Dublin City Council
January 10, 2023

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
824
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-streetdesign-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/

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/intersectiondesign-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-designelements/curb-extensions/ Chapter 2.6.2 Page - 43
825
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/preambleprowag/#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/dotmedia/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
826
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/

traffic-signals/leading-pedestrian-interval/
Signal PhasingProtected 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-forthe-Assessment-of-Bus-Stop-Accessibility.pdf ADA Accessibility Guidelines (2002):

Adaag 1991 2002 (access-board.gov)

Section 10.2; https://www.access-board.
gov/adaag-1991-2002.html#tranfac
827
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)
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/

Unsignalized
Intersections
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: https://nacto.
org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/

828
10 City of Dublin Draft

DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
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-forthe-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/
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
Sections 301 & 1000

Chapter 4 Page 77; Chapter 5 Page 8;
Chapter 6 Page 7; Chapter 9 Page 156
829
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 11 Draft

DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
Bicycle Parking AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-forthe-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-forthe-development-of-bicycle-facilities-2012/ Chapter 7
Bicycle Signals AASHTO 2012 Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities:
https://nacto.org/references/aashto-guide-forthe-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/
830
12 City of Dublin Draft

DESIGN TOPIC DESIGN RESOURCE RELEVANT PAGES/LOCATION
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-designmanual/download.htmlChapter 11 Pages 65 – 70; https://nacto.org/publication/
urban-street-design-guide/street-designelements/stormwater-management/ 831
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE 2
832
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 1 for recommended sidewalk widths by context. In addition to Table 1, if a specific area plan with recommended cross section widths exists for a project location, refer to the specific area plan guidance.

ADA sidewalk regulations specify that routes with less than 60 inches, or five feet of clear width must provide passing spaces, or wider areas that can accommodate two wheelchairs passing, 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. Based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, the minimum width of a sidewalk should be 8 feet between a curb and building when in urban and rural main street place types, 6 feet in all other locations when continuous to a curb, or 5 feet when separated by a planting strip.

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. A furnishing zone must be a minimum of 3 feet to have the opportunity to include street trees or landscaping. The landscape buffer should increase in width as speeds increase: four feet is the recommended minimum buffer for areas that are 25 mph and the buffer should increase 1 foot for every 5 mph increase in speed.
• Throughway zone – This area acts as the sidewalk clear 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 8 feet – 5 feet 6 feet – 3 feet
Downtown or
commercial areas 12 feet – 8 feet 8 feet – 3 feet
Schools 10 feet – 8 feet 8 feet – 3 feet
833
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. 834
(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
835
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 836
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
Note: This sign is not included in the CA MUTCD but may be considered as a candidate to apply for a request for experimentation. 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 2 ft or greater shoulder on both sides of the path should be provided. An additional foot of lateral clearance is required by the CAMUTCD for the installation of signage or other furnishings.

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 837
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
barriers
10' travelway
a street. Walking facilities should be bi-directional on each side 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 for either motorists or path users depending on path volume and traffic volume on the crossing street.
838
20 City of Dublin Draft
DESCRIPTION:

Bike lanes are on-street bikeways that provide a designated rightof-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 839
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;
13' 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
840
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 rightof-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.

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).

CLASS III BIKE ROUTES/BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
Shafter Avenue, Oakland, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.

Exhibit 5: California MUTCD (Figure 9C-9)
841
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 23 Draft 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
Exhibit 7: California MUTCD 9C-108(CA)
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 face of 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'.

The effective width
indicates the width of the
pavement available after
subtracting the width of the
parked vehicle and the door
zone from the distance of
the lane line/centerline to
the face of curb.

Sharrow pavement markings
should be placed every 250’ and
after each intersection.
842
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 843
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 8: Class IV Cycle Track
3' preferred buffer;
minimum 2'
7' preferred bike lane;
minimum 5'
844
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.
845
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/safetyprograms/documents/ca-mutcd/rev6/camutcd2014-rev6.pdf * Check the California MUTCD Part 4 for current guidance 846
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. Exhibit 9 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 9: Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature 847
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

HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND
848
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
849
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
Source: NACTO
850
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, twostage 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. 851
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.

Exhibit 10: CA Traffic Control Devices Committee Editorial Changes to the CA MUTCD Source: NACTO
Green pavement is not currently allowed in the
extension area through the intersection by MUTCD.
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/
programs/safety-programs/documents/ctcdc/
ctcdc-agenda-item-21-22-a11y.pdf
852
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 rightturning 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.

BIKE BOXES
Flanders Street, Portland, Oregon. Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

FHWA’s Interim Approval for Optional Use of
an Intersection Bicycle Box (IA-18)
853
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 35 Draft DESCRIPTION:

Two-stage bicycle turn 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 bicycle turn 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 twostage 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 BICYCLE TURN BOXES
Meade Avenue, San Diego, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 854
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) 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 855
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
856
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, rightturns 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. • A bicycle signal face should be separated vertically or horizontally from the nearest motor vehicle traffic signal

TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSIDERATIONS
Source: NACTO
face for the same approach by at least 3 feet. (IA-16)
• 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.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
• FHWA’s Interim Approval for Optional Use
of Bicycle Signal Faces (IA-16)
857
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 Parking at Dublin Library, Dublin, California. Source: City of Dublin 858
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.
• 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 consider accommodating 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 liftassisted mechanism should be provided to access the upper tier. 859
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Supplemental Design Guidance 41 Draft 860 861
Reso. No. 22-15, Item 6.1, Adopted 11/08/2022 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 22-15

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 5
862
Reso. No. 22-15, Item 6.1, Adopted 11/08/2022 Page 2 of 3 · 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: Grier, Qaadri, Thalblum, Tyler, Wright
NOES:

ABSENT:
863
Reso. No. 22-15, Item 6.1, Adopted 11/08/2022 Page 3 of 3 ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Assistant Community Development Director
864

6.1 - Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan Update
January 10, 2023
City Council
865
Completed Projects – 2014 Plan
Dougherty Rd
San Ramon Rd
Tassajara Rd N/O
Quarry Lanes
Class III Bike Routes
on Vomac, Donahue,
Tamarack Brighton
Dublin Blvd widening
& Bike lanes
Dublin Blvd E/O
Brannigan
Horizon/Sterling
Village Pkwy
Central Pkwy
E/O Fallon
AVB & Regional Amador Plaza Rd
Pedestrian
Improvements
866
What’s New?
• All Ages & Abilities Facilities

1. Enhance Safety

2. Increase Walking and Biking

3. Improve Connectivity

4. Enhance Accessibility

5. Prioritize Investments
• New & Updated guidance from FHWA & State
• Focus on Class I/IV, Complete Streets &
sidepath improvements
867
Summary of Update
• Draft Plan Recommendations
– Corridor Projects
– Point Projects
– Coordination with existing plans/projects
– Program & Policy Recommendation
– Implementation Plan – Tier I, II, III
868
Existing and Proposed Network
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 869
Tier I Projects
Village Pkwy
Complete
Streets
Regional St
mid-block
crosswalk
Central/Aspen
Intersection Grafton/Antone
Crosswalk
Tassajara Rd Gap
Closure
Dublin Blvd
Improvements,
Pedestrian & Bicycle
Overcrossing
AVB/Burton
Intersection
Class IIB Bike
Lanes on
Hacienda Dr &
Gleason
870
Recommendation

1. Conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution adopting the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and find the Plan exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act 871

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 7.1
DATE: January 10, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Local Roadway Safety Plan
Prepared by: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil (Traffic) Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will receive a report and consider adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan, which provides a local-level assessment of roadway safety and identifies high-risk locations, appropriate safety improvements, and strategies to improve safety for roadways in the City of Dublin.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

All Staff costs and consultant costs associated with the preparation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) are funded by the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, Local Roadway Safety Plan, CIP No. ST0122. The CIP project budget includes $72,000 from the State of California State Transportation Improvement program to assist with the preparation of the LRSP.

Any improvement projects implementing LRSP recommendations will be funded by the CIP project, Traffic Signal and Roadway Safety Improvements, CIP No. ST0123, or by future CIP projects subject to City Council approval.

DESCRIPTION:

Background
Federal regulations require each state to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). A SHSP is a statewide data-driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, State, local, and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes 872

goals, objectives, and emphasis (or challenge) areas. The SHSP addresses the 4Es of traffic safety:

Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

While the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides local and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP.

Dublin’s LRSP aligns with the 2020-2024 California SHSP’s guiding principles that integrate social equity and encourage the implementation of proven countermeasures and emerging technologies.

The LRSP uses the Safe System approach endorsed by the United States Department of Transportation and Caltrans to identify ways Dublin and its partners can protect all roadway users. It includes engineering and non-engineering recommendations to improve traffic safety in identified emphasis areas within Dublin.

To develop Dublin’s LRSP, Staff applied for and received a grant of $72,000 from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in September 2020. On March 16, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution Approving a Funding Agreement with the State of California for the LRSP.

Starting in 2022, the Federal Aid Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) began requiring an LRSP for an agency to be eligible to apply for HSIP funds and for discretionary funds including Measures BB, Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF), and Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA).

Summary of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP):

The LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in Dublin, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions with an implementation plan. Ultimately, the LRSP creates a data-driven decision-making framework to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways.

The LRSP is organized into five main sections:
 Vision & Goals—Establishes a larger vision for transportation safety in Dublin and sets goals for how to get there.
 Plan Development—Details the collaborative and data-driven planning process that involved stakeholder and community engagement.
 Existing Conditions—Provides an analysis of collisions and traffic safety trends in Dublin.  Toolbox—Lists proven engineering countermeasures and strategies that can improve roadway safety.
 Recommendations and Implementation—Prioritizes short- and long-term projects and sets a strategy for assessing progress toward established goals.

The LRSP recommends site-specific as well as systemic safety improvements that can be applied citywide. The five main sections of the LRSP are described in more detail below. 873

Vision and Goals
Based on the findings from the existing conditions analysis and feedback from the Traffic Safety Committee, the vision and goals for the Plan were developed.

Vision
The City of Dublin will prioritize safety in all projects and will reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions even as the City continues to grow. The City will use data and Safe System principles recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to promote safety in all actions.

Goals
 Implement safety countermeasures to reduce the risk of future collisions.  Analyze data to identify and prioritize opportunities to improve roadway safety.  Promote a culture of roadway safety in Dublin’s agencies, businesses, and residents.

Plan Development
Community and stakeholder engagement was key to the successful development of the LRSP.

Stakeholders who can provide a diversity of viewpoints on the goal and emphasis area development and who will be appropriate parties for implementation action items were identified in the LRSP.

The project team led a Traffic Safety Committee meeting engaging City stakeholders in the plan development process. The Traffic Safety Committee includes staff from Dublin Police Services and the Public Works Department’s Transportation and Operations Division and Maintenance Division. Based on these discussions and findings from the data analysis, safety for vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, were identified as a key emphasis area for this plan.

The project team utilized robust community input from the updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to inform understanding of the key safety issues faced in the City of Dublin.

As a part of the LRSP development, the project team also identified a list of community stakeholders, including representatives from local and regional transportation agencies, advocacy groups, and various community-based organizations that were key in the implementation of the Plan.

Existing Conditions
The existing conditions analysis was conducted to identify safety emphasis areas. Based on the emphasis area, the Plan identifies appropriate engineering countermeasures and non-engineering strategies to reduce collisions. This analysis covered:
 Summary of Existing Safety-Related Plans, Policies and Programs: The project team reviewed and summarized relevant safety-related plans, policies, and programs.  Review and Evaluation of Collision Data: The project team analyzed collision data from 2016-2020 and prepared a technical memorandum summarizing findings, including a list of high collision locations and crash risk factors. This memorandum included charts and exhibits illustrating key findings related to collision factors, such as personal 874

attributes/human factors (e.g., driver impairment, behavior), vehicular and equipment factors (e.g., braking, occupant restraints), and roadway and environmental factors (e.g., speed limits, roadway geometric design).
 Identification of High-Collision Locations: A citywide analysis was conducted to identify corridors and intersections with the highest concentration of collisions. A ranked list of high-collision intersections and roadway segments was prepared based on crash frequency and severity. This helps identify high-priority locations that are also competitive for further grant application cycles.
 Field Observations: Based on the identified locations, the project team conducted field observations for five locations to develop potential engineering solutions.  Emphasis Areas: Based on the collision analysis, high collision locations, and field observations, the project team identified five emphasis areas that deserve special focus and priority and help guide the LRSP’s recommended actions and implementation strategies.

Emphasis areas represent crash factors whose reduction would have the greatest overall effect on traffic safety. The emphasis areas were as follows: pedestrian collisions, nighttime safety, aging drivers (65 and older), signalized arterial/local intersections, and aggressive and impaired driving.

Toolbox
A toolbox was included in the LRSP to group information on proven strategies and countermeasures that are effective at reducing fatal and serious injuries on roadways. These encompassed both proven engineering countermeasures and non-engineering strategies promoted by the Federal Highway Administration the California SHSP, and Caltrans Local Road Safety Plan Guidelines to improve safety for all modes of transportation and for users of all ages and abilities.

Engineering countermeasures include roadway improvements, such as pavement markings, curb and median designs, signage, and traffic control, among others. Non-engineering strategies include education, enforcement strategies, and emerging technology to improve roadway safety. Both countermeasure types work together, creating the layers of safety that are critical to a Safe System.

Each countermeasure catered to addressing at least one out of the five high-priority safety issues.

The LRSP goes beyond the list of improvements and strategies and recommends innovative ideas, such as quick builds, that are short-term and low-cost so that the City can consider implementing them as pilot projects to improve roadway user safety.

Recommendations and Implementation
Safety Projects
The project team identified site-specific low-cost/short term, medium-cost/medium term and higher-cost/long term improvements for 20 priority locations based on the collision analysis and stakeholder input. In addition, the Plan identified systemic treatments that were aligned with the emphasis areas and can be applied at other locations in the City. The Plan details and provides guidance for the City to identify where and how these improvements can be implemented. 875

Based on the identified improvements for priority locations, the project team prepared and submitted one competitive grant application in the 2022 Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) Cycle 11 for signalized intersection improvements at 14 locations. The application included project descriptions, vicinity/location maps, project schematic layouts, cost estimates, and a collision list and diagram for the proposed locations. The grant project selection announcement is expected in early January 2023, according to Caltrans.

Implementation Strategy
The Plan identifies action items and performance measures for implementation and eventual evaluation. Near-term and long-term action items are listed with performance measures. The Plan also identifies a list of potential funding sources—grants such as the Caltrans Active Transportation Program, HSIP, California Office of Traffic Safety, regional funding, and federal funding sources, which strategically position the City to apply for and be competitive for the grant funding.

