HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdateSTAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
Page 1 of 7
Agenda Item 6.1
DATE:November 8, 2022
TO:Planning Commission
SUBJECT:Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdatePreparedby:Sai Midididdi,Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to review the proposed update to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Plan). The proposed Plan updates and replaces the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and will inform future infrastructure, program and policy recommendations. The Planning Commission will consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed update to the Plan and an exemption from review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and find the Plan exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
DESCRIPTION:BackgroundThe Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (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 draft 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 draft Plan results in a recommended biking and walkingnetwork and a prioritized list of projects to support biking and walking in Dublin.Summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan UpdateKey sections and recommendations of the draft Plan are summarized in the sections below.
9
Page 2 of 7
Community EngagementThe 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 draft 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 approximately 1,500 visits and almost 300 unique comments were posted on the map.
Public Workshop. A virtual public workshop was held on September 2, 2020, from 6:00-7:00 p.m. There were approximately 45 members of the public in attendance. The meetingincluded a presentation, live polls, and a question-and-answer period. The meeting was recorded and is available online.
Public Survey. A public survey was used to collect information from the public about their personal transportation preferences, travel habits, and issues and opportunities related to biking and walking in Dublin. The 17-question survey was distributed in summer 2020 andreceived 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.PlanVisionThe City of Dublin is a vibrant place where walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient ways to travel and connect individuals, inclusive of all ages and abilities, to local and regional destinations.PlanGoals
Enhance Safety.Prioritize safety in design and implementation of biking and walking facilities.
Increase Biking and Walking.Support biking and walking as attractive modes of transportation.
Improve Connectivity. Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities.
Enhance Accessibility. Utilize principles of universal design to make biking and walking a viable transportation option for all, including people with disabilities.
Prioritize Investments. Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including supporting programs and operation and
10
Page 3 of 7
maintenance. Leverage biking and walking projects to promote economic activity and social equity outcomes among people of all ages and abilities.Existing Conditionsand NeedsAnalysisThe existing conditions and needs analyses were conducted to set the foundation for the policy recommendations and provide the technical analysis to support the development of the prioritization framework and implementation strategy. This analysis covered:
Program and Policy Inventory. The project team reviewed bike- and pedestrian-related programs and policies from relevant planning documents and conducted benchmarking interviews with staff from seven City departments and the Dublin Unified School District to develop an updated inventory of existing programs and policies relevant to biking and walking and identify gaps or needs that could be addressed by the Plan.
Land Use and Demographic Analysis. The project team gathered and summarized land use and demographic data to provide background and context to inform the Plan development, including the demand analysis and prioritization.
Collision Analysis. The project team analyzed reported collision data from the six most recently available years (2014-2019) involving bicyclists and pedestrians. A citywideanalysis was conducted to identify corridors and locations with the highest concentration of pedestrian and bicycle collisions. These corridors are called high injury networks (HINs)(Figure 25, Page 64 and Figure 26, Page 65 of the draft Plan, provided as Attachment 4). 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 Class I path, or the shared–use path network (“path LTS”) with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians away from the roadway like the Iron Horse Regional Trail. 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 anddesigning 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.
11
Page 4 of 7
Access and Demand Analysis. The ability of people to walk or bike to key destinations was analyzed to estimate existing access to key destinations. The output 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 RecommendationsPublic feedback and findings from the existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to thenetwork recommendations (Figure 3, Page 15 in the Executive Summary section and Figure 35, Page 78 in Network Recommendations section of the draft Plan, provided as Attachment 4), which include:
Corridor Projects. Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways that represented major barriers to biking and walking.
Point Projects.Point projects were identified at locations that represented major barriers to biking and walking, including freeway crossings, high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions.Over 50 centerline miles and 54 point project locations were identified to increase low-stress bicycle connectivity and reduce barriers to walking by improving crossings and closing gaps in the network. A complete streets approach was taken during the development of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, pedestrian-, and transit-supportive investments are considered in each corridor and crossing project. The project recommendations are presented as a package, with concurrent improvements to support all three active and sustainable travel modes. Network recommendations include:
Shared Lane (Class III): 12.4 miles
Bike Lane (Class IIA): 3.1 miles
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB): 17.0 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): 10.4 miles
o Improvements to existing shared use paths adjacent to roadway: 4.9 miles
o Speed Reduction: 1.3 miles
Point Projects
o Freeway Interchange projects: 16 locations
o Trail Crossing projects: 5 locations
12
Page 5 of 7
o Street Intersection projects: 33 locationsProgram and Policy RecommendationsPublic feedback and findings from the program and policy review and existing conditions and needs analysis contributed to the draft program and policy recommendations. The recommendations are organized into eight topic areas and supported by specific strategies and actions to guide the work of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian programs and activities and complement infrastructure recommendations to encourage active transportation in the City.ImplementationStrategyThe project team developed and implemented a prioritization framework, prepared cost estimates, and identified funding sources. The prioritization framework considered factors including safety, social equity, connectivity, and network quality as well as previously identified projects and feasibility of implementation to identify the locations where investments should be prioritized. The infrastructure projects were divided into three tiers, as follows:
Tier I Projects.High priority projects with secured 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 with no identified funding source.The total cost of all the projects identified in this draft Plan is approximately $104 million to $215million. The low-end of the cost estimate assumes 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 of the cost estimate considers the need to move the curb in order to add new bicycle facilities, upgrade bicycle facilities, update or add pedestrian crossings, update pedestrian facilities, add street trees, redesign freeway interchange ramps, and add signage. The cost estimates also include soft costs for Staff time, engineering, design support, construction management, and contingency.Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded through a combination offunding sources, including ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B and BB), the City’s General Fund, funds collected through developer fees, and State, regional, and federal grants. The draft Plan identifies potential funding sources and relevant requirements. A few of the projects identified in Tier I are partially funded by the above-mentioned funding sources and will be implemented through various projects in the adopted 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).BicycleandPedestrianPlan: Supplemental DesignGuidanceThe draft Supplemental Design Guidance document (Attachment 5) 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.
13
Page 6 of 7
Next Steps and ScheduleAs a next step, the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan will be presented to the City Council at a Public Hearing for deliberation and adoption.
REVIEW BY APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:
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 (DUSD), Caltrans, and various City departments were engaged at key milestones to provide ongoing input on technical analysis and deliverables. There were four TAC meetings over the course of the projectbetween 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 the City Council on August 16, 2022. The majority of the feedback was positive. The Mayor and Councilmembers supported the vision of an all-ages and -abilities network and appreciated the recommendations identified in the draft Plan. Most of the discussion wasrelated to the potential funding sources and implementation timelines for Tier I, II, and III projects. There were several comments about the importance of coordination with adjacent jurisdictions and other agencies (e.g., Caltrans, BART, DUSD). The City Council’s comments have been addressed and incorporated into the draft Plan (dated October 10, 2022, Attachment 4).
Parks and Community Services Commission.The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was presented to the Parks and Community Services Commission on September 19, 2022. The majority of the feedback was positive. The Commissioners supported the vision of an all-ages and -abilities network and appreciated the recommendations identified in the draft Plan. Most of the comments were about specific projects, priorities, or policies. For example, one Commissioner suggested prioritizing enhanced connections around the future Emerald High School and SCS Property, while another suggested considering a requirement to provide e-bike charging locations. The Parks Commission’s comments have been addressed and incorporated into the draft Plan (dated October 10, 2022, Attachment 4).In order to address some of the common concerns heard at the above-mentioned public meetings regarding the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure around the future Emerald High School and the SCS Property, a new recommendation that would allow a complete streets study on Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road has been added to the proposed project list. Additionally, the proposed project in the vicinity of the future Emerald High School on Central Parkway along with a proposed project in the Downtown area on Dublin Boulevard have been moved to a higher tier.
14
Page 7 of 7
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:The draft Plan is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)requirements pursuant to Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 21080.20Bicycle Transportation Plans because it consists of bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements for the urbanized City of Dublin. The plan focuses on restriping streets and highways, signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles, and signal timing to improve intersection operations. Recommended projects within the draft Plan that do not fall strictly within the project types described under PRC Section 21080.20 include feasibility studies, a project previously approved following CEQA review, projects that would be statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.25, and projects that would be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. Such projects would be subject to independent environmental review prior to implementation. The CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo (Attachment 3) discusses these exemptions in further detail.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, along with the Plan’s Supplemental Design Guidance was posted on the City’s website prior to the City Council meeting on August 16, 2022; was sent via email on September 8, 2022, to parties who signed up for notification through the Dublin Outreach website “dublinbikeped.org” and the City’s “Notify Me” system; and was posted on the City’s social media channels on September 12, 2022. A public notice regarding this public hearing was published in the East Bay Times. A copy of this Staff Report has also been posted.
ATTACHMENTS:1) Resolution of the Planning Commission - Recommending that the City Council Adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Find the Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act2) Exhibit A to Resolution - Draft Resolution of the City Council - Adopting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act3) Exhibit B to Resolution - CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo4) Exhibit C to Resolution - Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan5) Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Supplemental Design Guidance
15
RESOLUTION NO. 22-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
PLAN AND FIND THE PLAN EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council adopted the Bikeways Master Plan and
associated amendments to the Dublin General Plan and various Specific Plans for consistency
with the Bikeways Master Plan; and
WHEREAS,on October 7, 2014, the City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan (2014 Plan) that combined the update to the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan and the
City's first Pedestrian Plan into a comprehensive document that provides policies, network plans,
prioritized project lists, support programs and best practice design guidelines for bicycling and
walking in Dublin; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the City Council also adopted amendments to the Dublin
General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan, and Dublin Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the text and maps remain
consistent with the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, Policy 1-3 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends an update
every five years to reflect best practices in bicycle and pedestrian policy and design, changing
community interests and needs, and to remain eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)
funding; and
WHEREAS, the draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan updates and replaces the 2014 Plan by
building upon the 2014 Plan’s goals and recommendations and by using new guidance
documents. The update results in infrastructure, program, and policy recommendations that
support walking and biking in Dublin; and
WHEREAS,it was determined that no further amendments to the Dublin General Plan and
Specific Plans are required at this time; and
WHEREAS, the update to the 2014 Plan has been renamed the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan (Plan); and
WHEREAS,in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain
projects require review for environmental impacts and, when applicable, environmental
documents to be prepared; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was
examined to determine if the environmental review is required. The analysis concluded that the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is exempt from CEQA review as follows (Exhibit B CEQA Exemption
Eligibility Memorandum, dated October 2022):
Attachment 1
16
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan qualifies for the statutory exemption pursuant to Public
Resource Code Section 21080.20 Bicycle Transportation Plans because it consists of
bicycle and pedestrian transportation improvements for the urbanized City of Dublin.
Some of the implementation measures and projects identified in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan are also statutorily exempt under Public Resources Codes section
21080.25.
In addition, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and some implementation projects under
the Plan qualify for the following categorical exemptions and none of the exceptions
under CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing
Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 8, 2022, and incorporated herein by
reference, was submitted to the City of Dublin Planning Commission recommending City Council
approval of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and CEQA exemption; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan and CEQA exemption on November 8, 2022, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan and CEQA exemption and related comments and responses, all said reports,
recommendations and testimony at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute
the record of proceedings for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is the City of Dublin Public Works
Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on the basis of the findings above and the record as a
whole (including Exhibit B CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo), the City of Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend the City Council find that the project is exempt from CEQA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby
recommend the City Council adopt the Resolution (Exhibit A) and the attached Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan (Exhibit C).
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of November 2022 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
17
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
18
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 22-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AND FINDING THE PLAN EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council adopted the Bikeways Master Plan and
associated amendments to the Dublin General Plan and various Specific Plans for consistency
with the Bikeways Master Plan; and
WHEREAS,on October 7, 2014, the City Council adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan (2014 Plan) that combined the update to the 2007 Bikeways Master Plan and the
City's first Pedestrian Plan into a comprehensive document that provides policies, network plans,
prioritized project lists, support programs and best practice design guidelines for bicycling and
walking in Dublin; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the City Council also adopted amendments to the Dublin
General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Historic Village Area Specific Plan, Downtown
Dublin Specific Plan, and Dublin Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the text and maps remain
consistent with the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update; and
WHEREAS, Policy 1-3 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends an update
every five years to reflect best practices in bicycle and pedestrian policy and design, changing
community interests and needs, and remain eligible for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)
funding; and
WHEREAS, this Bicycle and Pedestrian 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 resulted in infrastructure, program, and policy recommendations that
support walking and biking in Dublin; and
WHEREAS,it was determined that no further amendments to the Dublin General Plan and
Specific Plans are required at this time; and
WHEREAS, the update to the 2014 Plan has been renamed the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan (Plan); and
WHEREAS,in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain
projects require review for environmental impacts and, when applicable, environmental
documents to be prepared; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Plan was examined to determine
if the environmental review is required. The analysis concluded that the Plan is exempt from
CEQA review as follows (Exhibit A - CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum, dated October
2022):
Attachment 2
19
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 2 of 3
The Plan qualifies for the statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resource Code
Section 21080.20 Bicycle Transportation Plans because it consists of bicycle and
pedestrian transportation improvements for the urbanized City of Dublin.
Some of the implementation measures and projects identified in the Plan are also
statutorily exempt under Public Resources Codes section 21080.25.
In addition, the Plan and some implementation projects under the Plan qualify for the
following categorical exemptions and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines
15300.2 apply: CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines
Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land; and
WHEREAS, following a noticed public hearing on November 8, 2022, the City of Dublin
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-xx recommending that the City Council find that
the Plan is exempt from CEQA and that the City Council adopt the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan,
attached here to as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Plan and CEQA
exemptions, on December 6, 2022, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider the Plan and CEQA exemptions and
related comments and responses, all said reports, recommendations and testimony at the
hearing; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute
the record of proceedings for the project is the City of Dublin Public Works Department, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on the basis of the findings above and the record as a
whole (including Exhibit A - the CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memo), the City Council of the City of
Dublin does hereby find that the project is exempt from CEQA and directs Staff to file the Notice
of Exemption with the Office of Planning and Research, Alameda County Clerk.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (Exhibit B).
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2022 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
20
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/2022 Page 3 of 3
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Clerk
21
Exhibit B
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
City Project No. ST0517
CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum
prepared by
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Contact: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil Engineer (Traffic)
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
October 2022
Attachment 3
22
Table of Contents
CEQA Exemption Eligibility Memorandum i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2. Plan Location and Description ............................................................................................ 1
3. Senate Bill 288 ..................................................................................................................... 1
4. Statutory Exemption Consistency Analysis ......................................................................... 2
5. Additional Exemption Eligibility .......................................................................................... 3
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 4
7. References .......................................................................................................................... 4
23
1
1. Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Exemption Eligibility Memorandum for the City of Dublin’s
Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update (Plan). The purpose of this memorandum is to assess
whether the Plan meets the provisions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.20, which
provides a Statutory Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This
exemption recognizes that CEQA does not apply to a bicycle transportation plan for an urbanized
area that includes restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to
improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians,
and vehicles. This memorandum also identifies other statutory and categorical exemptions that are
applicable to specific projects recommended within the Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Update, including PRC Section 21080.25; CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities; CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. This memorandum accompanies the Notice of
Exemption in determining the Plan qualifies for an exemption from CEQA.
2. Plan Location and Description
The Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update would be implemented in the City of Dublin.
Dublin is 14.59 square miles in area, located in Alameda County along I-580, approximately 350
miles north of Los Angeles and 35 miles east of San Francisco. The City of Dublin is generally
bounded by the City of San Ramon to the north, Castro Valley to the west, the City of Pleasanton to
the south, and the City of Livermore to the east.
The Plan would update the City of Dublin’s 2014 Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and
would reflect current conditions and changes in community demographics, the physical
environment, and public policy. The Plan would reflect a comprehensive citywide effort to guide,
prioritize, and implement a network of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility,
connectivity, public health, physical activity, and recreational opportunities. The Plan would also
assess existing system conditions, analyze community needs, and evaluate demographic data.
3. Senate Bill 288
Senate Bill (SB) 288, signed into law at the end of the 2020 legislative session, facilitates projects
that broaden California’s development of sustainable transportation facilities through streamlining
of CEQA review requirements. Specifically, SB 288 amends PRC Section 21080.20, which exempts
bicycle transportation plans (including those with pedestrian improvements) for urbanized areas, to
extend exemption eligibility through the end of 2029. SB 288 also repeals the requirement for lead
agencies to conduct traffic and safety impact assessments. Lead agencies must file a notice of
exemption when pursuing the exemption for one of these project types.
SB 288 also added CEQA exemptions under PRC Section 21080.25 for the following project types:
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit prioritization, conversion of roadways to bus-only lanes,
expansion of bus or light rail service, charging stations for zero-emission transit buses, or projects
that reduce minimum parking requirements. This exemption expires at the end of 2022 but may be
replaced by SB 922, which would extend CEQA exemptions under PRC Section 21080.25 until the
end of 2029. SB 922 was enrolled in August 2022 but has not yet been signed into law. PRC Section
24
Exemption Eligibility Memorandum
Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update
21080.25 specifically details exemptions for new pedestrian and bicycle facilities including, but not
limited to, bicycle parking, bicycle sharing facilities, and bikeways, as long as certain conditions are
met. Therefore, individual projects recommended within the Plan would be further eligible for
statutory exemption from CEQA at the project level under PRC Section 21080.25, should SB 922 be
signed into law.
4. Statutory Exemption Consistency Analysis
The Plan qualifies for the SB 288 exemption under PRC Section 21080.20 as a bicycle and pedestrian
transportation plan for an urbanized area. A bicycle transportation plan exempt from CEQA must be
in conformance with the requirements of SB 288, as articulated in PRC Section 21080.20. The
following analysis assesses how the Plan meets each of the SB 288 stipulations.
(1) The plan is located in an urbanized area.
The term “urbanized area,” as defined by the general CEQA classification in PRC Section 21071, is an
incorporated City that either has a population of at least 100,000 persons or has a population of less
than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated
cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons. The City of Dublin is an incorporated city with a
population of 72,932 in 2022 (California Department of Finance 2022). The City of Pleasanton is also
an incorporated city, is contiguous with the City of Dublin, and has a population of 77,609 in 2022.
The City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton are two contiguous incorporated cities with a
combined population of approximately 150,541 in 2022. Therefore, the Plan meets this
requirement.
(2) The plan consists of restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing
to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles,
pedestrians, and vehicles.
The Plan contains approximately 125 recommended projects that primarily focus on the restriping
of streets and highways; signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; and signal timing to improve
intersection operations. Therefore, the Plan meets this requirement.
(3) The lead agency shall hold one noticed public hearing in the area affected by the bicycle
transportation plan to hear and respond to public comments prior to determining that a project
is exempt. The notice must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area
affected by the proposed project.
The Draft Plan, the Plan’s Design Guidelines, and the Staff Report were made available to the public
through the City of Dublin website when the Draft Plan was taken to the Dublin City Council as an
informational item on August 16, 2022. Furthermore, the Draft Plan was sent via email on
September 8, 2022, to parties who signed up for notification through the Dublin Outreach website
(dublinbikeped.org) and the City’s Notifyme system. The Draft Plan was posted on the City of
Dublin’s social media channels (NextDoor, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) on September 12,
2022. The Draft Plan was also presented to Parks and Community Services Commission on
September 19, 2022. In addition, the Plan will be considered at a noticed public hearing by both the
Planning Commission and the Dublin City Council, where members of the public will have an
opportunity to comment. Therefore, the Plan meets this requirement.
25
3
5. Additional Exemption Eligibility
Some trail and trail connection projects recommended in the Plan may not fall within the project
types described under PRC Section 21080.20. However, most of these projects are located within
existing paved areas and rights-of-way, would be built out with other proposed development
projects requiring independent environmental review, and/or would be undertaken by a different
lead agency., Many of these projects would be eligible for a categorical exemption at the project
level, as described below. In addition, two projects (bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Alamo
Canal at Civic Plaza and bicycle and pedestrian connection to Alamo Canal and Iron Horse Trail at
Sierra Court Cul-de-sac (T-8 and C-3)) recommended in the Plan identify specific projects for future
study. These projects are unfunded, are not included in the City’s current Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) and would require independent environmental review after future study and project
design, prior to implementation. Furthermore, Project C-2 (Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard
Overcrossing Project) is not listed in the exemption criteria but was previously approved following
CEQA review (State Clearinghouse No. 2012062009) and is currently under construction.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 details Class 1 exemptions that consist of the operation, repair,
maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features. These projects must involve
negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Examples of projects eligible for a Class 1
exemption under subsection (c) include, but are not limited to, existing highways and streets,
sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and other similar alterations that do not create
additional automobile lanes. The addition of trails and trail connections to existing roadways, trails,
and paths would be eligible for exemption under CEQA Section 15301(c), as such projects would
constitute negligible expansion of existing use and would not create additional automobile lanes.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 details Class 3 exemptions for projects that consist of construction
and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new
equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one
use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Examples
of projects eligible for a Class 3 exemption under subsection (d) include, but are not limited to,
water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of a
reasonable length to serve such construction. The addition of some trail connections would be
eligible for exemption under CEQA Section 15301(d), as they would consist of the construction of a
limited number of new small street improvements.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land
CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 details Class 4 exemptions that consist of minor public or private
alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of
healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples of projects
eligible for a Class 4 exemption under subsection (h) include, but are not limited to, the creation of
bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. Many of the trail projects recommended in the Plan would
26
Exemption Eligibility Memorandum
Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update
take place within existing rights-of-way and would therefore be eligible for exemption under CEQA
Section 15304(h).
6. Conclusion
Based on the analysis documented in this memorandum, the proposed Citywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan Update would meet the requirements for an exemption from CEQA. Therefore, it is
concluded that the Plan is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section 21080.20.
Recommended projects within the Plan that do not fall strictly within the project types described
under PRC Section 21080.20 include feasibility studies, a project previously approved following
CEQA review, projects that would be statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to PRC Section
21080.25, and projects that would be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301, Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land. Such projects
would be subject to independent environmental review prior to implementation.
7. References
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. "Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the
State - January 1, 2021 and 2022"
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e4-2010-2020/
(accessed September 2022).
California Legislative Information. 2020. SB-288 California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions:
transportation-related projects. Published September 30, 2020.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB288
(accessed September 2022).
27
DUBLIN BICYCLE AND DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN PEDESTRIAN PLAN
October 2022
Draft
Attachment 4
28
2 City of Dublin 2 City of Dublin Draft
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY OF DUBLIN
Melissa Hernandez (Mayor)
Jean Josey (Vice Mayor)
Shawn Kumagai (Councilmember)
Sherry Hu (Councilmember)
Michael McCorriston (Councilmember)
Pratyush Bhatia, Transportation
and Operations 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 the City Manager
Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner
Kristie Wheeler, Assistant Community
Development Director
CONSULTANT TEAM
Kittelson & Associates—Amanda
Leahy, AICP; Laurence Lewis, AICP;
Camilla Dartnell; Mike Alston, RSP
Winter Consulting—Corinne Winter
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chris Stevens, Dublin Unified School District
Kevin Monaghan, Dublin Police Services
Bonnie S. Terra, Alameda
County Fire Department
Lisa Bobadilla, Transportation Division
Manager at City of San Ramon
Cedric Novenario, Senior Traffic
Engineer at City of Pleasanton
Julie Chiu, Associate Civil Engineer
at City of Livermore
Andy Ross, Assistant Planner
at City of Livermore
Christopher Marks, Associate
Transportation Planner at Alameda CTC
Sergio Ruiz, Branch Chief for Active
Transportation at Caltrans
Jake Freedman, East Alameda County
Liaison at Caltrans District 4
Mariana Parreiras, Project Manager at BART
Cyrus Sheik, Senior Transit Planner at
Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority
Chloe Trifilio, CivicSparks Fellow
ALAMEDA CTC BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Matt Turner (Chair), Castro Valley
Kristi Marleau (Vice Chair), Dublin
David Fishbaugh, Fremont
Feliz G. Hill, San Leandro
Jeremy Johansen, San Leandro
Howard Matis, Berkeley
Dave Murtha, Hayward
Chiamaka Ogwuegbu, Oakland
Nick Pilch, Albany
Ben Schweng, Alameda
29
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3 Draft
Acknowledgments 2
Executive Summary 4
1. Introduction 17
2. Community & Stakeholder Engagement 35
3. Walking & Biking in Dublin Today 4 4
4. Recommended Bicycle &
Pedestrian Networks 77
5. Recommended Programs,
Policies, and Practices 95
6. Implementation Strategy 106
Glossary 122
Appendix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
30
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE NEED FOR A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN
In Dublin, residents and visitors walk and bike for
transportation and recreation. People walking and biking
are vulnerable road users, and the City needs a connected
network of quality infrastructure and amenities to support
safe travel by these sustainable modes. Walking and biking
for transportation improves health and well-being and
provides numerous environmental and economic benefits.
The City of Dublin’s Bicycle and Pedestrian 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 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.
4 City of Dublin 4 City of Dublin Draft 31
GOAL 1 GOAL 2 GOAL 3GOAL 3 GOAL 4 GOAL 5GOAL 5
Enhance Safety
Prioritize safety
in design and
implementation
of walking and
biking facilities.
Increase Walking and Biking
Support biking
and walking as
attractive modes of
transportation.
Improve Connectivity
Develop a bicycle and
pedestrian network
that provides well-
connected facilities
for users of all ages
and abilities.
Enhance Accessibility
Utilize principles
of universal design
to make biking and
walking a viable
transportation
option for all,
including people
with disabilities.
Prioritize Investments
Maintain sufficient
funding to provide
for existing and future
bicycle and pedestrian
needs, including
supporting programs
and operation and
maintenance. Leverage
biking and walking
projects to promote
economic activity and
social equity outcomes
among people of all
ages and abilities.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 5 Draft 32
ORGANIZATION
The Plan document is organized
in the following chapters:
1. INTRODUCTION —
Outlines the project’s
background, vision, planning
process, timeline, and goals.
2. COMMUNITY
& STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT—
Summarizes the approach
to, and findings from,
community and stakeholder
engagement activities.
3. 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.
4. RECOMMENDED
BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
NETWORK —Summarizes the
approach to developing network
recommendations and presents
the recommended citywide
bicycle and pedestrian network.
5. RECOMMENDED
PROGRAMS, POLICIES, &
PRACTICES —Summarizes
the approach to developing non-
infrastructure recommendations
and presents the program and
policy recommendations.
6. 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.
7. LOOKING AHEAD —
Recaps key findings from prior
chapters and discusses next
steps for Plan implementation.
8. TECHNICAL
APPENDIX—Includes
bicycle and pedestrian
facility design guidelines
and provides memorandums
documenting technical analysis
and engagement activities.
PROCESS
FALL 2020 WINTER
2022
Project
Initiation
Baseline Inventory
& Needs Analysis
Public Participation via In Person Events and Workshops
Draft Plan
Final Plan &
Environmental Review
LATE 2021 EARLY 2022 SUMMER 2022
Network Recommendations
& Implementation Plan
6 City of Dublin 6 City of Dublin Draft 33
COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
At the outset of the planning
process, a community
engagement plan was created
to outline activities, methods,
and tools that would be used
for public and stakeholder
engagement. Due to the outbreak
of the coronavirus pandemic
and subsequent stay-at-home
orders, the community and
stakeholder engagement effort
included digital outreach.
In-person events were held
when it was safe to do so.
For more, see Chapter 2.PROJECT WEBSITE
BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
TAC - Technical Advisory Committee
CC - City Council
PC - Planning Commission
Parks - Parks Commission
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2020
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q 4
2021
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2022
TAC #1
MAR 4, 2020
TAC #2
SEP 15, 2020
TAC #3
JUN 3, 2021
TAC #4
MAR 15, 2022
Parks
Sept. 19, 2022
CC
August 16, 2022
Public
Sur vey
MAY - SEP 2021
Project
Star t
CC Aproval
Project
End
BPAC #1
SEP 17, 2020
BPAC #2
MAY 25, 2021
BPAC #3
OCT 21, 2021
BPAC #4
FEB 24, 2022
ST PATRICK’S
DAY POP-UP
MAR 12, 2022
BPAC #5
PC
Nov 8 2022
JUL 21, 2022
Online
Workshop &
FAQ Live
SEP 2, 2020 Far mers’
Market Pop-Up
MAY 25, 2021
Alamo Creek
Trailhead
Pop-Up
MAY 27, 2021
Stakeholder
Meetings
APR–MAY 2021
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7 Draft 34
WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY
DUBLIN DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT
Dublin
Population61,240
Dublin Population by
Race/Ethnicity
Dublin Population by Age
35%
7%
9%
24%
16%
8%
25-44
UNDER 5
65+
45-65
5-14
15-24
6%
2+ RACES
1.1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
49%
<1%
2%
ASIAN
<1% Hispanic or
Latino/a/x
AMERICAN
INDIAN AND
ALASKA NATIVE
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
OTHER
1.6% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
4%
BLACK/
AFRICAN
AMERICAN
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
39%
WHITE
6.5% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
48%
28%
7%
7%
5%
5%
ASIAN-INDIAN
CHINESE
(EXCEPT
TAIWANESE)
OTHER
ORIGINS
FILIPINO
KOREAN
VIETNAMESE
*rounded
Source: US Census American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2015-2019)
8 City of Dublin 8 City of Dublin Draft 35
23,000
Commute Snapshot
DRIVE ALONE
TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT,
CAR SHARE (E.G.,
GETAROUND, TURO),
TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK COMPANY
(E.G., LYFT, UBER),
OR A TAXI
EITHER WALK
OR BIKE
OF HOUSEHOLDS
IN DUBLIN DO NOT
OWN A VEHICLE
DUBLINERS
COMMUTE OUTSIDE
THE CITY FOR WORK
MORE THANCARPOOL
67%
15%
2%
3%
&9%2015-2019 American Community Survey data
Others worked from home or took other modes to work
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 9 Draft 36
PROGRAM AND POLICY NEEDS
• Additional resources,
including staff dedicated
to active transportation.
