 101 Figure 35. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities 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 . Dougherty Hills • Open Space Proposed Point Project Spot Improvement .007 Ae0 kgt,CF Rp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area STH ST bTH ST BROOD, 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 I I ll'ex.u.ul Mita IV Mile 0 Schools BART Stations Parks City of Dublin DRAFT 102 Figure 36. Preferred Bikeway Type 10k 9k 8k 7k 6k 5k 4k 3k 2k 1k 0 Notes Shared Lane or Bike Boulevard 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 SPEED MILES PER HOUR 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. 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 w i NEIVENIT 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. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81 103 COVRETES11- ,i_ 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 hardening' • 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. CHERFFCM TS 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) 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 IB) Path (Class IA) Speed Reduction Evaluation Total 12.4 4.0 17.4 9.2 4.9 7.9 1.3 55.6* * Corridor projects are not double counted in this total if they represent multiple project types. 82 City of Dublin Table 10. Recommend Projects by Location Project ID Project Location M. From Project Description S-1 S-2 Gleason Drive S-3 Hacienda Drive S-4 Dublin Boulevard S-5 Arnold Road SEGMENT PROJECTS 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 Arnold Road Southern City Limits Scarlett Drive Dublin Boulevard S-6 Grafton Street Tassajara Road, Dougherty Road, and Hacienda Drive S-7 S-8 Tassajara Road S-9 Village Parkway Kohnen Way Southern City Limits North Dublin Ranch Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create Class III bikeways Brannigan Street Gleason Drive Tassajara Road Altamirano Ave Antone Way Dublin Boulveard 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 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 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 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 Northern City Limits Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways: Tamarack S-10 Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street, Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and Brannigan Street S-11 Village Parkway S-12 Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard Palisades Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings 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 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 Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project S-1 to create Class III bikeways Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility North Dublin Ranch Drive Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83 105 Project ID Project Location From Project Description S-13 Dougherty Road S-14 Amador Valley Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Stagecoach Road S-15 Tassajara Road S-16 Dublin Boulevard S-17 Dublin Boulevard Gleason Drive Inspiration Drive Inspiration Drive Southern city limits 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 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 Southern City Limits San Ramon Road Western extent 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. 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 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 S-19 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Gleason Drive Southern city limits Tassajara Road 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. 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 S-21 Tassajara Road S-22 Tassajara Road Eastern city limits Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension Palidsades Drive Northern City Limits 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 Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities Study opportunities, create designs, and implement traffic calming and signs to create Class III Bikeways along the identified roadways S-23 Lockhart Street S-24 John Monego Court Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard S-25 Sierra Lane Sierra Court Dublin Boulevard Southern extent Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Dougherty Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-26 York Drive S-27 Hibernia Drive Amador Valley Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Poplar Way Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Summer Glen Drive Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists 84 City of Dublin Project ID 'roject Location From Vomac Road Peppertree Road Project Description S-28 Shannon Avenue 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 Croak Road/ S-31 Volterra Drive S-32 Central Parkway S-33 Central Parkway Volterra Court Iron Horse Parkway Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Fallon Road 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 Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility 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 S-35 S-36 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 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 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 S-38 Dougherty Road S-39 Lockhart Street Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Central Parkway Southern city limits Northern City Limits Gleason 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 Improve wayfinding and signage for parallel path on east side; restripe to upgrade Class IIA facilities to Class IIB facilities 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 S-41 Sierra Ct Amador Valley Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Northern City Limits Northern extent Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists S-42 S-43 S-44 S-45 Amador Valley Boulevard Village Parkway Stagecoach Road East Sugar Hill Terrace Upgrade from Class IIA to Class IIB