In addition, CIP Project No. ST0123, Traffic Signal and Roadway Safety Improvements has been included in the adopted CIP 2022-2027 (Attachment 4), which will partially provide for feasibility, design, construction, and modification of traffic signals and roadway safety improvements at locations prioritized and recommended by the LRSP.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262- Feasibility and Planning Studies, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. The LRSP includes strategies and location data that may be used to develop future projects; however, any future action would require approval, funding, and independent evaluation under CEQA. In addition, the LRSP is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 - Information Collection. Finally, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the commonsense exemption, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the LRSP would result in physical alteration of the environment, and the action has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

Strategy 3: Infrastructure Maintenance and Reinvestment Objective b: Provide on-going condition assessments of aging City facilities and assets Strategy 5: Safe and Accessible Community
Objective b: Continue to engage with the community using all appropriate methods to share and exchange information.
876

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

A copy of this Staff Report was sent to Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Independent Watchdog Committee. The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act
2) Exhibit A to the Resolution - Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan 3) Appendices to the Local Roadway Safety Plan
4) CIP Project No. ST0122 Local Roadway Safety Plan
5) CIP Project No. ST0123 Traffic Signal and Roadway Safety Improvements 877
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 23-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

ADOPTING THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND FINDING THE PLAN EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports the City’s efforts to improve the safety of its transportation infrastructure for all modes and for people of all ages and abilities; and WHEREAS, to pursue safety grant funds through the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program administered by Caltrans and discretionary funds including Measure BB, Vehicle Registration Fee, and Transportation Fund for Clean Air administered by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, a local agency must have an LRSP or equivalent planning document; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP is aligned with the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan’s guiding principles and uses the Safe System approach endorsed by the United States Department of Transportation and Caltrans’ commitment to achieve its vision of no fatalities and severe injuries on California roadways by 2050; and
WHEREAS, this LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in Dublin, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions, site-specific as well as systemic safety improvements with an implementation 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 LRSP was examined to determine if environmental review is required. The analysis concluded that the LRSP is exempt from CEQA review as follows:
 The LRSP qualifies for the statutory exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262- Feasibility and Planning Studies, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. The LRSP includes strategies and location data that may be used to develop future projects; however, any future action would require approval, funding, and independent evaluation under CEQA. In addition, the LRSP is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 - Information Collection. Finally, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the commonsense exemption, in that it can be seen with Attachment 1
878
Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 2 of 2 certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the LRSP would result in physical alteration of the environment, and the action has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the LRSP and CEQA exemptions, as presented by Staff; 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, 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 Local Roadway Safety Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Clerk
879
The City of Dublin California
Draft Local Roadway
Safety Plan
January 2023
Attachment 2
880
1 CONTENTS
Contents.......................................................................................1 Glossary .......................................................................................2 Introduction.................................................................................4 A Commitment to Safety ................................................................................................ 4 Why Local Roadways Matter.......................................................................................... 4 Improving Safety in Dublin and Beyond ..................................................................... 4 What is an LRSP?............................................................................................................. 7 Plan Overview................................................................................................................... 7 Dublin’s Safety Emphasis Areas .................................................................................... 8 Vision and Goals........................................................................ 10 Plan Vision....................................................................................................................... 10 Plan Goals........................................................................................................................ 10 Plan Development ..................................................................... 13 LRSP Roadmap............................................................................................................... 13 Working Together........................................................................................................... 14 Dublin’s Existing Safety Efforts .................................................................................. 16 Engagement and Outreach........................................................................................... 20 Existing Conditions .................................................................. 23 Dublin Safety Today .......................................................................................................23 Descriptive Trends Analysis..........................................................................................24 Priority Intersections and Roadways...........................................................................30 Toolbox...................................................................................... 35 Available Countermeasures...........................................................................................35 Available Strategies .........................................................................................................44 Recommendations and Implementation.................................. 46 Site Specific Treatments.................................................................................................46 Systemic Treatments.......................................................................................................53 Action Items and Performance Measures..................................................................63 881
2 GLOSSARY
Aggressive driving includes behaviors such as speeding, tailgating, running traffic signals or signs, and other reckless maneuvers.

Challenge areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions identified by the California Department of Transportation’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). These areas, when addressed, have the most potential to improve roadway safety.

Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Emphasis areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues that deserve special focus in Dublin based on local trends.

Impaired driving describes operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a substance, including alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, or some prescription medications.

Local roadway safety plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide locallevel assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.

Local roadways are all roadways not part of the State Highway System.

Local roadways can be owned by cities or counties. In this plan, local roadways are Dublin owned.

Primary collision factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

Proven Safety Countermeasures are a series of 28 countermeasures and strategies promoted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

These countermeasures can help address safety issues related to speed management, intersections, roadway departures, and pedestrians and bicyclists. For more, visit https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safetycountermeasures.

The Safe System approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochur e_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that Dublin can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address roadway user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Vulnerable roadway users are those at greater risk of death or serious injury from crashes because they lack the physical protection afforded by a motor vehicle. Bicyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable roadway users. 882
3 Introduction
883
4 INTRODUCTION
A Commitment to Safety
This Local Roadway Safety Plan, or LRSP, outlines a plan to ensure Dublin residents, visitors, and those who travel through the community get home safely. Dublin is among the fastest growing communities in the country.

From 2010 to 2021, Dublin’s population grew by 37 percent.1 With increasing numbers of residents and visitors driving, walking, and biking along Dublin’s roadways, it has never been more important to address transportation safety issues in the community.

Why Local Roadways Matter
Local roadways are all roadways not part of the State Highway System.

Nationwide, local roadways are less traveled than State highways but have a higher rate of fatal and severe injury collisions.2 Efforts to improve local roadway safety—such as this LRSP—play a crucial role in identifying where and why fatal and severe injury collisions happen and actions that can help eliminate them.

Because no two communities are exactly alike, this LRSP identifies and prioritizes safety improvements specifically for safety issues on Dublin roadways. This LRSP is a living document designed to be flexible and to respond to evolving community needs. It’s recommended that this LRSP be revisited and updated every five years, consistent with best practices. 1 Pop-Facts Demographic Snapshot Summary, “Dublin, CA (city)” (2021), https://dublin.ca.gov/238/Community-and-Economic-Profile.

Improving Safety in Dublin and
Beyond
Improving local roadway safety in Dublin is just one part of larger nationwide and statewide efforts to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions.

ALIGNING WITH THE CALIFORNIA’S

STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN
(SHSP)
The 2020–2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) sets out California’s vision, goals, and objectives for reducing fatal and severe injury collisions on public roadways (local roadways and state highways). To draw this roadmap, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) led efforts to analyze collision data and collaborate with traffic safety partners across the state. As a result, the SHSP identified California’s 16 challenge areas, or areas with the most potential to improve roadway safety. Of the challenge areas, six were identified as high-priority areas, or areas with the greatest opportunity to reduce death and severe injury.

Historically, the SHSP has used the five Es (education, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, and emerging technologies) to organize strategies. In 2021, state transportation officials shifted focus and adopted guiding principles that integrate social equity, create a Safe System 2Anderson et al. Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally-Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan, FHWA-SA-09-019, (2010).
884
5 SHSP Challenge Areas
(High-priority areas for Dublin in bold)
 Active Transportation:

Pedestrians and Bicyclists
 Impaired Driving
 Intersections
 Lane Departures
 Speed Management/Aggressive
Driving
 Aging Drivers
 Commercial Vehicles
 Distracted Driving
 Driver Licensing
 Emergency Response
 Emerging Technologies
 Motorcyclists
 Occupant Protection
 Work Zones
 Young Drivers
approach, and encourage implementation of proven countermeasures and emerging technologies.

Local jurisdictions within the State have begun to implement strategies to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries using the SHSP’s guiding principles and challenge areas.

CREATING A SAFE SYSTEM
The United States Department of Transportation adopted the Safe System approach as its core strategy in January 2022.3 The following month, Caltrans released Director’s Policy 36, which commits the state to the Safe System approach to achieve its vision of no fatalities and severe injuries on California’s roadways by 2050 and safer outcomes for all communities.4 These efforts build from the Federal Highway Administration’s promotion of the Safe System approach as a strategy to eliminate all traffic deaths.

The Safe System approach aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all roadway users. It works toward eliminating roadway deaths based on six key principles:
• Deaths and severe injuries are unacceptable.
• Humans make mistakes.
• Humans are vulnerable.
• Responsibility is shared.
• Safety is proactive.
• Redundancy is critical.
3 National Roadway Safety Strategy, United States Department of Transportation, January 2022 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-SafetyStrategy.pdf 4 California Department of Transportation Director’s Policy 36, February 15, 2022 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/dp_36- a11y.pdf
885
6 There are five elements (or layers) to a Safe System (see Figure 1):
• Safe Roadway Users—All roadway users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit-riders, should be able to travel safely. • Safe Vehicles—Vehicles should be designed and regulated to reduce the frequency and severity of collisions.
• Safe Speeds—The faster a vehicle is travelling, the greater its risk to human life. Safe speeds are speeds that reduce impact forces, improve stopping time, and improve visibility.
• Safe Roadways—Roadway design can accommodate human
mistakes and improve injury tolerances through strategies, such as physically separating those travelling different speeds or using signage to alert drivers to hazards.
• Post-Collision Care—If a collision does occur, first responders must assess, stabilize, and transport those who were injured.

Forensic investigation or incident management teams are also important parts of post-collision care.

This LRSP uses a Safe System approach to identify ways
that Dublin and its safety partners can create layers to help protect all roadway users—even when they make mistakes.

To build redundancy in the local transportation system, Dublin and its teaming partners can
• Establish a vision, goals, and partnerships to help implement the plan.
• Identify systemic engineering countermeasures and use them proactively rather than reactively.
• Provide educational materials to communicate key roadway safety information to residents, business owners, and visitors. • Review policies, guidelines, and standards to prioritize safety. • Overlap roadway stakeholder efforts to create a culture of traffic safety.
• Identify potential funding and coordination sources for project implementation.
(For more on Dublin’s safety partners, see page 14.)
This plan and its recommendations can help create a Safe System in Dublin.

However, State and federal policy—like legislation to allow automated speed enforcement and continued regulation of vehicle safety standards— will be essential to complete the Safe System categories that local agencies cannot directly affect.

Figure 1. Safe System Elements
886
7 What is an LRSP?
An LRSP provides a local-level assessment of roadway safety and identifies locations, countermeasures, and strategies to improve safety on local roadways. An LRSP is a multi-disciplinary approach to traffic safety that creates partnership opportunities with safety partners (including other agencies) who can help implement recommendations.

LRSPs are one of FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures, and these plans provide crosscutting efforts to prioritize investments. To assist with implementation of engineering strategies, FHWA provides more than $2 billion each year in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds for States to address roadway safety challenges on all public roadways. To pursue HSIP grant funds in California (estimated at $210 million for Cycle 11 in 2022), a local agency must have an LRSP or equivalent planning document. Dublin’s access to these funds will help make its roadways safer for all users. For more on the FHWA’s safety strategy, visit https://www.transportation.gov/NRSS.

Plan Overview
This LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in Dublin, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions and an implementation plan. Ultimately, this LRSP creates a data-driven decisionmaking framework to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways.

The plan is organized into five main sections:

Vision & Goals—Establishes a larger vision for transportation safety in Dublin and sets goals for how to get there.

Plan Development—Details the collaborative and data-driven planning process.

Existing Conditions—Provides an analysis of collisions in Dublin.

Toolbox—Lists proven countermeasures and strategies that can improve roadway safety.

Recommendations and Implementation—Prioritizes short- and long-term projects and sets a strategy for assessing progress toward established goals.
887
8 Dublin’s Safety Emphasis Areas
Like the State’s SHSP challenge areas, emphasis areas guided this LRSP’s development as well as its recommended actions and implementation strategies. From 2016 through 2020, there were 13 reported fatal and severe injury collisions in Dublin. The city has five emphasis areas that deserve special focus based on local trends: Pedestrian Collisions In Dublin, pedestrian collisions account for 28 percent of all fatal and severe injury collisions.

Nighttime Safety
Sixty percent of Dublin’s fatal and severe injury pedestrian collisions occur in dusk, dawn, or dark conditions.

Aging Drivers
Collisions involving drivers 65 and older account for 22 percent of all fatal and severe injury collisions.

Signalized Arterial/Local Intersections
Nearly 45 percent of Dublin’s fatal and severe injury collisions occur at intersections. These locations also see many rear end and broadside collisions. In Dublin, hit object collisions—the most frequent type of fatal and severe injury collision— primarily occur at signalized intersections.

Aggressive and Impaired Driving Aggressive driving accounts for over 15 percent of fatal and severe injury collisions in Dublin and includes several behaviors, such as speeding, tailgating, running traffic signals or signs, and making other reckless maneuvers. Impaired driving accounts for over 25 percent of fatal and severe injury collisions in Dublin and includes collisions in which the driver was using alcohol and/or illicit, prescribed, or over-the-counter drugs.
888
9 Vision & GoalS
889
10 VISION AND GOALS
Plan Vision
The City of Dublin will prioritize safety in all projects and will reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions even as the city continues to grow. The City will use data and Safe System principles recommended by FHWA and SHSP to promote safety in all actions.

Plan Goals
The following goals will guide collaborative planning efforts with the Traffic Safety Committee and other partners:

1. Implement safety countermeasures to reduce the risk of future collisions.
› Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions in identified emphasis areas.5
› Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on all City roadways.
› Implement systemic engineering countermeasures at identified priority locations and other applicable locations along City roadways.
5 Dublin is expected to continue its growth in the future. With a greater population and total vehicle miles traveled, the total exposure risk will increase. The City can monitor total and fatal and severe injury collisions and a number normalized by annual population to understand if fatal and severe injury collisions are increasing, decreasing, or staying constant. An absolute reduction in fatal and severe injury collisions is still desired.

2. Analyze data to identify and prioritize opportunities to improve roadway safety.
› Monitor the number of fatal and severe injury collisions and review and summarize the number of fatal and severe injury collisions to see if total numbers are decreasing, increasing, or remaining constant.
› Maintain or increase annual safety expenditures to proactively implement proven countermeasures to target emphasis areas. › Track and apply for safety-related grants to implement safety countermeasures in line with emphasis areas.
› Review FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures, updated Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, and other resources to consider new countermeasures that can address emphasis areas.6
› Revisit and update this plan, including identified emphasis areas and priority locations, at least every five years.

3. Promote a culture of roadway safety in Dublin’s agencies, businesses, and residents.
› Continue to collaborate with the Traffic Safety Committee and other partners to continue efforts to eliminate fatalities and severe injury collisions on public roadways within the city. (For more on Dublin’s safety partners, see page 14.)
6 The Local Roadway Safety Manual is a technical resource published by Caltrans and updated with each HSIP funding cycle (approximately every two years). It includes research-backed information and funding eligibility for safety countermeasures. It is available online at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/shsp/resources. 890
11 › Continue to share resources on a regular basis with Dublin Police Services and the Office of Communications to maintain relevant information for non-engineering strategy implementation. › Continue to coordinate safety improvements and nonengineering safety strategies across jurisdictions and through Alameda CTC, Tri-Valley Transportation Council, and other relevant committees.

Countermeasures & Strategies
To build a Safe System in Dublin, this LRSP provides
both engineering countermeasures and nonengineering strategies promoted by the FHWA, the California SHSP, and Caltrans LRSP guidelines.

Engineering countermeasures include pavement
markings, curb and median designs, signage, and traffic control, among others.

Non-engineering strategies use tools including
education, equitable enforcement strategies, and
emerging technology to improve roadway safety. Both
countermeasure types work together, creating the layers of safety that are critical to a Safe System.
891
12 Plan Development
892
13 PLAN DEVELOPMENT
This plan was developed in collaboration with City staff and using collision data and best practices resources.

LRSP Roadmap
Source: FHWA, “Local Road Safety Plans,” (January 2021), https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/LRSPDIY/# 893
14 Recommended Safety Partners
City Manager’s Office and Department
of Public Information
City Council
Dublin Police Services
Alameda County Fire Department
Alameda County Department of Public
Health
Dublin Unified School District
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
(BART)
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit
Authority
County Connection
Bike East Bay
Center for Independent Living (CRIL)
Hayward
Other Community-based
Organizations
Chamber of Commerce
Working Together
Continuing longstanding partnerships with community organizations and building new ones will promote interagency collaboration and create a culture of roadway safety.