• Updated design guidance
and standards to incorporate
the innovations and changes
since the 2014 Plan.
• Enhanced coordination
across departments.
• Clearer processes and
stronger policies related
to pedestrian and bicycle
project maintenance, design
review, and implementation.
SAFETY AND COMFORT
COLLISION ANALYSIS
FINDINGS
• 68 bicycle-involved collisions
over the 6-year period; 3 fatal
and severe injury collisions.
• 81 pedestrian-involved
collisions over the 6-year
period; 12 fatal and
severe injury collisions.
• People 15–24 years old
are overrepresented in
pedestrian and bicycle
collisions. They represent
25% and 18% of pedestrians
and bicyclists involved in
collisions, but make up just
8% of the city’s population
• 62% of the pedestrian
collisions occurred on just
8.4 miles of roadway that
comprise the pedestrian high
injury network (see Figure 25)
• 62% of the bicycle collisions
occurred on just 6.7 miles
of roadway that comprise
the bicycle high injury
network (see Figure 26).
BICYCLE LEVEL OF
STRESS ANALYSIS
• Low-stress on-street
facilities are typically local
residential streets without
dedicated bicycle facilities.
• Arterial streets, such as
Dublin Boulevard, are
typically higher-stress due
to high vehicular speeds,
high traffic volumes, or
multiple travel lanes.
• Sidepaths can be high stress
or low stress, depending on
path width, shoulder width,
and presence of wayfinding.
• Only 37 percent of collectors
and 7 percent of arterials in
Dublin are low stress. Many
businesses and services are
located on or near collectors,
and these desintations can
only be accessed with some
travel along or across the
collectors or arterials.
For more, see Chapter 3.
Figure 1. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification
LOW STRESS
STREETS
HIGH
STRESS
STREETS
Arterial Streets
Collector Streets
Residential Streets
0 30 60 90 120 150
Miles
*Miles do not include paths.
10 City of Dublin 10 City of Dublin Draft 37
WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS
SCHOOLS
Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary,
and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest
estimated walk access with around 36 percent
of students living within a 10-minute walk.
Access points on high-stress streets create a barrier and
reduce the likelihood of students to bike to school.
Figure 2. Bicyclist Typology
Table 18. Pedestrian Typology
Age Typology Walking
Characteristics
Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings
14 to 55
Teenage and Working Age Adults
Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk gaps, unsignalized crossings at major roads, and absence of midblock crossings
Over 55 Aging The limits experienced by young adults and adults and further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings
SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLINSHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN
• Dublin High,
• Frederiksen Elementary,
• Murray Elementary, and
• Wells Middle School.
BART
Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are
within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/
Pleasanton or West Dublin BART stations.
Less than one percent of “interested and concerned”
bicyclists have a low-stress bicycle route to BART.
JOB CENTERS
Access to job centers is limited by the distance
between employment and residential uses.
Job centers are located on high-stress
streets, which currently limit safe and
comfortable bicycle access to these sites.
PARKS
Almost 62 percent of residents live within
a 15-minute walk of a park.
Nearly 42 percent of residents have a low-stress bicycle route to a park.
For more, see Chapter 3.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 11 Draft 38
NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
BICYCLE FACILITIES
The recommended new facilities
include the following:
Shared Lane
(Class I): 12.8 miles
Standard or Buffered
Bicycle Lane
(Class II): 19.9 miles
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike Lane
Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike Lane
Bike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
With Shared Lane
(Class III): 12.4 miles
Separated Bicycle Lane
(Class IV): 10.4 miles
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I FacilityClass II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
For more, see Chapter 4.
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES
The recommended pedestrian
and bicycle networks were
developed in tandem using a
complete street approach. A
suite of pedestrian treatments
is recommended along project
corridors so that when concept
designs are developed, bicycle
and pedestrian improvements
can be planned, designed, and
implemented at the same time.
Pedestrian improvements include:
• consistent sidewalk
• buffers with street trees
and green stormwater
infrastructure
• high-visibility crosswalks
• accessible curb ramps
• curb extensions
• reduced corner radii
• signal improvements
SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Intersections and mid-block
locations in the city with
relatively high collision frequency
and severity relative to the rest of
the network have been prioritized
for safety enhancements.
The recommendations for
this Plan include 16 freeway
modernization improvements,
33 intersection improvements,
and 5 crossing improvements.
For more, see Chapter 4.
12 City of Dublin 12 City of Dublin Draft 39
PROGRAM AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Coordination and
Collaboration
Emerging
Technologies
Promotion and
Encouragement
Funding and
Implementation
Supporting
Infrastructure and
Amenities
Operations and
Maintenance
Data Collection
Design
For more, see Chapter 5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 13 Draft 40
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Table 1. Prioritization Factors and Variables
FACTOR VARIABLE
Safety High-Injury Corridors
Social Equity Youth and Senior Population
Connectivity Demand Analysis
Proximity to Schools
Quality of Service
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Sidewalk Gaps
Major Barriers Freeway Crossings
Consistency with Past Planning
Previously Identified Projects
TIER I Near-Term Project Cost
$21,085,000 -
$27,589,000
TIER II AND TIER IIILong-Term Investment Cost
$82,250,000-
$186,580,000
Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically
been funded through a combination of ballot measure
monies (e.g., Alameda County Measure B, BB, and
Measure RR), the City General Fund, the Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, developer-
funded projects, and transportation impact fees,
with some funding from state, regional, and federal
grants. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
signed into law in November 2021, established more
than two dozen competitive grant programs for
infrastructure initiatives. These discretionary grants
and other funding sources are described in Chapter 6.
FUNDING IDENTIFIED IN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (2022-2027)
$1,879,684
for citywide bicycle and pedestrian projects.
$12,147,565
for street resurfacing.
PRIORITIZATION
FACTORS
COST
ESTIMATES
PRIMARY
FUNDING SOURCES
For more, see Chapter 6.
14 City of Dublin 14 City of Dublin Draft 41
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 10/13/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: SeparatedFacility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Figure 3. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 10/13/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 10/13/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also
include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks,
buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure,
high-visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb
extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements.
Refer to Table 6 for detailed project descriptions.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 15 Draft 42
2
1
43
This chapter introduces the
project, including its background
and need, and sets the stage
for the analysis, findings, and
recommendations detailed
in subsequent chapters.
ABOUT THE PLAN
The City of Dublin’s Bicycle
and Pedestrian Plan is a
critical planning, policy, and
implementation document
that supports the City’s
efforts to improve the safety
and attractiveness of biking
and walking as a means of
transportation and recreation.
This Plan updates and replaces
the City’s 2014 Plan by
building upon the 2014 Plan’s
goals and recommendations
and by using new guidance
documents. The update
will result in infrastructure
and program and policy
recommendations that support
walking and biking in Dublin.
THE 2014
BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN
MASTER PLAN
The 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan, and the following six
goals included in the 2014
Plan, provides a baseline
for the updated Plan.
2014 GOALS
Goal 1: Support bicycling and
walking as practical, healthy,
and convenient alternatives to
automobile use in Dublin.
Goal 2: Implement a well-
connected active transportation
system to attract users of
all ages and abilities.
Goal 3: Incorporate the needs
and concerns of bicyclists and
pedestrians in all transportation
and development projects.
Goal 4: Support infrastructure
investments with targeted
bicycle and pedestrian education,
encouragement, enforcement,
and evaluation programs.
Goal 5: Maximize multi-
modal connections in the
transportation network.
Goal 6: Improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety citywide.
NEW GUIDANCE
Since the 2014 Plan was
adopted, bicycle and pedestrian
planning and design guidance
and standards have evolved to
include innovative treatments
and guidance from local and
national agencies. Best-practice
documents should be considered
when implementing any bicycle
and pedestrian facility. The
latest versions of best-practice
design guides developed by
outside sources should be
1. INTRODUCTION
5. Proposed Bicycle & Pedestrian Networks
100 City of Dublin
TABLE 5-2 PROPOSED BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Project Name Proposal (Directions) Class Location Existing Conditions Recommendations Length
(miles)
Sierra Court Bicycle Lanes IIA
Sierra Court between
Sierra Lane and Dublin
Boulevard
Existing 50'+ curb-to-curb
distance with limited
parking utilization
Connection between Dougherty
Road/Iron Horse Trail and Civic
Plaza/Alamo Canal Trail 0.12
Sierra Lane Bicycle Lanes IIA
Sierra Lane between
Sierra Court and
Dougherty Road
Existing 50'+ curb-to-curb
distance with limited
parking utilization
Connection between Dougherty
Road/Iron Horse Trail and Civic
Plaza/Alamo Canal Trail
0.3
Silvergate Drive Bicycle Lanes IIA Woodren Court to San
Ramon Road
EB Bicycle Lane not striped;
WB bicycle lane striping
starts in channelized SB
right-turn lane
Proposed Class IIA EB between
Woodren Court and San Ramon
Road remove SB right slip lane
and restripe WB Class IIA Bicycle
Lane
0.06
St. Patrick Way Bicycle Lanes IIA
St. Patrick Way from
Regional Street to Essex
Development and
Golden Gate Drive to
Amador Plaza Road
Extends from Amador
Plaza Road to Golden Gate
Drive only; will be extended
to Regional Street with
West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART development.
Proposed Class IIA in both
directions to support “last mile”
connections to West Dublin
BART-Developer-Built Facility
0.25
Stagecoach Park /
Iron Horse Trail
Connector Shared-Use Path and Bridge I
From Stagecoach Road
along edge of
Stagecoach Park to Iron
Horse Trail
Significant grade issues;
Bridge needed across
Alamo Canal; Crosses land
owned by Southern Pacific.
Proposed Class I in coordination
with proposed Iron Horse Nature
Park. 0.06
Stagecoach Road Bicycle Lanes IIA
Stagecoach Road
between Alcosta
Boulevard and
Stagecoach Park
Low-volume collector
street; existing shoulder
can be re-striped as bicycle
lane.
Proposed Class IIA Bicycle Lanes 0.56
Prepared by:
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Prepared for the:
City of Dublin
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
Adopted by the City Council on Octobe
r
7
,
2
0
1
4
Dublin Existing Bikeways
Figure 4-5
Not to Scale
March 2014
U
U
U
DUBLIN B
L
I580
FA
L
L
O
N
R
D
I68
0
TA
S
S
A
J
A
R
A
R
D
TA
SS
A
J
A
R
A
C
R
E
E
K
TR
A
I
L
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DRVIL
L
A
G
E
P
W
FA
L
L
O
N
R
D
DO
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
IR
O
N
H
O
R
S
E
T
R
A
I
L
ALA
M
O
C
A
N
AL T
R
A
I
L
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
AMAD
O
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
B
L
AR
N
O
L
D
R
D
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
HA
C
I
E
N
D
A
D
R
SIER
R
A C
T
POSI
T
A
N
O
P
W
TAMARACK DR
SIL
V
E
R
G
A
T
E
D
R
ST
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
DAVONA DR
P
E
P
P
E
R
T
R
E
E
R
D
YOR
K
D
R
PEN
N
D
R
MARTINELLI WY
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
S
T
A
R
W
A
R
D
D
R
A
M
A
D
O
R
P
L
A
Z
A
R
D
D
O
N
O
H
U
E
D
R
MAPLE DR
DUBLIN CT
IR
O
N
H
O
R
S
E
P
W
G
O
L
D
E
N
G
A
T
E
D
R
CIVIC
P
Z
GR
A
F
T
O
N
S
T
U Signalized Trail Crossing
Undercrossing
Existing Unsignalized Crossin
g
Crossing with Pedestrian Beac
o
n
Exiting Trail Crossings
Exiting Bikeways
CPath
Bicycle Lanes
Bicycle Route
lass I
Class II
Class III
BART
City Limits
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 17 Draft 44
consulted regularly to ensure
information is up to date.
Relevant guidance includes:
• California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (2018)
• Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
Bikeway Selection
Guide (2019)
• FHWA Achieving
Multimodal Networks:
Applying Design
Flexibility and Reducing
Conflicts (2016)
• AC Transit Multimodal
Corridor Design
Guidelines (2019)
• National Association of City
Transportation Officials
(NACTO) Urban Bikeway
Design Guide (2014)
• NACTO Transit Street
Design Guide (2016)
• NACTO Urban Street
Stormwater Guide (2016)
Relevant documents and
additional guidance is
presented in the Design
Guide (appendix D).
PROGRESS SINCE
THE 2014 PLAN
Since the 2014 Plan’s adoption,
the City and developers have
built 10.8 miles of the 2014
proposal of 35.3 miles of
bikeways. They have built
seven of the 25 recommended
pedestrian projects, and two
more are in progress. The
infrastructure inventory is
presented in Figure 4. This
Plan update reevaluates
recommendations and carries
forward relevant projects
from the 2014 Plan.
RELATIONSHIP TO
OTHER PLANS
Federal, state, and local agencies
develop policies and publish
plans to guide investment and
set transportation priorities.
Understanding how these plans
and policies relate and fit together
helps ensure recommendations
are consistent with and build
on prior planning efforts. This
section describes relevant plans
and policies. Table 2 presents
what aspects of the most relevant
existing policy and planning
documents were used to guide
this Plan’s policies and projects.
FEDERAL POLICIES
USDOT Policy Statement
on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Accommodation Regulations
and Recommendations.
In 2010, the United States
Department of Transportation
(USDOT) issued a policy
directive in support of walking
and bicycling. The policy
encouraged transportation
agencies to go beyond minimum
standards and fully-integrate
active transportation into
projects. As part of the statement,
the USDOT encouraged
agencies to adopt similar policy
statements in support of walking
and bicycling considerations.
Americans with Disabilities
Act—The Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III
is legislation enacted in 1990 that
provides thorough civil liberties
protections to individuals with
disabilities with regards to
employment, state and local
government services, and access
to public accommodations,
transportation, and
telecommunications. Title III of
the Act requires places of public
accommodation to be accessible
and usable to all people,
including people with disabilities.
18 City of Dublin Draft 45
INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY
The 2014 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan produced a suite of infrastructure recommendations, including the following:
A recommended walking network consisting
of five main improvement types:
83 bikeway
infrastructure
projects, totaling
35.3 miles
Signalized Tassajara Creek trail crossing at Central Parkway.
The 2014 Plan recommended Tassajara Creek crossing
locations at Dublin Boulevard which have not yet been built.
WALKING NETWORK PROJECT TYPES
A recommended bikeway network with
the following intended focus:
CONNECTIONS TO KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS
COMFORT AND LOW LEVEL OF STRESS
CONNECTIONS TO REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
CONNECTIONS TO ADJACENT CITIES
BIKEWAY NETWORK PROJECT TYPES
Class IIA bike lane along Tassajara Road,
which was proposed in the 2014 Plan.
INTERSECTION
CROSSING
TREATMENTS
SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS
ADA
IMPROVEMENTS
SIGNAL
MODIFICATIONS
REMOVE
BARRIERS
Figure 4. Infrastructure Inventory
24 pedestrian infrastructure projects
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 19 Draft 46
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT TYPE PROPOSED BUILT IN PROGRESS
Intersection crossing treatments 12 2 0
Sidewalk improvements 2 0 1
ADA improvements 6 1 0
Signal modifications 4 1 0
Remove Barriers 3 3 1
Wayfinding signage 1 0 0
Total 28 7 2
Pedestrian projects proposed and built, by project type
Bicycle facilities proposed and built, by mileage
Some projects included multiple types and are double or triple counted into all relevant categories.
PROGRESS:
Proposed mixed facilities are listed by their highest proposed class (e.g., Class IIA/IIIA is listed as Class IIA)
8.1 10.8
16.4
10
8
6
4
2
0
Class IIIA Class IIA Class IIB Class I
0.8
4.0 4.8
2.0
9.2
0.8
2.43.3
5.4
2.7
Built To be Built by City To be Built by Developer
Built
To be Built
by City
To be Built
by Developer
20 City of Dublin Draft 47
!m !m!m!m!m
!m
!m
!m
!m!m!m
!m
!m!m !m!m!m!m
!m
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D EN W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
A M A D O R V A L L E Y B L
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
FCI
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SEBILLE
RD
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
1 2 T H S T
TOWER RD
SYRAHDR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
IN S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BL
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Proposed Bikeways, Built
Class I
Class IIA
Class IIB
Proposed Bikeways, Not Built
Class I
Class IIA
Class IIB
Class IIIA
[0 1 Mile
Pedestrian Intersection/Crossing Project
!m Not Built
!m Built
Pedestrian Corridor Projects
Not Built
In Progress
Built
Figure 5. 2014 Plan Proposed Bikeway Facilities
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 21 Draft 48
Table 2. Relevant Plans and Policies
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines
Project Recommendations or Concept Designs
Program Recommendations
STATE AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES
California Green Building Code
Caltrans Toward an Active California (2017)
Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018)
Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2020)
Alameda Countywide Active Transportation
Plan (2019)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050 (2021)
MTC Active Transportation Plan (in
progress, anticipated 2022)
East Bay Regional Parks District Master
Plan (2013)
LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES
Local Roadway Safety Plan (in progress,
anticipated 2022)
Americans with Disabilities Act Transition
Plan (in progress, anticipated 2022)
22 City of Dublin Draft 49
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines
Project Recommendations or Concept Designs
Program Recommendations
LOCAL CITY PLANS AND POLICIES CONTINUED
Streetscape Master Plan (2009)
Complete Streets Policy (City Council
Resolution 199-12) (2012)
Dublin Boulevard Bikeway Corridor and
Connectivity Studies (2013)
Pedestrian Safety Assessment (2014)
Bicycle and Pedestrian 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 23 Draft 50
Plan
Relevance to Current Plan
Bicycle Policies Pedestrian Policies Facility/ Network Maps Design Guidelines
Project Recommendations or Concept Designs
Program Recommendations
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (2019)
Specific Plans
Dublin Crossing (2013)
Downtown (2014)
Dublin Village Historic
Area (2014)
Eastern Dublin (2016)
FEDERAL PLANS AND POLICIES
USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and
Pedestrian Accomodation Regulations and
Recommendations
Americans with Disabilities Act
24 City of Dublin Draft 51
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 7.94 of the City
of Dublin’s Municipal Code,
bicycle parking and support
facilities in both residential and
non-residential development
shall conform to the California
Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen). The CALGreen
Code includes both mandatory
and voluntary measures. For
non-residential buildings, it is
mandatory that both short-term
and long-term bicycle parking is
provided and secure. Generally,
the number of long-term bicycle
parking spaces must be at least 5
percent of the number of vehicle
parking spaces. Schools have
additional requirements so both
students and staff have access
to sufficient bicycle parking.
Caltrans Toward an Active
California (2017): Toward an
Active California is Caltrans’s
first statewide policy and plan to
support bicyclists and pedestrians
through objectives, strategies,
and actions. Toward an Active
California introduces 4 new
objectives, 15 strategies, and 60
actions that are specific to active
transportation and serve as the
basis for Plan implementation.
Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan
(2018): This plan evaluates
bicycle needs on and across the
State transportation network
and identifies priority bicycle
projects. Projects are prioritized
as top tier, mid tier, and low
tier. The following projects are
recommended for Dublin:
FINAL MAY 2017
Plan Oversight
The plan was developed with support
from a Technical Advisory Committee,
that was selected to be broadly repre-
sentative of Caltrans, regional and local
transportation agencies, and partners
in related fields. Committee members
include:
» Representatives of each Caltrans
District
» Representatives of Caltrans Divisions
of Transportation Planning; Design;
Local Assistance; Maintenance;
Traffic Operations; Programming;
Environmental Analysis; Rail and
Mass Transportation; and Research,
Innovation and System Information
» California Highway Patrol
» California Department of Public Health
» California Department of Motor Vehicles
» California Transportation Commission
» California High Speed Rail Authority
» California Office of Traffic Safety
» City of San Luis Obispo
» Southern California Association of
Governments
» Sacramento Regional Transit District
» Rural Counties Task Force
» Nevada County Transportation
Commission
» California Bicycle Coalition
» California Walks
» UC Davis Sustainable Transportation
Center
» Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority
» Federal Transit Administration
Plan oversight was provided by a Policy
Advisory Committee, which included
the:
» Deputy Director of Planning & Modal
Programs
» Deputy Director of Project Delivery
» Deputy Director of Maintenance and
Operations
» Deputy Director of Finance
» Deputy Director of Sustainability
» Deputy Secretary of Housing and
Environment
CALTRANS DISTRICTS
TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA | 4
12
1
2
3
4
5
6 9
8
10
11
7
Ã1
£6
£50
£97
£101
£95
¥80
¥40
¥15¥5
¥10Long
Beach
Bakersfield
Lancaster
Chico
Monterey Salinas
Santa Cruz
San Bernardino
SantaBarbara
Fresno
Eureka
San Jose
Sacramento
San Diego
SanFrancisco
Los Angeles
TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA
| 12
1996
First bicycle signal head
installed in North America
in Davis, CA
2008Deputy Directive 64
released, requiring
complete streets integration
into all agency activities
2010
Smart Mobility Framework released
Complete Streets Implementation Acti
o
n
P
l
a
n
Complete Intersections Guide
1999
AB 1475 authorizes
the statewide Safe
Routes to School
program.
2007
Statewide Safe
Routes to School
program made
permanent
2009
Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program (P
S
I
P
)
launched, identifying and addressing problem
s
with pedestrian safety in California
The increasing rate of biking and
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
h
a
s
m
a
d
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
r
o
a
d
s
s
a
f
e
r
.
However, safety continues to be
a
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
.
BETWEEN 2005 AND 2014, THER
E
W
E
R
E
134,125 bicyclist-involved collisions and 136,618 pedestrian-involved collisions across California. That is an aver
a
g
e
o
f
37 and
bicyclist-involved
38
pedestrian-involvedcollisions per day collisions per dayTHERE WERE
1,351 bicyclist fatalities across California. That is more than 2.5 FATALITIES
PER WEEK
AND THERE WERE
6,874 pedestrian fatalities across
California. That is nearly 2 PEDESTRIANS
KILLED EACH DAY
IN 2014, NEARLY
14ROADWAY
FATALITIES in involved a pedestrian
Note, collision statistics typically exclude colli
s
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
r
a
i
l
s
o
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
25%
10%
SAFETY IS IMPROVINGRelative to the number of trips, bicycle and pedestrian fatalities have declined
PEDESTRIANRITRIAFATALITIEESSDECLINEEDD
BICYCLE E FATALITTIIEEESSSDECLINENEDD 40%
50%
BUT REMAINS A CHALLENGE
Bicycle and pedestrian fatalities an
d
s
e
r
i
o
u
s
injuries are an increasing share of the
t
o
t
a
l
ROAD
FATALITIES
DECLINED
PEDESTRIAN
FATALITIES
STAYED THE
SAME
BICYCLE E FATALITTIIEEESSSINCREAASSEEDDD
Data from SWITRS, 2005-2014,California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and National Household Travel Survey 200
0
-
2
0
0
2
&
2
0
1
0
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 25 Draft 52
• Top Tier Project: Santa Rita
Road and I-580 interchange
reconstruction (ramps
only); Class IIB facility
• Mid Tier Project:
Tassajara Creek and I-580
new separated crossing;
Alcosta Boulevard and
I-680 minor interchange
improvements (signage and
striping); Class II facility
• Low Tier Project: Demarcus
Boulevard and I-580 new
separated crossing
Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian
Plan (2020): This plan identifies
and prioritizes pedestrian needs
along and across the State
Highway System to inform future
investments. The plan’s main
output is a prioritized list and
map of location-based pedestrian
needs and a toolkit with
strategies to address those needs.
Alameda Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (2019):
The 2019 Countywide Active
Transportation Plan (CATP)
updates and combines the
Countywide Bicycle Plan and the
Countywide Pedestrian Plan. The
CATP analyzes low-stress bike
networks, identifies a countywide
high injury pedestrian and bicycle
network, evaluates major barriers
to the bicycle and pedestrian
network, and establishes a
framework for prioritizing
projects of countywide
significance to inform
decision-making about active
transportation funding at the
Alameda County Transportation
Commission. At the local level,
the CATP provides resources
to member agencies to help
advance projects that provide
complete, safe, and connected
networks for biking and walking,
including better connections to
the regional transit network.
Connectivity analysis presented
in the CATP indicate that
the east planning area, which
includes the City of Dublin,
generally has poor low-stress
connectivity in the rural and
outlying suburban areas and in
the business park portions of
Dublin and Pleasanton. Based
on the high-injury network
analysis completed in the
CATP, the combined bicycle
and pedestrian high-injury
network miles represent less
than one percent of the total
countywide high-injury network.
In the east planning area, Dublin
Boulevard from Arnold Road
to Hacienda Drive and Village
Parkway from Davona Drive
to Tamarack Drive have the
highest bicycle collision severity
scores. Dublin Boulevard was
identified as the street with the
most miles on the pedestrian
high-injury network.
The 2020 Countywide
Transportation Plan (2020):
The 2020 Countywide
Transportation Plan (2020
CTP) was adopted along
with the Community-Based
Transportation Plan and the
New Mobility Roadmap. The
2020 CTP covers transportation
projects, policies, and programs
out to the year 2050 for Alameda
County. The Community-
Based Transportation Plan is
an assessment of transportation
needs in the county’s low-
income communities and
communities of color with
a focus on input collected
via community engagement
activities. The New Mobility
Roadmap provides a foundation
for agency policy, advocacy, and
funding decisions to advance
new mobility technologies and
services for the Alameda CTC
and partner agencies, as well
as the private sector. The 2020
CTP 10-year priority project
list includes the following
projects in the City of Dublin:
Iron Horse Trail Crossing at
Dublin Boulevard, Downtown
Dublin Streetscape Plan
Implementation, West 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
26 City of Dublin Draft 53
Bay Area Metro Center – 375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105ABAG – Suite 700 – 415.820.6700 – info@bayareametro.gov – abag.ca.govMTC – Suite 800 – 415.778.6700 – info@bayareametro.gov – mtc.ca.gov
For moreinformation visit usat planbayarea.org.
October 21, 2021
Adopted
FINAL
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
R
E
P
O
R
T
DISTR
I
C
T4
FOR THE BAY AREAPEDESTRIAN PLAN2021
DISTRICT 4
MESSAGE FROM THE DISTR
I
C
T
4
D
I
R
E
C
T
O
R
I am pleased to present the Caltran
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Plan for the San Francisco Bay Are
a
.
T
h
i
s
P
l
a
n
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
s
t
h
e
2017 State Bicycle and Pedestrian
P
l
a
n
,
Toward an Active
California, which established statewide polic
i
e
s
,
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
and actions to advance active tra
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
safety, mobility, preservation, and eq
u
i
t
y
.
I
t
a
l
s
o
b
u
i
l
d
s
o
n
t
h
e
success and ongoing implementatio
n
o
f
t
h
e
2
0
1
8
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
4
Bike Plan.
The Caltrans Bay Area team is alread
y
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
incorporate pedestrian elements
i
n
t
o
o
u
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
a
n
d
embracing a complete streets appro
a
c
h
t
o
o
u
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
project development, operation, and
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
This plan provides valuable guidanc
e
b
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
a
n
d
prioritizing needs informed by our d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
u
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
agency and community partners.
The Pedestrian Plan will guide Caltran
s
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
to support walking and connect peop
l
e
w
i
t
h
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
,
while seeking to reconnect previous
l
y
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
Collaboratively working with our par
t
n
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
l
o
c
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
agencies, community organizations,
a
n
d
a
d
v
o
c
a
c
y
g
r
o
u
p
s
i
s
central to the development of this p
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
t
o
i
t
s
implementation. I would like to ackn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
n
d
t
h
a
n
k
a
l
l
w
h
o
participated in this process, with a spec
i
a
l
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
important role and contribution of the P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
P
l
a
n
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
Group in guiding the development of t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
We look forward to working with our lo
c
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
and communities on implementing the
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
P
l
a
n
.
Dina A. El-Tawansy
District Director
District 4 – Bay Area
WHERE IS CALTRANS
DISTRICT 4?
District 4 covers the Bay Area,
which includes the counties of
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.
District 4 Director,
Dina A. El-Tawansy
SR 1 at Tam Junction. Photo by Sergio Ru
i
z
.
4 CALTRANS DISTRICT 4 / Pedestrian Plan for the Bay Area
/ SUMMARY REPORT
Plan Bay Area 2
0
5
0
In summer 2020, M
T
C
a
n
d
A
B
A
G
h
e
l
d
2
4
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
e
v
e
n
t
s
.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
i
r
feedback via online
s
u
r
v
e
y
,
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
l
v
i
r
t
u
a
l
“
c
o
f
f
e
e
c
h
a
t
s
,
”
e
m
a
i
l
,
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
,
a
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
v
a
l
i
d
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
p
o
l
l
a
n
d
an online tribal sum
m
i
t
.
O
v
e
r
1
7
8
,
0
0
0
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
w
e
r
e
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
8
,
2
0
0
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
P
l
a
n
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
2
0
5
0
“wrapped up” its en
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
i
n
s
u
m
m
e
r
2
0
2
1
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
P
l
a
n
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
2
0
5
0
a
n
d
t
h
e
completion of the t
h
i
r
d
r
o
u
n
d
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
.