Bicycle Lane Bent Tree Drive Fallon Road Restripe to a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists Hacienda Drive Gleason Road Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard As a follow up to S 3, evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility 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 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85 107 EllOmProject Location From 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 S-49 Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Southern city limits Tassajara Road 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 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 S-51 Dublin Boulevard S-52 Martinelli Way and Iron Horse Parkway Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road BART Station on Iron Horse Parkway Dublin Boulevard Dougherty Road Hacienda Drive Upgrade from Class IIB to Class IV Bicycle Lane 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. 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 T-2 Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to create park space and trail access and connectivity improvements 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 Met ID Project Location From 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 T-8 T-9 Alamo Canal Trail/ Civic Plaza Dublin Boulevard Extension T-10 Brannigan Street T-11 Central Parkway T-12 Dublin High School T-13 Tassajara Creek Nielson Elementary School T-14 T-15 Altamirano Street Amador Plaza Road Village Parkway/ Clark Avenue Fallon Road Central Parkway Emerald Glen Park/ Tassajara Road Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Amarillo Road Dublin BART station 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. Alamo Canal Trail Collier Canyon Park (Livermore) Gleason Boulevard Brannigan Street 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 Create Class I connection along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension corridor from Fallon Road to Collier Canyon Parkway (Livermore) Through development, add Class I facility on the west side of Brannigan St. from Central Parkway to Gleason Boulevard Add Class I connection and street crossing enhancements on the north side of Central Parkway from Emerald Glen Park/Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street Village Parkway Pleasanton Mape Memorial Park Path Martinelli Way Add Class I connection along the south side of the school grounds and Dublin Swin Center from Iron Horse Trail to Village Parkway 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 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 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 87 109 FONTFF01BIS 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 ID Project Locatio Project Description Freeway Crossing Projects FC-1 FC-2 San Ramon Road at southbound I-580 westbound ramp entrance San Ramon Road at northbound I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Proiect Project Location Project Description FC-3 FC-4 FC-5 FC-6 FC-7 FC-8 FC-9 San Ramon Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal St. Patrick Way at I-580 ramp terminal and entrance Dougherty Road at I-580 westbound ramp entrance Dougherty Road at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Dougherty Road at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Hacienda Drive at I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Hacienda Drive at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Hacienda Drive at FC-10 I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Tassajara Road at FC-11 I-580 westbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Tassajara Road at FC-12 I-580 westbound ramp terminal Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Tassajara Road at FC-13 I-580 eastbound ramp entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings Fallon Road at I-580 FC-14 westbound ramp terminal and entrance Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings 88 City of Dublin Proje ID ZIMIroject Location jIMLProject Description FC-15 Fallon Road at I-580 eastbound ramp entrance FC-16 Redesign interchange ramp terminal to provide safe crossings 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 C-2 Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Trail Provide mid -block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment) 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 C-5 Tassajara Creek Trail and Tassajara Road 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. 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 I-2 Central Parkway/ Aspen Street Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school Grafton Street/ Antone Way Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school roject ID Project Location Project Descriptiojill= n I-3 I-4 Amador Valley Boulevard/Burton Street Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard I-5 Village Parkway/ Tamarack Drive I-6 Village Parkway/ Brighton Drive Provide crossing improvements (RRFB or other actuated treatment) to provide more visibility of people walking/biking, especially to school 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. 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. 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 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. 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 89 111 Project ID Project Location Project Descriptio _ JIM_ 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. Grafton Street/Madden Way/Kohnen Way Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school Antone Way/ Bridgepointe Lane Provide higher visibility crossing treatments, especially to support access to the school 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 I-16 Gleason Drive/ Grafton Street 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 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. roject 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. 