These agencies have been, or can be, valued partners:

Police Services
Dublin Police Services forms enforcement location priorities based on its review of collision history. Continuing to leverage City relationships with Dublin Police Services through the Traffic Safety Committee will help keep police services abreast of emphasis areas and high-risk locations for roadway users. Dublin Police Services could also help administer recommended programs like speed trailers.

Dublin Schools
Dublin schools can be partners in administering educational programs for students, staff, and families that encourage safe transportation behaviors.

The Dublin Unified School District, Quarry Lane School, and other private schools, preschools, and after-school programs can also be valuable partners.

Transit Agencies
Transportation agencies and providers such as BART, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA/Tri-Valley Wheels, and Contra Costa County Connection) can provide promotion for education campaigns and help identify engineering solutions at locations of shared interest or jurisdiction.
894
15 Community Groups & Local Organizations
Community groups can provide feedback on safety issues and help encourage communication with the public about safety campaigns and future projects.Health advocacy or active transportation groups like Bike East Bay can help coordinate education classes through schools or at City- sponsored events. (For a full list of stakeholders identified collaboratively with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update (2022), see Appendix A.)
City Offices
This LRSP was primarily developed by the Public Works Department, and other departments will be essential to the plan’s implementation. The City Manager’s Office and the Office of Communications receive information and help disseminate information to the community. Critical pieces of information that come through this office include community events, news, fact sheets, and FAQs. Collaboration with this department is essential to effectively relay information on safety education, project news, community engagement, and other roadway safety initiatives. The Community Development Department plays an important role in elevating safety through community planning and development review and efforts. The Economic Development Office maintains strong relationships with local businesses and can facilitate conversations and information about safety goals, initiatives, and upcoming projects.

Alameda County Fire Department
The Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) already provides guidance on safety improvement projects during the design review process. This invaluable partnership helps improve emergency response services and assessments of proposed safety countermeasures.
895
16 Dublin’s Existing Safety Efforts
This LRSP builds on existing plans, policies, and programs that support safe, accessible, equitable, and multimodal transportation. The most relevant documents pertaining to local roadway safety are included below, along with an explanation of how their goals, policies, programs, and recommendations informed this LRSP.

Dublin Traffic Safety Reports and Studies (2018)
Every three years, traffic safety performance reports have identified intersections and street segments with collision rates higher than the statewide average for similar locations and offer potential safety improvements. The most recent study was completed in 2018.

The intersections and segments identified in these reports helped the LRSP project team identify and vet key locations and safety improvements. This LRSP will replace these studies moving forward.

Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution 199-12) (2012) Complete streets are designed to make space for all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motor vehicle drivers. The Complete Streets Policy identifies complete streets planning as an integral part of providing mobility needs for all users and furthering the health, safety, welfare, economic vitality, and environmental wellbeing of the community.

This LRSP includes multimodal safety recommendations intended to provide complete streets.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2022)
The updated 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will include recommendations to guide Dublin’s approach to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The update inventories existing conditions; analyzes existing barriers to walking and biking; provides program, policy, and infrastructure recommendations; and presents a prioritization framework to identify a tiered list of projects for implementation. The updated plan prioritizes safety in facility design and policy implementation. The updated plan also identifies local biking and walking high-injury networks, or HINs based on six years of collision data from 2014 to 2019. (To view the HINs in more detail, see Appendix E.)
The LRSP aligns its high-collision locations and countermeasures with the updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan’s priorities and recommendations. This LRSP also incorporates community
feedback collected as part of the updated plan’s public outreach efforts.

Alameda County Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2019) The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Countywide Active Transportation Plan (CATP) aims to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety by prioritizing projects, policies, and programs that will address the greatest safety needs and by optimizing investments through corridor-level analyses and performance evaluations.

This CATP created profiles for each community in the county and includes local pedestrian and bicycle HINs based on collision data from 2012 to 2016. In total, eight miles of City roadways are part of a pedestrian or bicycle HIN.

This LRSP identifies projects along local HINs that would be prioritized for capital investment opportunities through the Alameda CTC.
896
17 Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan (2020)
The recently updated Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan aims to develop pedestrian-oriented environments on commercial throughways, downtown local streets, crosstown boulevards, and parkways.

LRSP goals and project recommendations align with this plan’s emphasis on safe and comfortable facilities for people walking and biking.

Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Updated 2022)
This plan establishes a planning framework for the future growth and development of approximately 3,300 acres of the largely unincorporated area east of Camp Parks. To reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles, the plan features a comprehensive multimodal transportation and circulation system that will accommodate regional and local automobile traffic and encourage people to choose alternative modes of transportation, like walking, cycling, bus, ridesharing, light rail, or BART.

This LRSP coordinates its project recommendations with those identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The LRSP also aligns its goals with the larger multimodal goals of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.

Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (2020)
The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan combines and replaces five existing specific plans: Downtown Core, Dublin Downtown, Village Parkway, West Dublin BART, and a portion of San Ramon Road. The plan sets a vision for a pedestrian-friendly downtown.

This LRSP aligns its downtown project recommendations with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan’s guiding principles. Both systemic and location-specific recommendations in this LRSP align with Dublin’s vision of pedestrian-friendly streets and a roadway system traversable by foot or bike.

Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan (2014)
This plan ensures that future development in Dublin’s historic core will remain sensitive to the area’s historic past. The plan also formalizes the City’s commitment to preserving and enhancing remaining historic, cultural, and archeological resources.

Safety project recommendations in this LRSP account for the identified safety, pedestrian-experience, and placemaking goals set out in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan.

Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (2013)
The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan outlines the development of 189 acres in the center of Dublin, north of Interstate 580 and Dublin Boulevard, on a portion of the former Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The project includes residential units, commercial uses, parks, open space, and a school. To create a well-connected and environmentally-conscious community for all users, the plan examines land use, development standards, design guidelines, and streetscape design.

Safety project recommendations in this LRSP incorporate streetscape and design guidelines identified in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area whenever possible.
897
18 Safe Routes to School
Alameda CTC manages the Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program. Through direct assistance and partnerships with local jurisdictions and school districts, SR2S promotes active transportation choices for parents and students traveling to school. School staff, parent volunteers, Dublin Police Services, and Dublin’s Public Works staff continue to work together to create school safety assessments, which report street conditions and utilization around schools and make infrastructure and programmatic recommendations. Alameda CTC maintains a SR2S webpage with resources and school safety assessments at participating schools.

The LRSP project team used SR2S recommendations to develop engineering countermeasures for systemic solutions throughout Dublin and site-specific solutions near schools.

For more on the SR2S webpage and school safety
assessments, visit https://alamedacountysr2s.org/ourprogram/school-safety-assessments/#dublin.

For Dublin SR2S maps, visit
https://dublin.ca.gov/349/Safe-Routes-to-School.
898
19 Figure 2: Dublin Specific Plan Areas
899
20 Engagement and Outreach
This LRSP was developed concurrently with the ongoing 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, which organized a series of public engagement events. Because safety is central to both plans’ recommendations, those public activities and feedback inform locations, priorities, and input for this LRSP. The 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan project team conducted an extensive public survey, hosted two public workshops, and conducted a series of pop-up events at the Dublin Farmers’ Market, the Alamo Creek trail head, and at a local St. Patrick’s Day event. At these pop-ups, City staff and project team members received input on what infrastructure would best meet the needs of Dublin’s residents, business owners, workers, and other visitors who walk and bike. Survey respondents indicated that safety and vehicle speeds were primary concerns when walking or biking. By incorporating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan’s high-injury network findings and listening directly to community needs, this LRSP reflects communitydriven desires to improve safety and encourage more multimodal transportation choices on Dublin’s local roadway system.

Figure 3. Pop-up Community Engagement at a St. Patrick’s Day Event 900
21 Figure 4. Webmap for the 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 901
22 Existing Conditions
902
23 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Dublin Safety Today
Traffic safety is a priority in Dublin, and collision data help identify where safety improvements are needed the most.

The California Office of Traffic Safety provides comparative crash rankings for cities statewide. For 2019, the most recent year comparisons are available, Dublin ranked in the best-performing 40th percentile (i.e., fewest injury/fatal collisions) of similarly sized California cities.7 Because Dublin is a rapidly growing urban city, it shows some expected safety trends (pedestrian involvement and intersection collisions) when compared to the state as a whole. The city’s fatal and severe injury collisions—18 reported from 2016 through 2020 –are trending at least 10 percent higher than the State average in three areas:
• Aging Drivers
• Pedestrians
• Intersections
The share of fatal and severe injury collisions that occur at intersections in Dublin is about three times higher than the statewide average (72 percent compared to 23 percent) (see Figure 5).
7 California Office of Traffic Safety Crash Rankings are available online at https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/. 46%
34%
28%
23%
18%
17%
15%
12%
7%
7%
33%
17%
28%
72%
11%
28%
17%
22%
11%
0%
Lane Departures
Aggressive Driving
Impaired Driving
Intersections
Motorcyclists
Pedestrians
Young Drivers
Aging Drivers
Bicyclists
Commercial Vehicles
Dublin Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Share (2016-2020)
Statewide Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Share (2010-2017) Figure 5. Dublin Collisions Compared to Statewide Average in Challenge Areas. 903
24 These collisions predominately occur at intersections of arterial and minor roadways. Five of the SHSP high-priority areas align with this LRSP’s emphasis areas and goals: intersections, pedestrians, bicyclists, impaired driving, and speed management/aggressive driving.

Some of the differences between the city’s collisions and the statewide average simply come from Dublin being an urban area and much of California being rural. Because cities have more intersections and larger populations, they also have more potential for collision conflict and more people walking and biking.
(For a complete discussion of collisions in Dublin, see Appendix B.)

8 California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS database collects and process data from collision scenes. Scene data includes information such as location, date, and collision type. For more, visit Descriptive Trends Analysis
Analysis of reported collisions from the 2016 to 2020 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) dataset identified Dublin’s high-priority emphasis areas for safety improvement.8 The emphasis areas guide LRSP recommendations and project prioritization to maximize limited resources to improve safety.
https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/services-information/switrs-internet-statewide-integratedtraffic-records-system.

About the Data
To assess citywide safety performance, the project
team analyzed collision patterns and identified priority intersections and roadways using a location-specific
network screening. This analysis used reported
collision data from 2016 through 2020. At the time of
analysis, 2020 was the most recent year for which
complete collision data were available.
904
25 In this analysis, fatal and severe injury collisions are generally grouped together because the difference between death and a severe injury can depend on factors such as emergency response time or the victim’s health rather than the collision type.

Understanding Collision Severity
Collision severity is coded according to the highest
degree of injury experienced.

Fatal—A person dies due to injuries sustained in the
collision.

Serious Injury—A person has major, visible injuries
like broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of
“other visible injuries.”
Moderate Injury—A person has significant and
visible injuries like bruises or minor lacerations.

Moderate injury collisions are sometimes referred to
as “other visible injury” collisions.

Minor Injury—A person has injuries that are not
apparent from the outside. Examples include limps,
neck pain, or confusion. Minor injury collisions are
sometimes referred to as “compliant of pain” or
“suspected injury” collisions.

Property Damage Only (PDO)—There were no
injuries sustained.
905
26 Figure 6. Collision Tree: Dublin Collisions by Location, Severity, and Mode 906
27 KEY TAKEAWAYS
907
28 908
29 Figure 7: Collisions by Type and Severity
Figure 8: Collisions by Reported Primary Collision Factor Overturned
Not Stated
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Other
Head-On
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Broadside
Rear End
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Severe Injury/Fatal Other Injury Property Damage Only
Wrong Side of Road
Not Stated
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Other Improper Driving
Unsafe Lane Change
Unknown
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Traffic Signals and Signs
Automobile Right of Way
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Severe Injury/Fatal Other Injury 0 50 Property Damage Only 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 909
30 RECOMMENDED EMPHASIS AREAS
According to Dublin’s collision patterns identified in the descriptive trends analysis, the greatest opportunity to improve city roadway safety is to target the following emphasis areas:

Pedestrian Collisions
Nighttime Safety
Aging Drivers (65 and Older)
Signalized Arterial and Minor Roadway Intersections
Aggressive and Impaired Driving
Priority Intersections and Roadways
After mapping collision data, a network screening was conducted to identify intersections and roadway segments with the highest collision frequency and severity.

Priority locations were first based on the relative frequency and severity of collisions and then refined to emphasize locations with common characteristics associated with citywide emphasis areas. For example, the project team revised the list to prioritize signalized intersections on arterial roadways, locations with pedestrian collisions, and other emphasis areas with collision history.

Improvements have been identified for these 15 priority intersections and 5 priority roadway segments (shown in the table and map on the next pages). 910
31 Table 1: Top 20 Priority Locations
# Location** Location
Type1
Annualized
Collision
Severity
Score2
Total
Fatal and
Severe
Injury
Crashes
Average
Collision
Rate3
Caltrans
Average
Collision
Rate for
Reference
Population4
1 Dublin Blvd & Arnold Rd SI 59.9 17 2 0.29 0.42
2 Dublin Blvd & Village Pkwy SI 49.4 43 1 0.55 0.42
3 Dublin Blvd & Donlon Way UI 42.1 6 1 0.21 0.24
4 San Ramon Rd & Amador Valley Blvd SI 41.1 18 1 0.30 0.42 5 Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd SI 37.2 65 0 0.48 0.42
6 Dougherty Rd (north of Willow Creek Dr to south of 8th St), 0.75 mi R 36.2 8 1 0.17 1.34
7 Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr to Gleason Dr) – 0.75 mi R 35.5 4 1 0.30 1.34 8 Village Pkwy (northern city limits to north of Tamarack Dr), 0.69 mi R 35.3 8 1 0.55 1.34
9 Amador Valley Blvd (Burton St to Dougherty Rd) – 0.75 mi R 34.1 3 1 0.18 1.27 10 Regional St (Amador Valley Blvd to south of Saint Patrick Way), 0.40 mi R 33.9 6 1 1.20 1.27
11 San Ramon Rd & Shannon Ave SI 29.3 8 1 0.21 0.42
12 Dublin Blvd & Dublin Ct SI 27.3 13 1 0.18 0.42
13 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd SI 25.8 34 0 0.45 0.42
911
32 14 Central Pkwy & Grafton St SI 24.3 3 1 0.32 0.42
15 Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way* SI 18.5 28 0 0.44 0.42 16 Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr SI 16.6 33 0 0.47 0.42
17 Dougherty Rd & Sierra Ln SI 15.6 23 0 0.43 0.42
18 Dublin Blvd & San Ramon Rd SI 14 35 0 0.33 0.42
19 Village Pkwy & Amador Valley Blvd SI 13.3 17 0 0.32 0.42 20 Dublin Blvd & Sierra Ct SI 13.2 21 0 0.27 0.42
1 SI=signalized intersection; UI=unsignalized intersection; R=roadway 2 Severity score is calculated based on Caltrans costs of collision outcomes and is normalized to be expressed in terms of equivalent property damage only collisions (PDOs). The relative severity values are as follows: fatal/severe injury collisions are 119.9 equivalent PDOs at signalized intersections, 190.8 at unsignalized intersections, and 165.2 along roadways; moderate injuries are 10.7; and minor injuries are 6.1. For example, a signalized intersection with an annualized crash severity score of 48, for example, could represents the equivalent of 48 PDO collisions per year, two fatal/severe injury collisions over 5 years (119.9*2/5 = 48), or some combination of severity levels resulting in the same score. 3 Average Collision rate is presented for intersections as the number of collisions per million vehicles entering the intersections and for roadway segments as the number of collisions per million vehicle miles traveled along the roadway segment. 4 References are based on statewide Caltrans state highway collision rates. For roadways, the comparison reference population is a three-year “Suburban roadways” average ending 2019; for intersections, the comparison reference population is a one-year (2019) collision rate for intersections by control type. The data used for comparison are available online at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/research-innovation-system-information/annual-collision-data. 912
33 Figure 9: Priority Locations Map
913
34 Toolbox
914
35 TOOLBOX
Improving safety and addressing emphasis areas will take a coordinated effort and a combination of the available strategies presented in this section.