Photo: Peter Beele
r
2 3 4 ,00 0 +2 3 ,00 0 +TWO-THIRDS
OF EVENTS AND A
C
T
I
V
I
T
I
E
S
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
during Horizon an
d
Plan Bay Area 205
0
PARTICIPANTS IN
THE PLANNING
PROCESS
TARGETED TO
EQUITY PRIORITY
COMMUNITIES
AND OTHER
UNDERSERVED
GROUPS
450+
PUBLIC AND
STAKEHOLDER
EVENTS AND
ACTIVITIES
including in-pers
o
n
a
n
d
virtual workshop
s
,
p
o
p
-
u
p
events, and board
a
n
d
working group me
e
t
i
n
g
s
,
among others
19
North Canyons Parkway. To
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
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 27 Draft 54
that should be considered to
benefit all users of the street,
including sidewalks, shared use
paths, bike lanes and routes,
and accessible curb ramps.
Dublin Boulevard Bikeway
Corridor and Connectivity
Studies (2013): Completed in
2013, these two studies evaluated
options for improving bicycling
conditions on Dublin Boulevard,
particularly in Downtown
Dublin. A traffic analysis
determined that removing a
vehicle travel lane on Dublin
Boulevard would delay transit
service and worsen traffic during
peak periods. Community
members and local business
owners expressed concern that
this change would be a barrier
to visiting Downtown Dublin
by car. Ultimately, a shared-use
path running alongside Dublin
Boulevard and connecting to the
Alamo Canal Trail became the
long-term vision for bicycling
in Dublin. In the interim, the
City added sharrows (a Class III
facility) to Dublin Boulevard
between Dublin Court and
Tassajara Road and permitted
riding on sidewalks to make
bicycling a more comfortable
experience for all skill levels.
Pedestrian Safety Assessment
(2014): The University of
California, Berkeley Institute
of Transportation Studies
Technology Transfer Program
prepared this assessment for
the City of Dublin in 2014. The
assessment authors compared
different types of collisions that
occurred in Dublin with other
cities in California and found
that Dublin has a relatively high
number of collisions involving
pedestrians—particularly
young and old pedestrians—
and collisions involving high
vehicle speeds. Opportunities to
improve walking conditions in
Dublin include traffic calming
programs, transportation
demand management policies
and programs, and coordination
with health agencies. This
assessment also included
specific areas of Dublin where
improvements could benefit
pedestrian conditions. The
updated bicycle and pedestrian
plan reviewed these key areas.
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian
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
Entrance to Iron Horse Trail
28 City of Dublin Draft 55
project implementation, the
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 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 West Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station. A multi-use trail
separating people walking and
biking was preferred; a bicycle/
pedestrian bridge was preferred
for crossing Dublin Boulevard,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 29 Draft 56
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.
City of Dublin Streetscape
Master Plan (2020): The
Downtown Streetscape Master
Plan provides direction for
public and private investment,
specifically in regard to the
development of the public
realm and Downtown’s identity.
One of the plan’s key goals is
to develop pedestrian-oriented
environments on Commercial
Throughways and on Downtown
Local Streets. On these roadways
as well as on Crosstown
Boulevards and Parkways,
the plan also emphasizes
providing safe and comfortable
facilities and crossings for
people walking and biking.
Recommended improvements
within the Downtown area
are prioritized into four tiers
that can be matched to project
scale, budget, funding source,
and other opportunities. Tier 1
and Tier 2 street and pedestrian
enhancements are illustrated
on Figures 24, 25, and 27 and
include restriping/road diet
evaluation, sidewalk widening,
intersection and mid-block
crossing treatments, as well as art
and wayfinding opportunities.
Notable guidelines include
widening sidewalks to provide a
minimum 12-foot sidewalk with
minimum five- to six-foot clear
throughway zone for walking.
IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBI
L
I
T
Y
S
T
U
D
Y
Final Report 33
Figure 7a: Precedent BEF Ratings
March 2017
City of Dublin Iro
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
Feasibility Study
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
WC14-3178
Project Partners
In Association with
:section title
34 IRON HORSE REGIONAL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Report
EXISTING CONDITIONS
05
Figure 7b: Precedent BEF Ratings
Oversized
30 City of Dublin Draft 57
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 West Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station, and
retail destinations without a car.
Downtown Specific Plan (2014):
Guiding principles, pertinent to
biking and walking in Downtown,
aim to create pedestrian-friendly
streets, enhance multimodal travel
options, and cultivate pedestrian
connections to retail destinations.
Transit-oriented development
and lighting should be scaled to
people walking in Downtown.
Pedestrian connectivity
between buildings, parking, and
sidewalks should be maintained
throughout Downtown, and
pedestrian amenities like street
furniture are encouraged.
Dublin Village Historic Area
(2014): Placemaking, creating a
positive experience for people
walking, and attracting people
to this area are key goals of
this Specific Plan. Creating
positive experiences for people
walking includes providing more
crosswalks and median refuges,
calming vehicle traffic, adding
pedestrian amenities or a plaza,
and implementing pedestrian-
scale lighting and wayfinding.
Eastern Dublin (2016): A
key goal in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan is to reduce reliance
on single-occupancy vehicles by
planning the area’s land uses to
naturally promote walking, biking,
taking transit, and ridesharing.
Notably, development with a
higher intensity is encouraged
near transit corridors in Eastern
Dublin. Relevant policies in
this Specific Plan include:
• Providing sidewalks
in the Town Center
and Village Center
• Requiring development to
balance pedestrian, bicycle,
and automobile circulation
• Creating a north-south
trail along Tassajara Creek
and other streams
• Establishing a bike network
that meets both travel needs
and recreational opportunities
• Providing bicycle parking
at key destinations
Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan (2019):
The purpose of the City’s Green
Stormwater Infrastructure Plan
(GSI) is to describe how the
City will meet requirements
specified in the Municipal
Regional Stormwater National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit (MRP), Order
No. R2-2015- 0049, NPDES
Permit No. CAS612008 issued
on November 19, 2015. This GSI
Plan demonstrates how the City is
meeting MRP requirements and
intends to use GSI to enhance
the urban environment.
Local Roadway Safety Plan
(anticipated 2022). The
Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP) provides a framework
to identify, analyze, and
prioritize roadway safety
improvements on local roads.
Americans with Disabilities Act
Transition Plan (anticipated
2022). The ADA Transition Plan
is a formal document outlining
the City’s compliance with ADA.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 31 Draft 58
VISION, GOALS, & PERFORMANCE MEASURES
To set a clear path forward, City
staff and the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) members outlined
the City’s purpose, vision, and goals
for this Plan.
PROJECT VISION
This Plan sets forth the following vision:
VISION STATEMENT
The City of Dublin is a vibrant
place where walking and biking are
safe, comfortable, and convenient
ways to travel. In Dublin, walking
and biking connects individuals,
inclusive of all ages and abilities, to
local and regional destinations.
1 Enhance Safety
Prioritize safety in design and implementation
of walking and biking facilities.
33 Improve Connectivity
Develop a bicycle and pedestrian network that provides
well-connected facilities for users of all ages and abilities.
4 Enhance Accessibility
Utilize principles of universal design to make
biking and walking a viable transportation option
for all, including people with disabilities.
55 Prioritize Investments
Maintain sufficient funding to provide for existing
and future bicycle and pedestrian needs, including
program support, operation, and maintenance. Leverage
biking and walking projects to promote economic
activity and social equity in the community.
2 Increase Walking and Biking
Support biking and walking as attractive
modes of transportation.
GOALS
This Plan establishes the following five overarching goals related to the vision that guide
recommendations:
32 City of Dublin Draft 59
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Setting performance measures helps track progress toward goals and document the results of investments in
biking, walking, and rolling. The following performance measures and desired trends have been established to
track progress towards achieving the goals of this Plan:
Goal Performance Measure (Desired Trend)*
Enhance Safety
• Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations
• Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Increase users’ perception of safety
• Decrease average crossing distances
Increase Walking
and Biking
• Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities
Improve
Connectivity
• Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase number of crossing opportunities
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements
• Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces
Enhance
Accessibility
• Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues
• Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements
• Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair
Prioritize
Investments
• Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source to build a
complete streets network
• Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total transportation
infrastructure spending
*not in order of importance
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 33 Draft 60
2
2
61
Inclusive and meaningful
community and stakeholder
engagement is necessary to create
a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
that is community-suported and
implementable. A community
and stakeholder engagement plan
was developed at the outset of
the planning process to outline
the activities, methods, and tools
that would be used to engage
the Dublin residents and key
stakeholders. The community
and stakeholder engagement
plan established a framework
and identified opportunities
and specific milestones for
sharing information, soliciting
feedback, and collaborating
with agency stakeholders and
Dublin community members.
ENGAGEMENT AND COVID-19
Due to the outbreak of
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
and the resulting stay-at-home
order initiated on March 17, 2020
in Alameda County that affected
the ability to conduct in-person
engagement, a hybrid approach
was used. Primarily digital
outreach methods were used
with in-person engagement when
possible to safely and effectively
reach a broad audience.
2. COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
To better understand Dublin’s walking and bicycling issues
and opportunities, stakeholders and community members
were engaged through the following methods:
The engagement timeline is shown in Figure 5, and
specific activities are described in this section.
• Project website
• Interactive map
• Public survey
• Public workshop
• Pop-up events
• Stakeholder meetings
• Technical Advisory
Committee meetings
• Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee
meetings
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 35 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 35
Photos from pop-up events at the St Patrick's Day Festival and Alamo Creek Trailhead
Draft 62
Figure 6. Public Engagement Timeline
PROJECT WEBSITE
BPAC - Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
TAC - Technical Advisory Committee
CC - City Council
PC - Planning Commission
Parks - Parks Commission
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2020
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q 4
2021
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2022
TAC #1
MAR 4, 2020
TAC #2
SEP 15, 2020
TAC #3
JUN 3, 2021
TAC #4
MAR 15, 2022
Parks
Sept. 19, 2022
CC
August 16, 2022
Public
Sur vey
MAY - SEP 2021
Project
Star t
CC Aproval
Project
End
BPAC #1
SEP 17, 2020
BPAC #2
MAY 25, 2021
BPAC #3
OCT 21, 2021
BPAC #4
FEB 24, 2022
ST PATRICK’S
DAY POP-UP
MAR 12, 2022
BPAC #5
PC
Nov 8 2022
JUL 21, 2022
Online
Workshop &
FAQ Live
SEP 2, 2020 Far mers’
Market Pop-Up
MAY 25, 2021
Alamo Creek
Trailhead
Pop-Up
MAY 27, 2021
Stakeholder
Meetings
APR–MAY 2021
36 City of Dublin 36 City of Dublin Draft 63
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND FINDINGS
Community feedback and findings are presented in this section.
Select quotes from community members are presented throughout the
Plan document. Supporting materials are included in appendix A.
PROJECT WEBSITE AND INTERACTIVE MAP
An interactive website was created to share key project milestones and
provide information about the Plan development and events. Since going
live in March 2020, the project website has received approximately 1,500
visits (with 2.7 actions per visit), 3,700 page views, and 123 data downloads.
The website also included an interactive online map on which
the public could identify desired improvements, gaps, and key
destinations in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network.
The online map received a total of 208 comments.
Map feedback was classified into four categories: barriers, ideas, praise,
and questions (Figure 7). Nearly half of responses indicated a barrier
to walking or biking, and another third offered an idea to improve
walking and biking conditions. The remaining responses were either
praise for actions the City has taken to create a safe and connected
active transportation network and promote sustainable transportation
options or questions about the Plan or planning process. Responses
were analyzed to identify central themes for each of the four categories.
BARRIERS
Themes for each of the response categories were
generated from the subject matter of received
comments to summarize the most common kinds of
community input. The top five themes in the barriers
category are shown in Figure 8 and listed in ranked order below.
Figure 7. Web Map Comments by Category
47%
BARRIER
33%
IDEA
13%
PRAISE
7%
QUESTION
35%
Figure 8. Barrier Themes in Comments
BIKE SAFETY
17%BIKE CONNECTIONS
14%MAINTENANCE
12%SIGNALS
8%PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
4%PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
4%DRIVING
<1%SIDEWALK DESIGN
<1%BIKE RACKS
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 37 Draft 64
35%35%
Bike Safety. Comments
that discussed bike safety
largely focused on a need
for greater separation
between bikes and vehicles,
traffic calming, lack of bike lanes, and
concerns about biking near on- and
off-ramps.
17%17%
Bike Connections.
Comments that discussed
bike connections largely
focused on consistent
connections to paths, across
over and under passes, and main bike
routes.
14%14%
Maintenance. Comments
that discussed maintenance
largely focused on poor
road conditions, debris in the road, and
broken sidewalk.
12%12%
Signals. Comments that
discussed signals largely
focused on issues with
signal bike detection at
intersections.
8%8%
Pedestrian Safety.
Comments that discussed
pedestrian safety largely
focused on dangerous
crossings.
IDEAS
Community members also
offered ideas. The top four
themes of these ideas are shown in
Figure 9 and are listed in ranked order:
BIKE SAFETY
24%
26%
BIKE
CONNECTIONS
12%SIGNALS
12%BIKE
CONNECTIONS
8%PEDESTRIAN
AMENITIES
6%SIDEWALK
DESIGN
4%
4%
4%
DRIVING
TRAFFIC
CALMING
BIKE
AMENITIES
Figure 9. Idea Themes in Comments
MOST COMMON BARRIER LOCATIONS MENTIONED
In addition to the most common themes, there were also common locations identified by community comments. The top five locations for comments noted as barriers were:
1
DUBLIN
BOULEVARD
2
TASSAJARA
ROAD
3
FALLON
ROAD
4
AMADOR VALLEY
BOULEVARD
5
DOUGHERTY
ROAD
26%26%
Bike Lanes. Comments that
discussed bike lanes largely focused
on a need for greater connections
between important destinations and
along major roads and trails.
24%24%
Pedestrian Connections. Comments
that discussed pedestrian connections
largely focused on improving specific
sidewalk connections and creating
walking paths.
38 City of Dublin 38 City of Dublin Draft 65
? QUESTIONS
Three key question themes
emerged from the online
map responses; they are listed
below and illustrated in Figure 11.
56%
Planning
Process.
Questions about
the planning
process had to do
with the reach of the survey, how
funding is being used efficiently,
and how the City plans to finish
certain projects.
33%
Connections.
Comments which
discussed bike and
walk connections
asked about
projects at specific locations,
including whether they were
planned or if they can be added
to the City’s efforts.
11%
Micromobility.
Questions about
micromobility
focused on legal
operating
requirements, including whether
electric scooters are allowed on
bike paths about whether electric
scooters are allowed on bike paths.
12%12%
Signals.
Comments which
discussed signals
largely focused on
safer intersections
through changes to signals timing.
12%12%
Bike Connections
Comments that
discussed bike
connections largely
focused on
connecting bike trails and lanes to
key destinations and each other.
22%22%
Other
The remaining in
the ideas category
covered pedestrian
amenities, sidewalk
design, driving, traffic calming,
and bike amenities.
PRAISE
Respondents praised
several key features
of Dublin’s existing walking and
biking network as well as the
City’s ongoing efforts to improve
it. The top three themes in the
praise category are shown and
listed in rank order in Figure 10.
35%35%
General.
Comments that
were general were
focused on
appreciation for
the City’s efforts to improve bike
and pedestrian facilities.
35%35%
Bike Lanes.
Comments that
discussed bike
lanes were focused
on effective plastic
barriers, separated bike paths,
and green paint.
18%18%
Signals.
Comments that
discussed signals
were focused on
flashing lights at
intersections and well-placed
crossing buttons.
12%12%
Other
The remaining
comments in the
praise category
covered existing
amenities and
connections.
35%
35%
18%
9%
9%
GENERAL
BIKE LANES
SIGNALS
CONNECTIONS
AMENITIES
Figure 10. Praise Themes
in Comments
56%
33%
11%
PLANNING PROCESS
CONNECTIONS
MICROMOBILITY
Figure 11. Question
Themes in Comments
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 39 Draft 66
PUBLIC SURVEY
A public survey was used to
collect information from the
public about their personal
transportation preferences,
travel habits, and issues and
opportunities related to walking
and biking in Dublin. The public
survey was distributed in Summer
2020 and was promoted on social
media and posted to the website.
A fact sheet with the survey link
and QR code was provided at
the Alamo Creek Trailhead and
Farmers’ Market pop-up events.
Approximately 200 responses
were received to the 17-question
survey, which covered travel
behavior and mode preference;
travel to school; challenges and
barriers to moving around Dublin;
and priorities for investments
related to walking and biking.
SURVEY RESULTS
General Travel Behavior
and Mode Preferences
When asked about modes taken
to work and school prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic, 33 percent
of respondents said they drove
alone, 17 percent used a bike or
scooter, and 17 percent walked.
These numbers stayed relatively
constant when respondents were
asked about the same behaviors
during COVID. The top reason
(22 percent) respondents gave
when asked why driving to work
was the best option was that
driving alone was the quickest
and most convenient option.
Around 10 percent of respondents
indicated safety, irregular work
schedules, and the need to make
additional stops as reasons they
chose to drive alone to work.
Of respondents who use a
combination of travel modes,
there were a similar number of
respondents across modes.
Travel to School
Approximately 38 percent of
respondents had school-age
children. Of those respondents,
approximately 40 percent
indicated that they used a
personal vehicle for school
drop-off/pick-up. Another 26
percent walked to school while
14 percent biked. Respondents
indicated the top three factors
discouraging walking or biking to
school were safety concerns (35
percent), distance or travel time
(18 percent), and lack of sidewalks
or curb ramps (13 percent).
Barriers to Walking
and Biking
When asked about barriers to
walking and biking, respondents
indicated that safety was a primary
consideration, followed by vehicle
speed. Responses were mixed on
the topics of street lighting and
maintenance, with a fairly even
split of people indicating it was
either not important, somewhat
important, or very important.
Most respondents were less
concerned with distance to their
destinat ions or available shade.
Investment Priorities
When asked what types of
improvements would encourage
walking or biking, 22 percent of
respondents indicated better/more
sidewalks and trails, 14 percent
indicated better/more bicycle
facilities, 11 percent indicated
slower vehicles and more traffic
calming, and 10 percent indicated
better maintenance of existing
facilities. When asked where the
City should prioritize walking
and biking improvements, the
top three responses (about 20
percent each) were high collision
locations; routes connecting
people to schools, libraries, parks,
and other key destinations; and,
along and across busy streets.
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
On September 2, 2020 a digital
workshop was held via Zoom
to inform the public about
the Plan and gather broad
community feedback. Forty-
two people attended the hour-
long Zoom workshop, which
included a presentation and a
question-and-answer period.
This workshop aimed to establish
a community understanding
of the planning process and to
obtain feedback on the project’s
vision and goals. The workshop
also included a poll, which asked
RESPONSES
were received to the
17-question survey
200
40 City of Dublin 40 City of Dublin Draft 67
participants questions about their
experiences on public streets,
their comfort with various
modes of micromobility, and
their demographic information.
The workshop also included a
poll asking participants about
their experiences walking, biking,
and using micromobility on
public streets, whether they feel
comfortable using these modes in
Dublin, and whether they would
want to see bike and scooter share
programs in Dublin. The poll
received 30 responses. Participants
of the poll were also asked how
they classify themselves in terms
of confidence using a bike in
Dublin, as well as how often they
ride a bike. Of the responses, the
most common confidence level
was Enthused and Confident
(47 percent), followed by
Interested but Concerned (27
percent), Strong and Fearless
(23 percent), and No Way, No
How (3 percent) (see Figure 12).
POP UP EVENTS
Feedback was gathered at three
in-person events to understand
where people walk and bike and
what issues, concerns, ideas, and
priorities they have related to
walking and biking in Dublin.
FARMERS’
MARKET —25 MAY, 2021
Feedback was gathered on
existing conditions and needs.
Approximately 40 people
provided input, and participants
were rewarded with Carrot
Cash and giveaways.
ALAMO CREEK
TRAILHEAD —27
MAY, 2021
Dublin partnered with Bike
East Bay in an effort to hear
from trail users at the Alamo
Creek Trailhead as part of
National Bike Month Activities.
Feedback was gathered in real
time and flyers with the public
survey link were handed out.
ST. PATRICK’S DAY
FESTIVAL—12
MARCH, 2022
Feedback was gathered on the
draft network recommendations
and additional comments on
program and policy priorities
for walking and biking in
Dublin. The St. Patrick’s Day
Festival in Dublin is one of
the biggest local community
events of the year. This two-
Figure 12. Poll Responses to Classification of
Bicyclist Types by Frequency of Bicycle Use
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 41 Draft 68
day celebration brings out
thousands of engaged residents
and visitors per day, making it an
important opportunity for the
City of Dublin to communicate
its plans and receive feedback.
The celebration had an added
importance this year as this
would be the first in-person
public event of this scale in
Dublin since 2019, making
for an excited and engaged
audience. Approximately
136 community members
provided feedback on possible
infrastructure improvements
for pedestrians and bicyclists in
Dublin, and this pop-up resulted
in 231 unique data points.
BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Alameda County
Transportation Commission
(Alameda CTC) Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC) involves interested
community members in Alameda
CTC’s policy, planning, and
implementation efforts related
to bicycling and walking. The
Alameda CTC BPAC includes
representatives from cities in
Alameda County, including
Castro Valley, Dublin, Fremont,
San Leandro, Berkeley, Hayward,
Oakland, Albany, and Alameda
and serves as Dublin’s advisory
body as Dublin does not
currently have a local BPAC.
The Dublin Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan Update was
brought to the Alameda CTC
BPAC five times during the
project. The group provided
feedback on key items throughout
the planning process, including
the technical analysis approach
and findings and program, policy,
and project recommendations.
Comments were addressed
and incorporated into the Plan
document. Meeting summaries
and supporting materials are
included in appendix A.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
A Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) was formed to provide
key guidance on the Plan. The
TAC included staff from City
departments, including Planning,
Economic Development, and
Parks & Community Service and
other agency representatives from
Dublin Unified School District,
Dublin Police Services, Alameda
County Fire Department,
San Ramon, Pleasanton,
Livermore, Alameda CTC,
Caltrans, BART, and LAVTA.
The team hosted five TAC
meetings over the course of
the project. The Plan process,
community engagement, existing
conditions and needs analysis,
prioritization framework,
and program, policy, and
project recommendations were
discussed during these meetings.
Comments were addressed
and incorporated into the Plan
document. Meeting summaries
and supporting materials are
included in appendix B.
Alamo Creek Pop Up Event
42 City of Dublin 42 City of Dublin Draft
69
3
70
This chapter provides an
overview of walking and biking
in Dublin and presents results
of the existing conditions and
needs assessment, which includes
relevant demographic data,
existing walking and biking
infrastructure, high injury bicycle
and pedestrian network, and
bicycle level of traffic stress
analysis. This inventory and
analysis of existing citywide
conditions sets the stage for
identifying strategic pedestrian
and bicycle investments and
informs the prioritization process
and network recommendations
presented in chapter 4.
Dublin
Population:
61,240
LIVING AND WORKING IN DUBLIN
This section discusses
demographics and transportation
data including race/ethnicity, age,
gender, mode share, and worker
inflow and outflow patterns.
The purpose of this information
is to provide background and
context describing people living
and working in Dublin as it
relates to walking and biking.
The data presented is obtained
from the California Communities
Environmental Health Screening
Tool (CalEnviroScreen),
Longitudinal Employer-
Household Data (LEHD)
from 2017, and the American
Community Survey five-
year estimates (2015–2019)
from the US Census.
RACE & ETHNICITY
The most common racial
background of Dublin residents
is Asian alone (49 percent)
and White alone (39 percent).
Approximately 6 percent of
Dublin residents identify as
being two or more races, and
4 percent of residents identify
as Black/African American
alone. Approximately 10% of
Dublin residents identify as
hispanic or latino/a/x. Dublin’s
population by race & ethnicity
is illustrated in Figure 13.
GENDER
Dublin has an almost 50/50
split of people self reporting
as females vs males. Note
that American Community
Survey data is not available
for gender identity for the
years covered by this Plan.
AGE
The most common ages of
Dublin residents are 25–44 (40
percent) and 45–64 (24 percent).
Combined, ages 25–64 make up
64 percent of the population.
The Dublin population younger
than 15 accounts for 24 percent
of the total population, while
the population over 65 makes up
9 percent. Figure 13 illustrates
Dublin’s population by age.
ZERO-VEHICLE
HOUSEHOLDS
When compared with the
surrounding Alameda County,
Dublin has a lower proportion
of households without vehicles.
Overall in Alameda County,
10 percent of households do
not have a vehicle; in Dublin,
3 percent of households
do not have a vehicle.
3. WALKING & BIKING IN DUBLIN TODAY
Source: US Census American Community
Survey Five-Year Estimates (2015-2019)
44 City of Dublin 44 City of Dublin Draft 71
Figure 13. Dublin Population by Race & Ethnicity Figure 14. Dublin Rounded Population by Age
35%
7%
9%
24%
16%
8%
25-44
UNDER 5
65+
45-65
5-14
15-24
OF RESIDENTS
FEMALE AND MALE
*gender identity data is not available
50/50*
Figure 15. Dublin Population by Gender
6%
2+ RACES
1.1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
49%
<1%
2%
ASIAN
<1% Hispanic or
Latino/a/x
AMERICAN
INDIAN AND
ALASKA NATIVE
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
OTHER
1.6% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
4%
BLACK/
AFRICAN
AMERICAN
<1% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
39%
WHITE
6.5% Hispanic
or Latino/a/x
48%
28%
7%
7%
5%
5%
ASIAN-INDIAN
CHINESE
(EXCEPT
TAIWANESE)
OTHER
ORIGINS
FILIPINO
KOREAN
VIETNAMESE
* 10.1% of Dublin's population identify as hispanic or latino/a/x
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 45 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 45 Draft 72
WORKERS
Based on the most recent LEHD
data available (2017), the net
inflow and outflow of Dublin
workers is the following:
• 16,042 people live elsewhere
and commute into Dublin
• 23,161 people live in Dublin
and commute elsewhere
• 1,484 people live and
work in Dublin
Only about 6 percent of
workers living in Dublin
also work in Dublin.
COMMUTE
MODE SHARE
Working Dublin residents use
various modes to travel to work
(see Figure 17). The commute
data shown below provides a
basic understanding of how
people travel to and from work.
However, because the data comes
from the US Census—which
only provides journey-to-work
data for the primary mode of
transportation—information
on other trips, such as walking
or biking to connect to public
transit, are not represented.
Approximately 76 percent of
Dublin residents commute
to work by car, either alone
(67 percent) or in a carpool (9
percent). Public transportation is
the second most popular way to
commute at 15 percent. Walking
represents approximately 1
percent of commute modes.
Biking and riding a motorcycle
each represent less than
1 percent of all commute
modes. Additionally, about 7
percent of working Dublin
residents worked from home.
COMMUTING &
COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has
drastically transformed the
commuting and transportation
landscape as restrictions on non-
essential travel forced everyone
into unplanned lifestyle changes.
As we look to the future, it
is unclear how COVID-19
will change commuting and
teleworking patterns. Findings
Figure 16. Workers by Residence and Job Location Figure 17. Commute Mode
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic (LEHD), 2017.Source: US Census American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (2015–2019).
CAR/TRUCK/VAN –
DROVE ALONE
PUBLIC TRANSIT (INCLUDING
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY
(UBER, LYFT) AND TAXI)
CAR/TRUCK/VAN –
CARPOOLED
WORKED AT HOME
WALKED
BICYCLE AND
MOTORCYCLE
67%
15%
9%
7%
1%
1%
People working
in Dublin
16,042
People Living
in Dublin
23,161
People
Living &
working
in Dublin
1,484
46 City of Dublin 46 City of Dublin Draft 73
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.1
BART STATION ACCESS
There are two BART stations
in Dublin: the West 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
1 https://www.kittelson.com/ideas/will-covid-19-permanently-alter-teleworking-and-commuting-patterns-heres-what-1000-commuters-told-us/)
station entries at the West
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 West 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 West Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station, and
56 lockers are provided at the
West Dublin BART Station.
With almost 15 percent
of residents using public
transportation to get to work,
there is an opportunity to
encourage more people to walk
and bike to BART. This can
be accomplished by focusing
on convenient, safe first-mile
and last-mile connections
to these stations and secure
end-of-trip facilities.
PEDESTRIAN
AND BICYCLIST
TYPOLOGIES
People have varying abilities
and tendencies to walk or bike
and different sensitivities to
the presence and quality of
transportation infrastructure
based on age, gender, physical
mobility, and other factors.
A person’s income level,
race, and availability of
parking can help explain their
tendency to walk or bike.
Figure 18. Mode Split for BART Station Access in Dublin
Source: BART Station Profile Survey (2015)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 47 Draft 74
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.
2 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507.
PEDESTRIAN
TYPOLOGY
The walking typology presented
in Table 3 was determined based
on travel behavior research and
experience working on walking
infrastructure. As shown in Table
3, the typology assigns walking
characteristics based on age
(under 14, 14–55, and over 55).
For many people with disabilities
and people over 55, the absence
of curb ramps and presence of
multi-lane crossings can be
barriers to walking.
BICYCLIST TYPOLOGY
The bicyclist typology, or “four
types” categorization, was
developed in Portland, Oregon in
2005 as an organizing principle for
understanding people’s relationship
to bicycling for transportation as
well as their concerns and needs
related to bicycling.2 Based on
this research, bicyclists can be
placed into one of four groups
based on their relationship
to bicycle transportation:
• No Way, No How, or
Non-Bicyclists. People
unwilling or unable to bicycle
even if high-quality bicycle
infrastructure is in place.
• Interested but Concerned.
People willing to bicycle
if high-quality bicycle
infrastructure is in place.