1-18 Central Parkway/ Brannigan street I-19 Dublin Boulevard/ Brannigan street I-20 Central Parkway/ Hibernia Drive 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. 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. 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. 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 Project ID Project Location Project Descriptio _ JIM_ 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 I-24 I-25 I-26 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. 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/ 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. 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. roject ID Project Location Project Descriptionll=1 1-27 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" San Ramon Road/ I-28 Amador Valley Boulevard I-29 Regional Street/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 Consider modifying signal to include leading pedestrian interval on EB and WB approaches; Consider protected left - turn phasing for NB and SB traffic. Amador Valley I-30 Boulevard/ Amador Plaza I-31 Dublin Boulevard/ Amador Plaza Road Mark crosswalk on east leg of intersection; Widen median and add median tips as feasible to provide 6' pedestrian refuge; Reduce curb radii 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 Amador Valley I-33 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 91 113 QI-HRF8DM8ND! 110N6 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 NEFEk9EDPCIESS TOLES lCS 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 Enthused and Confident 0% 8% 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 Figure 37. Recommended Projects from Other Plans Map Alameda County San Ramon ♦ — ♦Dougherty Hills ♦Open Space • ram• ♦� e; J♦.. gs� ov 1 Contra Costa County Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ♦♦♦ on Biddle p ♦ w Ppi�u:1�'6i____ ♦ • Pleasanton GLEASON OR o o r � w r a ' CENT L ;___'4st �,DE DR Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations ' BART Station Access Project Locations 9 Fallon 1, Sports Park : Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations Safe Routes To School Project Locations Livermore 1 Mile 0 Schools BART Stations Class IA Multi -use Path Class IA Multi -use Path - Under Construction Class IB Sidepath Class IB Sidepath - Under Construction Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93 115 Figure 38. Existing Bike Access to BART Network Alameda County Contra Costa County Parks '=rve Forces Tr: i ing Area Pleasanton Level of Traffic Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment LTS 1 — LTS 1 • • LTS 1 LTS 2 — LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 Livermore 1 Mile 0 Bart access points Access Distance - - - - 0- 1/4miles 1/4 - 1/2 miles 1/2 - 1 mile 1 - 1-1/2 miles 1-1/2 - 2 miles 2+ miles 94 City of Dublin Figure 39. Recommended Bike Access to BART Network Alameda County 'leasanton Dublin residents with a bicycle route along streets that match their level of traffic stress tolerance would increase from 12 percent to 71 percent. Contra Costa County Level of Traffic Stress Scores On -Street LTS Class IA Segment Class IB Segment LTS 1 — LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 — LTS 3 LTS 4 — LTS 4 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Livermore iMile 0 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 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 118 FEIAMENEEDFRIERaW FOJQ /DFRcDc6 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. • AK Y Coordination and Collaboration UMW Funding and Implementation cecNi Data Collection Oa Operations and Maintenance 411)k Design Promotion and Encouragement 4 Emerging Technologies Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities Yaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97 119 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 Daft 120 14IVNP D Y` 0V�I a V Y � Y 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. STFN133ESPI\DPOCAS 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. �af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99 121 DATA Oa=mJ 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. rSXDPC I VAB 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. 100 City of Dublin a al 122 Nu - Alb al Go beyond minimum design standards to incorporate safe walking and biking facilities into transportation projects. Upcoming capital projects should be influenced by the Design Guide, which references the priority networks defined in this Plan, namely the pedestrian priority network and the all ages and abilities network (for biking and micromobility). Design decisions are often most difficult where these two priority networks overlap with major arterials, particularly when the public right of way is constrained. While challenging, these corridors, provide the greatest opportunity to make bold changes that will advance mode shift goals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and decrease vehicles miles travelled (VMT). STFATEIESPI\DPOCAS 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. �af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101 123 9HVH3ND 1133VaUE3ES pNDIMta,Al1CIN6 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. STFNEESPI\DPOCAS 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. 102 City of Dublin 124 FUNDING AND Ma 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. 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. DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103 125 OTRATI ONE PNCIMNNITENPNCE 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. STFATE3ESPNDPC11 CAS 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. 104 City of Dublin Dal 126 4 mJpt\D 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. 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. �af Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 105 127 Nc INFRASTROLFE /NJA QJ ES 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. 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. 