More information on countermeasures and strategies can be found in the Countermeasure Toolbox in Appendix C and the Strategy Toolbox in Appendix D.

Available Countermeasures
These engineering countermeasures are proven effective treatments to reduce collision risk. Selected countermeasures were tailored to reduce collisions and improve safety for issues specific to Dublin’s signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadways.

Identifying opportunities to implement these countermeasures can help address safety issues on Dublin’s local roadways. Combining these countermeasures with non-engineering strategies can also target roadway user characteristics and behaviors.

Proven Safety Countermeasures
Throughout this section, look for this
icon:

This flag denotes that a recommendation
is one of FHWA’s proven safety
countermeasures, a set of tools and
strategies that are effective in reducing
fatal and serious injuries on roadways.

These tools address speed management,
roadway departure collisions,
intersections, and pedestrian and bicyclist
safety. Some proven countermeasures—
like local roadway safety plans—cut
across categories.

For more, visit
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencount
ermeasures/.

Countermeasures vs. Strategies
Countermeasures: These are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Strategies: These are non-engineering recommendations that can help address the other portions of a Safe System and build a culture of safety in Dublin. 915
36 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Table 2. Available Signalized Intersection Countermeasures Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID*
Documented
Collision
Reduction
Factor**
Cost Estimate***
$—under $50,000
$$—$50,000–$100,000
$$$—greater than $100,000
Applicable Emphasis Areas
Pedestrian Collisions Nighttime Safety Aging Drivers Signalized Arterial or Minor Roadway Intersections Impaired Driving
Aggressive Driving
Motor Vehicle Treatments
Add intersection lighting S01† 40% $
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
S02† 15% $
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
S03‡ 15% $
Provide advanced dilemma-zone
detection for high-speed approaches N/A N/A $
Install left-turn lane and add turn
phase S06/S07† 55% $–$$$ǁ
Convert signal to mast arm (from
pedestal-mounted) S08 30% $–$$ǁ
916
37 Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID*
Documented
Collision
Reduction
Factor**
Cost Estimate***
$—under $50,000
$$—$50,000–$100,000
$$$—greater than $100,000
Applicable Emphasis Areas
Pedestrian Collisions Nighttime Safety Aging Drivers Signalized Arterial or Minor Roadway Intersections Impaired Driving
Aggressive Driving
Install raised median on
approaches S12† 25% $ǁ
Create directional median openings
to allow (and restrict) left turns and
U-turns (signalized intersection)
S14† 50% $ǁ
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning S10† 30% $
Install raised pavement markers and
striping (through intersection) S09† 10% $
No Right Turn on Red (RTOR)1 N/A N/A $
Centerline hardening1 N/A N/A N/A
Convert intersection to roundabout
(from signal) S16† 35–67%** Varies
Install painted safety zone N/A N/A $
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Treatments
Install pedestrian countdown signal
heads S17PB† 25% $
917
38 Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID*
Documented
Collision
Reduction
Factor**
Cost Estimate***
$—under $50,000
$$—$50,000–$100,000
$$$—greater than $100,000
Applicable Emphasis Areas
Pedestrian Collisions Nighttime Safety Aging Drivers Signalized Arterial or Minor Roadway Intersections Impaired Driving
Aggressive Driving
Install pedestrian crossing S18PB† 25% $ǁǁ
Install pedestrian scramble S19PB† 40% $
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box) S20PB† 15% $
Modify signal phasing to
implement a leading
pedestrian interval (LPI)
S21PB† 60% $ǁǁǁ
* CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2022, LRSM). If a CM ID is listed, the treatment is eligible for federal funding through HSIP and more information is available at Local Roadway Safety—A Manual for California's Local Road Owners. If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not funded through HSIP. Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 11. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator.
**Documented collision reduction factors are derived either from the LRSM or the FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. An “N/A” indicates that a documented, research-backed collision reduction factor does not exist. *** Cost estimates developed based on safety projects and bid prices from 2019-2021. Costs do not include any additional construction, right-of-way, or soft costs. Construction costs continue to fluctuate and should be checked against more recent data if possible. † Countermeasure is 90% through federal funding in the current HSIP cycle (Cycle 11, 2022).
‡ Countermeasure is 50% reimbursable through federal funding in the current HSIP cycle. ‖ Cost per approach
‖‖ Cost per crossing
‖‖‖ Cost includes countdown timer, controller, signal head, and software 918
39 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Table 3. Available Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID*
Documented
Collision
Reduction
Factor**
Cost Estimate***
$—under $50,000
$$—$50,000–$100,000
$$$—greater than $100,000
Applicable Emphasis Areas
Pedestrian Collisions Nighttime Safety Aging Drivers
Signalized Arterial or Minor
Roadway Intersections
Impaired Driving Pedestrian Collisions
Motor Vehicle Treatments
Add intersection lighting NS01† 40% $
Create directional median
openings to allow and restrict
left-turns and U-turns
NS15† 50% $ǁ
Install painted safety zone N/A N/A $
Install raised medians
(refuge islands) NS19PB† 45% $ǁǁ
Install or upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or other
intersection warning or
regulatory signs
NS06† 15% $
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings NS07† 25% $
Install transverse rumble
strips on approaches NS10† 20% $ǁ
919
40 Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID*
Documented
Collision
Reduction
Factor**
Cost Estimate***
$—under $50,000
$$—$50,000–$100,000
$$$—greater than $100,000
Applicable Emphasis Areas
Pedestrian Collisions Nighttime Safety Aging Drivers
Signalized Arterial or Minor
Roadway Intersections
Impaired Driving Pedestrian Collisions
Install splitter islands on the
minor roadway approaches NS13† 40% $ǁ
Pedestrian Treatments
Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations
(with enhanced safety features)
NS21PB† 35% $
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon NS23PB† 55% $$$
* CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2022, LRSM). If a CM ID is listed, the treatment is eligible for federal funding through HSIP and more information is available at Local Roadway Safety - A Manual for California's Local Road Owners. If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not funded through HSIP. Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 11. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator.
**Documented collision reduction factors are derived either from the LRSM or the FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. An “N/A” indicates that a documented, research-backed collision reduction factor does not exist. *** Cost estimates cover the countermeasure only and do not include any additional construction, right-of-way, or civil costs.
† Indicates that the countermeasure is eligible for 90% reimbursement through federal funding in the current HSIP cycle (Cycle 11, 2022). This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator. ‖ Cost per approach
‖‖ Cost per square foot
920
41 ROADWAYS
Table 4. Available Roadway Countermeasures
Countermeasure (CM)
Name
CM
ID*
Documented
Collision
Reduction
Factor
Cost Estimate*
$—under $50,000
$$—$50,000–$100,000
$$$—greater than $100,000
Applicable Emphasis Areas
Pedestrian Collisions Nighttime Safety Aging Drivers
Signalized Arterial/Minor
Roadway Intersections
Impaired Driving Aggressive Driving
Motor Vehicle Treatments
Add lighting R01† 35% $ǁ
Use a roadway diet
(reduce travel lanes
from 4 to 3 and add a
two way left-turn and
bike lanes)
R14† 30% $ǁǁ
Corridor access
management N/A Varies Varies
Install edgeline
rumble strips or stripes R31† 15% $ǁǁ
Install delineators,
reflectors, and/or object
marker
R27† 15% $
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)
R22† 15% $
921
42 Countermeasure (CM)
Name
CM
ID*
Documented
Collision
Reduction
Factor
Cost Estimate*
$—under $50,000
$$—$50,000–$100,000
$$$—greater than $100,000
Applicable Emphasis Areas
Pedestrian Collisions Nighttime Safety Aging Drivers
Signalized Arterial/Minor
Roadway Intersections
Impaired Driving Aggressive Driving
Install speed feedback signs R26† 30% $
Pedestrian and Bicyclist Treatments
Install or upgrade
pedestrian crossing with
enhanced safety features
R35PB† 35% $
Install raised pedestrian
crossing R36PB† 35% $$
Install separated bike
lanes R33PB† 45% $$ǁǁǁ
* CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2022, LRSM). If a CM ID is listed, the treatment is eligible for federal funding through HSIP and more information is available at Local Roadway Safety - A Manual for California's Local Road Owners. If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not funded through HSIP. Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 11. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator.
**Documented collision reduction factors are derived either from the LRSM or the FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. An “N/A” indicates that a documented, research-backed collision reduction factor does not exist. *** Cost estimates cover the countermeasure only and do not include any additional construction, right-of-way, or civil costs.
† Indicates that the countermeasure is eligible for 90% reimbursement through federal funding in the current HSIP cycle (Cycle 11, 2022).
‖ Cost per light
‖‖ Cost per mile
‖‖‖ Cost per foot
922
43 QUICK BUILD AND DEMONSTRATION

PROJECT GUIDANCE
Agencies around the country use quick build and demonstration projects to improve roadway user safety. Sometimes called tactical urbanism, quick builds and demonstration projects use easy-to-install materials like paint or posts that test flexible solutions to traffic or safety issues.9 Quick builds offer Dublin easy and cost-effective ways to prevent pedestrian collisions, improve nighttime safety, and improve signalized arterial and minor roadway intersections. PeopleForBikes’ Quick Builds for Better Streets and the Street Plans Collaborative’s Tactical Urbanist’s Guide to Materials and Design provide excellent guidance for implementing quick builds.

Potential partners: Local Community Organizations (see Appendix A), Dublin Unified School District, and the Office of Communications 9 PeopleForBikes (2016). Quick Builds for Better Streets: A New Project Delivery Model for U.S. Cities, 2016PeoplefoBikes_Quick-Builds-for-Better-Streets.pdf (nacto.org) A quick-build parklet on Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA
Innovative Idea
923
44 Available Strategies
Identifying opportunities to implement these non-engineering strategies can help support countermeasures and build a safety culture in Dublin. For complete descriptions of these strategies and their partners, see Appendix D. The strategies are organized into four categories; each is described below.

EDUCATION
To build a culture of safety, the public should have access to traffic safety information. Public education and collaboration help bridge gaps in knowledge that influence roadway user behavior.

EQUITABLE ENFORCEMENT
Even with engineering countermeasures in place, roadway users can fail to obey traffic laws and cause collisions of varying severity. Police enforcement has been traditionally used as a strategy to increase driver awareness, educate drivers on roadway violations, and reduce traffic collisions. However, if enforcement strategies are to improve overall safety in a community, traffic laws must be applied equitably. Directed enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities.

When rigorously evaluated for intent and impact, the following enforcement strategies can help provide equitable and successful outcomes:
• Speed Monitoring Trailers
• Progressive Ticketing
• Speed Enforcement in School Zones
• High Visibility Saturation Patrols
• Collision vs. Citation Evaluation Programs

EMERGENCY SERVICES
In partnership with emergency medical services (EMS), the following strategies can improve regionwide response times and coordination by sharing real-time information:
• Local Hospital or Outreach Group Partnerships
• Emergency Services Coordination

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
New traffic safety technology can enhance the benefits of Dublin’s other engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services efforts. Some helpful technologies include artificial intelligence and deep learning software, crosswalk motion sensors, also called PUFFIN crossings.
924
45 Recommendations and
Implementation
925
46 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
These treatments represent the improvements with the greatest potential to help reduce fatal and severe injury collisions and build a culture of safety in Dublin.

Site Specific Treatments
This project matrix represents a list of high-priority, achievable improvements at priority locations. Locations were identified using the descriptive trends analysis. The matrix is organized by short-term, medium-term, and long-term opportunities. This list is not exhaustive, as many of these treatments can be applied elsewhere in Dublin.

Table 5: Site-Specific Projects
Location Location
Type* Low-Cost, Short-Term Countermeasures1 Medium-Cost, MediumTerm Countermeasures1 Higher-Cost, LongTerm Countermeasures1

1. Dublin Blvd & Arnold
Blvd
SI › S21PB. Implement leading pedestrian
interval (LPI)
› Evaluate or consider implementing no right
turn on red (RTOR) where right turn
conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as high visibility crosswalk (HVC)
› S03. Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation).
› S02. Improve signal
hardware
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
› Evaluate need for
double left turn lane in
eastbound direction
and consider
repurposing space.
› Consider realigning
curb ramps so all
marked crosswalks are
perpendicular to travel
lanes
926
47 Location Location
Type* Low-Cost, Short-Term Countermeasures1 Medium-Cost, MediumTerm Countermeasures1 Higher-Cost, LongTerm Countermeasures1

2. Dublin Blvd & Village
Pkwy
SI › S21PB. Implement LPI
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR where right turn conflicts with
pedestrian crossing
› S03. Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation)
› S02. Improve signal
hardware
› Modify existing median
for pedestrian refuge
island
› Align crosswalk to remove
skew, shorten crossing,
and reduce curb radii
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
› Remove channelized
right-turn lane in
northbound direction.

3. Dublin Blvd & Donlon
Way2
UI › Install painted safety zone and centerline
hardening.
› NS19PB: Install
pedestrian refuge island
› Consider change of traffic
control (evaluate warrants
and consider roundabout)

4. San Ramon Rd & Amador
Valley Blvd
SI › S21PB. Implement LPI
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as High Visibility Crosswalk (HVC)
› S03. Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation)
› Modify existing median
for pedestrian refuge
island and to reduce curb
return radius
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
› Remove channelized
right-turn lane in
southbound and
westbound directions
927
48 Location Location
Type* Low-Cost, Short-Term Countermeasures1 Medium-Cost, MediumTerm Countermeasures1 Higher-Cost, LongTerm Countermeasures1

5. Dublin Blvd & Dougherty
Rd
SI › S21PB. Implement LPI
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as HVC
› S03. Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation)
› S09. Install raised
pavement markers and
striping within the
intersection.
› R33PB. Install separated
bike lanes in eastbound
direction
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
› Corridor access
management

6. Dougherty Rd (south of
Willow Creek Dr and north
of Camp Parks Blvd), 0.75 mi
R › R26. Install speed feedback signs. › Corridor access management
› Evaluate need for
double left-turn lane at
Dougherty Road
(northbound) and for
U-turn lane at
Dougherty Road
(southbound); consider
repurposing space

7. Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr
to Gleason Dr), 0.75 mi
R › R26. Install speed feedback signs › Evaluate need for pedestrian crossing at
Turnberry Dr.