People in this type tend to
prefer off-street, separated
bicycle facilities or quiet
residential streets; they may
not bike at all if facilities
do not meet their needs for
perceived safety and comfort.Table 3. Pedestrian Typology
Age Typology Walking
Characteristics
Under 14 Youth Limited by multilane crossings
14 to 55
Teenage and Working Age Adults
Strong and capable, but still limited by sidewalk gaps, unsignalized crossings at major roads, and absence of midblock crossings
Over 55 Aging
The limits experienced by young adults and adults and further limited by the absence of curb ramps or long multilane crossings
Figure 19. Bicyclist Typology
SHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLINSHARE OF ADULT (18+) POPULATION WITHIN CITY OF DUBLIN
48 City of Dublin 48 City of Dublin Draft 75
• Enthused and Confident. People
willing to bicycle if some bicycle-specific
infrastructure is in place. People in this
type generally prefer separated facilities
and are also comfortable riding in bicycle
lanes or on paved shoulders, if necessary.
• Strong and Fearless, or Highly
Confident. People who are willing
to bicycle alongside vehicle traffic
and on roads without bike lanes.
One end of the spectrum includes people
who are comfortable riding with vehicle
traffic, such as adult regular bike commuters.
These highly confident bicyclists are willing
to ride on roads with little or no bicycle
infrastructure. The other end of the spectrum
includes people who are not comfortable
riding with or adjacent to traffic. This group
often includes children, older adults, and
adults who ride infrequently. Typically, these
riders prefer off-street bicycle facilities or
biking on low-speed, low-volume streets. If
bicycle facilities do not meet their comfort
preferences, they may not to bike at all. The
middle of the spectrum includes bicyclists
who prefer separated facilities but are willing
to ride with or adjacent to traffic when
vehicle volumes and speeds are low enough
and separated facilities are not provided.
Table 4 shows the population share for
each typology and age group. These
population shares were extrapolated
to the City of Dublin population to
estimate the proportion of adults within
the typologies illustrated in Figure 19.
EXISTING WALKING AND BIKING NETWORKS
This section defines the features, conditions,
and types of walking and biking facilities in
Dublin (Figure 20). It includes and explains
maps of existing on-street bikeways, off-street
paths, sidewalks, crossings, and supportive
amenities and infrastructure—like walking-
and biking-oriented wayfinding, bike parking,
drinking fountains, and sidewalk benches.
Table 4. Bike Group Typology— City of Dublin Population Share of Bicyclist Type by Age
Bicyclist Type Share of Age Group
Under 5 6–18 18–34 35–54 55+Dublin adult (18+)
Strong and Fearless 0%0%11%2%0%4.1%
Enthused and Confident 0%0%7%12%7%10.3%
Interested but Concerned 0%100%61%59%46%58.1%
No Way, No How 100%0%21%27%47%27.6%
Total 100%100%100%100%100%
Source: Table developed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. from data presented by Dill and McNeil
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 49 Draft 76
Figure 20. Existing Bicycle Network Map
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Existing facilities_10052022.mxd Date: 10/5/2022
Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 Feet
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Public Schools
BART Stations
Parks
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Existing facilities_10052022.mxd Date: 10/5/2022
Existing Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 Feet
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Public Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
50 City of Dublin 50 City of Dublin Draft 77
MULTI USE PATHS
(CLASS I)
Multi use paths provide a
separate facility designed for
the exclusive use of bicycles,
pedestrians, and other non-
motorized uses with minimal
vehicle crossflows. Generally,
bicycle paths serve corridors not
served by streets or are parallel
to roadways where right of way
is available. These paths provide
bicyclists both recreational and
commute routes with minimal
conflicts with other road users.
Class IA Paths—Multiuse
paths along a separate
alignment. In Dublin, this
bikeway class exists on the
Iron Horse Trail and the
Martin Canyon Creek Trail.
Class IB Sidepaths —
Sidepaths that double as
sidewalks along the side of a
roadway. Examples include
segments along the north side
of Dublin Boulevard and the
west side of San Ramon Road.
Alamo Creek Trail, Dublin,
CA. Source: City of Dublin
Diagram of typical Class
IB path configuration
Class IB Path on San Ramon
Road, Dublin, CA. Source:
Kittelson & Associates, Inc
TYPES OF BIKEWAYS
Dublin’s existing bikeway system consists of a network of
bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. There are four types of
bikeways as defined by chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual (2017). In addition, the Alameda County
Transportation Commission (CTC) has adopted a set of sub-
classifications for each Caltrans classification. These sub-
classifications were designed to correspond with the previously
existing system and to incorporate emerging facility typologies.
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II FacilityKATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Dublin Boulevard east of Tassajara Road. Person riding a bike
on a Class II facility separated from right-turning traffic.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 51 Draft 78
BICYCLE LANES (CLASS II)
Bicycle lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a dedicated
space for the exclusive or semi-exclusive bicycle use. Through-
travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited; vehicle
parking and pedestrian- and motorist-crossflows are permitted.
Class IIA—A conventional one-way striped bicycle lane.
Class IIB —Upgraded bicycle lane with a striped buffer or
green conflict markings. In Dublin, this bikeway class exists on
Dublin Boulevard from Silvergate Drive to San Ramon Road
and on Tassajara Road from Rutherford Drive to Fallon Road.
BICYCLE ROUTES (CLASS III)
Bicycle routes do not provide a dedicated
space for bicycles, but instead, bikes share the
lane with motorists and signs or pavement
markings indicate the bike route.
Class IIIA —Signage-only routes.
Class IIIB —Wide curb
lane or shoulder that may include signage.
Class IIIC —Route with standard shared lane markings (“sharrows”)
that can be used to alert drivers of the shared roadway environment
with bicyclists. This class of bikeway exists on Davona Drive.
Class IIB Facility on Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, CA. Source: City of Dublin.Class III Facility in Portland, OR. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Class I Facility Seperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle Parking Maintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I Facility Class II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Diagram of typical Class
III bike lane configuration
Diagram of typical Class IIB bike lane configuration
52 City of Dublin 52 City of Dublin Draft 79
SEPARATED BICYCLE LANES (CLASS IV)
Separated bicycle lanes are bicycle lanes that provide vertical
separation from motorists on roadways. The separation may include
grade separation, flexible posts, planters, on-street parking, or other
physical barriers. These bikeways provide a greater sense of comfort
and security in comparison to standard Class II bike lanes. Class
IV facilities are especially relevant for high-speed or high-volume
roadways. Separated bike lanes can provide one-way or two-way travel.
SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE
In addition to the on- and off-street facilities, supporting infrastructure
is essential to promote walking and biking as viable modes of
transportation. Critical elements include end-of-trip facilities, such
as bicycle parking, showers, and lockers. Other critical infrastructure
elements include wayfinding, drinking fountains, seating, and shade.
BICYCLE PARKING
Secure short-term and long-term bicycle parking that can
accommodate a wide range of bicycles including children’s bicycles,
electric bicycles, and cargo bicycles, for example, are necessary to
support biking. Access to secure bicycle parking is one of the top
factors determining whether someone chooses to ride a bike or not.
Bike parking should be added to new developments as well as key
destinations like BART
New development provides key opportunities to ensure Dublin
adequately provides both short- and long-term bicycle parking.
Class IV Facility, San Diego, CA Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
Class I FacilitySeperated Bike Lane Buered Bike LaneBike Lane Shoulder Sharrow
Bicycle ParkingMaintenance Stations Bike-Share Stations
Identify complementary bicycle facilities
Class I FacilityClass II Facility
KATIE Please use these: (FYI I got this le from Aditya so if you have questions, please reach out to him)
Class III Facility Class IV Facility
Bike Parking at Dublin Library Source: City of Dublin
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 53 Draft 80
Currently, Dublin follows parking
requirements n Section 5.106.4 of the
California Green Building Code. This
code states that 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 and is necessary
for most workplaces, residences, transit
stations, park and ride lots, and other
locations where individuals 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. Long term parking
should also support charging for e-bikes.
• 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 West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (68
lockers) and West Dublin BART Station
(56 lockers). The BikeLink system allows
users to pay by the hour for use of the
lockers through a membership card.
• Enclosed bike cages are multiple bike
racks contained by a fence. The enclosure
entrance is secured with a lock or key
code, but within the cage, bicycles are
exposed and secured to racks with
personal locks. Cages can be outdoors
(ideally with a roof for weather resistance)
or located in building parking garages
or utility rooms. Because contents are
visible through the cage and bikes inside
are accessible, the security of a bike
cage depends on good management of
access keys or codes. Bike cages are most
appropriate for closed environments
such as businesses, office buildings, or
multi-family developments with access
limited to owners, tenants, or employees.
• Bike rooms are bicycle racks located
within an interior locked room or a
locked enclosure. Because they house
bikes behind solid walls, bike rooms
are more secure than bike cages, where
bikes remain visible from the outside.
As with bike cages, bike room security
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
54 City of Dublin 54 City of Dublin Draft 81
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.
BikeLink lockers at the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station. Source: Kittelson * Associates. Inc.
Maintenance station on a trail.
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Wayfinding signage for West Dublin/
Pleasanton BART Station. Source:
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 55 Draft 82
Illuminating trails and
sidewalks reduces the
possibility of user collisions
with objects or each other
and makes deformities or
unevenness in the surface
more visible which can also
prevent falls and crashes. For
example, pedestrian-scale
lighting improvements on
Dublin Boulevard under the
I-680 overpass are needed to
improve visibility of people
walking along the corridor.
Pedestrian amenities
are a critical part of
pedestrian-focused design,
which prioritizes safety,
comfort, and quality of
service. Amenities like
planters, benches, drinking
fountains, restrooms, and
sidewalk trees all enhance
a walking environment.
Shared mobility allows
for flexible transportation
options and provides
bicycles and scooters to
community members who
would otherwise lack access
to these modes. Dublin
does not currently offer
shared mobility options.
KEY WALKING AND BIKING DESTINATIONS
The choice and ability to
walk and bike to essential
destinations greatly benefits
community members through
increased activity and
improved health. Walking
and biking also benefits
the broader community
by reducing in greenhouse
gas emissions and vehicle
congestion. People have
varying abilities and
tendencies to walk or bike
based on infrastructure
presence and quality. Land-
use patterns that determine
the distance between origins
and destinations as well as the
density, diversity, and intensity
of uses also shape people’s
walking and biking habits.
Key walking and biking
destinations were mapped.
Specific points of interest
were selected for consistency
with the Plan’s goals to
increase walking and biking
mode share to school,
transit, trailheads and
parks, and work. These
activity centers are shown
in Figure 21 and include:
• Schools: All public K–12
schools within Dublin
Unified School District
• BART: West Dublin/
Pleasanton station and
Dublin/Pleasanton station
• Job Centers: Seven
job centers that include
Dublin’s largest employers
and concentrations
of employment
• Parks: Neighborhood
and community
parks in Dublin
Person with an e-scooter waiting to cross at
Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road.
Source: Kittelson & Associates. Inc.
56 City of Dublin 56 City of Dublin Draft 83
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 21. Land Use, Key Destinations, and Existing Facilities Map
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\2
4\
24392 - D
ublin ATP\
gis\Task
4\Land
Use
a
nd
Key Des
tinations M
ap.mxd
Date
: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
WEST DUBLIN/
PLEASANTON
DUBLIN/
PLEASANTON
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 57 Draft 84
EXISTING PROGRAMS
As shown in Table 5, the City,
the school district, the Police
Services, Alameda CTC, and
nonprofit organizations provide
numerous programs that
support walking and biking in
Dublin. These programs play
an important role in promoting
active transportation and
fostering safe walking and
biking in the city. The City of
Dublin recognizes the critical
role that programs and policies
play in complementing physical
infrastructure to promote walking
and biking and will continue to
support and broaden the reach
of these existing programs.
Table 5. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Counts
Bicycle and pedestrian counts are included
in the City’s turning movement counts. Bike
counters collect data on the Iron Horse and
Alamo Canal trails. Bicycle and pedestrian
count data is also provided in environmental
documents and traffic studies.
Traffic and
Planning
Safe Routes to
School (SRTS)
SRTS establishes routes which maximize
safety for travel to and from schools as well
as educates school administrators, parents,
and children about vehicle, bike, and
pedestrian safety.
Dublin Unified
School District
(DUSD) with
support from
Alameda CTC;
several City
departments,
including Police,
Planning, and
Traffic
Bicycle Rodeo
and Safety
Program
Dublin Police Services has a Bicycle Safety
Program, which is offered to elementary
schools in Dublin. The program supports
safe bicycle riding and challenges students'
riding abilities in a safe and controlled
environment. Dublin Police Services
promotes bicycling by educating students
about riding safely and properly.
Police
Adult School
Crossing Guards
Crossing guards help children safely cross
the street at key locations on the way to
school. Crossing guards set an example of
how to safely cross the street, and they may
help parents feel more comfortable allowing
their children to walk or bike to school.
Police and Traffic
58 City of Dublin 58 City of Dublin Draft 85
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
National Bike
Month Activities
Sponsored by the City, National Bike Month
activities encourage people to bike during
the month of May. Promoted events include
cycling workshops, classes, and giveaways.
The City also sponsors Bike to Work (or
Wherever) Day, which provides energizer
stations and self-guided rides, and Bike to
Market Day, which rewards bicyclists with
“carrot cash” to use at the Dublin Farmers’
Market.
Traffic and
Environmental
Programs
Walk and Roll to
School Week
During October, Walk and Roll to School
Week encourages the Dublin community
to walk, bike, skate, and ride scooters to
school. Dublin schools celebrate walking
and bicycling with promotional assemblies,
walking school buses and bike trains,
giveaways, and prizes. Dublin’s participation
is partially funded by Measure B/BB.
DUSD, Traffic
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Projects
Workshops
The City hosts biannual bicycle and
pedestrian workshops to share information
about new bicycle and pedestrian projects
and solicit feedback on current and future
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Traffic
Traffic Safety
Committee
The City’s Traffic Safety Committee—
comprised of representatives from Dublin
Police Services’ traffic unit, Public Works’
transportation staff, and City maintenance
staff—meets monthly to discuss public
comments on potential traffic safety issues
and to recommend appropriate actions.
Common inquiries include requests for
traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle
speeds, stop sign installations, and new signs
and pavement markings.
Police, Traffic,
Maintenance
Program Description
Managing
Department /
Organization
Offering Services
Community
Rides and Bike
Clubs
Community rides help build both
community and physical skills among new
and continuing riders. They provide a
guided pathway for new bicyclists to gain
confidence riding and navigating the city
on a bike. Regular rides foster community
among riders, especially for youth looking
for physical and creative outlets outside
of school. During school, nonprofit
organizations also lead bike clubs at middle
and high schools, where staff provide bikes
and safety gear and take students on group
adventure rides. Community rides can be
offered to the entire community or geared
to women, queer-identifying, or other less-
likely-to-ride demographics that are better
served by a safe space that celebrates and
empowers rider identity.
Cycles of Change,
Bay Area Outreach
and Recreation
Program, Bike East
Bay
Bike Education
Classes
One or more sessions, bike education classes
teach riders bike safety, bike mechanics,
theft prevention, and other useful skills.
Youth Bike Rodeos, Bike Mechanics Classes,
Adult Bike Safety Classes, and Family
Biking Workshops are a few examples of the
variety of different bicycle classes offered by
nonprofit organizations.
Cycles of Change,
Bike East Bay
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 59 Draft 86
BARRIERS TO WALKING AND BIKING
Barriers to a safe and
comfortable walking and
biking network in Dublin
take many forms, including
• High-stress streets with
multiple vehicle travel
lanes, high vehicle volumes,
high vehicle speeds, and
lack of separation between
vehicles and other modes.
• Conflicts between bicyclists
and turning or merging
vehicles at intersections
and interchanges.
• Linear barriers such as the
two major state highway
system facilities (Interstate
680 and Interstate 580) that
have limited and poorly-
designed crossings for
people walking and biking.
• Long crossing distances
and limited street
connectivity (e.g., cul-de-
sacs and long block lengths)
for people walking.
• Lack of east-west
connectivity that limits route
options for people walking
and biking and forces travel
along high-stress arterials
like Dublin Boulevard and
Amador Valley Boulevard.
“This stretch is scary for bicycling
when the lane disappears with lots
of traffic.” — community member
“A person in a wheel chair or
a parent with a stroller can’t
safety navigate the sidewalk.”
— community member
• 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.
60 City of Dublin 60 City of Dublin Draft 87
COLLISION ANALYSIS
Pedestrian and bicyclist
collision data from 2014 to
2019 from local police reports
and the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System capture
safety trends citywide. This
section describes the location,
severity, circumstances, and
timing of collisions involving
people walking and biking.
Findings from this analysis
will help determine streets to
prioritize to make it safer for
people walking and biking.
COLLISION TRENDS
Available variables in the
collision data helped identify
citywide trends. Pedestrian
and bicycle collisions were
analyzed separately based on
the following characteristics:
• Lighting conditions
• Location characteristics
(specifically intersection
versus segment collisions)
• Primary collision factors
cited by reporting officers
• Age and perceived gender of
people walking and biking
involved in collisions
The small size of each
dataset—68 bicycle collisions
and 81 pedestrian collisions
over six years—limits the
ability to find statistically valid
trends. However, even with
these limitations, the analysis
revealed several patterns that
reflect conditions in Dublin.
LOCATION
Table 6 and Table 7 present
pedestrian and bicycle collisions
based on location and severity.
Intersection collisions are those
reported to have occurred
within a 250-foot intersection
influence area—all others are
considered segment collisions.
A majority of both pedestrian
and bicycle collisions happened
at intersections, where there
are more conflicts with motor
vehicle traffic than at other
locations along roadways.
Figure 22. Influence of Vehicle Speed on Driver’s
Cone of Vision & Pedestrian Survival Rates
Higher speeds
decrease the
chance that a
pedestrian will
survive a crash.
Higher speeds affect a driver’s ability to perceive,
focus on, and react to things in their line of vision.
15 mph 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph
75% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 32 mph.
50% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 42 mph.
25% of
pedestrians will
SURVIVE a crash
at 50 mph.
Based on the Local Road Safety Analysis, which evaluates all collisions
on local roads within the City of Dublin between 2016 and 2020:
Pedestrian collisions
account for 28 percent
of all fatal and serious
injury collisions in
the City—that is more
than 10 percent higher
than the state average.
A disproportionate
share of fatal and
serious injury—
including pedestrian
collisions—occur
in dusk/dawn or
dark conditions.
Souce: Tefft, 2013
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 61 Draft 88
Table 6. Pedestrian Collisions by Location and Severity
Location
Fatal and
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other
Collisions
Total Reported
Collisions
Share of Total
Reported
Intersection 11 63 74 91%
Segment 1 6 7 9%
Total
Reported 12 69 81 100%
Table 7. Bicycle Collisions by Location and Severity
Location
Fatal and
Severe Injury
Collisions
Other
Collisions
Total Reported
Collisions
Share of Total
Reported
Intersection 2 50 52 76%
Segment 1 15 16 24%
Total
Reported 3 65 68 100%
Lighting
Lighting conditions are an
important factor for pedestrian
and bicyclist visibility and
personal security by enabling
people to see each other. Figure
23 presents pedestrian and
bicycle collisions by lighting
conditions. The majority of
bicycle and pedestrian collisions
occurred in daylight conditions.
All reported fatal and severe-
injury bicycle collisions occurred
in daylight conditions. When
collisions occurred in dark
conditions, they happened
primarily under streetlights.
Primary Collision Factors
Primary collision factors
(PCFs) are provided in the
data and aggregated based on
the section of the California
Vehicle Code that the reporting
officer records. For bicycle
collisions, the PCFs were
• Automobile right of way
violation (26 percent of
collisions), which indicates
one of several California
Vehicle Violation codes
regarding a failure to yield
right-of-way to oncoming
traffic. This action may come
from either the bicyclist
or motorist involved.
• Improper turning (16
percent of collisions),
which indicates a motorist
committed a hazardous
violation while turning.
• Other hazardous movement
(12 percent of collisions),
an aggregated violation
category that indicates a
hazardous movement on the
part of either the bicyclist
or motorist involved.
The PCFs cited most frequently
for pedestrian collisions were
• Pedestrian right of way
violation (27 percent
of collisions), which
indicates a driver violated a
pedestrian’s right of way.
• Other improper driving
(20 percent of collisions)
represents an aggregation
of motorist violations.
• Automobile right of way
violation (14 percent of
collisions), which indicates
Figure 23. Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions by Lighting Conditions
NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding
Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database.
62 City of Dublin 62 City of Dublin Draft 89
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
recorded by the reporting officer
for 78 percent of bicyclists
involved in collisions and for
59 percent of pedestrians.
Available data reveals that men
represented approximately 60
percent of pedestrians involved
in collisions and 83 percent of
bicyclists involved in collisions.
HIGH-INJURY
NETWORK
An analysis of the citywide
roadway network was conducted
to identify a set of bicycle
and pedestrian high-injury
streets, together called a high-
injury network (HIN). This
HIN constitutes the worst-
performing segment locations
based on collision severity and
frequency of collisions involving
people walking and biking.
Figure 24. Age of Parties Involved in Collisions
NOTE: totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding
Source: 2014-2019 Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems collision database.
“Every time I cross here, I almost
get hit by a car trying to enter the
freeway.” — community member
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 63 Draft 90
Figure 25. Pedestrian High-Injury Network Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Pedestrian and Bicycle High Injury Network Combined- Final.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Pedestrian High Injury Network Figure 5
Pedestrian High Injury NetworkDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMW
ELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Pedestrian and Bicycle High Injury Network Combined- Final.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Pedestrian High Injury Network Figure 5
Pedestrian High Injury NetworkDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
62 percent of pedestrian collisions occurred on 4 percent of Dublin's roads (8.4 miles)
71 percent of the pedestrian high injury streets has four or more vehicle through lanes
64 City of Dublin 64 City of Dublin Draft 91
Figure 26. Bicycle High-Injury Network Map
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final_20200623.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Bicycle High Injury Network
Figure 8
Bicycle High Injury NetworkDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e T
r
ail§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final_20200623.mxd Date: 5/17/2022
Bicycle High Injury Network
Figure 8
Bicycle High Injury NetworkDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
62 percent of bicycle collisions occurred on 3.5 percent of Dublin’s roads (6.7 miles)
88 percent of the bicycle high injury streets has four or more vehicle through lanes
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 65 Draft 92
High Injury Streets
Table 8 provides the extents of
each high injury street along with
the total mileage (measured as
centerline miles).
HIGH INJURY
NETWORK
CHARACTERISTICS
• 62 percent of pedestrian
collisions occurred on
4 percent (8.4 miles)
of Dublin’s roads.
• 62 percent of the city’s
bicycle collisions occurred
on 3.5 percent (6.7 miles)
of Dublin’s roads.
Dublin’s pedestrian and bicycle
HINs overlap for many of their
segments. About 10 miles or
just over 5 percent of Dublin’s
roadways appear in either the
bicycle HIN, pedestrian HIN, or
both. This means that 66 percent
of Dublin’s bicycle collisions
and 66 percent of its pedestrian
collisions occur on just 10
percent of streets in the city.
Key Characteristics of
the Pedestrian HIN
• Approximately 40 percent
of the pedestrian HIN has
a speed limit of 35 miles
per hour. Additionally, 32
percent of the HIN mileage
consists of roads with speed
limits of 40 or 45 miles per
hour. The remainder of the
HIN has speed limits of
25 or 30 miles per hour.
• Approximately 55 percent
of the pedestrian HIN
consists of roads classified
as arterial roads; the
remaining roads are collector
or residential streets.
• Approximately 47 percent
of the HIN has five or six
vehicular through lanes.
Another 24 percent of the
network has four vehicular
through lanes. The remainder
of the HIN consists of roads
with two or three lanes.
Table 8. High Injury Streets
Roadway Extents
Pedestrian High Injury Streets
Amador Valley Boulevard I-680 to Burton St.
Arnold Road I-580 to Dublin Blvd.
Bent Tree Drive Fallon Rd to Sugar Hill Terr.
Burton Street Amador Valley Blvd. to Tamarack Dr.
Dublin Boulevard Hansen Dr. to Grafton St.
Hacienda Drive I-580 to Dublin Blvd.
Regional Street Southern extents to Amador Valley Blvd.
Tamarack Drive Canterbury Ln. to Brighton Dr.
Tassajara Road Dublin Blvd. to Gleason Dr.
Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to Davona Dr.
Total Mileage: 8.4 miles
Bicycle High Injury Streets
Amador Valley Boulevard San Ramon Rd. to Penn Dr.
Dublin Boulevard Silvergate Dr. to Myrtle Dr.
Village Parkway Dublin Blvd. to City Limits (N)
Total Mileage: 6.7 miles
66 percent of bicycle collisions and 66
percent of pedestrian collisions occur
on just 10 percent of streets in the City.
66 City of Dublin 66 City of Dublin Draft 93
Key Characteristics of
the Bicycle HIN
• Approximately 78 percent
of the bicycle HIN mileage
consists of roads with speed
limits of 35 or 45 miles per
hour. The remainder of
the HIN has a speed limit
of 30 miles per hour.
• The bicycle HIN is nearly
evenly divided between
arterial and collector
roadways, with 54 and 46
percent, respectively.
• Approximately 88 percent of
the HIN has four or more
vehicular through lanes.
BICYCLE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
LTS METHODOLOGY
People on bikes are vulnerable
street users. The presence of
any one of several factors can
make people feel unsafe or
uncomfortable. Bicycle level of
3 This report uses an on-street LTS methodology developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) and documented in the Low-Stress Bicycling and
Network Connectivity report published in 2012. This methodology was further refined by Dr. Peter Furth of Northeastern University in 2017. See Mekuria,
Mazza C., “Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity” (2012), All Mineta Transportation Institute Publications., Book 4. http://scholarworks.sjsu.
edu/mti_all/4 and http://www.northeastern.edu/peter.furth/criteria-for-level-of-traffic-stress/, specifically “Version 2.0,” published in June 2017.
traffic stress (LTS) measures the
stress imposed on bicyclists by a
road segment or crossing.3 The
LTS methodology was used to
classify Dublin’s intersections
and on-street roadway and path
segments as one of four levels
of traffic stress. Classifications
range from LTS 1 to LTS 4, with
1 being the most comfortable/
least stressful and 4 being least
comfortable/most stressful.
ON-STREET ROADWAY
SEGMENT LTS
METHODOLOGY
The on-street roadway segment
LTS methodology provides
criteria for three bicycle facility
types: bike lanes alongside a
parking lane, bike lanes not
alongside a parking lane, and
mixed traffic (i.e., no bike lanes
present). On-street roadway
segment LTS analysis considers
several factors that affect bicyclist
comfort, including the number
of vehicle travel lanes, vehicle
volume, vehicle speed, presence
and width of bike lanes, presence
and width of parking lanes, and
presence and type of separation
between the bike lane and vehicle
travel lanes (see Figure 27).
Path LTS Methodology
The path LTS methodology
was created to account for the
various design factors that affect
quality of service and bicyclists’
stress on the Class IA paths and
Class IB sidepaths in Dublin.
The analysis considers segment
characteristics, including path
width, shoulder width and
separation, and wayfinding.
The analysis also considers
intersection/crossing elements,
such as traffic control, crossing
distance, geometric elements,
pavement markings, and signage.
Figure 27. Roadway Characteristics Used to Calculate Bicycle LTS
NUMBER
OF LANES
SPEED OF
TRAFFIC
NUMBER OF
VEHCILES
PRESENCE
& WIDTH OF
BIKE LANES
PRESENCE
& WIDTH OF
PARKING +
BIKE LANES
PRESENCE &
PHYSICAL BARRIER
BETWEEN BIKE
LANES & VEHICULAR
TRAFFIC
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 67 Draft 94
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,
68 City of Dublin 68 City of Dublin Draft 95
Figure 28. On Street and Path LTS Combined Map
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
F
A
L
L
C
R
EEK R D
C
RO
MWELL
AV
HAVE
NPL
BARNET BL
CROAKRD
FCI
6TH ST
ASPENST
DI
A
NA
LN
SEBILLE
RD
Q
U
A
R
T
Z
C
I
RANGE RD
SCHAEFERLN
1 2 T H S T
ALBROOK
DR
VALLEY VISTADR
DUBLIN BL
P
E
N
N
DRV
I
LLAGEPW
WILDWOODRD
CENTRAL PW
BENTTR
E
E
D
R
D
O
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
P O S I TANOPW
FALLON RD
TASSAJA R A R D
V I T T O RI A LP
I N SPIRAT
I
O
N
DR §¨¦680
§¨¦580
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\13 All LTS COmbined.mxd Date: 10/5/2022
Path LTS Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Shared Use Path (Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Sidepaths (Class IB)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Path Crossings
!LTS 1
!LTS 2
!LTS 3
!LTS 4
On-Street and Path LTSDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 13
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
F
A
L
L
C
R
EEK R D
C
RO
MWELL
AV
HAVE
NPL
BARNET BL
CROAKRD
FCI
6TH ST
ASPEN
ST
DI
A
NA
LN
SEBILLE
RD
Q
U
A
R
T
Z
C
I
RANGE RD
SCHAEFERLN
1 2 T H S T
ALBROOK
DR
VALLEY VISTADR
DUBLI N BL
P
E
N
N
DRV
I
L
LAGEPW
WILDWOODRD
CENTRAL PW
BENT
TR
E
E
D
R
D
O
U
G
H
E
R
T
Y
R
D
P O S ITANOPW
FALLON RD
TASSAJA R A R D
V I T T O RI A LP
I N SPIRAT
I
O
N
DR §¨¦680
§¨¦580
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\13 All LTS COmbined.mxd Date: 10/5/2022
Path LTS Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Shared Use Path (Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Sidepaths (Class IB)
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Path Crossings
!LTS 1
!LTS 2
!LTS 3
!LTS 4
On-Street and Path LTSDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 13
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 69 Draft 96
Figure 29. Low Stress Islands Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\LTS Analysis - low stress.mxd Date: 10/5/2022
On-Street LTS
1
2
Shared Use
Path (Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IB
Sidepath
LTS 1
LTS 2 Figure 8
Level of Traffic Stress - Low Stress FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
M A D D EN W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\LTS Analysis - low stress.mxd Date: 10/5/2022
On-Street LTS
1
2
Shared Use
Path (Class IA)
LTS 1
LTS 2
Class IB
Sidepath
LTS 1
LTS 2 Figure 8
Level of Traffic Stress - Low Stress FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
70 City of Dublin 70 City of Dublin Draft 97
collector and arterial roadways
are higher stress for bicyclists
unless they have appropriate
facilities. Only 37 percent of
collectors and 7 percent of
arterials in Dublin are low stress
(see Figure 30). Many businesses
and services are located on
or near collectors, and these
desintations can only be accessed
with some travel along or across
the collectors or arterials.