106 City of Dublin 128 a IMLB'MT1N1cN say 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. FRCR11! 1 I CN FRIES The project recommendations include a total of 55.6 miles across 53 segment projects; 18 trail projects; 16 freeway crossing 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.' 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 7 Peter A. Lagerwey, et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads ActiveTrans Priori, NCHRP Report 803, Project No. 07-17 (2015), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf. Tool Guidebook, 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. 108 City of Dublin Dal 130 Table 13. Prioritization Factors and Variables FACTOR VARIABLE NOTES PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE Safet y High -injury corridors Prioritize locations identified along the bicycle and pedestrian high- injury networks. This variable aligns with the goal enhance safety. • • CAD 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 • ASocial 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. • x • IXEgt '.: 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. p: 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. IS . Sidewalk gaps Prioritize locations with sidewalk gaps that may create barriers for people walking. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. • X 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.et • /X et 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 prioritise investments. • IX Craft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 109 131 IIVREMENTATICN RAN 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! FFOJEUS 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. 11HMII FROJEUI5 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. TI HRI I I FFOJEu S 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 Dal 132 CITYATCE CIESPND FRIFILIVS 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. V��DI ST1M U S 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. Da{ Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 111 133 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 Daft 134 Table 15. Implementation Plan List: Tier I and Tier II Projects PROJECT NUMBER TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM TO LOCATION 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 113 135 PROJECT TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 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 (Study)$18,000 (Study)$18,000 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 Ins iration Dr 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 Ins iration Dr 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 Daft 136 PROJECT TIER NUMBER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION FROM TO COST - COST - LOW 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 Sierra Court cul-de-sac Tassajara Creek Trail and Dublin Boulevard $6,318,000 $6,318,000 $2,132,000 C 3 Tier II Add connection from Sierra Court to the Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network $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 $123,000 $123,000 and walking between the trail and the intersection. 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 Village Parkway/ Amador Valley Boulevard $123,000 $972,000 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. Daft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 115 137 Figure 40. Priority Projects Map ST 7TH ST HST pROOFH OL � P2 giq MADDEN WV GLEASON DR n PVSpDES Dfl Q � Parks Reserve Forces711 Training Area LL _ � NOJeUN Rgti 6TH ST Fallon 0 HORIZON Pw o. Emerald » • r i Sports 0 �9a w z Glen Park r Pork ion Biddle — z a r-.• CLNTR:u aw S / SIERRP,� Park 5 _ 3 DUBLIN BL •y •� SC4RLEn cTr '""I . • . E DR Proposed Point Project • Spot Improvement COLLIER U 0 I Mile 0 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 IS Sidepath I I Parks Schools BART Stations 116 City of Dublin Daft 138 PROJECT TIER NUMBER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT FROM LOCATION TO COST - COST - LOW 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 Dublin Boulevard/ Hibernia Drive $123,000 $972,000 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 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 Dublin Boulevard/ Hacienda Drive $123,000 $972,000 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 Tier II Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing Dublin Boulevard/ Village Parkway $123,000 $972,000 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 I radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks. 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 Daft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 117 139 fU V_.11 V3J1ft6 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 & FUNDING LEVELS LIMITATIONS 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 Dal 140 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 FUND NAME Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 310 PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS $3 million annually every 2-3 years regionwide 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). 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" 1.8 million in 2021-22 and $5.6 million in 2022-27 for Annual Street Resurfacing and Iron Horse Bridge at Dublin Boulevard 8 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-2 9 haps://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 aft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 119 141 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 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 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 120 City of Dublin Daft 142 FUND NAME Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS $6 billion nationally Comprehensive safety action plan development and implementation. 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 $1 billion nationally innovative technology to improve transportation efficiency and safety. 