8. Village Pkwy (northern
city limits to north of
Tamarack Dr), 0.69 mi
R › R26. Install speed feedback signs › R33PB. Install separated bike lanes in southbound
and northbound
directions
928
49 Location Location
Type* Low-Cost, Short-Term Countermeasures1 Medium-Cost, MediumTerm Countermeasures1 Higher-Cost, LongTerm Countermeasures1

9. Amador Valley Blvd
(Burton St to Dougherty
Rd), 0.75 mi
R › R26. Install speed feedback signs
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR where right turn conflicts with
pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as HVC.
› R33PB. Install buffered
bike lanes in eastbound
and westbound directions
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements at signalized
intersections
› Centerline hardening at
intersection roadways
› Study need for marked
crossing at Dublin
Meadows Street;

10. Regional St (Amador
Valley Blvd to south of Saint
Patrick Way), 0.40 mi
R › R33PB. Install buffered
bike lanes in southbound
and northbound
directions
› Add midblock pedestrian
crossing with enhanced
safety features
› Corridor Access
Management

11. San Ramon Rd &
Shannon Ave
SI › S21PB. Implement LPI
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› Modify existing median
for pedestrian refuge
island
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
› Reevaluate need for
separate right-turn
lanes on northbound
and southbound
approaches
929
50 Location Location
Type* Low-Cost, Short-Term Countermeasures1 Medium-Cost, MediumTerm Countermeasures1 Higher-Cost, LongTerm Countermeasures1

12. Dublin Blvd & Dublin Ct3 SI › S21PB. Implement LPI
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› S02. Improve signal
hardware
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements

13. Dublin Blvd & Tassajara
Rd
SI › S21PB. Implement LPI across southbound,
eastbound, and westbound legs
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as HVC
› S03. Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation).
› S02. Improve Signal
Hardware
› S09. Install raised
pavement markers and
striping within the
intersection
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements

14. Central Pkwy & Grafton
St
SI › S21PB. Implement LPI
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› S02. Improve Signal
Hardware
› Modify existing median
for pedestrian refuge
island
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
930
51 Location Location
Type* Low-Cost, Short-Term Countermeasures1 Medium-Cost, MediumTerm Countermeasures1 Higher-Cost, LongTerm Countermeasures1

15. Martinelli Way &
Hacienda Dr
SI › S21PB: Implement LPI;
Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing.
› S02. Improve signal
hardware.
› R33PB. Install separated
bike lanes in southbound
and northbound
directions
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
› Corridor access
management

16. Dublin Blvd & Hacienda
Dr
SI › Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR where right turn conflicts with
pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as HVC
› S03. Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation)
› S02. Improve signal
hardware
› S09. Install raised
pavement markers and
striping within the
intersection
› Corridor access
management

17. Dougherty Rd & Sierra
Ln4
SI › Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR where right turn conflicts with
pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as HVC
› Install painted safety zone.
› S03. Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation).
› Install concrete curb radii
reductions.

18. Dublin Blvd & San
Ramon Rd
SI › Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR where right turn conflicts with
pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as HVC
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
931
52 Location Location
Type* Low-Cost, Short-Term Countermeasures1 Medium-Cost, MediumTerm Countermeasures1 Higher-Cost, LongTerm Countermeasures1

19. Amador Valley Blvd &
Village Pkwy
SI › S21PB. Implement LPI
› Evaluate or consider implementing no
RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› Restripe as HVC
› S03. Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation)
› S02. Improve signal
hardware
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
› Remove channelized
right turn lane in
eastbound,
southbound, and
westbound directions

20. Dublin Blvd & Sierra Ct SI › Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right
turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing
› S21PB: Implement LPI
› S03 Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, or operation)
› S02. Improve signal
hardware
› Consider installing
protected intersection
elements
* Signalized Intersection (SI); Unsignalized Intersection (UI); Roadway (R) 1: Where provided, treatment IDs (e.g., “S21PB”) indicate countermeasure (CM) IDs, which refer to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) (April 2022). If a CM ID is listed, the treatment is eligible for federal funding through HSIP and more information is available at Local Roadway Safety—A Manual for California's Local Road Owners. If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not funded through HSIP. Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 11. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator. 2: Intersection improvements installed in 2018 (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) 3: Location includes at least one private roadway
4: Intersection improvements installed in 2019 (Class II bike lanes installed through along Dougherty Road and constructed median installed along north leg of intersection) 932
53 Systemic Treatments

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS &

RIGHT-TURN-ON-RED RESTRICTIONS
Emphasis Areas Addressed
When paired, leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs), or variations on that treatment, and right-turn-on-red restrictions are a low-cost treatment that can be applied systemically to reduce the risk of pedestrian collisions, especially in areas with a high level of existing or anticipated pedestrian activity (see Figure 10). Research has shown that LPIs may lose their intended benefits when right turns on red that conflict with the crossing are not restricted.10 When using an LPI, right turns on red should be restricted parallel and perpendicular to the treated crossings, since right-turning drivers from both streets would otherwise proceed and conflict with crossing pedestrians.
10 Hubbard, Sarah ML, Darcy M. Bullock, and John H. Thai. "Trial implementation of a leading pedestrian interval: lessons learned." ITE journal 78.10 (2008): 32.

At some locations—particularly those near freeways with highly peaking traffic and with very high volumes of right turns (exceeding 200 vehicles per hour)—traffic operations and queueing may be a concern. NCHRP Report 969: Traffic Control Strategies for Pedestrians and Bicyclists explains some options for these locations:
 For LPIs providing a head-start along a minor street, adding an LPI typically has no effect on traffic operations.
 LPIs and right-turn-on-red restrictions can be implemented for certain times of day.
 At locations with very high volumes of right turns, full protection between vehicle and pedestrian movements may be preferred.

NCHRP Report 969 offers information on such options.11
 If the pedestrian phase is push-button actuated, then the additional LPI phase will only be triggered when a pedestrian is present. 11 The report is available online at https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/182635.aspx 933
54 EXTENDING THE WAITING AREA
A typical LPI is anywhere from 3 to 7 seconds, but the length of an LPI may be determined by how long it takes a pedestrian to reach the conflict zone (see Figure 10). If a pedestrian waiting area is far enough ahead of the stop line, the LPI may be very short or unnecessary.

Figure 10: Geometric Requirements that Govern Leading Pedestrian Interval Timing (left); Leading Through Interval Application (center and right) Note: dPed = the distance a pedestrian covers to reach the middle of the conflict zone dRT = the distance a right-turning vehicle covers to reach the middle of the near edge of the conflict zone
Source: NCHRP Report 969
934
55 LEADING THROUGH INTERVAL
Leading through intervals (LTIs) allow vehicle through movements, pedestrian movements, and bicycle movements to proceed while holding left and right turns long enough for pedestrians to have a partially protected crossing. The LTI can be implemented with or without exclusive right-turn lanes (see Figure 9). NCHRP Report 969 also recommends other applications, including when full protection should be considered.

The locations shown in Figure 10 are initial candidates for implementing LPIs and right-turn-on-red restrictions. The City may choose to evaluate these locations to compare queueing impacts of implementing LPI or LTI at these locations against the safety benefits of providing the treatment.

There may be other locations identified with a high level of existing or anticipated pedestrian activity as part of future plans or development review; this treatment may also be appropriate at such locations. 935
56 Figure 11. Near-Term Leading Pedestrian Interval Opportunities 936
57 NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY
Two key engineering countermeasures can help improve nighttime safety in Dublin: (1) roadway and pedestrian-scale lighting, and (2) signal visibility improvements.

ROADWAY AND PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING
Emphasis Areas Addressed
In general, Dublin has lighting along roadways, at intersections, and at crossings. Along roadways with four or more lanes, supplemental pedestrian-scale lighting may be required to adequately light the sidewalk and crossing locations.

The 2022 FHWA Pedestrian Lighting Primer offers design criteria for pedestrian lighting and outlines a process for creating local pedestrian lighting standards based on pedestrian facility type and pedestrian activity.

The primer includes a flowchart to help determine suitable pedestrian lighting applications (see Figure 12). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadway Lighting Design Guide, 7th Edition also offers roadway lighting guidelines and criteria. These processes and criteria that are simply provided as examples.

Reviewing this guidance, considering amending or adopting local standards with respect to pedestrian lighting, and conducting a lighting review at locations identified in the Implementation section of this LRSP will help promote nighttime pedestrian safety throughout the city.

Figure 12: Example Pedestrian-Scale Lighting. Source: 2012 Seattle DOT Pedestrian Lighting Citywide Plan
Figure 13 on the following page shows locations that meet the following criteria:
 Annualized collision severity score of at least 10 (an average of approximately 10 property-damage-only collisions per year, or one moderate injury collision per year); and at least
 One third of collisions occurring at night or one fatal/severe injury collision occurring at night
937
58 Figure 13: Recommended Pedestrian Lighting Criteria Selection Flowchart.

Source: 2022 FHWA Pedestrian Lighting Primer
938
59 Figure 14. Nighttime Collision Priority Intersections 939
60 SIGNAL VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Emphasis Areas Addressed
At signalized intersections, simple hardware improvements can improve signal visibility and address patterns of broadside, rear-end, nighttime, and red-light-running collisions. These hardware upgrades improve signal visibility and have been shown to reduce related collisions by as much as 15 percent:
 Lenses with LED lighting increase traffic signal visibility.  Back-plates with retroreflective borders improves signal head visibility during daytime and nighttime conditions.
 Mounting assemblies include mast arms, span wires, and sidemounted vehicular signals. Upgrading the mounting assembly may improve signal hardware longevity.
 Larger lenses may improve signal visibility.

HSIP Cycle 11 funding was pursued in September 2022 to improve signal hardware at 14 signalized intersections, primarily along arterials and the HIN (see Figure 15). Locations where this treatment can be proactively applied should continue to be identified.

Figure 15: Retroreflective backplates improve signal visibility.

Source: Eliobed Suarez on Unsplash.
940
61 Figure 16: Signal Hardware Improvement Locations Identified for HSIP Cycle 11 941
62 OTHER SYSTEMIC OPPORTUNITIES

CENTERLINE HARDENING
Emphasis Areas Addressed
Centerline hardening is an intersection treatment that reduces the speed of turning vehicles and improves pedestrian visibility. The basic hardened centerline treatment consists of five pieces of rubber curb and bollards and/or rubber speed bumps installed on the centerline and extending at a maximum of six feet into the intersection. The treatment can be implemented in a low-cost fashion with quick-build materials.

Because centerline hardening can calm left turns, this treatment can be proactively implemented at intersections with left-turn geometry that otherwise allow for high-speed left turns.

Figure 17. Centerline Hardening Example in Oakland, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc.
942
63 Action Items and Performance Measures
Aligning action items with goals and identifying metrics for measuring success helps track progress toward a safer Dublin for everyone. The listed performance measures can be used in subsequent plan updates to assess progress.

Table 6. Goals, Action Items, and Performance Measures
Goal Action Items Performance Measures
Implement safety
countermeasures
to reduce risk of
future collisions.

Near Term and Ongoing
• Identify opportunities to implement short-term countermeasures at prioritized locations (see Site Specific Treatments).
• Study the need for roadway and pedestrian-scale lighting at the prioritized locations with nighttime collision history (see Figure 13 on page 59)
• Pursue HSIP and Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant funding  Number of fatal and injury
collisions (all levels) in identified
emphasis areas
 Number of fatal and severe injury
collisions citywide
 Grant money received for safety
projects
 Annual expenditure on safety
improvements
Long Term
• Identify opportunities to implement low-cost, systemic application countermeasures identified in this plan as part of all projects (such as development review, repaving, and new projects)
• Track future grant opportunities and pursue safety project grants with each available funding cycle (see Appendix F: Funding)
• Revisit medium- and long-term countermeasures (see Site Specific Treatments) for inclusion in City’s Capital Improvement Program or for future grant funding opportunities (see Appendix F: Funding) 943
64 Goal Action Items Performance Measures
Analyze data to
identify and
prioritize
opportunities.

Near Term and Ongoing
• Review collision data in subsequent plan updates to evaluate progress on emphasis areas and for fatal/severe injury collision frequency. • Compare the City’s internal collision database with publicly available collision data in subsequent plan updates to identify potential missing collisions in either database.
• Continuously engage with the community to identify and document locations of concern, in recognition that collision data do not tell the whole story.
 Number of fatal and injury
collisions (all levels) in identified
emphasis areas
 Summary of feedback received
(quantity, type, and location)
regarding safety issues
 Number of safety improvements
implemented at priority locations
 Number of systemic
countermeasures applied to address
emphasis areas
Long Term
• Update the LRSP goals and emphasis areas with subsequent plan updates.
• Evaluate need for traffic control change or additional crossing improvements at locations with anticipated growth (e.g., as part of development review)
944
65 Goal Action Items Performance Measures
Promote a culture
of roadway safety
in Dublin’s
agencies and
residents.

Near Term and Ongoing
• Continue to engage with Dublin schools through existing venues like the Traffic Safety Committee to plan and promote school educational training and encouragement using school resource officers, bicycle rodeos, or other events at Dublin schools.
• Establish educational programs to reduce driving under the influence and aggressive driving.
• Work with the City Office of Communications to regularly communicate with the public on roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle safety.

Use findings in this plan to align messaging priorities with emphasis areas.
• Continue to coordinate with Dublin Police Services on location and emphasis areas and deploy speed trailers in mutually-agreed-upon HIN locations.
 Number of events hosted, and
summary of educational activities
led by the City
 Frequency of communication with
identified partners on safety
initiatives
 Recency of guidelines and standard
drawings (revisit for updates at least
every five years)
 Number of safety improvements
implemented at priority locations
Long Term
• Continue to share best practices related to safety and coordinate with Alameda CTC and its member agencies.
• Continue to identify opportunities to acquire grant funds or partner with local advocacy organizations for other educational opportunities. • Review City policies, standards, and guidelines, and identify updates that would promote evolving safety best practices.
945
Appendix A:

Community Stakeholders
Attachment 3
946
1 COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS
This section presents community stakeholders which can be valuable for future safety-related engagement and outreach.