The goal of planning and
designing a low-stress bicycle
facility network is to enable
people of all ages and abilities
to feel safe and comfortable
riding bicycles throughout the
city. These LTS findings are
useful for determining and
locating appropriate low-stress
bicycle facilities in the city.
Dublin’s extensive network
of low-speed and low-volume
local neighborhood streets
already create a backbone for
a low-stress biking network;
however, these streets are isolated
pockets throughout the city and
remain separated by high-stress
arterial and collector streets.
By enhancing low-stress streets
and adding separated bicycle
facilities on targeted segments
of higher-speed and higher-
volume collectors and arterials,
Dublin can support a more
connected, low-stress bicycle
network that better serves key
destinations throughout the city.
PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIVITY
Sidewalk gaps and lack of safe
crossing opportunities can create
barriers to walking by requiring
people to go out of their way
to avoid the gap or by forcing
people to walk in the street and
increase their exposure to vehicle
traffic. The current barriers to
walking are mapped in Figure 31.
Figure 30. Miles of Bikeway Stress by Functional Classification
LOW STRESS
STREETS
HIGH STRESS
STREETS Arterial Streets
Collector Streets
Residential Streets
0 30 60 90 120 150
Miles
*Miles does not include paths.
“You can't use the sidewalk
without tripping on a jagged
piece of concrete.”
— community member
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 71 Draft 98
!èéëìí!èéëìí !èéëìí
./0""$
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
89:m89:m
89:m 89:m89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Pedestrian Crossing Barriers_updated for Plan.mxd Date: 7/29/2022
!èéëìí Major street barrier - signal with no major street
crossings
./0""$Major street barrier -- all-way stop, no marked
crossings
Major street barrier - side-street stop control
Not a barrier - full accessibility
89:m Not a barrier- RRFB
Roadways/Paths
Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street)
Paths
Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at
nodes
Sidewalk gap on major road
Pedestrian Demand Analysis FrameworkCrossing BarriersDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 7
Figure 31. Pedestrian Crossing Barriers Map
!èéëìí!èéëìí !èéëìí
./0""$
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
!èéëìí
89:m89:m
89:m 89:m89:m
89:m
89:m
89:m
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\Pedestrian Crossing Barriers_updated for Plan.mxd Date: 7/29/2022
!èéëìí Major street barrier - signal with no major street
crossings
./0""$Major street barrier -- all-way stop, no marked
crossings
Major street barrier - side-street stop control
Not a barrier - full accessibility
89:m Not a barrier- RRFB
Roadways/Paths
Major Street (crossing barriers exist along street)
Paths
Other streets - full crossing accessibility assumed at
nodes
Sidewalk gap on major road
Pedestrian Demand Analysis FrameworkCrossing BarriersDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Figure 7
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
72 City of Dublin 72 City of Dublin Draft 99
WALKING AND BIKING ACCESS
The ability of people to walk or
bike to key walking and biking
destinations was analyzed to
estimate existing access to key
destinations. This analysis was
used to identify barriers in the
existing network and highlight
locations where investments
would have the greatest potential
to close gaps in the network and
increase access and mode share.
The share of the Dublin
population that could be
expected to walk or bike to each
activity center was estimated
based on pedestrian and bicyclist
typology, distance to the
destination, and the quality of
available infrastructure. These
estimates of walk and bike access
were determined by four inputs:
• Demographic data: Dublin
residents were grouped
into walking and biking
typology groups based on
age. Groups exhibit different
propensities to walk or bike
and respond differently to
supportive infrastructure.
• Network distance to
destination: The analysis
assumed that people used
the shortest available route
to get to the destinations
• Barriers and impediments:
For walking, uncontrolled
crossings of major roads
were identified as blocking
or impeding an available
walking route. For biking,
a high LTS score (3 or
4) blocks or impedes
available routes. Barriers
block access and require a
different route; impediments
increase the perceived travel
distance, which decreases
the likelihood of walking
or biking. Populations
experience barriers and
impediments differently.
For example, uncontrolled
crossings of major roads
can create inaccessible
routes for young children
and older adults, but are
merely inconvenient for
teenagers and adults who
are more likely to be able
to cross. Pedestrian and
bicyclist typologies were
used to capture such
differences in experiences.
• Mode share data: Kittelson
used data from the National
Household Travel Survey
(NHTS), BART station
profile surveys, the American
Community Survey (ACS),
and Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) mode share surveys
to estimate the percentage of
people walking and biking
and the relationship between
mode share and destination
distance. The percentage of
the population estimated to
walk or bike varies based on
the perceived distance to the
destination. For example,
more people walk for a half-
mile trip than a one-mile trip.
The analysis was conducted
using a four-step process
illustrated in Figure 32.
WALKING AND
BIKING DEMAND
ANALYSIS PROCESS
The methodology analyzes
existing walking and biking
access to key destinations using
historical travel pattern and
count data, demographic data,
and infrastructure data. This
analysis did not consider other
factors that influence mode
choice decisions like access or
ability to ride a bicycle, income
and wealth, disability, and trip
chaining characteristics. This
analysis indicates the magnitude
of existing and potential
latent demand for walking
and biking based on a set of
informed assumptions about
the known relationship between
infrastructure and mode choice.
Existing demand is summarized
in this section, and the detailed
methodology and outcomes
are presented in appendix D.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 73 Draft 100
WALK ACCESS
• Schools: Cottonwood Creek School, Dougherty Elementary,
and Kolb Elementary exhibit the highest estimated walk shares
with around 36 percent of students living within walking
distance. Other elementary schools similarly exhibit high
estimated walk shares, due in part to the localized nature of their
student population compared to middle and high schools.
• Transit : Approximately 11 percent of Dublin residents are
within a 15-minute walk of either the Dublin/Pleasanton
or West Dublin BART stations. Over 40 percent of Dublin
residents live more than two miles from either BART station.
• Job Centers: The walk share estimates range from 4 to
9 percent for each job center. The limited walkability
of these sites is largely the result of the distance
between the employment and residential uses.
• Parks and Open Space: Access for each resident was determined
by the nearest City park. The analysis measured perceived
distance to any park for each resident rather than to a specific
park. Almost 25 percent of Dublin residents live within one-
eighth of a mile from a park, and 62 percent of residents live
within a one-mile perceived walking distance of a park.
Figure 32. Walking and Biking Demand Analysis Process
Categorize population into walking and biking typologies at Census block level
Assign and apportion population by typology to residential buildings
Calculate network distance to points of interest and percieved distance based on infrastructure factors and walking and biking typology
Using a distance/ mode split lookup table, estimate the mode share to points of interest.
Calibrate based on existing mode split and travel data
04 Aggregate Results
03 Network Analysis
02 population Assignment to Buildings
01 Demographic Analysis
Youth Walk Access to
Cottonwood Creek School
Walk Access
for Adults
to BART
Walk Access to BART for
Youth, Older Adults, and
People with Disabilities
Figure 33. Walk Access
Note: Full size graphics are
included in the appendix.
74 City of Dublin 74 City of Dublin Draft 101
BIKE ACCESS
• Schools: Access points to
Dublin High, Frederiksen
Elementary, Murray
Elementary, and Wells
Middle School are provided
on high-stress streets
(streets with LTS scores of
3 or 4). High-stress streets
create an access barrier and
reduce the propensity of
students to bike to school.
Amador Elementary and
Kolb Elementary exhibit
the highest estimated bike
share with 14 percent
of students having low-
stress bicycle access.
• Transit : Based on the
bicyclist typology and
available infrastructure,
approximately 12 percent
of Dublin residents have
a bike route matching
their stress tolerance and
can access one of the two
BART stations within an
approximately 15-minute
ride at a 10-mile per hour
pace. Less than one percent
of interested and concerned
bicyclists have a low-stress
bicycle route to BART.
• Job Centers: The share of
population with an available
and acceptable bicycle route
varies from 18 percent to
37 percent; the resulting
bike mode share estimates
range between 1 and 3
percent for each job center.
Limitations to bicycle access
at these sites is primarily the
result of being located on
major arterials, which are
typically high-stress streets.
• Parks and Open Space:
Access for each resident
was determined by the
nearest City park. The
analysis measured perceived
distance to any park for each
resident rather than to a
specific park. In Dublin, 42
percent of Dublin residents
have an acceptable bicycle
route to a park. Nearly 40
percent have no available
low-stress route, and the
remaining residents would
not choose to bike if a low-
stress route were available.
Bike access to BART for (left to right)
“interested but concerned”, “enthused and
confident”, and “strong and fearless” riders.
Illustrates the barriers to access for the
“interested and concerned” group, Dublin’s
largest population of bicyclists. Note: Full
size graphics are included in the appendix.
Figure 34. Bike Access to BART
Bike access to BART for
“interested but concerned”
Bike access to BART for
“enthused and confident”
Bike access to BART for
“strong and fearless”
BART BART access pointsaccess points
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 75 Draft 102
4
103
This chapter presents the recommended
citywide bicycle and pedestrian networks.
These networks represent the City’s vision
for walking and biking infrastructure in
Dublin, with new and improved facilities
to create safe and comfortable connections
to key destinations for users of all ages
and abilities. Public feedback and findings
from the existing conditions assessment,
high-injury network, bicycle level of traffic
stress, pedestrian connectivity, and demand
analysis contributed to developing the
recommended network shown in Figure 35.
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
The network was developed in three phases:
• Phase 1: Network Framework
• Phase 2: Network Evaluation
• Phase 3: Network Refinement
The following sections describe the
process and outputs of each phase.
PHASE 1: NETWORK PHASE 1: NETWORK
FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK
The active transportation network
framework includes a variety of sources of
data and information including community
feedback, related plans and projects,
existing conditions and needs analysis,
and evaluation of destinations and barriers
documented in the preceding chapters.
PHASE 2: NETWORK PHASE 2: NETWORK
EVALUATIONEVALUATION
The Plan’s vision includes creating a safe and
comfortable walking and biking network
that can be enjoyed by all. Ultimately,
the goal of the low-stress network is to
enable a wider cross section of the city’s
population to feel comfortable and safe
while making trips by bike and on foot.
With the vision of an all ages and abilities
active transportation system in mind, criteria
from the Federal Highway Administration’s
Bikeway Selection Guide were used to select
initial low-stress facility recommendations
for all streets in Dublin. These initial
recommendations will help the largest
segment of the population to feel comfortable
while walking and biking (see Figure 35).
Speed and volume roadway operational
characteristics were used to determine the
appropriate low-stress bicycle facility type.
The identified facility types should be
considered a minimum. In cases where
more space is available, the City will
increase the level of separation between
people driving and people biking.
4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE 4. RECOMMENDED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS& PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS
“Bike lanes and
separate pedestrian
path are great”
— community member
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 77 Draft 104
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 10/13/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: SeparatedFacility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Figure 35. Recommended Projects and Existing Facilities
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Project Map and existing facilities_07212022.mxd Date: 10/13/2022
Existing and Proposed Biking Facilities and Off-Street Walking FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetProposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Facility
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Schools
BART Stations
Parks
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Locations with identified proposed segment projects may also
include pedestrian improvements such as consistent sidewalks,
buffers with street trees and/or green stormwater infrastructure,
high-visibility crosswalks, accessible curb ramps, curb
extensions, reduced corner radii, and signal improvements.
Refer to Table 6 for detailed project descriptions.
78 City of Dublin 78 City of Dublin Draft 105
Figure 36. Preferred Bikeway Type
PHASE 3: NETWORK PHASE 3: NETWORK
REFINEMENTREFINEMENT
Once the low-stress facility
was determined, a high-
level feasibility assessment of
each corridor was conducted
to evaluate the potential
implications of installing the
low-stress facility. For example,
assessments considered whether
vehicle parking or vehicle travel
lanes would need to be removed
to install a low-stress facility. For
locations where implementation
of the all ages and abilities low-
stress facility would be more
challenging, potential parallel
routes were sought to provide
similar quality of access as the
constrained corridor. Constrained
or challenging corridors were
identified and recommended
for further evaluation as part
of a complete streets study.
The resulting project list was
refined to address feedback
from City staff, TAC, BPAC,
and community members.
23
BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE | 4. BIKEWAY SELECTION
Figure 9: Preferred Bikeway Type for Urban, Urban Core,
Suburban and Rural Town Contexts
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Separated Bike Lane
or Shared Use Path
Bike Lane
(Buffer Pref.)
Shared Lane
or Bike
Boulevard
10k
9k
8k
7k
6k
5k
4k
3k
2k
1k
0
1 Chart assumes operating speeds are similar to posted speeds. If they differ, use operating speed rather than posted speed.
2 Advisory bike lanes may be an option where traffic volume is <3K ADT.
3 See page 32 for a discussion of alternatives if the preferred bikeway type is not feasible.
Notes
Source: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration,
Bikeway Selection Guide, FHWA-SA-19-077, February 2019, https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf.
“Would love to see separated bike
lanes with street trees and widened
sidewalks.”
— community member
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 79 Draft 106
NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
COMPLETE STREET APPROACHCOMPLETE STREET APPROACH
A Complete Street approach was taken during the development
of infrastructure recommendations. Bicycle-, and pedestrian-
supportive investments are included in each corridor and
crossing project and transit-supportive elements will be
further considered along transit corridors as part of design
development. The following list illustrates the range of treatments
that may be applied to corridor and crossing projects:
• Advance yield markings
• Curb extensions
• Median refuges or crossing islands
• Centerline hardening4
• Intersection daylighting5
• Narrow vehicle travel lanes
• Traffic control modifications (e.g., stop sign, signal)
• Signal timing and phasing modifications
(e.g., restrict right turn on red)
4 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.
5 Intersection Daylighting. A strategy to increase visibility
at intersections by prohibiting parking (e.g., installing red
painted curb) at least 20 feet in advance of a crossing.
• Sidewalk widening
• Added or upgraded bike facility
The project recommendations are presented as a
package, with concurrent improvements to support
all three active and sustainable travel modes.
CORRIDOR PROJECTS CORRIDOR PROJECTS
Corridor projects were identified on high-stress roadways
that represented barriers to walking and biking.
Recommended corridor projects are summarized in Table 9 and
presented by location in Table 10.
Table 9. Project Type by Length
Project Type Miles
Shared Lane (Class III)12.4
Bike Lane (Class IIA)3.1
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)17.0
Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I or Class
IV)10.4
Complete Streets Study: Consider Improvements to Existing
Sidepaths (Class IB)4.9
Path (Class IA)7.9
Speed Reduction Evaluation 1.3
Total 56.8*
* Corridor projects are not double counted in this total if they represent
multiple project types, like speed reduction and buffered bike lanes.
80 City of Dublin 80 City of Dublin Draft 107
Table 10. Recommend Projects by Location
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
SEGMENT PROJECTS
S-1
Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways:
Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street,
Brighton Drive, Grafton Street, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe
Lane, and Brannigan Street
Study opportunities and create designs for traffic calming, striping, and signs to create
Class III bikeways
S-2 Gleason Drive Arnold Road Brannigan Street
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater
than 3’) for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a
future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
S-3 Hacienda Drive Southern City
Limits Gleason Drive
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater
than 3’) for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a
future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
S-4 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater
than 3’) for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a
future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
S-5 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Altamirano Ave
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater
than 3’) for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future and
evaluate opportunities to lower speed limit; if speeds are not lowered, as a future phase
provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
S-6 Grafton Street Kohnen Way Antone Way Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping
S-7
Tassajara Road,
Dougherty Road, and
Hacienda Drive
Southern City
Limits Dublin Boulveard Convert to a Class IIB bikeway by restriping travel lanes on Tassajara, Dougherty, and
Hacienda at the I-580 overcrossings
S-8 Tassajara Road North Dublin
Ranch Drive Rutherford Drive
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities; if possible, provide wide buffer (greater
than 3’) for potential to add vertical separation to convert to Class IV in the future; as a
future project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
S-9 Village Parkway Amador Valley
Boulevard
Northern City
Limits
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated
bicycle treatment
S-10
Various locations for Class III facilities/neighborhood bikeways:
Tamarack Drive, Davona Drive, St. Patrick Way, Lucania Street,
Brighton Drive, Antone Way, South Bridgepointe Lane, and
Brannigan Street
Implement the traffic calming, striping, and signs plans and designs created in project
S-1 to create Class III bikeways
S-11 Village Parkway Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley
Boulevard
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed
limit or provide a Class IV or Class I facility
S-12 Tassajara Road Palisades Drive North Dublin
Ranch Drive Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 81 Draft 108
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
S-13 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated
bicycle treatment
S-14 Amador Valley
Boulevard Stagecoach Road Dougherty Road
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated
bicycle treatment
S-15 Tassajara Road Gleason Drive Southern City
Limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing,
conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle
treatment. This project is anticipated to be implemented after the lower cost solution in
S-7.
S-16 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive San Ramon Road
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated
bicycle treatment
S-17 Dublin Boulevard Inspiration Drive Western extent
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated
bicycle treatment
S-18 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Southern city limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing,
conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate for this location, and implement the chosen separated bicycle
treatment.
S-19 Fallon Road Gleason Drive Tassajara Road
Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping
improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.
S-20 Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Eastern city limits Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension
S-21 Tassajara Road Palidsades Drive Northern City
Limits Work with Contra Costa County to design and implement Class IIB facilities
S-22 Dublin Boulevard San Ramon Road Dougherty Road
As recommended in the 2014 plan, upgrade to separated Class I facilities providing
sufficient space to reduce conflicts between people walking and biking; evaluate
opportunities to improve walkability by reducing obstructions; enhance median and
lighting along Dublin Boulevard under I-680; improve sidewalk connection across
commercial driveway and at bus stop (east of Regional Street); add pedestrian-scale
lighting under I-680 Overpass. Install barrier in median underneath overcrossing to
prohibit pedestrian crossings.
S-23 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-24 Dublin Boulevard Tassajara Road Fallon 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
82 City of Dublin 82 City of Dublin Draft 109
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
S-25 Central Parkway Tassajara Road Fallon Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit
or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-26
Various locations: N Dublin Ranch Drive, S Dublin Ranch Drive,
Hansen Drive, Starward Drive, San Sabana Road, Southwick
Drive, Hibernia Drive, Donohue Drive, Keegan Street, Peppertree
Road, Madden Way, Kohnen Way, York Drive, Maple Drive,
Inspiration Drive, and Vomac Road
Study opportunities, create designs, and implement traffic calming and signs to create
Class III Bikeways along the identified roadways
S-27 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-28 John Monego Court Dublin Boulevard Southern extent Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-29 Sierra Lane Sierra Court Dougherty Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-30 York Drive Amador Valley
Boulevard Poplar Way Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-31 Hibernia Drive Dublin Boulevard Summer Glen
Drive Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-32 Shannon Avenue Vomac Road Peppertree Road Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-33 Glynnis Rose Drive Central Parkway Dublin Boulevard Add a Class IIA Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-34 Central Parkway 500’ west of Croak
Road Croak Road Extend bike lanes and sidepaths along Central Parkway to Croak Road
S-35 Croak Road/Volterra
Drive Volterra Court Dublin Boulevard
If Croak Road is improved south of S Terracina Drive, add low stress bicycle
facilities based on anticipated speeds, volumes, and FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
recommendations
S-36 Central Parkway Iron Horse Parkway Tassajara Road Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate opportunities to lower speed
limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-37 Gleason Drive Fallon Road Brannigan Road Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit
or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-38 Amador Plaza Road Southern Extent Amador Valley
Boulevard
Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit
or provide Class IV or Class I facility
S-39 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-40 Arnold Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated
bicycle treatment
S-41 Dougherty Road Scarlett Drive Northern City
Limits
Improve wayfinding and signage for parallel path on east side; restripe to upgrade Class
IIA facilities to Class IIB facilities
S-42 Lockhart Street Central Parkway Gleason Drive
Add a Class IIB bike lane where no bike lane currently exists or improve adjacent
sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by evaluating needs
for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping improvements, intersection
improvements, and crossings, as needed.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 83 Draft 110
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
S-43 Stagecoach Road Amador Valley
Boulevard
Northern City
Limits Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-44 Sierra Ct Dublin Boulevard Northern extent Add a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-45 Amador Valley
Boulevard Village Parkway Stagecoach Road Upgrade from Class IIA to Class IIB Bicycle Lane
S-46 Bent Tree Drive Fallon Road East Sugar Hill
Terrace Restripe to a Class IIB Bicycle Lane where no bike lane currently exists
S-47 Hacienda Drive Gleason Road Dublin Boulevard As a follow up to S-3, evaluate opportunities to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV
or Class I facility
S-48 Dougherty Road Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated
bicycle treatment
S-49 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-50 San Ramon Road Dublin Boulevard Southern city limits
Upgrade pedestrian facility to improve comfort, especially across the I-580 overcrossing,
and conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I or Class IV facilities
are most appropriate and feasible for this location and implement the chosen separated
bicycle treatment
S-51 Dublin Boulevard Scarlett Drive Tassajara Road
Make improvements to adjacent sidepaths to provide two-way bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity by evaluating needs for and implementing wayfinding, signing, and striping
improvements, intersection improvements, and crossings, as needed.
S-52 Clark Ave/Village
Parkway Dublin Boulevard Dublin Boulevard Upgrade from Class IIB to Class IV Bicycle Lane
S-53 Martinelli Way and
Iron Horse Parkway
BART Station on
Iron Horse Parkway Hacienda Drive
Add Class I facilities on both sides of the road on Martinelli Way and support the Class I
facilities by adding signage, wayfinding, and crossing improvements at the intersections;
connect to the BART Station by providing continuous Class I or Class IIA facilities
along Iron Horse Parkway.
S-54 Golden Gate Drive Dublin Boulevard Amador Valley
Boulevard Add bike lanes with the implementation of the Golden Gate extension project
TRAIL PROJECTS
T-1 Iron Horse Regional
Trail
Implement Phase I and II of the Iron Horse Nature Park Master Plan to create park
space and trail access and connectivity improvements
T-2 Downtown Dublin Regional Street Amador Plaza Road Add trail connection from Regional Street to Amador Plaza Road
T-3 East of Tassajara
approximately 500 ft Dublin Boulevard Central Parkway With development, add Class I connection between Dublin Boulevard and Central
Parkway, just east of Tassajara Road
84 City of Dublin 84 City of Dublin Draft 111
Project ID Project Location From To Project Description
T-4 Dublin Creek Trail Amador Plaza Road San Ramon Road Add trail connection along Dublin Creek along the Zone 7 channel, to connect at San
Ramon Road
T-5 San Ramon Bike Path Shannon
Community Center
San Ramon Bike
Path Create connection to Shannon Community Center from the San Ramon Bike Path
T-6 Alamo Canal Trail
Dublin High
School and Village
Parkway
Alamo Canal
Trail between
Cedar Lane and
Ebensburg Lane
Add Class I facility along east side of Village to connect to the Alamo Canal Trail
T-7 Dublin Boulevard Amador Plaza Road Village Parkway As recommended in the 2014 plan, widen existing sidewalk and add signing and striping
treatments to create a shared use path on the south side of Dublin Boulevard.
T-8 Alamo Canal Trail/
Civic Plaza
Village Parkway/
Clark Avenue Alamo Canal Trail
Add a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the canal to create Class I connection between
Village Parkway/Clark Avenue at Alamo Canal Trail at the Dublin Public Safety
Complex Site
T-9 Dublin Boulevard
Extension Fallon Road Collier Canyon Park
(Livermore)
Create Class I connection along the future Dublin Boulevard Extension corridor from
Fallon Road to Collier Canyon Parkway (Livermore)
T-10 Brannigan Street Central Parkway Gleason Boulevard Through development, add Class I facility on the west side of Brannigan St. from Central
Parkway to Gleason Boulevard
T-11 Central Parkway
Emerald Glen
Park/Tassajara
Road
Brannigan Street Add Class I connection and street crossing enhancements on the north side of Central
Parkway from Emerald Glen Park/Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street
T-12 Dublin High School Iron Horse Trail Village Parkway Add Class I connection along the south side of the school grounds and Dublin Swin
Center from Iron Horse Trail to Village Parkway
T-13 Tassajara Creek Dublin Boulevard Pleasanton
Study options for gap closure to provide a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing and
shared use path from Tassajara Creek at Dublin Boulevard south over I-580 into
Pleasanton
T-14 Nielson Elementary
School Amarillo Road Mape Memorial
Park Path
Add Class I connection along the southern edge of Nielson Elementary to connect
Amarillo Road with the existing path along Mape Memorial Park to san Ramon Road
T-15 Altamirano Street Dublin BART
station Martinelli Way Add Class I connection along Altamirano Street between the Dublin BART station and
Martinelli Way
T-16 Croak Road Dublin Boulevard Positano Parkway Add Class I connections along Croak Road from Dublin Boulevard to Positano Parkway
T-17 Positano Parkway Croak Road La Strada Drive Add or improve trails along Positano Parkway to connect to the trail on Croak Road
T-18 Tassajara Creek Trail Tassajara Road
Trailhead
Wallis Ranch
development trails
Add Class I connection between the existing Tassajara Creek trailhead on Tassajara Road
and trails in the Wallis Ranch development
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 85 Draft 112
POINT PROJECTSPOINT PROJECTS
Crossing projects were identified at locations that represented
major barriers to walking and biking, including freeway crossings,
high-stress trail crossings, high-stress intersections, and locations
that experienced a high frequency or severity of collisions.
The recommended crossing projects are
presented in Table 11 and includes:
• Interchange projects to modernize and improve multimodal
access and traffic safety, lessening the barriers to walking and
biking that are posed by the I-580 and I-680 freeways.
• Crossing projects to improve connections to and along
existing Class I paths and trails or to provide mid-
block connections across existing roadways.
• Intersection projects to improve safety for people
walking and biking by modifying intersection signal
timing, geometry, signing, or striping.
Table 11 outlines the recommended crossing projects by location.
Table 11. Recommended Crossing Projects by Location
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
FREEWAY CROSSING PROJECTS
FC-1
San Ramon Road at
southbound I-580
westbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-2
San Ramon Road at
northbound I-580
westbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-3 San Ramon Road at I-580
westbound ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-4 St. Patrick Way at I-580 ramp
terminal and entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
FC-5 Dougherty Road at I-580
westbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-6 Dougherty Road at I-580
westbound ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-7 Dougherty Road at I-580
eastbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-8 Hacienda Drive at I-580
westbound ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-9 Hacienda Drive at I-580
eastbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-10 Hacienda Drive at I-580
westbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-11 Tassajara Road at I-580
westbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-12 Tassajara Road at I-580
westbound ramp terminal
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-13 Tassajara Road at I-580
eastbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-14
Fallon Road at I-580
westbound ramp terminal
and entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-15 Fallon Road at I-580
eastbound ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
FC-16 Village Parkway at I-680 NB
ramp entrance
Redesign interchange ramp terminal to
provide safe crossings
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROJECTS
C-1
Regional Street between
Dublin Boulevard and
Amador Valley Boulevard
Provide mid-block crossing (RRFB or
other actuated treatment)
C-2 Dublin Boulevard and Iron
Horse Trail
Provide pedestrian and bicycle
overcrossing to connect to Don Biddle
Community Park
C-3 Sierra Court cul-de-sac Add connection from Sierra Court to the
Alamo Canal/Iron Horse Trail network
86 City of Dublin 86 City of Dublin Draft 113
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
C-4 Tassajara Creek Trail and
Dublin Boulevard
Study the feasibility of improving the
crossing of Tassajara Creek Trail at Dublin
Boulevard by providing better connections
to the existing crossing at John Monego
Court. Provide wayfinding and signs to
direct people biking and walking between
the trail and the intersection.
C-5 Tassajara Creek Trail and
Tassajara Road
Improve connections to nearby crossings
or add crossing at Tassajara Road and
Tassajara Creek Trail (south of Rutherford
Drive) to provide access to the trailhead;
improve general access to and connectivity
from the trail to Tassajara Road and local
destinations
INTERSECTION PROJECTS
I-1 Central Parkway/Aspen
Street
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB
or other actuated treatment) to provide
more visibility of people walking/biking,
especially to school
I-2 Grafton Street/Antone Way
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB
or other actuated treatment) to provide
more visibility of people walking/biking,
especially to school
I-3 Amador Valley Boulevard/
Burton Street
Provide crossing improvements (RRFB
or other actuated treatment) to provide
more visibility of people walking/biking,
especially to school
I-4 Village Parkway/Amador
Valley Boulevard
As recommended in the 2014 plan,
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.
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-5 Village Parkway/Tamarack
Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-6 Village Parkway/Brighton
Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-7 Dublin Boulevard/Hibernia
Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-8 Dublin Boulevard/Arnold
Road
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
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.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 87 Draft 114
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-10 Dublin Boulevard/Village
Parkway
As recommended in the 2014 plan,
improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
Reduce width of SB right-turn lane and
reduce turning radii; remove NB right-turn
slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce curb
radii on NE and SE corners; straighten
crosswalks.