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. Daft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 121 143 IVE68...RES 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 Dal 144 LC3ED4N3P1-58D 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: Enhance Safety Increase Walking and Biking Improve Connectivity Enhance Accessibility 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. Prioritize Investments Yaf Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 123 145 146 _ -147 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 2 City of Dublin DRA T 148 RESOURCE The following resources should be used as references for best practices in planning and design for pedestrian facilities. 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) DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 3 149 DESIGN T PICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE 150 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 I Global Designing Cities Initiative Wayfinding Strategy Ju1y2019 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 DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 5 151 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/pedsafel 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 6 City of Dublin DRAFT 152 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Reduced Radii and NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https:// Sidewalk Corners 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 Curb Ramps 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 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 Rl-5a DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 7 153 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 8 City of Dublin DRAFT 154 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Bus Stop Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility Accessibility and Safety (2 https://www.nadtc. org/wp-content/uploads/NADTC Toolkit-for- the-Assessment-of-Bus-Stop-Accessibility.pdf Page 10 ADA Accessibility Guidelines (2002): Section 10.2; https://www.access-board. Adaag 1991 2002 (access-board.gov) 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 Curb Ramps 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 Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines R304; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/ (PROWAG) (2013) https://www.access-board.gov/ chapter-r3-technical-requirements/#r304- files/prowag/PROW-SUP-SNPRM-2013.pdf curb -ramps -and -blended -transitions DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 9 155 DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION Crossing Guide for the Planning Design and Treatments 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 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https:// Page 91; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- Heads nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/ Unsignalized NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https:// Page 105; https://nacto.org/publication/urban- Intersections nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/ Sidepaths AASHTO Guide for the Development Chapter 5, Page 8 of Bicycle Facilities (2012) Sidepath AASHTO Guide for the Development Chapter 5, Page 42 Intersection of Bicycle Facilities (2012) Design Considerations 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/ Chapter 4, Pages 11 -22 Urban Bicycle Design Guide https://nacto.org/ Pages 1 — 21/https://nacto.org/publication/ publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/ 10 City of Dublin DRAFT 156 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/aasht 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 DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 11 157 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 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https:// Pages 65 — 70; https://nacto.org/publication/ Management nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ urban-street-design-guide/street-design- elements/stormwater-management/ 12 City of Dublin DRAFT 158 BIKEWAY SELECTION CLASS IA: BIKE PATHS OR SHARED USE PATHS 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. 4ffi Iron Horse Regional Trail, Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 14 City of Dublin DRAFT 160 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. DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 15 161 CLASS IB: SIDEPATHS 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 Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc 16 City of Dublin DRAFT 162 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. DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 17 163 CLASS IIA AND CLASS IIB FACILITIES: BIKE LANES AND BUFFERED BIKE LANES 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. Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc 18 City of Dublin DRAFT 164 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. DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 19 165 CLASS III BIKE ROUTES/BICYCLE BOULEVARDS 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. Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 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. 20 City of Dublin DRAFT 166 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. DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 21 167 CLASS IV: SEPARATED BIKEWAY/CYCLE TRACK 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. San Diego, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. Source: City of Dublin 22 City of Dublin DRAFT 168 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. DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 23 169 ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS 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. 