Organization Website Number & Email
WHEELS https://www.wheelsbus.com/ 925-828-0231
[email protected]
Dial-a-Ride https://www.wheelsbus.com/ 925-455-7510
[email protected]
Bike East Bay https://bikeeastbay.org/ [email protected] The Trail Group
Valley Spokesmen
Bicycle Club
https://www.valleyspokesmen.org 925-828-5299
[email protected]
Indians in Dublin, Ca Facebook Link
Asian Pacific Islander
American Public
Affairs
https://www.apapa.org 916-928-9988
[email protected]
Integrity in Action Dublin-integrity-in-action.org [email protected] Chamber of
Commerce
http://www.dublinchamberofcommerce.org 925-828-6200, Inge Houston, CEO/President,
[email protected]
Innovation Tri-Valley Lynn Naylor, CEO,
[email protected]
Dublin Senior
Foundation
925-833-1866
Dublin Community
Foundation
http://www.dublinfoundation.org/v 614-889-2001
New Life Church http://www.newlifeinfo.com 925-355-9200 Muslim Community
Center
https://mcceastbay.org/ 925-485-1786
[email protected]
Valley Christian
Center
www.comediscovervcc.org 925-560-6202
Not Available Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
947
2 Organization Website Number & Email
Blazing Fire Church https://blazingfire.org/home 925-264-9161 [email protected]
Dublin Art Collective Facebook.com/DublinArtCa
Sri Panchamukha
Hanuman Temple
https://panchamukhahanuman.org/ 510-926-7638
[email protected]
Dublin Fighting Irish http://www.dublinfightingirish.org 510-714-1439 [email protected]
Tri-Valley Convention
and Visitor’s Bureau 925-846-8910
Tri-Valley YMCA 925-263-4444
Women’s Club of
Dublin/San Ramon https://dsrwomensclub.org/ [email protected] Dublin Sister City
Association Facebook Link 925-899-4771
Dublin Partners in
Education www.dpie.org 925-828-2551 x8024
Dublin Lions Club 925-828-6636
[email protected]
Girl Scouts https://www.crossroadsgirlscouts.com/ [email protected] Boy Scouts of
America
http://www.sfbac.org/about/ebscoutshop 925-785-4518
[email protected]
Dublin Historical
Preservation
Association
http://dhpa.org/ [email protected]
Dublin 4-H https://www.dublin4h.com/
925-462-4518
[email protected]
[email protected]
Child Care Links https://behively.org/ 925-417-8733
[email protected]
BART Kamala Parks, [email protected]
Senior Support
Programs of the TriValley
Alameda County Safe
Routes to School http://alamedacountysr2s.org/ [email protected] Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
BART.gov
Not
Available
Not
Available
https://dacarts.org/contact/
948
3 Organization Website Number & Email
Kaiser Permanente Ronald Wetter, Community & Governmental Relations Manager, [email protected]
Zeiss Meditec Mark Boyd, Sr. Facilities Manager,
[email protected]
Vagaro HQ Kerry Melchoir, Director of Operations,
[email protected]
TriNet HQ Jay Meyer, Director of Facilities,
[email protected]
Patelco Credit Union
HQ
Cara Houck, Community and Corporate
Social Responsibility Specialist,
[email protected]
AEye HQ Jennifer Deitsch, Communications Director
Ross Stores HQ Lynn Mayate, Corporate HR,
[email protected]
Graybar Kristian Reyes, [email protected]
Chabot Las Positas
Community College
District
Julia Dozier, District Executive Director,
[email protected]
Dublin San Ramon
Services District Judy Zavadil, [email protected]
Camp Parks Brian Lucid, Analyst,
[email protected]
Tri-Valley Career
Center
Sarah Holtzclaw, Program Manager,
[email protected]
Federal Corrections
Institute
Alameda County
(Courthouse, Office
of Emergency
Services, County Jail)
https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org
www.zeiss.com
www.vagaro.com
www.trinet.com
www.patelco.org
www.aeye.ai
https://corp.rossstores.com/
contact-us-corp
www.graybar.com
www.clpccd.org
www.DSRSD.com
https://home.army.mil/parks/index.php
https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/
Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/
FacilityDirectory/56/33
925-803-7800
https://www.trivalleycareercenter.org/
https://www.bop.gov/locations/
institutions/dub/
[email protected]
925-833-7500
949
Appendix B:

Collision Analysis Memo
950
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
TASK 3.2 – COLLISION ANALYSIS MEMO
This memorandum summarizes five years of collision data (2016 – 2020) and trends within the City of Dublin (City) as part of the Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). It is organized into the following sections:

1. Executive Summary

2. Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends
o All Road Users
o Pedestrians
o Bicyclists
o Comparison with Strategic Highway Safety Plan
o Recommended Emphasis Areas

3. Network Screening Findings

4. Next Steps
The data used for this analysis were compiled from SWITRS and Crossroads databases as detailed in Attachment A.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following presents a summary of findings from this report. All findings are explained in further detail throughout the remainder of the report.

1.1 Collision Patterns and Trends

1.1.1 ALL ROAD USERS
Descriptive analysis of reported collisions found the following:
◼ 1,455 collisions were reported (291 per year average), including 18 fatal/severe injury collisions (3.6 per year average).
◼ Intersection collisions are more frequent than segment collisions, representing 82% of reported collisions and 74% of fatal/severe injury collisions.
◼ Rear end, broadside, and hit object collisions are the most frequent collision types. Among fatal/severe injury collisions, the two most common types are vehicle/pedestrian and hit object collisions. Therefore, those four collision types were the focus of detailed analysis. 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
October 11, 2022 Project# 26647
To: Sai Midididdi, TE; Pratyush Bhatia, PE, TE
City of Dublin
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

RE: Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan
951
October 11, 2022 Page 2
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Executive Summary
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Unsafe speed, improper turning, and automobile right of way1 are the most frequently reported primary collision factors, together accounting for 54% of all reported collisions. Driving/bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drug, unsafe speed, and improper turning together account for 50% of fatal/severe injury collisions.

1.1.2 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
Descriptive analysis of bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions found the following:
◼ 53 collisions (4% of reported) involved pedestrians, including 5 fatal/severe injury collisions (28% of fatal/severe injury citywide).
⚫ 4 of the fatal/severe injury collisions occurred in dark or dusk conditions. ◼ 56 collisions (4% of reported) involved bicyclists, including 2 severe injury collisions (11% of fatal/severe injury citywide).

1.1.3 COMPARISONS TO STATEWIDE AVERAGES
◼ The City has at least a 10% higher share of fatal and severe injury collisions than the statewide levels2 for the following challenge areas:
o Aging driver collisions (22% compared to 12%)
o Pedestrian collisions (28% compared to 17%)
o Intersection collisions (72% compared to 23%)

1.1.4 EMPHASIS AREA RECOMMENDATIONS
◼ Pedestrian collisions: These collisions account for 28% of all fatal/severe injury collisions as compared to 17% of all statewide fatal/severe injury collisions. Pedestrian collisions occurred mostly at intersections.
◼ Nighttime safety: A disproportionate share of fatal/severe injury collisions, including pedestrian collisions, occur in dusk/dawn or dark conditions.
◼ Aging drivers: These collisions account for 22% of all fatal/severe injury collisions as compared to 12% of all statewide fatal/severe injury collisions.
◼ Signalized local/arterial intersections: These intersections constitute the plurality of rear end and broadside collisions. Hit object collisions, which are the most frequent fatal/severe injury collision types, also primarily occur at signalized intersections. ◼ Driver behavior: Including impaired driving and aggressive driving. o Impaired Driving account for over 25% of all fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin. o Aggressive Driving accounts for over 15% of all fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin. 1 This is a reported primary collision factor that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic. 2 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2020-2024: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/shsp/2022-shsp-full-report-2020-2024-a11y.pdf 952
October 11, 2022 Page 3
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Executive Summary
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

1.2 Network Screening Findings
◼ Intersection and roadway locations were evaluated based on five-year collision frequency and severity. A collision severity score was calculated and used to identify priority locations. ⚫ 15 priority intersections are identified.
⚫ 5 priority roadways are identified.

The identified priority locations based on collision severity score are presented in Table 1. The top scoring intersections and segments were reviewed to determine priority locations for safety improvements and upcoming HSIP applications. The final list of priority locations may change from the table below.

Table 1. Priority Intersections and Roadways based on Collision Severity Score # Location Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total No.

Collisions
Fatal /
Severe
Injury
Collisions
Other
Injury
Collisions
PDO
Collisions
Priority Intersections
1 Arnold Rd & Dublin Blvd Sig. Int. 59.9 17 2 8 7
2 Dublin Blvd & Village Pkwy Sig. Int. 49.4 43 1 15 27
3 Donlon Way & Dublin Blvd Unsig. Int. 42.1 6 1 3 2
4 Amador Valley Blvd & San Ramon
Rd Sig. Int. 41.1 18 1 9 8
5 Regional St & Regional Common Unsig. Int. 38.8 5 1 0 4 6 Winding Trail Ln & Rolling Hills Dr Unsig. Int. 38.0 1 1 0 0 7 Lucania St & Brighton Dr Unsig. Int. 38.0 1 1 0 0
8 Tyne Ct & Penn Dr Unsig. Int. 38.0 1 1 0 0
9 Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd Sig. Int. 37.2 65 0 22 43
10 San Ramon Rd & Shannon Ave Sig. Int. 29.3 8 1 3 4
11 Dublin Ct & Dublin Blvd Sig. Int. 27.3 13 1 1 11
12 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd Sig. Int. 25.8 34 0 16 18 13 Grafton St & Central Pkwy Sig. Int. 24.3 3 1 0 2
14 Bent Tree Dr & Fallon Rd Sig. Int. 23.9 1 1 0 0
15 Martinelli Way & Hacienda Dr Sig. Int. 18.5 28 0 10 18 Priority Roadways
1 Dougherty Rd (north of Willow
Creek Dr to south of 8th St) – 0.75
mi Arterial 36.2 8 1 2 5
2 Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr to Gleason
Dr) – 0.75 mi Arterial 35.5 4 1 1 2
3 Village Pkwy (northern city limits to
north of Tamarack Dr) – 0.69 mi Collector 35.3 8 1 1 6
4 Amador Valley Blvd (Burton St to
Dougherty Rd) – 0.75 mi Arterial 34.1 2 1 1 0
953
October 11, 2022 Page 4
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
# Location Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total No.

Collisions
Fatal /
Severe
Injury
Collisions
Other
Injury
Collisions
PDO
Collisions
5 Tassajara Rd (northern city limits to
Fallon Rd) – 0.50 mi Arterial 33.1 2 1 0 1
Note: Priority locations are based on collision severity scores and may change. 2 CITYWIDE COLLISION PATTERNS AND TRENDS
This section presents citywide collision patterns and trends. This analysis focuses on identifying behavioral and roadway patterns associated with injury and fatal collision outcomes. By analyzing reported collisions together, systemic trends and emphasis areas across locations can be identified. From these, countermeasures can be selected in subsequent project tasks. Analysis emphasis is given to fatal/severe injury collisions because these outcomes represent life-changing events. Preventing all collisions from occurring may not be a realistic goal, but an focus on safety should emphasize reducing the most severe outcomes that occur on roadways. Fatal and severe injury collisions are typically grouped together in this analysis because the difference between those outcomes is often a difference in emergency response time or the health conditions of the parties involved rather than the collision itself (the circumstances of such collisions are often similar and can therefore be analyzed together).

2.1 Collision Data
The database is comprised of the most recent five years of reported collisions available on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the City’s data in the Crossroads software, representing January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020. These data sources were merged into a consolidated database that consists of 1,455 reported collisions. Methods and decisions relating to the merging of these databases are described in Attachment A.

Collision severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury experienced, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order):
• Fatal: death because of injuries sustained in the collision. • Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer’s assessment of “other visible injuries.” • Moderate Injury: (Also referred to as other visible injury), an injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the collision—for example, bruises or minor lacerations. • Minor Injury: (Also referred to as complaint of pain or suspected injury). Internal or other non-visible injuries—for example, a person limps or seems incoherent. • Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained
For simplicity in presentation, moderate injury and minor injury collisions are frequently collapsed into a single other injury category.

2.2 All Road Users
The findings in this section are organized as follows:
954
October 11, 2022 Page 5
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Collision severity
◼ Collision location
◼ Collision type
◼ Primary collision factor
◼ Temporal trends
◼ Other factors

2.2.1 COLLISION SEVERITY
A total of reported 1,455 collisions are present in the compiled database. The collisions are from the period of January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020.

A summary of collision severity and road user type is presented in Table 2. Pedestrians and bicyclists are each involved in 4% of reported collisions across all locations and severity levels but represent larger shares of injury and fatal collisions. Pedestrian and bicyclist trends are explored in more detail in subsequent sections.

Table 2: Road Users Involved and Collision Severity, Dublin, 2016-2020 Road Users
Involved
Number
of Fatal
Collisions
Number
of Severe
Injury
Collisions
Number
of
Moderate
Injury
Collisions
Number
of Minor
Injury
Collisions
Number
of
Property
Damage
Collisions
Total
Reported
Fatal /
Severe
Injury
Collisions
(% of
Column)
Total
Reported
Collisions
(% of
Column)
Pedestrian
Involved 1 4 20 21 7 5 (28%) 53 (4%)
Bicycle
Involved - 2 24 22 8 2 (11%) 56 (4%)
Motor Vehicle
Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
1 10 111 293 932 11 (61%) 1,347
(92%)
Total Reported
Collisions 2 16 155 336 947 18 (100%) 1,455(100%)
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Note: There is one crash that is coded as both a pedestrian and bicyclist involved collision. Therefore, total reported collisions will not add up to the pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicle collisions.

2.2.2 COLLISION LOCATION
Reported collisions are broken down by location and further broken down into type of intersection control and pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle collisions (Figure 1). The following trends are present:
955
October 11, 2022 Page 6
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Most collisions (84%) occur at intersections.
⚫ Signalized intersections represent most collisions (58%) and the plurality of fatal/severe injury collisions (44%).
⚫ Just over one third of fatal/severe injury collisions occur at an intersection and involve a pedestrian or bicyclist (34%).
◼ Segment collisions, when they occur, are more likely severe than intersection collisions (2% of segment collisions are fatal/severe injury, compared to 1% of intersection collisions).

Figure 1: Reported Collisions by Location, Dublin, 2016-2020 956
October 11, 2022 Page 7
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

2.2.3 COLLISION TYPE
Reported collision types indicate the movements most frequently resulting in collisions and severe outcomes. Figure 2 presents the distribution of collision types and severity levels. ◼ The three most frequent collision types are rear end, broadside, and hit object. These three collision types account for 69% of all reported collisions.
◼ The three most frequent collision types resulting in fatal or severe injury are vehicle/pedestrian, other, and hit object. Vehicle/pedestrian and hit object collisions together account for 69% of fatal/severe injury collisions.
◼ These four collision types—rear end, broadside, hit object, and vehicle/pedestrian, are focus collision types for this analysis given that they represent a substantial portion of collisions, injuries, and roadway deaths in the City.

Figure 2: Collisions by Type and Severity, Dublin, 2016-2020 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

2.2.4 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor (PCF) for each collision. There are a number of different PCFs from which an officer can select in filling out a report, corresponding to various California Vehicle Code (CVC) violations. It is up to the officer’s judgment and information available at the scene for them to select the single factor they deem most relevant to the collision. Figure 3 presents collisions by reported PCF and severity.

Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Sideswipe
Head-On
Other
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Not Stated
Overturned
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Collision Count
Severe Injury/Fatal
Other Injury
Property Damage
Only
957
October 11, 2022 Page 8
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ The three most frequent PCFs Citywide are unsafe speed, improper turning, and automobile right of way3. These three PCFs account for 54% of reported collisions. ◼ The most frequent PCFs that result in fatal or severe injury are driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drug, unsafe speed, and improper turning. These three PCFs account for 50% of fatal/severe injury collisions.

Figure 3: Collisions by PCF and Severity, Dublin, 2016-2020 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

2.2.4.1 Primary Collision Factor and Collision Type
For the focus collision types listed in the previous section – rear end, broadside, hit object, and vehicle/pedestrian—associated PCFs are further analyzed. Table 3 presents this cross tabulation. The table shows:
◼ Rear end collisions are most frequently associated with unsafe speed (72% of collisions). ◼ Broadside collisions are associated most frequently with automobile right of way4 or traffic signals and signs5(32% and 33% respectively). These are likely associated with driveway access or intersections and are explored in more detail later.
◼ 68% of hit object collisions are caused by three PCFs: improper turning, unsafe speed, and driving/bicycling under the influence.
◼ 51% of vehicle/pedestrian collisions are attributed to either a pedestrian or a driver violation the other’s right of way. More detailed trends are explored in Section 2.3. 3 This is a reported PCF that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield rightof-way to oncoming traffic. This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic. 4 This is a reported primary collision factor that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic.
5 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to adhere to traffic control (e.g. running a stop sign or red signal indication).

Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of
Alcohol or Drug
Unknown
Unsafe Lane Change
Other Improper Driving
0 100 200 300 400 500
Collision Count
Severe Injury/Fatal
Other Injury
Property Damage
Only
958
October 11, 2022 Page 9
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Three fatal or severe injury collisions involving bicyclists are recorded as other collision types. Bicyclistinvolved collisions are analyzed and discussed in Section 2.4.

Table 3: Collision Type by PCF (PCFs Sum to 100%), Dublin, 2016 - 2020 Primary Collision Factor Collision Type
Rear End (%
of Column)
Broadside (%
of Column)
Hit Object (%
of Column)
Vehicle /
Pedestrian (%
of Column)
Other (% of
Column)
Automobile Right of Way 1% 32% 0% 2% 19%
Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of
Alcohol or Drug
7% 2% 15% 0% 2%
Improper Turning 5% 9% 30% 0% 7%
Other Improper Driving 1% 1% 7% 10% 7%
Other Than Driver (or
Pedestrian)
1% 1% 7% 0% 7%
Pedestrian Right of Way 0% 1% 0% 29% 4%
Pedestrian Violation 0% 0% 0% 22% 0%
Traffic Signals and Signs 0% 33% 1% 2% 4%
Unknown 3% 9% 6% 14% 14%
Unsafe Speed 72% 2% 23% 6% 11%
Unsafe Starting or
Backing
7% 3% 1% 6% 11%
Wrong Side of Road 0% 2% 2% 0% 11%
Other PCFs 3% 5% 8% 9% 3%
Total Reported Collisions 406 (100%) 309 (100%) 291 (100%) 51 (100%) 57 (100%) Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Notes: The three highest PCFs for each collision type are highlighted in red. If there is a tie for the third highest, all tied PCFs are highlighted. Only focus collision types are shown and totaled in this table (three most frequent or three most frequent among fatal/severe injury). PCFs with less than 6% share across listed collision types are grouped into the “Other PCFs” category to improve legibility. Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

2.2.4.2 Primary Collision Factor and Roadway Characteristics The previous sections established focus collision types and their most frequent PCFs citywide. This section analyzes the frequency of location types for each collision type and PCF combination to provide greater detail on potential emphasis areas for the City. Location characteristics are further analyzed using intersection type and roadway functional class.

The following were analyzed:
◼ Rear end collisions at intersections: 28% of citywide collisions are rear end, the most frequent collision type (Table 4). 84% of rear end collisions occurred at an intersection. ◼ Broadside collisions at intersections: 21% of citywide collisions are broadside, the second most frequent collision type (Table 5). 84% of broadside collisions occurred at an intersection. ◼ Hit Object collisions at intersections: 33% of fatal/severe injury collisions are hit object, the most frequent collision type among fatal/severe injury (Table 6). 76% of hit object collisions occurred at an intersection.
959
October 11, 2022 Page 10
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Vehicle/pedestrian collisions were the second most frequent collision type among fatal/severe injury collisions and are analyzed in detail in Section 2.3.

Rear end collisions are analyzed by intersection type and PCFs in Table 4. Rear end collisions at intersections most frequently occur at signals (74% of collisions) and with a reported PCF of unsafe speed (75%).
◼ Among rear end collisions at intersections, 137 (46%) occur at signalized intersections of arterials with locals/collectors and 81 (27%) occur at signalized arterial/arterial intersections. ◼ Most of these collisions have a reported PCF of unsafe speed.

Table 4: Rear End Collisions by Intersection Type, Intersecting Functional Class, and PCF, Dublin, 2016-2020 Intersection Type Signalized Unsignalized
Total
Intersecting Functional Class
Arterial + ArterialArterial + Local/CollectorLocal/Collector + Local/CollectorArterial + ArterialArterial + Local/CollectorLocal/Collector + Local/Collector Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug 5 12 0 1 2 7 27
Improper Turning 2 2 1 0 2 10 17
Unsafe Speed 62 112 3 3 25 23 228
Unsafe Starting or Backing 12 11 0 1 0 2 26
Total 81 137 4 5 29 42 298
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Notes: Local roads were taken to include collector and residential roads. Collisions with an unknown intersecting functional class were omitted from this table (4 collisions). Collisions at an intersection with a freeway ramp were omitted from this table (4 collisions).
960
October 11, 2022 Page 11
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Broadside collisions are analyzed by intersection type and PCFs in Table 5. Broadside collisions at intersections most frequently occur at signals (79%) and with a reported PCF of traffic signals and signs.6 Among broadside collisions at intersections, 126 (54%) occur at local/arterial signalized intersections.

Table 5: Broadside Collisions by Intersection Type, Intersecting Functional Class, and PCF, Dublin, 2016-2020 Intersection Type Signalized Unsignalized
Total
Intersecting Functional Class
Arterial + ArterialLocal + ArterialLocal + LocalArterial + ArterialLocal + ArterialLocal + Local Automobile Right of Way7
13 30 1 0 17 17 78
Improper Turning 6 10 1 0 3 5 25
Traffic Signals and Signs8
23 72 3 0 2 2 102
Unknown 11 14 0 0 1 2 28
Total 53 126 5 0 23 26 233
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Notes: Local roads were taken to include collector and residential roads. Collisions with an unknown intersecting functional class were omitted from this table (4 collisions). Collisions at an intersection with a freeway ramp were omitted from this table (4 collisions).
6 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to adhere to traffic control (e.g. running a stop sign or red signal indication). 7 This is a reported primary collision factor that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic.
8 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to adhere to traffic control (e.g. running a stop sign or red signal indication). 961
October 11, 2022 Page 12
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Hit object collisions are analyzed by intersection type and PCFs in Table 6. Hit object collisions at intersections most frequently occur at signals (107 of 171 collisions, or 63%) and with a reported PCF of improper turning. Among hit object collisions at intersections, the most frequently occurring location and PCF combinations are improper turning at arterial/local signalized intersections (21%).

Table 6: Hit Object Collisions by Intersection Type, Intersecting Functional Class, and PCF, Dublin, 2016-2020 Intersection Type Signalized Unsignalized
Total
Intersecting Functional Class
Arterial + ArterialLocal + ArterialLocal + LocalArterial + ArterialLocal + ArterialLocal + Local Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug 8 16 3 1 1 8 37
Improper Turning 7 36 3 1 3 22 72
Other Improper Driving 0 3 0 0 0 11 14
Unsafe Speed 7 22 2 1 4 12 48
Total 22 77 8 3 8 53 171
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Notes: Local roads were taken to include collector and residential roads. Collisions with an intersecting with a freeway ramp were omitted from this table (2 collisions).

2.2.5 TEMPORAL TRENDS

2.2.5.1 Year-Over-Year
On average, there are 291 reported collisions per year and 3.6 reported fatal/severe injury collisions per year between 2016 and 2020. Total reported collisions increase year-over-year from 2016 to 2019. In 2020, collisions dropped below previous years (Table 7). This trend holds true for other injury and PDO collisions, but severe injury collisions have the greatest number of collisions in 2020 while total collisions drop significantly.

Single-year trends are not necessarily indicative of improved or decreased safety performance given and may be sensitive to random fluctuations. Collision totals for 2020 may be provisional, given that the California Highway Patrol-maintained SWITRS database is updated over time and collision data can take over a year to process and include. Further, cities in the United States experienced a decrease in traffic volumes in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic but an increase in traffic fatalities.9 While 2020 totals appear lower than previous years, its data should not be directly compared or used in isolation as indication of roadway safety performance.
9 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic 962
October 11, 2022 Page 13
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 7: Collisions by Year, Dublin, 2016-2020
Year Collision
Count
Fatal Severe
Injury
Other
Injury
PDO
2016 288 1 4 104 179
2017 294 0 2 101 191
2018 323 0 4 108 211
2019 346 1 1 125 219
2020 204 0 5 52 147
Total 1,455 2 16 490 947
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

2.2.5.2 Time-of-Day and Day-of-Week
Collisions are further analyzed by time-of-day and day-of-week. ◼ The highest concentration of collisions occurs between Tuesday and Friday between 8 am and 6 pm (Table 8).
◼ One half of all fatal and severe injuries (9) occur between 8 pm and 2 am (Table 9). ◼ Trends are similar on weekdays and weekends but AM, midday, PM peaks are more noticeable on weekdays than weekends (Figure 4).
963
October 11, 2022 Page 14
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 8: Collisions by Time-of-Day and Day-of-Week, Dublin, 2016-2020 Hour of Day Sun Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat
12:00 AM – 12:59 AM 5 1 1 3 1 4 4
1:00 AM – 1:59 AM 4 2 2 3 4 2 6
2:00 AM – 2:59 AM 1 3 1 3 2 2
3:00 AM – 3:59 AM 2 1 1 1 1 2 4
4:00 AM – 4:59 AM 1 1 1 1 3 1
5:00 AM – 5:59 AM 1 1 1 1 3 2
6:00 AM – 6:59 AM 1 7 4 4 6 4 5
7:00 AM – 7:59 AM 7 12 6 5 9 8 5
8:00 AM – 8:59 AM 7 8 16 27 15 21 3
9:00 AM – 9:59 AM 7 10 11 13 10 4 4
10:00 AM – 10:59 AM 5 11 8 10 15 11 11
11:00 AM – 11:59 AM 4 15 10 17 12 23 8
12:00 PM – 12:59 PM 12 16 18 22 13 15 13
1:00 PM – 1:59 PM 14 11 19 10 18 18 16
2:00 PM – 2:59 PM 8 11 14 17 15 15 10
3:00 PM – 3:59 PM 11 14 17 20 19 20 11
4:00 PM – 4:59 PM 5 9 17 24 15 17 9
5:00 PM – 5:59 PM 12 17 15 12 23 19 7
6:00 PM – 6:59 PM 13 12 27 14 7 14 13
7:00 PM – 7:59 PM 3 12 16 12 12 15 7
8:00 PM – 8:59 PM 12 4 10 7 6 10 10
9:00 PM – 9:59 PM 4 8 10 7 7 9 7
10:00 PM – 10:59 PM 13 3 1 8 6 5 6
11:00 PM – 11:59 PM 2 6 4 3 7 3
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Figure 4: Hourly Collisions by Weekday/Weekend, Dublin, 2016-2020 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 12:00 AM
1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM 10:00 AM11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM 10:00 PM11:00 PM
Daily Average Collisions per
Hour
Hour of Day
Average Weekday
Average Weekend
964
October 11, 2022 Page 15
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 9: Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions by Time-of-Day and Day-of-Week, Dublin, 2016-2020 Hour of Day Sun Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat
12:00 AM – 12:59 AM 1
1:00 AM – 1:59 AM 2 2
2:00 AM – 2:59 AM
3:00 AM – 3:59 AM
4:00 AM – 4:59 AM
5:00 AM – 5:59 AM
6:00 AM – 6:59 AM
7:00 AM – 7:59 AM 1
8:00 AM – 8:59 AM 1
9:00 AM – 9:59 AM
10:00 AM – 10:59 AM
11:00 AM – 11:59 AM 1
12:00 PM – 12:59 PM 1 1
1:00 PM – 1:59 PM 1
2:00 PM – 2:59 PM
3:00 PM – 3:59 PM 1 1
4:00 PM – 4:59 PM
5:00 PM – 5:59 PM
6:00 PM – 6:59 PM 1
7:00 PM – 7:59 PM
8:00 PM – 8:59 PM 1
9:00 PM – 9:59 PM 1 1
10:00 PM – 10:59 PM 1
11:00 PM – 11:59 PM
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

2.2.6 OTHER FACTORS
Along with driver contributing factors, collisions can also be related to environmental and behavioral factors that are present. Data allow us to examine trends relating to these factors, which include lighting, weather, road surface conditions and alcohol/drug involvement. 965
October 11, 2022 Page 16
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

2.2.6.1 Lighting
Most collisions occur in daylight conditions (Table 10). For collisions that result in a fatality or severe collision, over half of the collisions occur during dark or dusk conditions.

Table 10: Collisions by Lighting, Dublin, 2016-2020
Lighting Collision
Count
Collision
Share
Severe/Fatal
Collision
Count
Severe/Fatal
Collision
Share
Daylight 1,027 71% 8 44%
Dark – Street Lights 326 22% 7 39%
Dusk – Dawn 60 4% 2 11%
Dark – No Street Lights 25 2% 0 0%
Not Stated 15 1% 0 0%
Dark – Street Lights Not
Functioning 2 0% 1 6%
Total 1,455 100% 18 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

2.2.6.2 Other
The following factors are also analyzed to determine relationship between the factors and the severity of collisions.
◼ Weather: No disproportionate relationship is found between all collisions and fatal/severe injury collisions by weather condition. 85% of collisions and 83% of fatal/severe injury collisions occur in clear conditions.
◼ Road Surface: No disproportionate relationship is found between all severities and fatal/severe injury collisions by road surface condition. 91% of collisions and 100% of fatal/severe injury collisions occur on dry road surfaces.
◼ Alcohol/Drug Involvement: Analysis shows a disproportionate relationship between all severities and fatal/severe injury collisions by alcohol/drug involvement. 10% of collisions and 19% of fatal/severe injuries involve alcohol/drugs.

2.3 Pedestrians
Of the 1,455 total reported collisions, there are 53 that involved pedestrians. Of these collisions, five (9%) result in a fatality or severe injury. Trends in pedestrian collisions are analyzed and discussed below, including:
◼ Pedestrian action and location
◼ Time-of-day and day-of-week
◼ Lighting
966
October 11, 2022 Page 17
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

2.3.1 PEDESTRIAN ACTION AND LOCATION
California collision data include vehicle/pedestrian collisions as a separate collision type. Therefore, we can use the supporting pedestrian action variable in the data to obtain the officer’s assessment of where the collision occurred and what the pedestrian was doing before the collision (Figure 5). ◼ 50 vehicle/pedestrian collisions were within 250 feet of an intersection. ◼ 3 vehicle/pedestrian collisions occurred along a roadway segment. ◼ The most frequent pedestrian action was crossing in crosswalk at intersection (55% of pedestrian collisions).

Figure 5: Pedestrian Collisions by Pedestrian Action
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

To better understand the nature of pedestrian-vehicle interactions, pedestrian collisions at intersections are isolated and analyzed by driver and PCF. There are 36 reported pedestrian collisions resulting injury (minor, moderate, or severe) or death that occur at an intersection. Table 11 breaks down pedestrian intersection collisions by control type, driver action, and cited PCF. The table indicates a somewhat even distribution of driver movements. The most frequently cited PCFs at signalized intersections indicate the presence of turning right-of-way conflicts at signalized intersections.

The following PCFs are most frequent:
◼ Pedestrian right of way: This PCF indicates that the pedestrian had the right-of-way. ◼ Pedestrian violation: This PCF indicates that the pedestrian violated the CVC.

In Road, Including Shoulder
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
Not in Road
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
0 10 20 30 40
Collision Count
Fatal Crashes
Severe Injury
Other Injury
Property Damage Only
967
October 11, 2022 Page 18
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 11: Injury and Fatal Pedestrian Collisions at Intersections: Location, Driver Movements, and PCF, Dublin, 2016-2020
PCF
Driver Movement Preceding Collision
Proceeding ◼ Total
Straight Making Right Turn Making Left Turn
Signalized Intersections
Pedestrian Right of Way 2 5 5 12
Pedestrian Violation 3 2 1 6
Traffic Signals and Signs 1 1
Other Improper Driving 1 1
Improper Passing 1 1
Signalized Total 6 8 7 21
Unsignalized Intersections
Unsafe speed 3 3
Unknown 2 1 3
Pedestrian violation 3 3
Pedestrian right of way 1 2 3
Not Stated 1 1 2
Improper turning 1 1
Unsignalized Total 9 3 3 15
Total 15 11 10 36
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Note: Driver movements (i.e., backing, entering traffic, slowing/stopping, stopped in road, other) associated with three or fewer total collisions are excluded from this table for legibility. 968
October 11, 2022 Page 19
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

2.3.2 TIME-OF-DAY AND DAY-OF-WEEK
Collisions involving pedestrians are distributed throughout the week with concentrations during the morning and evening peak travel periods (Table 12). Fatal and severe injury collisions are distributed throughout the day, with 3 of the 5 collisions occurring between 6:00 PM and 2:00 AM.