I-11 Grafton Street/Madden
Way/Kohnen Way
Provide higher visibility crossing
treatments, especially to support access to
the school
I-12 Antone Way/Bridgepointe
Lane
Provide higher visibility crossing
treatments, especially to support access to
the school
I-13 S Dublin Ranch Drive/
Woodshire Lane
Provide higher visibility crossing
treatments, especially to support access to
the school
I-14 Tassajara Road and Palisades
Drive
Add Class I signage, striping, and signal
changes to create visibility of people
walking and biking across the existing
Tassajara Road and Palisades Drive
signalized crossing
I-15 Martin Canyon Creek Trail
at Silvergate Drive
Provide Class I facilities on the west side
of Silvergate Drive and make intersection
changes at Hansen Drive and Bay Laurel
Street to provide comfortable connectivity
to the existing stop controlled intersection
at Hansen Drive
I-16 Gleason Drive/Grafton
Street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-17 Gleason Drive/Brannigan
street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-18 Central Parkway/Brannigan
street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-19 Dublin Boulevard/
Brannigan street
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-20 Central Parkway/Hibernia
Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-21 Central Parkway/Hacienda
Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
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.
88 City of Dublin 88 City of Dublin Draft 115
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-23 Tassajara Road/Gleason
Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-24 Fallon Road /Central
Parkway
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-25 Dublin Boulevard/Golden
Gate Drive
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-26 Fallon Road /Dublin
Boulevard
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
I-27 Dublin Boulevard/San
Ramon Road
As recommended in the 2014 plan, 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
Project
ID Project Location Project Description
I-28 San Ramon Road/Amador
Valley Boulevard
Consider adding leading pedestrian
intervals for all approaches; Consider
removing slip lanes on NW and NE
corners and add curb extensions on SW,
NW, and NE corners pending additional
engineering analysis; Consider striping
crosswalk on south leg pending additional
engineering analysis
I-29 Regional Street/Amador
Valley Boulevard
Consider modifying signal to include
leading pedestrian interval on EB and WB
approaches; Consider protected left-turn
phasing for NB and SB traffic.
I-30 Amador Valley Boulevard/
Amador Plaza
Mark crosswalk on east leg of intersection;
Widen median and add median tips as
feasible to provide 6’ pedestrian refuge;
Reduce curb radii
I-31 Dublin Boulevard/Amador
Plaza Road
Improve safety for people walking and
biking by implementing strategies like
protected intersection treatments, signing,
bike lane skip striping through the
intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian
intervals, or by separating bicyclists and
pedestrians from turning movements.
Reduce curb radii on all corners and install
directional curb ramps.
I-32 St. Patrick Way/Golden Gate
Drive
Install wayfinding signage to West Dublin
BART; install bulb-outs at all corners;
construct directional curb ramps
I-33 Amador Valley Boulevard/
Donohue Drive
As recommended in the 2014 plan, reduce
curb radii on all corners; widen medians
and add median tips; install directional
curb ramps on all corners
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 89 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 89 Draft 116
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONSOTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to this Plan’s specific recommendations for projects, there
are a number of steps that the City can undertake to improve walking
and biking in Dublin. The City should implement the program and
policy recommendations and the best practices described in the
engineering and design guide. Additionally, the City can continue
to implement projects from other previous or parallel planning
efforts, including those shown in Figure 37 and listed below:
• Dublin Downtown Streetscape Plan
• BART Station Access Projects
• Iron Horse Regional Trail Projects
• Dublin Safe Routes to School Projects
• Local Road Safety Plan Projects
INCREASED ACCESS TO DESTINATIONS
With implementation of the network recommendations, low-
stress biking and comfortable walking and rolling access to key
destinations would increase. Existing biking access to BART was
compared to biking access with the implementation of the project
recommendations. Bicycle access to BART with the existing
network and implementation of network recommendations is
summarized in Table 12 and shown in Figures 38 and 39.
As demonstrated by this analysis, network recommendations
would increase potential bicycle access to BART by almost
600 percent, providing 71 percent of Dublin residents with a
travel route along streets that match their stress tolerance.
Table 12. BART Access by Bicyclist Type
Bicyclist Type
Share of Bicyclist Type with Suitable
Access to BART
Existing
Network
Recommended
Network
No Way, No How 0%0%
Interested but Concerned 0%8%
Enthused and Confident 36%51%
Strong and Fearless 52%52%
Total Across all Biker Types 6%12%
Share of population with bicycle routes
available that are suitable to their Traffic
Stress tolerance
12%71%
90 City of Dublin 90 City of Dublin Draft 117
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\PastPlan Locations.mxd Date: 10/5/2022
Projects from Other PlansDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetPublic Schools
BART Stations
Class IA Multi-use Path
Class IA Multi-use Path -
Under Construction
Class IB Sidepath
Class IB Sidepath -
Under Construction
Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations
BART Station Access Project Locations
Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations
District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations
Safe Routes To School Project Locations
Figure 37. Recommended Projects from Other Plans Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
NO
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
Martin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e T
r
ail
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\PastPlan Locations.mxd Date: 10/5/2022
Projects from Other PlansDublin, California
[0 3,300 FeetPublic Schools
BART Stations
Class IA Multi-use Path
Class IA Multi-use Path -
Under Construction
Class IB Sidepath
Class IB Sidepath -
Under Construction
Iron Horse Regional Trail Project Locations
BART Station Access Project Locations
Downtown Dublin Plan Project Locations
District 4 Freeway Ramp Crossing Project Locations
Safe Routes To School Project Locations
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 91 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 91 Draft 118
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
k kkk
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
M A D D EN W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
SE
D
R
IN S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike ex polygons_interested_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022
Level of Traffic Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Existing NetworkDublin, California
[k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
k kkk
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike ex polygons_interested_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022
Level of Traffic Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Existing NetworkDublin, California
[k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
Figure 38. Existing Bike Access to BART Network
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
92 City of Dublin 92 City of Dublin Draft 119
k kkk
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D EN W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
ERGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
NO
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
IN S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n H
o
rs
e T
r
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike Recommended network polygons ibc_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022
Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Recommended NetworkDublin, California
[
Figure X
k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
k kkk
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N WY
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONADR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUBLI N BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RDMartin Canyon Creek Trail Alamo Canal Trail
Ir
o
n
H
o
rs
e Tr
ail
Dublin
Sports
Grounds
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty
Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 3\3.3.4 Latent Demand\2022 updates for final plan\24392_bart bike Recommended network polygons ibc_5-2022.mxd Date: 6/13/2022
Level of Traffic Stress Scores
On-Street LTS
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IA Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Class IB Segment
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
BART Biking Access - "Interested but Concerned"Recommended NetworkDublin, California
[
Figure X
k Bart access points
Access Distance
0 - 1/4 miles
1/4 - 1/2 miles
1/2 - 1 mile
1 - 1-1/2 miles
1-1/2 - 2 miles
2+ miles
Figure 39. Recommended Bike Access to BART Network
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Dublin residents with a bicycle route along streets that match their level of traffic stress tolerance would increase from 12 percent to 71 percent.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 93 Draft 120
5
121
This chapter presents the Plan’s recommended
programs, policies, and practices. It provides
recommended strategies and actions to support
walking and biking 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 D.
5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, 5. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICESPOLICIES, AND PRACTICES
Coordination and Collaboration
Emerging Technologies
Promotion and EncouragementFunding and Implementation
Supporting Infrastructure and Amenities
Operations and Maintenance
Data Collection Design
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 95 Draft 122
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
96 City of Dublin 96 City of Dublin Draft 123
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Establish protocols and procedures
for coordination of bicycle and
pedestrian projects with external
agency stakeholders. Utilize existing
regional channels, such as the Tri-
Valley Transportation Council, to
coordinate bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects that abut or
intersect jurisdictional boundaries.
Coordinate with the East Bay Regional
Park District (EBRPD) to provide
park access opportunities with local
trails and bike paths and promote green
transportation access and compliant
accessibility from public transit stops
to the regional parks and trails. This is
consistent with Public Access 5 and Public
Access 7 in the EBRPD Master Plan.
Designate a City staff member and
work with DUSD to designate a district
staff person who is responsible for
coordinating issues related to school
connectivity and Safe Routes to School.
Develop templates for access easements
and private property paths and coordinate
with developers to advance completion of
bicycle and pedestrian connections through
and along private property. While the Plan
includes specific recommendations for
Class I multi-use paths, there is a larger
need to highlight the opportunities that
new development provides to create active
transportation and greenway connections.
Future developments should identify how
trails can be implemented to complete
connections with existing neighborhoods
and across barriers. The City should
consider how easements can be developed
for the use of paths on private property as
part of the development review process.
Future development sites, especially along
Dublin Boulevard, should be evaluated to
include or contribute to paths that provide
better linkages along and across the street.
Partner with advocacy groups and
community-based organizations to
increase awareness of and build support
for pedestrian and bicycle projects.
Advocacy groups and community-based
organizations are trusted partners that can
highlight and elevate community voices.
These alliances promote stronger, more
meaningful collaborations that can be
crucial to advancing active transportation
projects and improving project outcomes.
Work with Dublin Police Services to
develop priorities and strategies to
promote traffic safety (e.g., focused
enforcement), particularly on high-
injury streets and near schools.
COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION
Establish effective coordination processes and partnerships to advance bicycle and pedestrian projects.
The City cannot reach its goals without the
support of other key agencies: those who own,
operate, and manage streets and trails, those
who provide transit service within the city,
and the agencies who fund plans, projects, and
programs that advance transportation goals and
objectives. The Alameda County Transportation
Commission, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Caltrans, East Bay Regional Parks
District (EBRPD), Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART), Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority (LAVTA), Alameda County Flood
Control District (ACFCD), United States
Army Parks Reserve Forces Training Area
(Camp Parks), Dublin Unified School District
(DUSD), and adjacent jurisdictions all play
critical roles in how streets and trails function.
Because the reach of this Plan covers all city
streets and trails regardless of ownership, the
jurisdictional roles and responsibilities of agency
partners at both the project and system-wide
planning level are important and invaluable.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 97 Draft 124
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Develop a data collection plan and
standard operating procedures for
collection of speed survey data, especially
along high-injury segments and other priority
locations, such as streets near schools.
Develop a data collection plan and
standard operating procedures for
collection of bicycle and pedestrian counts,
especially at activity centers and other priority
locations, such as streets near schools.
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.
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 written
summary 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
Current TIA Guidelines, addresses
safety and comfort of people walking
and biking, and includes the collection
of bicycle and pedestrian counts. The
safety analysis should be data-driven and
generally follow best practices outlined in
the FHWA’s Incorporating Data-Driven
Safety Analysis in Traffic Impact Analysis:
A How-To Guide. https://safety.fhwa.dot.
gov/rsdp/downloads/fhwasa19026.pdf.
DATA COLLECTION
Routinely collect trip and facility information to track trends, evaluate projects, and prioritize investments.
Data is crucial to make an evidence-
based case for active transportation.
Surveys, counts, and infrastructure
data provide essential information
about the built environment and user
habits and experiences. This data can
then help explain how projects affect
neighborhoods and work toward
achieving City and agency goals. By
collecting location-specific data related
to transportation behaviors, project
design elements can be analyzed for
their effectiveness and take advantage
of opportunities to refine a project’s
design. Data can also help communicate a
project’s effects to the public and decision
makers as well as track trends over time.
98 City of Dublin 98 City of Dublin Draft 125
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Adhere to recommendations in the Design
Guide as part of the Plan. Additionally,
the City should incorporate best practice
design guidance coinciding with Plan
updates (at a minimum) and make updates as
needed to reflect changes in transportation
options, local, State, and national best
practices, and new information as a result
of research and evaluation of available
data. Require new infrastructure projects
to adhere to the Design Guide established
by this Plan by implementing a design
review process that ensures compliance,
including for construction work zones. This
recommendation is consistent with Climate
Action Plan 2030 Measure SM-7: Develop
a Built Environment that Prioritizes Active
Mobility and supporting actions that improve
the pedestrian experience and create a built
environment that prioritizes active mobility.
Develop design standards for the
incorporation and use of pedestrian-scale
lighting on new and reconstructed public
streets, private streets, and within private
development projects. Lighting can enhance
the built environment and increase safety
and security of people walking and biking.
Pedestrian-oriented facility and intersection
lighting helps motorists to see people walking
and biking and avoid collisions. Pedestrian
walkways, crosswalks, transit stops, both sides
of wide streets, and streets in commercial
areas should be well lit with uniform
lighting levels to eliminate dark spots.
Establish a list of approved traffic
calming strategies and devices to be
routinely considered with restriping and
other roadway improvement projects.
Continue to include bicycle and pedestrian
considerations during review of new
development. Follow best practices for
site access and driveway design. example:
consolidate or eliminate existing curb cuts and
minimize new curb cuts; improve driveway
sightlines; and, require parking ramps to
include mirrors and messaging to prioritize
people walking and biking. Rather than
alerting people walking and biking that a car
is approaching, messaging should alert drivers
that a pedestrian or bicyclist is approaching.
Coordinate pedestrian and bicycle design
with the City’s Climate Action Plan and
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan.
DESIGN
Go beyond minimum design standards to incorporate safe walking and biking facilities into transportation projects.
Upcoming capital projects should
be 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).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 99 Draft 126
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Develop flexible policies to support
development of emerging technologies
and alternative modes of transportation,
including shared autonomous vehicles,
connected vehicles, and micromobility-share
services. Policy topics to consider include
general provisions, operations, equipment
and safety, parking and street design,
equity, communications and community
engagement, data, and metrics. Consistent
with Strategy 3—Sustainable Mobility and
Land Use in the Climate Action Plan 2030,
the City will work with micromobility
and last-mile transportation providers to
allow the use of scooters and bike share
programs in specific Dublin locations.
Monitor and evaluate the impact of
emerging transportation technologies,
such as bikeshare and scooter share, as
well as prominent trends including e-bikes,
on walking and biking in Dublin.
Formulate partnerships to advance
implementation of innovative,
ambitious, and scalable pilots, such as
micromobility services and mobility hubs.
Leverage, manage, monitor, and design
for new and emerging technologies
that increase visibility and comfort of
pedestrians and bicyclists. For example,
assess digital wayfinding tools that provide
real time information, explore emerging
technology such as adaptive lighting, and
test new technologies related to pedestrian
and bicycle detection and data collection.
Build a culture of continuous
improvement in knowledge, education,
and communications around technologies
that advance transportation options. Support
and create opportunities for staff training
and capacity building through payment of
professional memberships and participation
in conferences, webinars, and trainings.
Develop policy for use of e-bikes and
personal mobility devices on multi-
use paths and trails, and conduct public
safety, education, and outreach campaigns
to raise awareness of path etiquette.
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND INNOVATIONS
Leverage emerging transportation technologies to support travel by sustainable modes.
Today’s rapidly advancing technology
simultaneously provides opportunities
for transformational change and
introduces new challenges. Adapting
to such change requires anticipating
and keeping pace with technology and
being responsive to community needs.
The greatest challenge is to safely,
efficiently, and equitably transition
to a transportation future in which
everyone benefits from transformational
transportation technologies, including
ride-hailing, car-sharing, micromobility
options, mobile fare payment apps,
multimodal trip planning apps,
real-time travel information apps,
e-commerce apps, and grocery or meal
delivery services, just to name a few.
100 City of Dublin 100 City of Dublin Draft 127
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, provide
regular/routine communication with the
community, and proactively involve the
public in the decision-making process.
FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Increase investment in walking and biking infrastructure and supporting programs. Identify and allocate resources to implement Plan recommendations.
Walkable and bikeable communities
have considerable economic
benefits. In addition to capital
gains, investment in placemaking
and active transportation yield
intangible, societal benefits. However,
investments in active transportation
infrastructure and supporting
programs consistently fall short of
other transportation investments,
and there is a demonstrated need to
increase the funding and resources
allocated to walking and biking.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 101 Draft 128
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Utilize flexibility created through the
passage of Assembly Bill 43 to set safe
speed limits in key areas within the
city. The City should implement changes
authorized in AB 43 and utilize guidance
outlined in City Limits from the National
Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO) to reduce default speed limits
(1) on streets designated as safety corridors
or high injury corridors (streets that have
the highest number of serious injuries and
fatalities); (2) in designated slow zones; and
(3) on other designated corridors using
a safe speed study. Under the provision
that went into effect in January 2022, the
City should move to lower speed limits
by 5 miles per hour (from 25 mph to 20
mph or from 30 mph to 25 mph) in key
business activity districts, streets where
at least half of the property uses are
dining or retail. Under the provision that
goes into effect in June 2024, the City
should reduce speeds by 5 mph on streets
designated as safety corridors according
to a definition that will be established by
Caltrans’s roadway standards manual.
Develop policy and guidance for
modifications to traffic signal operations,
including implementing leading pedestrian
intervals, providing automatic recall,
installing accessible pedestrian signals,
implementing no right turn on red, and
implementing protected-only left-turn phases.
Establish, update, and implement
maintenance policies and standards
for bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
City right of way. Review the existing
Class I Facility Maintenance Plan (2015),
and develop a standard maintenance plan
for bicycle facilities of all types in the city
that accounts for factors such as signing
and striping maintenance and sweeping
protocols. Continue to collaborate with
East Bay Regional Parks District to
coordinate maintenance efforts for off-
street facilities in the city. When deciding
which facilities to maintain first, prioritize
facilities with the highest ridership and those
that provide access to schools, business
districts, major employers, major transit
centers, and other important destinations.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Prioritize operations and maintenance of walking and biking infrastructure to make walking and biking safe and attractive options.
When people decide to walk and bike,
the condition of sidewalks, crosswalks,
signals, bike lanes, bikeways, and
trails are key factors. Inadequately
maintained sidewalks and bicycle
facilities create hazardous conditions
and disrupt network connectivity.
Facility quality also influences travel
choice and behavior. Implementation of
pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly signal
timing operations and maintaining good
sidewalk, street, and trail conditions
are critical components of an accessible
bicycle and pedestrian network.
102 City of Dublin 102 City of Dublin Draft 129
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Continue to create a digital and
printed citywide pedestrian and
bike network and amenities map.
Coordinate with local organizations to
create programs and events that support
active transportation and enhance the
built environment. Sample topics include
open streets, slow streets, temporary
street closures, and pavement to parks,
parklets, and plazas. This recommendation
is consistent with the Downtown Dublin
Streetscape Plan Guideline 3.2.6 Parklets
and Guideline 3.2.7 Street Closures.
Continue to partner with Alameda
CTC and DUSD to deliver Safe Routes
to School assessments and programs.
Encourage all Dublin schools to participate.
Consider steps to becoming a Bicycle
Friendly Community through the
League of American Bicyclists. The
program provides a roadmap to improving
conditions for bicycling and guidance
to help make a community’s vision for a
better, bikeable community a reality. A
Bicycle Friendly Community welcomes
bicyclists by providing safe accommodations
for bicycling and encouraging people to
bike for transportation and recreation.
Encourage businesses to be recognized
as Bicycle Friendly Businesses through the
League of American Bicyclists. The program
recognizes employers for their efforts to
encourage a more welcoming atmosphere
for bicycling employees, customers, and the
community. Interested business can apply
here: https://www.bikeleague.org/business.
Develop and implement a citywide
transportation demand management
(TDM) program to support additional
transportation options, incentives to choose
sustainable modes, and supplemental
infrastructure improvements identified
in this Plan. The TDM program should
include guidance for staff on requirements
for new development, including bicycle
parking and policy strategies (such
as density bonus for vehicle parking
reductions) and vehicle parking strategies
(such as shared and priced parking).
This recommendation is consistent with
(1) Measure 3: Develop a Transportation
Demand Management Plan in Strategy 3:
Sustainable Mobility and Land Use Measure
and (2) Measure ML-2: Reduce Municipal
Employee Commute GHG Emissions; and
(3) the Climate Action Plan 2030. The TDM
Plan will identify strategies to help facilitate
the move from single-occupancy vehicles
to less carbon intensive transportation
modes, like walking and biking.
PROMOTION AND ENCOURAGEMENT
Encourage and promote increased use of sustainable travel modes, especially walking and biking.
Active travel, including walking and
biking, benefits physical and mental
health as well as the environment. To
promote active travel, the City must
provide convenient, safe, and connected
walking and biking infrastructure. But
implementing programs and campaigns
that provide targeted information or
incentives can also motivate people to
walk or bike. The recommendations focus
on non-infrastructure or programmatic
elements that emphasize active travel
as a convenient and healthy option.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 103 Draft 130
STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS
Require short-term and long-term
parking that accommodates various
types of bicycles, skateboards, and
scooters. Install new short- and long-term
parking to meet the recommendations
and requirements outlined in the Design
Guide. For example, provide electric outlet
near long-term parking to accommodate
electric bicycles and provide bicycle
parking spaces that allow for a footprint
of 3 feet by 10 feet in a horizontal rack.
Consider adding or improving
bicycle parking and providing other
bicycle amenities, such as lighting,
maintenance stations, shaded benches,
and drinking fountains in City parks, at
trailheads, community centers, transit
stops, BART stations, Park and Ride
lots, and in other high travel areas.
Develop a bicycle and pedestrian
wayfinding plan and install wayfinding
throughout the city. The plan should refer
to and coordinate with recommendations
identified in the Public Art Program and
Downtown Dublin Streetscape Master
Plan. This recommendation is consistent
with the Downtown Dublin Streetscape
Plan Guideline 4.2.2 Wayfinding.
SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITIES
Provide supportive infrastructure and amenities to make walking and biking convenient and comfortable.
On any given street, careful and thoughtful
design of the built environment affects
accessibility, legibility, a sense of place,
and security. The features that give a
street character are often found in the
frontage or amenity zones; key elements
include supporting infrastructure like
lighting, wayfinding, bicycle parking,
benches, green stormwater infrastructure,
transit stops, and mobility hubs.
104 City of Dublin 104 City of Dublin Draft 131
6
132
This Plan’s infrastructure and
programmatic recommendations
provide strategies and actions
to help Dublin become a
more walkable and bikeable
city. Implementation of these
recommendations will occur over
time, depending on available
resources and funding sources.
This chapter provides an
overview and outcomes of the
prioritization process, estimated
project costs, and a matrix of
applicable funding sources to
advance implementation.
PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
The project recommendations
include a total of 56.8 miles
across 54 segment projects; 18
trail projects; 16 freeway crossing
6 Peter A. Lagerwey, et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook,
NCHRP Report 803, Project No. 07-17 (2015), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf.
projects; 5 pedestrian crossing
projects; and 33 intersection
projects. Prioritizing these
projects is essential to optimize
use of staff time and resources.
The National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 803:
ActiveTrans Priority Tool
(APT) prioritization process
was used to identify priority
locations for pedestrian and
bicycle projects that improve
conditions for people walking,
biking, and rolling in Dublin.6
The prioritization process and
outcomes are summarized in this
section and additional discussion
is provided in appendix F.
The APT methodology uses
a standard set of terms and
definitions to describe the
different steps in the process.
The following definitions
apply within the APT:
• Factors are categories used
to express community or
agency values considered in
the prioritization process and
contain groups of variables
with similar characteristics.
• Weights are the numbers
used to indicate the relative
importance of different
factors based on community
or agency values.
• Variables are characteristics
of roadways, households,
neighborhood areas, and
other features that can be
measured, organized under
each factor. The terms
variables and evaluation criteria
may be used interchangeably.
• Scaling is the process
of making two variables
comparable to one another
(e.g., number of collisions
versus population density).
The prioritization factors and
evaluation criteria (or variables)
shown in Table 13 align with
the Plan’s goals, and they were
developed in collaboration
with the City, the Technical
Advisory Committee and the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee. Variables were given
equal weight in the analysis.
6. IMPLEMENTATION 6. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGYSTRATEGY
106 City of Dublin Draft 133
Table 13. Prioritization Factors and Variables
FACTOR VARIABLE NOTES PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE
Safety High-injury
corridors
Prioritize locations identified along the bicycle and pedestrian high-
injury networks. This variable aligns with the goal enhance safety.
Social Equity
Youth
and senior
population
Prioritizes locations with high scores indicating where investment
would promote positive outcomes for vulnerable road users (youth
and senior populations). This variable aligns with the goals improve
connectivity and enhance accessibility.
Connectivity
Demand
analysis
Prioritize locations with high potential for walking and biking to
unlock latent demand. This variable aligns with the goal improve
connectivity.
Proximity to
schools
Prioritize locations within one mile of schools to provide increased
opportunities to bike and walk to school. This variable aligns with the
goal improve connectivity.
Quality of Service
Bicycle level of
traffic stress
Prioritize locations based on the presence of existing high-stress riding
facilities. This variable aligns with the goal increase walking and biking.
Sidewalk gaps Prioritize locations with sidewalk gaps that may create barriers for
people walking. This variable aligns with the goal improve connectivity.
Major Barriers Freeway
crossings
Prioritize improving safety and quality of service for ramp terminal
intersection and freeway crossings. This variable aligns with the goal
improve connectivity.
Consistency with Past
Planning
Previously
identified projects
Prioritize locations of pedestrian and bicycle projects that were identified
in the previous plan. This variable aligns with the goal prioritize investments.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 107 Draft 134
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
After applying the evaluation
criteria and conducting the
prioritization analysis, three tiers
of recommendations emerged.
The infrastructure projects
were divided into three tiers,
representing the following:
• Tier I: High priority projects
with likely funding or
implementation sources
• Tier II: High priority
projects with no identified
funding source
• Tier III: Lower priority
investments that support
a full low-stress walking,
biking, and rolling
network across the City
TIER I PROJECTS
Nine segment projects, one trail
projects, two crossing project,
and three intersection projects
were identified as Tier I projects.
The Tier I projects include a
complete streets study, striping
and signage for high-stress streets
scheduled for repaving over
the next three years, four new
actuated crossings near schools,
and a bicycle and pedestrian
overcrossing bridge. Tier I
projects, those most likely to be
implemented in the next several
years, are shown in Figure 40.
TIER II PROJECTS
Ten segment projects, one
crossing project, and seven
intersection projects were
identified as Tier II projects. Tier
II projects were identified using
the same prioritization criteria
and framework as Tier I projects,
with input from City staff and
through public engagement.
Tier II projects are high priority
projects that may require
additional feasibility analysis
and concept design development
prior to implementation. The list
of Tier II projects is presented in
Table 15 and the comprehensive
prioritized list of projects is
presented in Appendix C.
TIER III PROJECTS
Tier III projects include the
remaining recommendations
that increase the safety and
comfort of people walking,
biking, and rolling in the city.
While Tier III projects are not
listed in the implementation
plan projects in Table 15, they
can be found in the full list of
projects provided in Table 6 in
the Recommended Bicycle and
Pedestrian Networks section.
108 City of Dublin Draft 135
CITYWIDE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
A total of 41 strategies and
actions were recommended in one
of eight policy and program topic
areas. These recommendations
will guide the City’s bicycle
and pedestrian programs and
activities and complement the
infrastructure recommendations.
COST ESTIMATES
The total cost of all the
projects identified in this Plan
is between $103 and $214
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
$103 million to implement the
Plan. If reconstructing the curb
to implement each segment
project, the Plan is expected
to cost about $214 million.
Planning-level cost estimates
vary depending on project
context, which includes type
of facility, existing conditions,
right of way acquisition, and
desired functional and aesthetic
improvements like landscaping
or hardscaping. Project costs
were adjusted to include variable
costs for engineering, design
support, and contingency.
Cost estimates were calculated
using a combination of inputs
from the City and the Federal
Highway Administration
(FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle
Safety Guide. Moving forward,
the City will need to develop
detailed estimates during the
preliminary engineering stage to
calculate more accurate project
costs. These more-detailed
estimates are important due to
the varying costs of obtaining
right of way, construction,
drainage, and grading. Right of
way should also be considered
in preliminary engineering, as
the listed cost estimates do not
include right of way costs. Many
projects can be implemented
without purchasing additional
right of way by reallocating space
within the existing right of way.
Cost estimates for support
programs are not provided, as
the costs to implement these
programs can vary greatly.
Prior to implementing support
programs, the City should outline
the necessary element of each
program and establish a cost.
For example, to understand
what an open streets or slow
streets program would need, the
City could consider questions
such as how often streets would
need to close and how much
those closures would cost.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 109 Draft 136
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) 3.1 miles $4,177,000 $17,757,000
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) 17.0 miles $3,239,000 $39,421,000
Complete Streets Study: Separated Facility (Class I
or Class IV) 10.4 miles $13,440,000 $52,048,000
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 $ 103,335,000 $ 214,168,000
110 City of Dublin Draft 137
Table 15. Implementation Plan List: Tier I and Tier II Projects
PROJECT
ID TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION TO FROM LOW COST*HIGH COST**
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 $25,000
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; as a future
project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
Gleason Drive Arnold
Road
Brannigan
Street $239,000 $176,000
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; as a future
project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
Hacienda Drive Southern
City Limits
Gleason
Drive $106,000 $176,000
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; as a future
project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
Dublin Boulevard Scarlett
Drive
Tassajara
Road $229,000 $176,000
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; if speeds are not lowered, as
a future phase provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
Arnold Road Dublin
Boulevard
Altamirano
Ave $53,000 $176,000
S-6 Tier I Convert to a Class IIB bikeway through restriping Grafton Street Kohnen
Way Antone Way $42,000 $176,000
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 $176,000
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; as a future
project phase, provide a separated facility (Class I or Class IV)
Tassajara Road
North
Dublin
Ranch
Drive
Rutherford
Drive $138,000 $5,334,000
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 $5,601,000
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 $135,000
S-11 Tier II
Restripe to add buffer to the Class II facilities and evaluate
opportunities to lower speed limit or provide a Class IV or Class
I facility
Village Parkway Dublin
Boulevard
Amador
Valley
Boulevard
$91,000 $5,334,000
* Restriping ** Full Reconstruction
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 111 Draft 138
PROJECT
ID TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION TO FROM LOW COST*HIGH COST**
S-12 Tier II Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limit along this corridor Tassajara Road Palisades
Drive
North
Dublin
Ranch Drive
$18,000 $25,000
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 $5,601,000
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 $5,601,000
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 $5,601,000
S-16 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I
or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this
location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Dublin Boulevard Inspiration
Drive
San Ramon
Road $1,212,000 $5,601,000
S-17 Tier II
Conduct a complete streets study to determine whether Class I
or Class IV facilities are most appropriate and feasible for this
location and implement the chosen separated bicycle treatment
Dublin Boulevard Inspiration
Drive
Western
extent $1,653,000 $5,601,000
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 $5,601,000
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 $999,000
S-20 Tier II Add buffered bike lanes along the Dublin Boulevard Extension Dublin Boulevard Tassajara
Road
Eastern city
limits $259,000 $5,466,000
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 $5,466,000
S-22 Tier II
As recommended in the 2014 plan, 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.