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. ®START CROSSING Watch For Vehicles DON'T START Finish Crossing II Started TIME REMAINING To Finish Crossing Source: Accessforblind.org 24 City of Dublin DRAFT 170 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 DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 25 171 ROBBING SELECTION 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. APPLICATION OF PEDESTRIAN CRASH COUNTERMEASURES BY ROADWAY FEATURE Roadway Configuration 2 lanes (1 lane in each direction) 3 lanes with raised median (1 lane in each direction) 3 lanes w/o raised median (1 lane in each direction with a two-way left -turn lane) 4+ lanes with raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction) 4+ lanes w/o raised median (2 or more lanes in each direction) Posted Speed Limit and AADT Vehicle AADT >15,000 <_30 mph 35 mph I>_40 mph _<30 mph 35 mph >40 mph <30 mph! 35 mph I>_40 mph Vehicle AADT <9,000 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. O 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. Vehicle AADT 9,000-15,000 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)** 1 '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). Safely 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://wvnv.pedbikesafe.orWPEDSAFE/, Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sandstrom, 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 safely practitioners. Source: FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations 26 City of Dublin DRAFT 172 HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS, PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE CROSSWALK APPROACH, ADEQUATE NIGHTTIME LIGHTING LEVELS, AND CROSSING WARNING SIGNS Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc RAISED CROSSWALK Source: Federal Highway Administration PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND Dublin, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc RECTANGULAR RAPID -FLASHING BEACON Source: City of Dublin DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 27 173 ADVANCE YIELD HERE TO (STOP HERE FOR) PEDESTRIANS SIGN AND YIELD/STOP LINE R1-S * RI-Sa STATE LAW FOR • WITHIN CROSSWALK * HERE RI-Sb HERE y FDR PEDESTRIANS Rt-Sc STATE LAW T It YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS A. STATE LAW STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS R1-9a * The legend STATE LAW Is ogteAAO, A fluorescent yellow -green Wldrgruurd wlw mey be used *geed Source: MUTCD IN STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ROAD DIET Source: Federal Highway Administration PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON Source: Michigan Complete Streets Coalition 28 City of Dublin DRAFT 174 CURB EXTENSION Source: City of Dublin DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 29 175 BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH INTERSE 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. 30 City of Dublin DRAFT 176 INTERSECTION CROSSINGS MARKINGS 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. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 31 177 BIKE BOXES 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. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 32 City of Dublin DRAFT 178 TWO STAGE DESCRIPTION: N QUEUE BOXES 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) San Diego, CA. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 33 179 PROTECTED INTERSECTIO 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. 1011111111111111 IIIII �' YIELD TO PEDS 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 34 City of Dublin DRAFT 180 INTERSECTION APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS 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. 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 DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 35 181 TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSIDERATIONS 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. 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. 36 City of Dublin DRAFT 182 BICYCLE PARKING 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 Source: City of Dublin DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 37 183 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 38 City of Dublin DRAFT 184 DNifly of Dublin Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 39 185 Attachment 3 DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Item 7.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update August 16,2022 186 otat Project Initiation Project Overview Fall 2020 II Baseline Inventory & Needs Analysis Late 2021 Summer 2022 Fall 2022 Network Recommendations & Implementation Plan Public Participation In -Person Event (as County health guidance allows) �� Community Workshop es n Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Draft Plan Final Plan & Environmental Review Draft Plan Vision & Goals Vision 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 connect individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations. Goals 1. Enhance Safety 2. Increase Walking and Biking 3. Improve Connectivity 4. Enhance Accessibility 5. Prioritize Investments Engagement Summary • Web site & Interactive Map — 200+ comments — 1,500+ visits • Public Survey — 200+ responses • Online Workshop • Pop-up Events — Farmers' Market — Alamo Creek Trailhead — St Patrick's Day Festival Existing Conditions & Needs Analysis Evaluated the following to identify needs: 1. Demographic Analysis: Summarized available population, job, and travel pattern data 2. Collision Analysis + High Injury Network: Analyzed 6 years of bicycle and pedestrian collision data to analyze where collisions are concentrated in the City 3. Level of Traffic Stress Analysis: Evaluated the bicycle level of traffic stress (a measure of comfort) of the City's roadway network 4. Demand Analysis: Evaluated mode shift potential sensitivity to Plan infrastructure recommendations Demographics Analysis: Commute Snapshot Commute Snapshot 69% 9% DRIVE ALONE CARPOOL 13% TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT, CAR SHARE (E.G., CETAROUND, TURO), TRANSPORTATION NET1X,ORK COMPANY (E.G., LYFr, UBER), OR ATAXI • C� 2% EITHER WALK OR BIKE 2015-2019 _4ffitriran C:wosrm nrify _Sxrrry data MORE THAN 23,000 DU BLINERS COMMUTE OUTSIDE THE CITY FOR WORK 3 OF HOUSEHOLDS ini ilia IN DUBLIN DO NOT OWN AVEHILE Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Collision Analysis — HIN Pages 65-69 of Draft BPMP • 62% of pedestrian collisions occurred on 4% (8.4 miles) of Dublin's roads • 62% of bicycle collisions occurred on 3.5% (6.7 miles) of Dublin's roads • 71% of the pedestrian HIN has four or more vehicle through lanes • 88% of the bicycle HIN has 4 or more vehicle through lanes Pedestrian High -Injury Network Map Don emale (Class IA) On -Street LTS LTS1 LTS1 LTS2 - LTS2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS4 -LTS4 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) \\ Shared Use Path Sidepaths Alameda County (Class IB) •^LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Contra Costa Path Crossings County • LTS 1 • LTS 2 • LTS 3 • LTS4 « 4� ysigt 6 Livermore I Mile 0 • LTS measures the stress imposed on bicyclists, • LTS 1 is - most comfortable & LTS 4 is - most stressful 193 Demand Analysis: Walling and Biking Access • Schools • Transit • Job Centers • Parks and Open Space 194 Draft Network Recommendations — Corridor projects — Identified on high -stress roadways that represented major barriers to walking and biking. • Considers land use and roadway context and FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide recommended treatments for all ages and abilities facilities • Complete Street studies & further evaluation recommended to identify appropriate facility on constrained corridors — Point projects — targeted project locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions, • Includes trail access improvements, freeway ramp crossings, high -stress intersections and projects identified in prior plans Existing and Proposed Network Proposed Point Project • Spot Improvement Proposed Segment Project Shared Lane (Class III) • . o Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Bike Lane (Class I IB) Complete Streets Study Separated o • o Facility (Class l or Class IV) • o Complete Streets Study: Consider •Improvements to Existing Sidepaths Class I Path Project Existing Facility Shared Lane (Class III) r_ Bike Lane (Class IIA) Buffered Eke Lane (Class 1113) Existing Class IA Shared Use Path Existing Class IB Sidepath Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks, buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater 151 Schools BART Stations Parks Perks Reserve Forces Training Area z • ,i 3,300•FeeL 0 infrastructure, high -visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements 196 DUBLIN Project Recommendations Project Type Facility Classification Length in Miles Shared Lane—W— Class III 12.4 Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Complete Streets Study Trail Speed Reduction Evaluation Class IIA Class 116 Class I or Class IV Class IB Improvements Class IA Total 4.0 17.4 9.2 4.9 7.9 1.3 55.6* Intersections 33 Trail and midblock crossings 5 Freeway intersection/interchange 16 *Corridor projects are not double counted in this total if they represent multiple project types 197 Coordination with Existing Projects and Plans Coordination with other jurisdictions and organizations to advance the development of identified projects, including: • Iron Horse Nature Trail Master Plan Projects • District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Projects • Safe Routes to School Projects • BART Station Access Projects • Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan Projects • Local Roadway Safety Plan Projects • Development and Dublin Unified School District Projects, including Emerald High School Program & Policy Recommendations Coordination and Collaboration MIN 0 Funding and Implementation Pages 97 of Draft BPMP Data Collection Operations and Maintenance golo 1 Promotion and Encouragement 4 Emerging Technologies Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities Prioritization Factors Page 109 of Draft BPMP FACTOR VARIABLE NO r PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE Safety High -injury corridors Prioritize locations identified along the bicycle and pedestrian high- injury networks. This variable aligns with the goal enhance safely. . J Social Equity Youth and senior population Prioritizes locations with high scores indicating where investment would promote positive outcomes for vulnerableIA' road users (youth and senior populations). This variable aligns with the goals improve connectivity and enhance accessibility. • Ek Connectivity Demand analysis Prioritize locations with high potential for walking• and biking to unlock latent demand. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity. ik (4.) 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. I A 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. • IX 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. • IX / 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 prioritise investments. Project Tiers Pages 1 10 of Draft BPMP • Tier I: Highest priority projects with likely funding or implementation sources, such as Roadway Rehab & Maintenance Account funds • 9 corridor projects and 6 point projects • Tier II: High priority projects without an identified funding source or with need for further project development and engagement. • 10 corridor projects and 8 point projects • Tier III: Buildout of the proposed network in support of a complete and comfortable walking, biking, and rolling environment throughout the City. 201 eibtir DUBLIN KITTELSON CALIFORNIA I&ASSOCIATES Tier 1 Projects z.saaFeet 0 Proposed Point Project Proposed Segment Project 1111.I • �o mw� mmt ... a,e.sses. Tier I Projects ZiVe t:Y'°""••° wer Dublin, California Cost Estimates ($ 2022) Project Type • Class III Class IIA Class IIB Class IB or Class IV Class IA Intersections Trail and midblock crossings Freeway intersection/interchange Speed Reduction Evaluation Total Low