Dublin Boulevard San Ramon
Road
Dougherty
Road $4,956,000 $3,304,000
* Restriping ** Full Reconstruction
112 City of Dublin Draft 139
PROJECT
ID TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION TO FROM LOW COST*HIGH COST**
S-23 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 Dougherty
Road
Scarlett
Drive $497,000 $4,375,000
S-24 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 Tassajara
Road Fallon Road $1,322,000 $5,740,000
S-25 Tier II Upgrade to a Class IIB Bicycle lane and evaluate opportunities
to lower the speed limit or provide Class IV or Class I facility Central Parkway Tassajara
Road Fallon Road $227,000 $4,558,000
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
Iron Horse Regional Trail 0 0 $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 $765,000 $765,000
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 $621,000 $621,000
C-1 Tier I Provide mid-block crossing (RRFB or other actuated treatment)Regional Street between Dublin Boulevard
and Amador Valley Boulevard $320,000 $320,000
C-2 Tier I Provide pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing to connect to Don
Biddle Community Park Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Trail $6,318,000 $6,318,000
C-3 Tier II Add connection from Sierra Court to the Alamo Canal/Iron
Horse Trail network Sierra Court cul-de-sac $2,132,000 $2,132,000
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 $320,000.00 $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 $320,000.00 $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 $320,000.00 $320,000
I-4 Tier II
As recommended in the 2014 plan, improve safety for people
walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected
intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through
the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by
separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.
Remove slip lanes; reduce curb radii on all corners; install curb
extensions on the SE and SW corners; install directional curb
ramps.
Village Parkway/Amador Valley Boulevard $123,000.00 $972,000
* Restriping ** Full Reconstruction
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 113 Draft 140
PROJECT
ID TIER PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION TO FROM LOW COST*HIGH COST**
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 $123,000.00 $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 $123,000.00 $972,000
I-7 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike
lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading
pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians
from turning movements.
Dublin Boulevard/Hibernia Drive $123,000.00 $972,000
I-8 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike
lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading
pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians
from turning movements.
Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road $123,000.00 $972,000
I-9 Tier II
Improve safety for people walking and biking by implementing
strategies like protected intersection treatments, signing, bike
lane skip striping through the intersection, bike boxes, leading
pedestrian intervals, or by separating bicyclists and pedestrians
from turning movements.
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive $123,000.00 $972,000
I-10 Tier II
As recommended in the 2014 plan, improve safety for people
walking and biking by implementing strategies like protected
intersection treatments, signing, bike lane skip striping through
the intersection, bike boxes, leading pedestrian intervals, or by
separating bicyclists and pedestrians from turning movements.
Reduce width of SB right-turn lane and reduce turning radii;
remove NB right-turn slip lane and reduce curb radii; reduce
curb radii on NE and SE corners; straighten crosswalks.
Dublin Boulevard/Village Parkway $123,000.00 $972,000
Total Tier I $21,085,000 $27,589,000
Total Tier II and Tier III $82,250,000 $186,580,000
Total (all tiers)$103,335,000 $ 214,169,00
* Restriping ** Full Reconstruction
114 City of Dublin Draft 141
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
RD
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN BL
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A LL E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLETT D
R
P A LI S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
RD
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\TierI Projects_05202022.mxd Date: 7/19/2022
Tier I ProjectsDublin, California
[0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
Parks
Schools
BART Stations
Figure 40. Tier I Projects Map
§¨¦680
§¨¦580
B R I GHTONDR
V
O
M
A
C
R
D
S
T
A
G
E
C
O
A
C
H
R
D
M A D D E N W Y
T
A
MARACKDR
D
A
V
ONA DR
S
I
L
V
E
RGATEDR
B
A
N
D
O
N
D
R
SIERR A L N
H
A
N
S
E
N
D
R
ARNOLD RD
CENTRAL PW
GLEASON DR
LOCKHART
ST
YORK D R
KEEGAN
ST
N D U B L I N RAN
C
H
DR
DUB LIN B L
DOUGHERTY RD
POSITANO P W
V
IL
L
A
G
E
P
W
D
O
N
O
HUE
DR
S
A
N
R
A
M
O
N
R
D
SIERRA CT
FALLON RD
TASSAJARA RD
NORTHSIDE DR
HACIENDA DRAMADOR V A L L E Y B L
BRANNIGAN ST
SCHAEFER RANCH RD
COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST
CROMWELL
AV
BARNET BL
CROAK RD
RANGERD
CREEKSIDEDR
HORIZON PW
SCARLETT CT
PERSI
M
MONDR
A
L
L
E
Y
6TH ST
7TH ST
SC
A
RLET
T D
R
P A L I S A D E S DR
TOWER RD
SYRAH
DR
HILLR
O
S
E
D
R
I N S P I R ATIONCI
ALBROOK
DR
EAGLE R D
BRODER BL
I N S PIRATI
O
N
DR
CREEKVIEW
DR
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
R
D
DUBLIN BLSTERLING RD
Civic Plaza
Emerald
Glen Park
Dougherty Hills
Open Space
Fallon
Sports
Park
Don Biddle
Park
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\TierI Projects_05202022.mxd Date: 5/20/2022
Tier I ProjectsDublin, California
[0 3,300 Feet
Proposed Point Project
!Spot Improvement
Proposed Segment Project
!!!Shared Lane (Class III)
!!!Bike Lane (Class IIA)
!!!Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Separated
Facility (Class I or Class IV)
!!!Complete Streets Study: Consider
Improvements to Existing Sidepaths
Class I Path Project
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Pleasanton Livermore
Alameda
County
San Ramon
Contra
Costa
County
Dublin
Elem
Murray
Elem
Dublin
High
Frederiksen
Elem
Wells Middle James
Dougherty
Elem
Eleanor Murry
Fallon Midd
John Green
Elem
Kolb Elem
Cottonwood
Creek Elem
Amador Elem
Future High
School
H:\24\24392 - Dublin ATP\gis\Task 4\Land Use and Key Destinations Map.mxd Date: 10/7/2022
Dublin Crossing
Downtown Dublin
Employment Centers
Parks
Public Schools
BART Stations
Shared Lane (Class III)
Bike Lane (Class IIA)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Existing Class IA Shared Use Path
Existing Class IB Sidepath Land Uses, Key Destinations, and Existing FacilitiesDublin, California
[0 1 Mile
Parks Reserve Forces Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area Training Area
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 115 Draft 142
FUNDING SOURCES
Active transportation projects in Dublin have typically been funded
through a combination of ballot measure monies (e.g., Alameda County
Measure B and BB), the City General Fund, developer-funded projects,
and State, regional, and federal grants. There are many funding sources
and programs available at the federal, state, regional, countywide, and
local levels for pedestrian and bicycle projects. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) alone identifies almost 20 different sources across
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) funding programs
that can be used to support active transportation improvements such as
bike racks for transit vehicles and new sidewalks and separated bike lanes.
On November 15, 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL), also called the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA). The law authorizes $1.2 trillion for federal investments in
transportation, broadband access, clean water, and electric grid renewal.
The USDOT will distribute funds over five years through more than two
dozen targeted competitive grant programs for initiatives like better roads
and bridges, investments in public transit, and resilient infrastructure.
This program and other relevant funds are summarized in Table 16 along
with current funding levels, applicable project type, and limitations.
Table 16. Funding Sources
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
LOCAL
General Fund Capital improvements without other
funding sources regularly available.
Relevant projects receiving funding
through the General Fund as
identified in the 2022-2027 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) include
Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements, Downtown Dublin
Street Grid Network, and San Ramon
Trail Lighting.
Approximately $700,000
was allocated to projects
that included bicycle and
pedestrian enhancements
in 2021-2022 and a total of
$342,000 has been allocated
over the 2022-2027 period,
per the CIP.
Impact Fees
& Developer
Mitigation
Capital improvements, including
streetscape enhancements, that
would improve conditions for people
walking and biking.
Current impact fees include Eastern
Dublin Transportation Impact Fee,
Western Dublin Transportation
Impact Fee, Dublin Crossing
Transportation Fee, Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee, and
Dublin Crossing Fund.
Impact fees contributed
$2,400,000 in 2021-2022
and are anticipated to
fund almost $1,000,000
of pedestrian and bicycle-
related projects 2022-2027.
The St Patrick Way
Extension is a developer-
funded project (about
$3,750,000) that includes
pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
116 City of Dublin Draft 143
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
COUNTYWIDE AND REGIONAL
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.
7 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-2
8 https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-obag-3
9 https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/transit-21st-century/funding-sales-tax-and-0.
10 https://www.dublin.ca.gov/1955/Pavement-Management-Program
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
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
regionwide7
$750 million in OBAG 3 for
projects from 2023-26 with
additional funds anticipated
through the 2021 Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.8
Transportation
Development
Act (TDA)
Article 39
Design and construction of walkways,
bike paths, bike lanes, and safety
education programs.
Project must be in an adopted plan.
All projects must be reviewed by
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (BPAC).
$3 million annually every
2–3 years regionwide
STATEWIDE
Statewide Gas
Tax Revenue
Construction, engineering, and
maintenance.
Ineligible expenses include decorative
lighting, transit facilities, park
features, and new utilities.
$2 million allocated in
2021-22 and $3.7 million
allocated in 2022-27.
Road
Maintenance
and
Rehabilitation
Account
(RMRA)
Road maintenance and rehabilitation,
safety improvements, railroad grade
separations, traffic control devices,
and complete streets components.
If it has a pavement condition index
(PCI) of 80 or more, a city may
spend its RMRA funds on other
transportation priorities. Dublin has a
PCI greater than 80.10
1.8 million in 2021-22 and
$5.6 million in 2022-27 for
Annual Street Resurfacing
and Iron Horse Bridge at
Dublin Boulevard
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 117 Draft 144
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
Active
Transportation
Program
(ATP)11
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
State Highway
Operation and
Protection
Program
(SHOPP)12
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
11 https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program
12 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/SHOPP/2018_shopp/2018-shopp-adopted-by-ctc.pdf
13 https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/stip/2022-stip/2022-adopted-stip-32522.pdf
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
State
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
County13
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
Safe Streets &
Roads for All
(SS4A)
Comprehensive safety action plan
development and implementation.
$6 billion nationally
PROTECT
Resilience
Grants
Transportation resilience planning
and project implementation.
$1.4 billion nationally
Reconnecting
Communities
Removing or retrofitting highways to
restore community connectivity.
$1 billion nationally
118 City of Dublin Draft 145
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
SMART
Grants
Demonstrating projects utilizing
innovative technology to improve
transportation efficiency and safety.
$1 billion nationally
National
Infrastructure
Project
Assistance
grants
program
(Mega)
Highway or bridge project, including
grade separation or elimination
project. Supports large, complex
projects that are difficult to fund
through other means and that are
likely to generate national or regional
economic, mobility, or safety benefits.
Minimum grant size of $100 million.
It is possible to propose a program, or
network, of projects that address same
transportation challenge.
$5 billion nationally
(2022–2026)
Nationally
Significant
Multimodal
Freight and
Highways
Projects grants
program
(INFRA)
Multimodal freight and highway
projects of national or regional
significance to improve the safety,
efficiency, and reliability of the
movement of freight and people in
and across rural and urban areas.
Minimum project size of $100
million. A network of projects can
be proposed that address same
transportation problem.
$7.25 billion nationally (FY
2022–2026)
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
14 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.cfm.
FUND NAME PROJECT ELIGIBILITY & LIMITATIONS FUNDING LEVELS
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.14
$13.835 billion estimated
nationally in 2022;
$1.2 billion of which is
apportioned to California
Divided into population-
based and statewide funds.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 119 Draft 146
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Setting performance measures
helps track progress toward goals
and document the results of
investments in biking, walking, and
rolling. Performance measures and
monitoring also helps to identify
opportunities for improvement.
Table 17 presents the performance
measures and desired trends that have
been established to track progress
toward achieving this Plan’s goals.
Table 17. Goals and Performance Measures
GOAL PERFORMANCE MEASURE AND DESIRED TREND
Enhance Safety
• Decrease vehicle travel speed measured at specific locations
• Decrease number of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Reduce severity of pedestrian and bicycle collisions
• Increase users’ perception of safety
• Decrease average crossing distances
Increase Walking and
Biking
• Increase walk/bike/roll to school mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to work mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to transit mode share
• Increase walk/bike/roll to recreational facilities
Improve Connectivity
• Reduce bicycle level of traffic stress
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase number of crossing opportunities
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements
• Increase the number of secure bike parking spaces
Enhance Accessibility
• Increase the number of traffic signals with audible cues
• Increase the number of intersections with directional curb ramps and detectable warning
surfaces
• Decrease number and length of sidewalk gaps
• Increase length of sidewalks that exceed minimum width requirements
• Decrease length of sidewalks that are broken or in disrepair
Prioritize Investments
• Maintain and increase sustainable funding mechanisms and a dedicated funding source
to build a complete streets network
• Maintain a maintenance plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Increase funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects as a percentage of total
transportation infrastructure spending
120 City of Dublin Draft 147
LOOKING AHEAD
Walking and biking allow residents and visitors of Dublin to travel throughout the city in a way that promotes a
sustainable, healthy, and vibrant community. This Plan helps foster a safe and connected multimodal transportation
network and establishes Dublin’s vision and comprehensive approach to improving walking, biking, and rolling.
The ultimate goal is a universally-accessible, safe, convenient, and integrated system that promotes active and
sustainable transportation as a convenient alternative to motor vehicles. The Plan’s performance measures
allow for the ongoing tracking of progress towards implementation of the following goals:
GOAL 1 GOAL 2 GOAL 3GOAL 3 GOAL 4 GOAL 5GOAL 5
Enhance Safety Increase Walking and Biking Improve Connectivity
Enhance Accessibility Prioritize Investments
The Plan provides for both near-term and long-term infrastructure investments to achieve the Plan’s vision and
goals as well as policy and programmatic recommendations that encourage and support walking, biking, and rolling.
Together, these components create a comprehensive approach that will guide, prioritize, and implement a network
of quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities to improve mobility, connectivity, and public health in Dublin.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 121 Draft 148
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.
15 Roger Geller, “Four Types of Cyclists,” Portland Office of Transportation (2005), https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507.
ARTERIALS: Major roads
that connect urbanized
areas, cities, and industrial
centers and generally have
fewer direct access points.
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.15 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
COLLECTORS: Major
and minor streets and roads
that connect local streets
with arterials. Collectors are
generally shorter and have
lower speeds than arterials.
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
GLOSSARY
122 City of Dublin 122 City of Dublin Draft 149
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
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.
SHY DISTANCE. Shy distance
refers to the space left between
vehicles or pedestrians and
bicyclists as they pass each
other. The amount of shy
distance required for safety
tends to increase with speed.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 123 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 123 Draft 150
Page Intentionally Blank
151
APPENDIX
A. Community Engagement Summary
B. Existing Conditions
a. Program and Policy Review
b. Demographic Analysis
c. Collision Analysis & High Injury Network
d. Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
e. Demand Analysis
C. Network Recommendations
a. Prioritization Framework
b. Project List
c. Cost Estimates
D. Engineering & Design Guide
152
Page Intentionally Blank
153
Page Intentionally Blank
154
155
DUBLIN BICYCLE AND DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN: PEDESTRIAN PLAN: SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGN GUIDANCE DESIGN GUIDANCE
October 2022
Draft
Attachment 5
156
2 City of Dublin Draft
INTRODUCTION
This guide was developed as a reference document
for best practices in planning and designing bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. It first provides resources
relevant to planning and designing pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, including a list of specific design
topics and guidance document recommendations to
consult. It then provides specific planning and design
recommendations for several key topics relevant to
developing Dublin’s biking and walking infrastructure.
In applying this design guidance, the responsible
engineer should use professional judgment and
document design decisions. Decisions should be made
based on location specific context and the obligation to
protect the life, health, and property of the public.
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT
GUIDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE . . . . . . . . . .13
SIDEWALK WIDTH
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
BIKEWAY SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS . . . . . .26
CROSSING SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH
INTERSECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
157
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 3 Draft
KEY RESOURCES
• AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Fourth Edition
(2012 ) – likely to be replaced by the Fifth Edition in 2022
• NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Second Edition (2014)
• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013)
• FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at
Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (2018)
• CalTrans Highway Design Manual (2018)
• FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015)
• FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2009)
• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Revision 6 (2021)
SUPPLEMENTAL
RESOURCES
• TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings.
Washington D.C.: TCRP and NCHRP, 2006.
• Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the
Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Available: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/A-08_
RES-3765_complete_streets.pdf 2006.
• Complete Streets Checklist Guidance Resolution 4493, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, Available: https://mtc.
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-05/MTC-
Administrative-Guidance-CS-Checklist.pdf (2022)
RESOURCES
The following resources should be used as references for best practices in planning and design for pedestrian facilities.
158
2
DESIGN TOPICS AND RELEVANT GUIDANCE
159
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 5 Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Sidewalks and
Sidewalk Zones
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013) https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Guide for the Planning Design and Operation
of Pedestrian Facilities (2004)
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Pages 37– 44; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
street-design-guide/street-design-elements/sidewalks/
Chapter 3.2; Pages 54 - 70
Pedestrian
Wayfinding
Seamless Seattle Pedestrian Wayfinding Strategy (2019)
Global Street Design Guide (2016)
Global Street Design Guide | Global
Designing Cities Initiative
Wayfinding Strategy_July2019_
SDOT Edit.pdf (seattle.gov)
6.3.9; Page 91;
https://globaldesigningcities.org/wp-content/uploads/
guides/global-street-design-guide-lowres.pdf
Street Furniture Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilities in the Public Right-of-way (2013)
https://www.access-board.gov/
prowag/preamble-prowag/
Page 70; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/
preamble-prowag/#r212-street-furniture
Pedestrian Scale
Lighting
FHWA Pedestrian Lighting Primer (2022)
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/
docs/Pedestrian_Lighting_Primer_Final.pdf
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
Entire document
Pages 75-78
Pages 2-3
Chapter 3.2.11, Page 65
160
6 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Crosswalk
Markings
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/
part3/part3b.htm#section3B18
Uncontrolled
Crossing
Enhancements
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013):”
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
FHWA Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked
Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations (2005)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/
research/safety/04100/04100.pdf
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-
design-guide/intersection-design-elements/
crosswalks-and-crossings/midblock-crosswalks/
Pages 49 - 61
Special Paving
Treatments
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System (2013)
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=39
Crossing Islands NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Page 116; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/
crosswalks-and-crossings/pedestrian-safety-islands/
In-Street
Pedestrian
Crossings Signs
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/
part2/part2b.htm#section2B12
Reduced Radii and
Sidewalk Corners
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Pages 117-118/ https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/intersection-
design-elements/corner-radii/
Curb Extensions,
Including
Chicanes
NACTO Urban Street Design Guide (2013): https://
nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Guide for the Planning Design and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Pages 45- 50; https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/street-design-
elements/curb-extensions/
Chapter 2.6.2 Page - 43
161
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 7 Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Curb Ramps Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian
Facilities in the Public Right-of-way
https://www.access-board.gov/
prowag/preamble-prowag/
Pages 36 – 37;
https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/preamble-
prowag/#r304-curb-ramps-and-blended-transitions
Right-Turn
Slip Lane
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System (2013)
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=24
Advanced Yield
Markings
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (2014) https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/safety-programs/documents/
ca-mutcd/rev6/camutcd2014-rev6.pdf
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/
part2/part2b.htm#section2B11
Section 2B.11
Advanced
Warning Signs
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
Sign R1-5a
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
162
8 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
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
Bus Stop
Accessibility
Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop
Accessibility and Safety (2 https://www.nadtc.
org/wp-content/uploads/NADTC-Toolkit-for-
the-Assessment-of-Bus-Stop-Accessibility.pdf
ADA Accessibility Guidelines (2002):
Adaag 1991 2002 (access-board.gov)
Page 10
Section 10.2; https://www.access-board.
gov/adaag-1991-2002.html#tranfac
163
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 9 Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
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 (2021)
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/
nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-07(263)_FR.pdf
Chapter 3.4
Grade Separation Guide for the Planning Design and Operation
of Pedestrian Facilities (2021)
Section 3.6.4.6
Curb Ramps Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines
(PROWAG) (2013) https://www.access-board.gov/
files/prowag/PROW-SUP-SNPRM-2013.pdf
Guide for the Planning Design and Operations
of Pedestrian Facilities (2021)
R304; https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/
chapter-r3-technical-requirements/#r304-
curb-ramps-and-blended-transitions
Section 3.6.4.5
Crossing
Treatments
Guide for the Planning Design and Operation
of Pedestrian Facilities (2021)
Chapter 3.6
Bicycle Signal
Heads
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto.
org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Page 91; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/
164
10 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Unsignalized
Intersections
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto.
org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Page 105; https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/
Sidepaths AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities (2012)
Chapter 5, Page 8
Sidepath
Intersection
Design
Considerations
AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities (2012)
Chapter 5, Page 42
Class IIA
Bicycle Lanes
California Highway Design Manual
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/
design/documents/hdm-complete-12312020a11y.pdf
AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for-
the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/
Urban Bicycle Design Guide https://nacto.org/
publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Section 301.2
Chapter 4, Pages 11 -22
Pages 1 – 21/https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/
165
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 11 Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Bicycle Facility
Design
California Highway Design Manual https://dot.
ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/
documents/hdm-complete-12312020a11y.pdf
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
Sections 301 & 1000
Page 119/https://nacto.org/publication/urban-
bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/
Chapter 4 Page 77; Chapter 5 Page 8;
Chapter 6 Page 7; Chapter 9 Page 156
Bicycle Parking AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for-
the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/
Transit Street Design Guide https://nacto.org/
publication/transit-street-design-guide/transit-streets/
Chapter 6
Chapter 4 Page 105
Bicycle Facility
Maintenance
AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for-
the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/
Chapter 7
166
12 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Bicycle Signals AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities:
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-for-
the-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(2009): https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto.
org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
Chapter 4 Page 43
MUTCD Figure 9C-7 (bicycle detector
pavement markings); Section 4D.08
through 4D.16 (signal placement)
Pages 91 – 111; https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-bikeway-design-guide/bicycle-signals/
Restriping to Add
Bicycle Facilities
FHWA: Incorporating On-Road Bicycle
Networks into Resurfacing Projects, 2016
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/
bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/
resurfacing_workbook.pdf
Entire document
Stormwater
Management
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto.
org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
LA Model for Living Streets Design Manual (2011)
https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/
resources/resources/la-living-streets-design-
manual/download.htmlChapter 11
Pages 65 – 70; https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/street-design-
elements/stormwater-management/
167
2
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE
168
14 City of Dublin Draft
Streets and sidewalks should support the activities and
pedestrian levels along the street. Sidewalks should be wide
enough to support the expected pedestrian volumes. This Plan
recommends a minimum width of six feet for the pedestrian
pathway section of a sidewalk, which is wide enough for two
people to walk side by side, can be navigated by persons with
mobility impairments, and meets current ADA requirements.
See Table 2 for recommended sidewalk widths by context.
ADA sidewalk regulations specify that routes with less than 60 inches,
or five feet of clear width must provide passing spaces at least 60
inches wide at reasonable intervals not exceeding 200 feet, and a five
feet by five feet turning space should be provided where turning or
maneuvering is necessary. If a sidewalk is directly adjacent to moving
traffic, 2 feet should be added to the absolute minimum clear path
width to provide buffer and space for street furniture and utilities.
In addition to the typical sidewalk widths, the context should
dictate other design feature as well, identified below:
• Edge/ Curb Zone - At a minimum, such as in areas with lower
pedestrian activity, there should be a 6-inch-wide curb. Other
areas, such as downtowns, should have at least an extra foot to
accommodate car doors to not conflict with the sidewalk.
• Furnishing/Landscape Zone - This area acts as a buffer
between the curb and throughway zone. This is the areas
where trees should be planted, and benches should be located.
Any sidewalk amenities should be located within this area
and should not interfere with the throughway zone. Streets
with higher speeds should have larger furnishing zones.
• Throughway zone – See Table 1 for recommended
sidewalk widths for the throughway zones.
• Frontage Zone - This area borders the building façade
or fence. The primary purpose of this zone is to create a
buffer between pedestrians walking in the throughway zone
from people entering and exiting buildings. It provides
opportunities for shops to place signs, planters, or chairs
that do not encroach into the throughway zone.
SIDEWALK WIDTH RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 1: Recommended Sidewalk Widths by Context
LAND USE CONTEXT
RECOMMENDED SIDEWALK WIDTH
RECOMMENDED GREENSCAPE/FURNISHING ZONE WIDTH
Residential and
industrial areas 7’ – 5’4’-2.5’
Downtown or
commercial areas 12’-8’6’-2.5’
Schools 10-8’6’-2.5’
High pedestrian
activity areas 18’-16’6’
169
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 15 Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bike paths provide a completely separated facility designed for
the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with minimal or no
conflicting motor vehicle traffic. Generally, these corridors are
not served by streets, and the path may be along a river, converted
rail right-of-way, or powerline, or other car-free corridors.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Class IA paths may provide connectivity between
neighborhoods or communities, to parks or recreational
areas, along or to rivers or streams, or to other destinations
without travelling along a roadway corridor.
COST ESTIMATE:
$2.2M per mile, including design and construction for the path,
assuming the inclusion of two high visibility actuated crossings
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
• The width of a shared-use path may vary based on expected
bicyclist and pedestrian volume and right-of-way constraints. For
accessibility purposes, trails should be limited to 5% grade.
• Where right-of-way or other physical constraints exist, sidepaths
may be provided adjacent to the roadway. Information about
these facilities, Class IB facilities, are provided on the next page.
BIKEWAY SELECTION
CLASS IA: BIKE PATHS OR SHARED USE PATHS
Iron Horse Regional Trail, Dublin, California Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
170
(not including shoulders)
is preferred; minimum 8'
3' shoulder preferred (paved or
other all weather surface); 2'
minimum unless path is wider
than the minimum
3' horizontal clearance
from the paved edge of
bike path should be
provided; minimum 2'
10' travelway
16 City of Dublin Draft
PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS:
• A 10 ft wide path with 2 ft shoulders on each side is preferable (14
ft total). 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 must include at least 2 feet (3 feet preferred) horizontal
clearance between the paved edge of path and obstructions
• Path crossings may be designed with yield, signal, or stop
control for either motorists or path users depending on
path volume and traffic volume on the crossing street..
Exhibit 1: Class 1A–Shared Use Path
171
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 17 Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Sidepaths are shared use paths that exist within a roadway
corridor. They provide dedicated space for bidirectional
travel for people walking, biking, using mobility devices,
or using scooters or other micromobility devices.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Sidepaths are applicable in areas with few motor vehicle driveways
or access points on roadways with operating speeds above 35
miles per hour and serving above 6,500 vehicles per day, but other
treatments (generally sidewalks and Class IV facilities) are typically
preferred for safety and comfort. Sidepaths can be used along high
speed and/or volume roadways to provide a completely separated
space outside of the roadway for people walking and biking.
COST ESTIMATE:
$2.6M per mile , including design and construction
for the path and a planted buffer
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.
CLASS IB: SIDEPATHS
Dougherty Road, Dublin, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc
• 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
172
18 City of Dublin Draft
traffic. Exhibit 2 shows a sign used by Colorado DOT to increase
awareness of sidepath users. At signalized intersections, consider
detection that activates No Right Turn On Red signs and/or Yield
To Pedestrians In Crosswalk signs when sidepath users are present.
• 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.
• At intersections, divert the sidepath away from the parallel
roadway at conflict points so that it functions as a mid-block
crossing and there is enough space (25 feet) for at least one vehicle
to queue between the crossing and roadway intersection.
• 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
Exhibit 2: CDOT Sidepath Sign
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 10 ft wide path with 2 ft shoulders on each side is preferable (14
ft total). The higher the anticipated volumes of users, the greater
the width should be to accommodate these users comfortably.
Curb ramps should be as wide as the path travelway to allow
people walking and biking to use the ramps simultaneously.
• 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. Walking facilities should be bi-directional on each side
173
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 19 Draft
Exhibit 3: Class IB – Shared Use Path
(not including shoulders)
is preferred; minimum 8'
3' shoulder preferred (paved or
other all weather surface);
2' minimum unless path is wider
than the minimum
The minimum separation
between the edge of a
street and bicycle path
travelway should be 5'.
Separation less than 10'
should include landscaping
or other continuous
barriers10' travelway
of the street. Bike lanes may be one-way, but a one-way bike path
should only be provided in rare situations where there is only need
for one direction of travel. If a one-way bike path is provided,
adequate signage and striping is necessary to ensure it is used
appropriately. A one-way bike path should be at least 5 feet in width
and has the same shoulder requirements as a bi-directional path.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
• While the width may vary along a path, a path should have at least
an 8 feet paved travelway with 2 feet paved or all weather surface
shoulders on each side except in rare cases and for short distances.
• A wide separation should be provided between a two-way sidepath
and the adjacent roadway to demonstrate to both the bicyclist and
the motorist that the path functions as an independent facility
for bicyclists and other users. The minimum recommended
distance between a path and the roadway curb (i.e., face of curb)
or edge of traveled way (where there is no curb) is 5 feet.
• Path crossings may be designed with yield, signal,
or stop control depending on path volume and
traffic volume on the crossing street.
174
20 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bike lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a designated right-
of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles. Through travel by motor
vehicles or pedestrians is prohibited, but vehicle parking may
be allowed on either side of the bikeway, and drivers may cross
through for turning movements. Class IIA facilities are bike
lanes without a buffer, while Class IIB facilities include a buffer
between motor vehicle traffic and the dedicated bike lane.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bike lanes are appropriate on streets with moderate traffic
volumes and speeds: typically between 25-35 mph and 3,000
to 6,500 vehicles per day. Class IIB facilities are preferred
for these conditions, but if constraints do not allow for a
buffer to be added, Class IIA facilities can be provided.
COST ESTIMATE:
$225,000 – $5,500,000 per mile including design and construction;
the lower end of the estimate is based on the ability to restripe
existing roadway to add bicycle lanes, while the high end of the
estimate is based on the need to widen the roadway to add facilities,
including a full reconstruction of a planter strip and sidewalk.
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.
CLASS IIA AND CLASS IIB FACILITIES:
BIKE LANES AND BUFFERED BIKE LANES
San Ramon Road, Dublin, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc
Storm drain catch basin grates along a Class II facility can cause
a hazards for people biking. Inlets at the curb instead of on the
street-surface are preferred. Grates should have rails perpendicular
to the movement of bicycle traffic to keep tires from being caught
in the grates. In addition, the slope of the roadway leading to
the inlet must not be too severe, and the inlet and accompanying
concrete box must not extend far into the bicycle lane.
175
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 21 Draft
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.
Storm drain catch basin grates along a Class II facility can cause
a hazards for people biking. Inlets at the curb instead of on the
street-surface are preferred. Grates should have rails perpendicular
to the movement of bicycle traffic to keep tires from being caught
in the grates. In addition, the slope of the roadway leading to
the inlet must not be too severe, and the inlet and accompanying
concrete box must not extend far into the bicycle lane.
At intersections with right-turn vehicle lanes, it is recommended
that the bike lane transitioned to the left of the lane 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.
See CAMUTCD Section 9C.04 for more information
Exhibit 4: Class II Bike Lanes
For class IIB facilities:
minimum 2' buffer
14.5' preferred parking lane
and bike lane combined width;
12' minimum
7' - 6' preferred bike lane width;
4' minimum without parking
(and at least 3' from gutter joint),
5' minimum adjacent to parking,
and 6' minimum on streets with
40 mph or greater speed limits
176
22 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bike routes or bicycle boulevards provide a shared travel lane 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 striped centerline is present. Outside of these
circumstances, a designated lane or other facility is appropriate.
COST ESTIMATE:
$40,000 – $135,000 per mile including design and construction,
depending on the need to add traffic calming elements.
BENEFITS:
On streets that are already low speed and volume, bike routes
can provide bike connectivity for people of all ages and abilities
at a relatively low cost. Sharrow pavement markings should
be placed every 250 feet and after each intersection.
CLASS III BIKE ROUTES/BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
Shafter Avenue, Oakland, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
Exhibit 5: California MUTCD (Figure 9C-9)
177
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 23 Draft
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
To ensure the selected facility retains its low speed and
low-volume character, bicycle boulevards should be
supported with traffic calming measures and volume
management measures (e.g., restricting vehicle access).
The level of stress of bicycle boulevards are typically determined
by major street crossings, which should be designed to
promote the desired level of traffic stress (i.e., controlled).
PREFERRED DESIGN AND ELEMENTS:
Bike routes should be direct, as bicyclists are unlikely to adhere to a
path that requires significant out-of-direction travel. Ideally a bicycle
boulevard would be parallel and proximate to a major vehicle route.
Signs and pavement markings should be used to identify the bike
route. Wayfinding signs are recommended to guide bicyclists
to destinations and through any turns in the route (refer to
CAMUTCD 9B.20). Chevron pavement markings can guide
bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow
for a motor vehicle and bicycle to travel side-by-side within the
same traffic lane, and alert road users of their presence.
To create a shared street environment, it is most
appropriate to use roadways that do not have a
striped centerline as neighborhood bikeways.
Typically, minor streets along the bicycle boulevard
should be controlled to minimize delay for bicyclists
and encourage use of the bicycle boulevard.
REQUIRED ELEMENTS:
Place sharrow pavement markings at least every
250 feet and after each intersection.
Exhibit 6: Class III Bike Routes
Sharrow pavement markings
should be placed every 250’ and
after each intersection
Where street parking is
present: lane markings should
be or at least 13' from the curb
if the effective lane width is at
least 14 feet or should be
centered within the effective
lane where the effective lane
width is less than 14'.
Where street parking is not
present: lane markings should
be or at least 4' from the curb if
the effective lane width is at
least 14 feet or should be
centered within the effective
lane where the effective lane
width is less than 14'.
178
24 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Separated bikeways provide physical separation from vehicular
traffic. This separation may include grade separation, flexible
posts, planters or other inflexible physical barriers, or on-street
parking. These bikeways provide bicyclists a greater sense of
comfort and security, especially in the context of high-speed
roadways. Separated facilities can provide one-way or two-way
travel and may be located on either side of a one-way roadway.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Separated bikeways are appropriate for higher volume
and speed settings including above 35 miles per hour
and serving 6,500 or more vehicles per day.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,100,000 – $5,700,000 per mile including design and construction;
the lower end of the estimate is based on the ability to reorganize
existing roadway to add separated bike lanes, while the high end of the
estimate is based on the need to widen the roadway to add facilities,
including a full reconstruction of a planter strip and sidewalk.
CLASS IV: SEPARATED BIKEWAY/CYCLE TRACK
San Diego, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
Village Parkway, Dublin, California Source: City of Dublin
179
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 25 Draft
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
Separated bikeways are appropriate at speeds and volumes where
bike lanes or buffered bike lanes do not adequately address the
comfort needs of the Interested but Concerned biking population
per the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide. 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.” Delineation
should be intentional to discourage people driving from entering
the bikeway and to indicate the location of the parking lane.
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.
Exhibit 7: Class IV Cycle Track
3' preferred buffer;
minimum 2'
7' preferred bike lane;
minimum 5'
180
26 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
An accessible pedestrian signal (APS) is a pedestrian signal that uses
audible tones or messages and/or vibrotactile surfaces to communicate
crossing information (e.g., WALK and DON’T WALK intervals)
to those walking who are vision impaired or blind. Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act requires newly constructed and reconstructed
public facilities to be accessible to all members of the public. APS
should be installed wherever pedestrian signals are installed.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
The factors that make crossing at a signalized location difficult
for pedestrians who have visual disabilities include: quiet car
technology including through electric vehicles, high right turn
on red or continuous right-turn movements, complex signal
operations, traffic circles, wide streets, or low traffic volumes
that make it difficult to discern signal phase changes.
APS should be provided everywhere a signalized crossing
opportunity is provided, but should be provided in particular
at signalized intersections that may present difficulties for
pedestrians who have visual disabilities, including those listed
above. Greater consistency can provide more expectations.
COST ESTIMATE:
Costs range from $550 to $1,150 per signal in locations
where pedestrian signal poles already exist; up to
eight APS units are needed per intersection.
ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS
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, provide 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.
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, downtown, etc.
181
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 27 Draft
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
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section
4E.09 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-
programs/documents/ca-mutcd/rev6/camutcd2014-rev6.pdf
* Check the California MUTCD Part 4 for current guidance
182
28 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Providing visible pedestrian crossings is critical to allowing
those who travel by foot or mobility device to have access
to their destinations. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing
locations generally 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.
In addition to the crossing countermeasures provided, curb
ramps should be provided at all crossings. At intersections,
directional curb ramps should be provided, which means
providing dual curb ramps at most intersections.
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 13 provides the appropriate
crash countermeasures by roadway feature.
CROSSING SELECTION
16
Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
Select Countermeasure(s)
Table 1 provides initial countermeasure
options for various roadway conditions. Each
matrix cell indicates possibilities that may
be appropriate for designated pedestrian
crossings. Not all of the countermeasures
listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be
installed at a crossing.
For multi-lane roadway crossings with
vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked
crosswalk alone is typically insufficient
(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more
substantial crossing improvements (such as
the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also
needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian
crash potential.
Roadway Configuration
Posted Speed Limit and AADT
Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000
≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph
2 lanes
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes with raised median
(1 lane in each direction)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes w/o raised median
(1 lane in each direction with a
two-way left-turn lane)
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ lanes with raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ lanes w/o raised median
(2 or more lanes in each direction)
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Given the set of conditions in a cell,
# Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate
treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location.
Signifies that the countermeasure should always be
considered, but not mandated or required, based upon
engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled
crossing location.
Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should
always occur in conjunction with other identified
countermeasures.*
The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure
is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may
be considered following engineering judgment.
1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on
crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels,
and crossing warning signs
2 Raised crosswalk
3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign
and yield (stop) line
4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign
5 Curb extension
6 Pedestrian refuge island
7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)**
8 Road Diet
9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)**
Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature.
*Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures.
**It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.
This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners.
Source: FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
Exhibit 8: Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature
183
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 29 Draft
HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS, PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE CROSSWALK
APPROACH, ADEQUATE NIGHTTIME LIGHTING LEVELS, AND CROSSING WARNING SIGNS
Iron Horse Trail and Amador Valley Boulevard, Dublin, California
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc
Amador Valley Boulevard and Wildwood Road, Dublin, California
Source: City of Dublin
Source: Federal Highway Administration
Amador Valley Boulevard and San Ramon Road Dublin, California.
Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc
RAISED CROSSWALK RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACON
PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDHIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK
184
30 City of Dublin Draft
ADVANCE YIELD HERE TO (STOP HERE FOR)
PEDESTRIANS SIGN AND YIELD/STOP
IN STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN
ROAD DIET (REALLOCATING SPACE WITHIN
THE ROADWAY FOR OTHER USES)
Alcosta Boulevard, San Ramon, California
Source: Google Streetview
Source: Federal Highway Administration
Source: MUTCD
185
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 31 Draft
PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON CURB EXTENSION
Amador Valley Boulevard and Wildwood Road, Dublin, California.
Source: City of Dublin
Amador Valley Boulevard and Wildwood Road, Dublin, California
Source: NACTO
186
32 City of Dublin Draft
In locations where there is dedicated space for bicyclists along a
roadway, it is important to maintain the bicycle facility through
the intersection to clearly provide the intended use of the space,
enhance bicyclist comfort, increase motorist yielding behavior,
and highlight conflict zones. There are several elements that can
support bicyclist movements through intersections including
bicycle lane markings, skip striping, green paint, bike boxes, two-
stage left turn boxes, protected intersection elements , intersection
approach considerations, and traffic control considerations.
BICYCLE FACILITIES THROUGH INTERSECTIONS
2nd Avenue, Seattle, Washington. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
187
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 33 Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Intersection crossing markings indicate where a bicyclist will be
travelling through an intersection to clearly mark the intended use,
enhance cyclist comfort, increase motorist yielding behavior, and
highlight conflict zones. They are generally made up of green “skip
striping” paint, green bike lane paint, and/or bicycle lane markings.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Through intersections or across driveways
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,500 - $4,000 per approach
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
When colored paint is used for bicycle facilities, it should
be green to avoid confusion with other traffic control
markings. For more information, see CA MUTCD Section
9C.04 Figure 9C-103(A). , MUTCD Section 3B.08, or
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/
intersection-treatments/intersection-crossing-markings/.
INTERSECTION CROSSINGS MARKINGS
Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
Desired minimum stripe width: 6 inches
and dotted lines should be 2 foot lines
with 2 to 6 foot spacing
Exhibit 9: Bicycle Intersection Crossing Markings Source: NACTO
188
34 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A bike box is a dedicated area at the head of a traffic lane at a
signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible
way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Signalized intersections with higher volumes of bicyclists and right-
turning vehicles, typically along Class II or Class III facilities.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,000 each
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• “Wait Here” pavement markings can be placed in advance of the
bike box as reinforcement for drivers not to impede the bike box
• A STOP HERE ON RED (MUTCD R10-6 or R10-
6a) sign can be used at the advance stop bar, with an
EXCEPT BICYCLES (MUTCD R3-7bp) plaque below.
• Green paint highlights bike boxes for visibility.
• Right turn on red and bike boxes are not compatible.
Use approved MUTCD “NO RIGHT TURN
ON RED” signs shall be used (R10-11).
• A bike box shall include an advance stop line at least
10 feet in advance of the intersection stop line, with at
least one bicycle pavement marking in the box.
• FHWA requires a bicycle pavement marking within bike boxes.
BIKE BOXES
Flanders Street, Portland, Oregon. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
189
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 35 Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Two-stage turn queue boxes offer bicyclists a dedicated space to make
left turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from a right side cycle
track or bike lane or right turns from a left side cycle track or bike lane.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes are commonly used to facilitate
a left turn across multiple lanes of traffic at a signalized
intersection. They may also be used for turns at midblock
crossing locations, for right turns from a left-side bike lane, or
to facilitate a proper angle across tracks (streetcar, train, etc.)
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,000 each
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
The turn box should be sized to provide room for waiting
cyclists, up to 10 feet wide and 6.5 feet deep but not less than 3
feet deep. Appropriate signage may be used to indicate the two-
stage turn is provided (MUTCD D11-20L or D11-20R).
The bicycle symbol and left-turn arrow marking shall be provided
within the box, which shall be bounded by solid white lines on all sides.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
FWHA’s Interim Approval for Option Use of
Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes (IA-20)
TWO STAGE TURN QUEUE BOXES
Meade Avenue, San Diego, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
190
36 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A protected intersection provides physical separation for bicyclists
and pedestrians up to and through an intersection and provides
bicyclists and pedestrians with the right of way over turning vehicles.
The physical separation between people driving and people biking
or walking creates a setback, which is intended to control speeds,
promote visibility, and reduce conflicts among motorists, cyclists,
and pedestrians. Protected intersections generally also provide
shorter crossing distances for people walking and biking.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Intersections with higher speeds and volumes, especially
at intersections where Class IV bikeways are present, or
a high incidence of bicycle or pedestrian crashes.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,000,000 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.
• Tighter curb return radii (10 feet to 15 feet) should
be used to discourage fast turning movements.
PROTECTED INTERSECTION TREATMENTS
Meade Avenue, San Diego, California. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
• Wider pedestrian islands support higher volumes of people
walking and biking. Pedestrian crossing islands should be
at least 6 feet wide to provide an accessible waiting area.
• 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
191
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 37 Draft
DESCRIPTION:
A bicycle lane approach to intersections can take different forms
depending on the type of lane, existence of turn lanes, and other
roadway features. In locations where a right turn lane is added, the
roadway can include a mixing zone in the approach to keep bicyclists
to the left of the right-turning vehicles. Depending on the geometry
of the roadway, the bicycle lane may maintain as a straight line or
may transition with a diagonal at the beginning of the turn lane.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Intersections with right turn lanes adjacent to a bike lane.
COST ESTIMATE:
$1,500 - $4,000 per approach
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• The merge/conflict area can be highlighted with
markings, including green paint and skip striping.
• The right turn lane should be as short as practical to encourage slow
vehicle speeds when merging across the bike lane. The merge area
should also be no more than 100 feet long for the same reasons.
• A through bicycle lane shall not be positioned to the right
of a right-turn lane (MUTCD 9C.04) unless the movements
are separated by different traffic signal phases.
• Use “BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD
TO BIKES” (MUTCD R4-4) at the beginning
of the right turn lane and merge area.
INTERSECTION APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS
Source: NACTO
• In cases where space is especially constrained (13 feet 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
192
38 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Bicycle signals offer a bicycle-exclusive phase at signalized
intersections. Bicycle signals can improve safety and operations
at intersections by removing bicycle and vehicle time conflicts
in time or defining different needs from other road users.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bicycle signals are most appropriate at locations with high
bicycle and right-turning vehicle volumes, and often is used
to provide a through phase for bicyclists separate from
the right-turn phase for motorists. A bicycle signal can be
triggered by loop detection, push-buttons, or video detection.
Automatic bike detection discourages red-light running.
COST ESTIMATE:
$27,000 - $78,000
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• At intersections with right-turning vehicles, right-
turns on red should also be prohibited to prevent
conflict with the bicycle movement.
• MUTCD Figure 9C-7 provides guidance on
bicycle detector pavement markings.
• Some existing bicycle signal designs shields the bicycle
signal from drivers’ line of sight to avoid potential
confusion. NACTO recommends that bicycle signal heads
be separated laterally from motor vehicle signal heads by
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSIDERATIONS
Source: NACTO
at least two feet to increase road user comprehension.
• 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.
193
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 39 Draft
DESCRIPTION:
Short-term and long-term bicycle parking is an essential
part of a successful bicycle system. A lack of secure and
convenient bicycle storage can discourage cycling.
CONTEXT:
Short-term bicycle parking is intended to be used for a few
hours at most and is provided in public space. Often this is
provided along the curb or furniture zone of a street. -
Long-term bicycle parking is intended to be used for longer than
several hours. It should be sheltered or indoors to provide greater
security.- A bike corral, or multiple bike parking spaces on the
street along the curb, can be an efficient use of space. Bike corrals
can store up to 12 bicycles in a single vehicle parking space.
TYPICAL APPLICATION:
Bicycle parking should be provided at or near all destinations to allow
people to bike to access those destinations. The amount and type of
bicycle parking should be dependent upon the type of destination.
COST ESTIMATE:
$27,000 - $78,000
BICYCLE PARKING
Bike Parkiing at Dublin Library, Dublin, California. Source: City of Dublin
194
40 City of Dublin Draft
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Bike racks should be securely fastened to the ground to prevent
a bike from being stolen by removing the rack. Adding a
crossbar below where the bike would likely be fastened to
reduce the ability to remove the bike rack from the ground
to slip a lock off and including internal cabling to make it
more challenging to cut through can further reduce theft
and increase the security of the bike parking system.
• Bike racks should accommodate U-shaped locks and support
the bicycle at two points above its center of gravity to allow
the frame and both wheels to be locked. Wave bike racks
generally do not allow for this and should be avoided.
• Long-term parking should be included as a requirement
in all buildings where people travel to spend more than
several hours, including multi-family housing, places of
work, schools, hospitals, and other destinations.
• Long-term parking requirements should be based on household
units, trip generation, employees per square footage, and
visitation rates. It should be easy to find, direct, and accessible
without stairs. It is preferred that it can also be accessed by use of
automatic doorways and entryways to limit the need for someone
to open a door and hold their bike, which may not be possible.
Long term bicycle parking (BikeLink bike lockers) at the West Dublin BART Station,
Dublin, California. Source: City of Dublin
• 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.
195
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 41 Draft 196
197
November 7, 2022
SB 343
Senate Bill 343 mandates supplemental materials that
have been received by the Community Development
Department that relate to an agenda item after the agenda
packets have been distributed to the Planning
Commission be available to the public.
The attached documents were received in the Community
Development Department’s Office after distribution of the
November 8, 2022, Planning Commission meeting agenda
packet.
198
November 7, 2022
Mayor Hernandez, Dublin City Council, and Dublin
Planning Commission
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Dublin City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Dublin Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan. Good planning is an essential step in creating a welcoming city for walking, rolling,
strolling, biking, and even driving (statistically, the Netherlands has the happiest drivers on
earth).
The underlying vision statement is strong, and the data behind the plan is generally
good. The origins and destinations considered for walk and bike access priority make sense.
The Level Of Traffic Stress map is largely accurate. The traffic collision data tells us what
everyone expects: multi-lane high speed roadways with driveways, uncontrolled turns, and
school access are extremely overrepresented for bike and pedestrian collisions.
The current pace of progress is not proportional to the urgency of safer streets and lower
emissions. Additional commitment away from billion-dollar roadway expansions and towards
low-carbon active, micro, and shared transportation will be necessary to accomplish the
>$100M in projects that are presented. With SB 932 now passed, the lack of timeline
commitment for staff actions is a major issue. At the current funding rate, it would take over 50
years to accomplish this modest draft plan.
Separate from budget constraints, however, Bike East Bay still has significant concerns
with the efficacy of this draft plan. We present the following recommendations to make this plan
more actionable and successful. We request that additional work be done and these concerns
be addressed before this plan is approved.
Thank you for your time, attention, and work to make Dublin streets safer for all.
Sincerely,
Steven Dunbar and Kristi Marleau for Bike East Bay
Robert Prinz
Advocacy Director, Bike East Bay
robert@BikeEastBay.org
510 845 RIDE (7433)•info@bikeeastbay.org
199
— In order of priority:
Sidepaths should mostly be replaced by Class IV bike lanes
Sidepaths can be a useful tool in certain situations, especially where there will continue
to be low pedestrian demand, where there are no driveways or roads on one side of the road,
and where there are few destinations which require crossing the road. Dougherty Road, for
example, is a fairly good use case for a successful sidepath (some crossing issues
notwithstanding). Sidepaths in residential areas east of Fallon also may have low enough future
demand and low enough traffic volumes to be workable.
However, the rest of Dublin is significantly different. Bike East Bay is very skeptical that
their use will be successful, for the following reasons (many of which were discussed by the
county BPAC):
●Pushing children to use 8 foot sidewalks as bike paths, sometimes in both directions, will
result in conflicts and general neighbor tension.
●Sidepaths are becoming less appropriate nationally due to the increasing popularity of
e-bikes.
●Sidepath considerations at intersections are complex even for one-way travel. Unsafe
behaviors are likely unless expensive signal detection, international state-of-the-art
signal phasing techniques, and bike-specific signals are universally installed.
●“Wrong-way” biking on the sidewalk requires even greater signal improvements to
control movements, otherwise conflicts will occur.
●Sidepaths have an upper limit on volume - as biking becomes more popular, sidepaths
become more problematic, making it harder to reach the bike use goals.
Dublin should stop considering sidepaths as a major component because their
drawbacks in urban environments are significant in the United States context. The plan should
instead require Class IV bike lanes as the major low stress facility. Delaying a decision for future
study will result in developments moving forward without full bike/ped improvements,
permanently wasting resources. Class IV bike lanes can be implemented with lower cost interim
treatments, better standardization, and better predictability than sidepaths.
510 845 RIDE (7433)•info@bikeeastbay.org
200
The plan prioritization should be revamped into a more actionable
program with the goal of resolving connectivity gaps1
See the below image to compare the actual outcomes of the prioritization framework in
Figure 40 with the traffic stress islands in Figure 29. Aside from Village Parkway, the priority
recommendations are mostly a hodgepodge of restriping improvements which don’t significantly
improve connectivity for all ages and do not have good cost-benefit considerations (unless they
are completed at “zero” cost from a repave). The treatments in orange will not lower the traffic
stress level unless and until they are upgraded to protected bike lanes, and that upgrade has no
timeline and is not budgeted as Tier 1. The plan should prioritize staff resources on high-benefit
projects connecting across the traffic stress islands.
Shown Above: The future “Low Stress Islands” map with all Tier 1 projects completed.
Buffered bike lane projects are shown in orange (LTS 3) but don’t actually create low stress
networks. Notice that very few low stress islands are connected by the Tier 1 projects.
“Easy” improvements that don’t fundamentally improve connectivity should just be done
in the course of normal businesses. We suggest following Livermore’s 2018 bike plan
4-quadrant scoring for improvements. This separates project readiness and project benefit into
separate categories in order to set clear staff priorities with both short term and long term work
cycles. The plan should direct staff to address high-readiness projects during repaving as staff
resources allow, while still making progress on larger projects.
1 We leave the technical details of the priority scoring process to an appendix.
510 845 RIDE (7433)•info@bikeeastbay.org
201
The plan should specifically explain how past failures to
implement will be addressed
The plan proposes some of the same treatments that were not completed during
previous repaving cycles, including segments of Dublin Boulevard, Village Drive, and Amador
Valley Boulevard. The plan does not address what internal requirements (such as vehicle delay,
public outreach, or speed studies) caused these proven safety improvements to not be
implemented alongside planned maintenance, nor how to directly prioritize staff resources to
address those blockers in a time-constrained situation (such as a street repaving schedule
where construction must be complete before rain gets in the forecast). The plan should also
directly address other planned street maintenance opportunities, such as PG&E or sewer
replacement work or ADA ramp installation.
It is clear that cross-department collaboration will be necessary to speed up project
delivery and to leverage all available CIP projects to the maximum extent feasible. We
appreciate that there is a program that speaks to this. However, the programs don’t yet provide
enough detail on addressing the specific roadblocks to implementation.
“Other Plans” projects should be integrated into this plan, not
simply referenced
The plan simply refers to plans by others on Page 92 and Figure 37 with generic
boundaries and does not show the actual facility type. This makes them easier to forget if and
when staff transitions occur. Bike lanes around BART shown in Dublin’s 2014 plan and in
510 845 RIDE (7433)•info@bikeeastbay.org
202
Dublin’s control were removed on this plan’s map, so work was done on the maps without
entering the BART recommendations. The current versions of these other plans should be more
directly shown. If these other plans are updated, those plans would still be the controlling
document.
The plan should set a goal Pedestrian/Bike/Transit LTS for all new
development that might not be considered in the map
As Dublin continues to develop, some development projects may be unforeseeable.
Using LTS metrics and modern selection guidelines as the enforcement mechanism will create a
much better “catch-all” for new development than facility classifications.
The plan should include goal timelines, assign responsibility for
each program to a specific department, and assign priorities to
each program to deal with variable staffing resources over time
The programs are presented as a long wish list of items with no clear responsible party,
due date, or internal priority level. Some programs which are listed as “ongoing” have not
actually been occurring for some time. Bike East Bay is aware that resources and staff come
and go, and we want to be sure that the adjustments to account for this are clear and
consistent. The plan should consider the order in which programs will be added or removed as
staff resources change.
The plan should mention and actively utilize NACTO’s “All Ages
and Abilities” and “Don’t Give Up at the Intersection” guidance
These guidelines are very high quality, state of the art, and should be referenced now.
The Design Guidelines should more specifically address design
issues common in Dublin
The design guidelines don’t sufficiently address design problems that are specific to and
prevalent within Dublin. Not every intersection was studied for intersection Level of Traffic Stress
because it’s a time intensive process. However, many of Dublin’s intersections that were studied
have common design issues, such as added right turns (where a small bike lane is sandwiched
between fast through traffic and right turning traffic). Standard LTS scoring sheets show what
features cause high traffic stress, and the plan should more directly address how those existing
common pitfalls will be addressed in the short and long term.
510 845 RIDE (7433)•info@bikeeastbay.org
203
Certain bike lanes recommendations should be updated to match
the design guidelines
Some design recommendations don’t result in facility improvement recommendations on
the plan map even when they’re a no-brainer. For example, increasing the buffer or adding
protection to uphill bike lanes is mentioned in the design guidelines (to account for the larger
delta in speed between cars and bikes) but this recommendation isn’t used in the plan map.
Schaefer Ranch Road and Inspiration Drive would be good applications for this idea.
Planning to accommodate institutional memory loss is always a good idea. Although staff
should follow the design guidelines and consider these ideas when an improvement is actually
designed, reinforcing this in the plan map will make sure that it doesn’t get missed if staff
transitions occur.
The future Low Stress Facility map should be changed for
usability
When carefully considered, Figure 39 shows that even at full build out, large portions of
Dublin require significant out-of-direction travel to access BART via a low stress facility (faint
green areas that are less than 2 miles from BART as the crow flies imply that there is
out-of-direction travel to access the low stress route). This map is largely misleading and should
be replaced by potential 5-, 10-, and 15- year low stress island maps. A map showing “out of
direction travel required” for more destinations would also be useful.
The plan should identify intersections that have missing crosswalk
legs and compare this with a policy
Dublin should create a policy explaining if it is ever acceptable for intersections to not
have a crosswalk on one side. For large intersections, this can result in intersection crossings
taking over 3 times as long for pedestrians to reach their destination. Other cities already have
such a policy.
The plan should briefly respond to substantive public comments
We know that this plan was developed during the pandemic, that responding to every
single online comment may be tedious or unnecessary, and that CEQA-style checklist
responses don’t guarantee good outcomes. However, it seems like the plan relies too much on
categorizing comments into themes rather than responding to issues on the ground. For
comments with specific suggestions, some type of response should be provided. If suggestions
are accepted, pointing towards the plan page or plan map that implements it can affirm that the
510 845 RIDE (7433)•info@bikeeastbay.org
204
commenter’s time was not wasted. If suggestions are rejected, a clear reasoning for staff’s
denial allows the public to bring a specific concern to city council for resolution.
The plan should add additional Tri-Valley wide collaboration
A joint contract for a “mini” protected bike lane street sweeper would help get everyone
off the ground without expensive one-off private contracts. Staff collaboration on consistent
signage standards will reduce confusion, especially on regional connectors such as Dublin
Boulevard and Dublin/Pleasanton connecting trails.
Appendix: Project Priority Scoring
Although the prioritization factors and maps were discussed in 2021, and the
prioritization projects were available at the July BPAC, the actual scores of each project were
not released. We regret that, due to the piecemeal process of review, the “hit the brakes”
feedback to staff did not occur earlier in the process. Here are some potential root causes:
1)The factors don’t consider cost-benefit, seem to sometimes overlap in concept,
and weigh past-considered projects with higher priority regardless of their quality.
2)Every street with a score between 236.41 and 512.90 is ranked as high priority. It
does not appear that the plan uses this category effectively. So many streets rank
as “high priority” that the category becomes meaningless.
3)Some projects are grouped as normal bike lanes with a protected bike lane study,
but seem to take credit for providing protected bike lanes. In order to prioritize
these projects correctly, they should be identified separately.
510 845 RIDE (7433)•info@bikeeastbay.org
205