Cost stimate High Cost Estimate $1,698,000 $4,177,000 $3,239,000 $1,698,000 $17,757,000 $39,421,000 $12,118,000 $45,161,000 $40,429,000 $40,550,000 $7,393,000 $24,274,000 $9,520,000 $9,520,000 $17,833,000 $17,833,000 $139,000 $102,013,000 $2,753,000 $207,281,000 203 Cost Estimates ($ 2022) Project Type by Tier's Low Cost stimate High Cost Estimate Tier $21,085,000 $27,589,000 Tier II +III $80,928,000 $179,692,000 Total $102,013,000 $207,281,000 Performance Measures GOAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE AND DESIRED TREND • Enhance Safety Increase Walking and Biking ec3 In4pnwr Connectivity Enhance Accessilfsility Prioritize Investments • Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations - Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions • Increase users' perceptions of safety - Decrease average crossing distances • Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode shale • Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share • Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities • Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress • Decrease sidewalk gap lengths • Increast number of crossing opportu n itits • Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width rcquircmcros • Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces - Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues • Increase the number of intersections with direcrional 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 - Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and dedicated funding source to build a complete streets network • Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian projects - Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation infrastructure spending Design Guide RESOURCES 3 DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE 4 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE 14 BIKEWAY SELECTION ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL CROSSING SELECTION BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH INTERSEC TIONS OM. aa.............. DESIGN TOPIC Sidewalks and Sidewalk Zones DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) httpsza nee., org/puhlirationhuban-street-desieji-guide/ Guide for the Planning Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004) hope-/! linelnrhstrborg/ lioepuhs/ nrhrp/rkere/NC9TRP7A-07)263) FR pdf Pages 37— 44; httpsr//narin o.g/pnbtitstion/urban- streetdesign-goideistreet-design-elements/sideuelks/ Chanter 3 2- ➢s.�s 54 - 70 Pedestrian Wavtinding Seamless Seattle Pedestrian Wayfinding Strategy (2019) Global Street Design Guide (2016) Global Street Desicy Guide I Global Designing Cities initiative Wayficrlin ataatzgy July2019 CDLT Fdd pdf (scatf ) 6.3.9; Page 91: Mips//globaldeavingriries org.wp-rontent/tq loads/ guides/globaLstreet-ilinn-euide_lowres pdf Street Furniture Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-way (2013) https://wwmaccess-boacd.gov/ pntwae reiimble-prowag/ Page 70; htlpsJ/mwtvaccess-board.gov/prorvat/ preamble-prowat/Nr212-street-faminrre Pedestrian Scale Lighting FHWA Listing Handbook (2012) https://safetyfhwa_dot.gov/coadaay dept/night visib/ lighting handbook/pdf/fhwa handbook2012.pdf Street Design Manual: Lighting Update (2016) httos://www-sandieeo_eov/sites/default/files/street Pages 75-78 Pig. 2-3 Next Steps 1. City Council review and provide feedback on draft Plan 2. Planning Commission and Parks Commission presentations 3. Finalization of Plan document 4. Environmental review 5. Approval and adoption of the Plan 6. Certification of environmental document We'd love your feedback What questions or comments do you have? What needs to be addressed prior to finalizing the Plan? Thank you! Follow-up Questions/Comments Project website: http://dublinbikeped.org CELEBRATING DUBLIN CALIFORN IA Agenda Item 7.2 STAFF REPO RT PARKS& CO MMUN ITY :3J "VICES COMMISSION DATE: September 19, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jackie Dwyer, Parks & Community Services Director SU ELECT: ePACT Software Prepared by: Nicki Wanzenried, Recreation Coordinator EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Commission will receive a report on the ePACT software being used by the Parks and Community Services Department to support recreation programming. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The annual fee of $7,000 is included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 General Fund Budget. DESCRIPTION: The ePACT software is a health and safety tool that supports customers participating in department -run camps and activities, and is compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). The software makes it easier for parents/guardians to submit required health and emergency information securely and provides health screening, contactless check -in, and communication tools. Staff can message parents/guardians in the event of illness, injury, or emergency. ePACT also saves Staff and customers time utilizing an application that is easily downloaded on any smartphone or tablet and provides a single location where parents can upload documents in a secure, HIPPA-compliant repository. The software eliminates high -touch processes, provides security and privacy, and reduces paper waste. The City began using ePACT in early June 2022 for summer camp registration and is currently using it for afterschool recreation, afterschool LEAD, and preschool programs. Highlights of the software include: Page 1 of 2 210 • Immediate access to participant documents and emergency information via smartphone or tablet, eliminating previously used binders and paper forms. • Contactless check -in and check-out via QR code. QR codes reassure Staff and parents that an authorized adult is picking up participants. The use of QR codes also eliminates paper sign-in/check-out forms. • Ability to run attendance and health reports. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Commission Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2 of 2 211