Table 12: Pedestrian Collisions by Time-of-Day and Day-of-Week, Dublin, 2016-2020 Sun Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat
12:00 AM – 12:59 AM 1
1:00 AM – 1:59 AM 1
2:00 AM – 2:59 AM
3:00 AM – 3:59 AM
4:00 AM – 4:59 AM
5:00 AM – 5:59 AM
6:00 AM – 6:59 AM 1
7:00 AM – 7:59 AM 1 1
8:00 AM – 8:59 AM 2 3 2 2
9:00 AM – 9:59 AM 1 2
10:00 AM – 10:59 AM 1 2
11:00 AM – 11:59 AM 1 1
12:00 PM – 12:59 PM 1
1:00 PM – 1:59 PM 1
2:00 PM – 2:59 PM 1 1 1 1
3:00 PM – 3:59 PM 1 1
4:00 PM – 4:59 PM 2 1
5:00 PM – 5:59 PM 1 2 1
6:00 PM – 6:59 PM
7:00 PM – 7:59 PM 1 2
8:00 PM – 8:59 PM 1 1 1
9:00 PM – 9:59 PM 1 1 2
10:00 PM – 10:59 PM 1 1
11:00 PM – 11:59 PM 1 1
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

2.3.3 LIGHTING
Most pedestrian collisions occur during daylight conditions. However, most pedestrian collisions that result in fatality or severe injury, however, occur during dark or dusk-dawn conditions (Table 13). Collision shares should be interpreted with caution for fatal and severe injuries given that there are five reported fatal/severe injury pedestrian collisions.
969
October 11, 2022 Page 20
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 13: Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting, Dublin, 2016-2020 Lighting Collision
Count
Collision
Share
Severe/Fatal
Collision
Count
Severe/Fatal
Collision
Share
Daylight 37 70% 1 20%
Dark - Street Lights 8 15% 1 20%
Dusk - Dawn 6 11% 2 40%
Dark - No Street Lights 1 2% 0 0%
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning 1 2% 1 20%
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

2.4 Bicyclists
Of the 1,455 total reported collisions, there are 56 that involved bicyclists. 2 of these (4%) result in severe injury. No fatal collisions involving a bicyclist are reported.

2.4.1 COLLISION TYPE AND SEVERITY
Most bicyclist collisions are categorized by collision type as other (55%). This is common for bicycle collisions because there is not a specific bicycle-related collision type for an officer to select. The next biggest share of collisions is categorized as broadside (23%) (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Bicyclist Collisions by Type and Severity, Dublin, 2016-2020 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Hit Object
Overturned
Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Collision Count
Severe Injury
Other Injury
Property Damage Only
970
October 11, 2022 Page 21
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

2.4.2 TIME-OF-DAY AND DAY-OF-WEEK
Collisions involving bicyclists are distributed throughout the week and throughout the day (Table 14).

Table 14: Bicyclist Collisions by Time-of-Day and Day-of-Week, Dublin, 2016-2020 Sun Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat
12:00 AM – 12:59 AM
1:00 AM – 1:59 AM
2:00 AM – 2:59 AM 1
3:00 AM – 3:59 AM
4:00 AM – 4:59 AM
5:00 AM – 5:59 AM
6:00 AM – 6:59 AM 1 2
7:00 AM – 7:59 AM 3 1 1
8:00 AM – 8:59 AM 1 1 2
9:00 AM – 9:59 AM 1 1 1
10:00 AM – 10:59 AM 3 1 1
11:00 AM – 11:59 AM 2 2 1
12:00 PM – 12:59 PM 1
1:00 PM – 1:59 PM 1 1
2:00 PM – 2:59 PM 1 1
3:00 PM – 3:59 PM 1 2 1
4:00 PM – 4:59 PM 1 2 1 1
5:00 PM – 5:59 PM 2
6:00 PM – 6:59 PM 1 1 1
7:00 PM – 7:59 PM 1 2 1 1
8:00 PM – 8:59 PM 2 2
9:00 PM – 9:59 PM
10:00 PM – 10:59 PM
11:00 PM – 11:59 PM
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

2.4.3 LIGHTING
Most collisions involving bicyclists happen during daylight conditions. Both bicyclist collisions that result in severe injury occurred during daylight conditions (Table 15).

Table 15: Bicyclist Collisions by Lighting, Dublin, 2016-2020 Lighting Collision Count Collision Share Severe/Fatal
Collision Count
Severe/Fatal
Collision Share
Daylight 42 75% 2 100%
Dark - Street Lights 8 14% 0 0%
Dusk - Dawn 5 9% 0 0%
Dark - No Street Lights 1 2% 0 0%
Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.
971
October 11, 2022 Page 22
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

2.5 Comparison with Strategic Highway Safety Plan
The California 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan is a statewide traffic safety plan that provides guidance to influence development of statewide goals, strategies, and performance measures for local agencies and stakeholders statewide.

The SHSP focuses on 16 challenges areas (the 10 bolded challenge areas are subsequently compared to Dublin collision history). The remaining are not compared because the data available for this project do not readily and reliably provide for these :
◼ Aging Drivers (≥65 years
old)
◼ Bicyclists
◼ Commercial Vehicles
◼ Distracted Driving
◼ Driver Licensing
◼ Emergency Response
◼ Emerging Technologies
◼ Impaired Driving
◼ Intersections
◼ Lane Departures
◼ Motorcyclists
◼ Occupant Protection
◼ Pedestrians
◼ Speed Management/
Aggressive Driving
◼ Work Zones
◼ Young Drivers (15-20
years old)
Figure 7 compares the share of fatal/severe injury collisions by challenge area between Dublin’s 2016-2020 collision history and the statewide averages presented in the SHSP (based on 2010-2017 collision history).

The City has at least a 10% higher share of fatal and severe injury collisions than the statewide levels for the following challenge areas:
◼ Aging Drivers (22% compared to 12%)
◼ Pedestrians (28% compared to 17%)
◼ Intersections (72% compared to 23%)
Given the number of fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin (18 over 5 years), only the intersection difference shows statistical significance when compared to statewide average. Nonetheless, the pedestrian and aging driver categories merit focus in LRSP emphasis area and goal development. The SHSP also classifies Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Impaired Driving and Speed Management/Aggressive Driving as five of their high priority areas that would be similar to Dublin’s LRSP emphasis area and goal development. 972
October 11, 2022 Page 23
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 7: Dublin vs. Statewide Challenge Area Involvement, Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021; 2020-2024 SHSP *Indicates difference is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level based on a difference of proportions t-test.

2.6 Recommended Emphasis Areas
Based on the analysis presented in Sections 2.2 through 2.5, recommended emphasis areas for the City include:
◼ Pedestrian collisions: These collisions account for 28% of all fatal/severe injury collisions as compared to 17% of all statewide fatal/severe injury collisions. ◼ Nighttime safety: A disproportionate share of fatal/severe injury collisions, including pedestrian collisions, occur in dusk/dawn or dark conditions.
◼ Aging drivers: These collisions account for 22% of all fatal/severe injury collisions as compared to 12% of all statewide fatal/severe injury collisions.
◼ Signalized local/arterial intersections: These intersections constitute the plurality of rear end and broadside collisions. Hit object collisions, which are the most frequent fatal/severe injury collision types, also primarily occur at signalized intersections. ◼ Driver behavior: Including impaired driving and aggressive driving. o Impaired Driving account for over 25% of all fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin. o Aggressive Driving accounts for over 15% of all fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Lane Departures
Aggressive Driving
Impaired Driving
Intersections*
Motorcyclists
Pedestrians
Young Drivers
Aging Drivers
Bicyclists
Commercial Vehicles
Share of Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions
Challenge Area
Dublin Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Share (2016-2020)
Statewide Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Share (2010-2017) 973
October 11, 2022 Page 24
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
3 NETWORK SCREENING FINDINGS
Kittelson developed collision severity scores for two analysis scenarios; intersection collisions and roadway collisions. The collision severity scores will help the City identify priority locations for safety improvement projects.

3.1 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
Kittelson used the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) score performance measure from the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, which assigns weighting factors to collisions by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) collisions. The EPDO performance measure accounts for locations with the highest impact (e.g., locations with high severity collisions and/or high quantity of collisions) and closely aligns with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. The EPDO calculation was performed for all public intersections and roadway segments, not including state highway facilities. The EPDO performance measure is described below. Moving forward throughout this document, the EPDO performance measure is referred to as a collision severity score.

The collision severity score assigns weight to individual collisions based on the collision severity and location of the collision (Table 16). Weights, provided by the 2020 Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual, are based on the cost of property-damage-only (PDO) collisions, assigning each collision with a score relative to a PDO collision.

Table 16: Collision Weights by Severity and Location Type Location Type Collisions Weighting by Severity
Fatal Severe Injury Moderate
Injury
Minor Injury Property
Damage Only
Signalized
Intersection 119.55 119.55 10.70 6.08 1.00
Unsignalized
Intersection 190.23 190.23 10.70 6.08 1.00
Roadway 164.66 164.66 10.70 6.08 1.00
Source: Caltrans, Local Roadway Safety: A manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5), 2020.

The weights prioritize fatal and severe injury collisions equally to recognize that a death versus a severe injury is often a function of the individual involved (i.e., age or physical fitness) or of emergency response time. Therefore, both outcomes represent locations where the region may equally value improvements.

Collision weights vary by location due to the relative costs associated with the collision severity at the location types. Specifically, unsignalized intersections have a higher cost for fatal and severe collisions because fatal and severe collisions at these locations tend to result in more severely injured persons on average.

Intersection Methodology
Kittelson first identified signalized and unsignalized intersections in the City roadway network and then defined collisions as intersection or segment collisions. An intersection collision is defined as a collision that occurs within 250 feet of the intersection. These collisions were spatially joined and summarized in ArcGIS to show the total number of collisions by severity at each intersection. Where intersections were less than 500 feet from each other, collisions were assigned to the nearest of the two intersections. Collisions occurring 974
October 11, 2022 Page 25
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
more than 250 feet from any intersection were separated to be used in the roadway segment analysis discussed below.

The collision severity score is calculated by multiplying each collision severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:

Collision Severity Score = Fatal weight * # of fatal collisions + severe injury weight * # of severe injury collisions + moderate injury weight * # of moderate injury collisions + minor injury weight * # of minor injury weight collisions + property damage only collisions
The collision severity score is annualized by dividing the score by the number of years (five) of collision data used in the analysis.

Roadway Methodology
After completing the intersection analysis, Kittelson used the collisions reported more than 250 feet from the nearest intersection to conduct a separate segment analysis. A Python script in ArcGIS allowed for splitting the Dublin roadway network into overlapping half-mile (0.5) segments, incrementing the segments by one quarter (0.25) of a mile. This methodology helps to identify portions of roadway with the greatest potential for safety improvements.

After splitting the network, the Python script spatially joined non-intersection collisions to each segment. Like the intersection methodology above, collisions were summarized by severity, and the totals were multiplied by the collision severity weights for roadway segments. The weighted collision severity scores of the collisions were totaled and annualized by the number of years of collision data (five) to generate an annualized collision severity score.

3.2 Results

3.2.1 NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
This analysis scenario included total reported collision from the last 5 years of data. For intersection locations, the collision severity scores ranged from zero (no reported collisions during the 5 years) to 59.87.

For the half-mile roadway segments, the collision severity scores ranged from zero to 36.16. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the results of the collision severity scoring by percentiles for intersection locations and roadway segments, respectively. Intersections or segments are excluded from the figures if no collisions were reported at that location.
975
October 11, 2022 Page 26
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 8. Intersection Collision Severity Scores
976
October 11, 2022 Page 27
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 9. Roadway Collision Severity Scores
977
October 11, 2022 Page 28
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

3.2.2 PRIORITY LOCATIONS
Kittelson identified priority intersections and segments using the annualized collision severity score for intersections and segments. The top 15 intersections (top 5th percentile) and 5 roadway segments (top 8th percentile) were identified. The resulting list of priority locations is provided in Table 17 and shown in Figure

10. The top scoring intersections and segments were reviewed to determine priority locations for safety improvements and upcoming HSIP applications. The final list of priority locations may change from the table below.

Table 17. Priority Intersections and Roadways
# Location Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total No.

Collisions
Fatal/Severe
Injury
Collisions
Other
Injury
Collisions
PDO
Collisions
Priority Intersections
1 Arnold Rd & Dublin Blvd
Signalized
Intersection 59.9 17 2 8 7
2 Dublin Blvd & Village Pkwy
Signalized
Intersection 49.4 43 1 15 27
3 Donlon Way & Dublin Blvd
Unsignalized
Intersection 42.1 6 1 3 2
4 Amador Valley Blvd & San
Ramon Rd
Signalized
Intersection 41.1 18 1 9 8
5 Regional St & Regional
Common
Unsignalized
Intersection 38.8 5 1 0 4
6 Winding Trail Ln & Rolling Hills
Dr
Unsignalized
Intersection 38.0 1 1 0 0
7 Lucania St & Brighton Dr
Unsignalized
Intersection 38.0 1 1 0 0
8 Tyne Ct & Penn Dr
Unsignalized
Intersection 38.0 1 1 0 0
9 Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd
Signalized
Intersection 37.2 65 0 22 43
10 San Ramon Rd & Shannon
Ave
Signalized
Intersection 29.3 8 1 3 4
11 Dublin Ct & Dublin Blvd
Signalized
Intersection 27.3 13 1 1 11
12 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd
Signalized
Intersection 25.8 34 0 16 18
13 Grafton St & Central Pkwy
Signalized
Intersection 24.3 3 1 0 2
14 Bent Tree Dr & Fallon Rd
Signalized
Intersection 23.9 1 1 0 0
15 Martinelli Way & Hacienda Dr
Signalized
Intersection 18.5 28 0 10 18
Priority Roadways
978
October 11, 2022 Page 29
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
# Location Location Type
Collision
Severity
Score
Total No.

Collisions
Fatal/Severe
Injury
Collisions
Other
Injury
Collisions
PDO
Collisions
1 Dougherty Rd (north of Willow
Creek Dr to south of 8th St) –

0.75 mi Arterial 36.2 8 1 2 5
2 Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr to
Gleason Dr) – 0.75 mi Arterial 35.5 4 1 1 2
3 Village Pkwy (northern city
limits to north of Tamarack Dr)
– 0.69 mi Collector 35.3 8 1 1 6
4 Amador Valley Blvd (Burton St
to Dougherty Rd) – 0.75 mi Arterial 34.1 2 1 1 0
5 Tassajara Rd (northern city
limits to Fallon Rd) – 0.50 mi Arterial 33.1 2 1 0 1
Note: Priority locations are based on collision severity scores and may change. 979
October 11, 2022 Page 30
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 10. Priority Intersections and Roadways
980
October 11, 2022 Page 31
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Next Steps
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
4 NEXT STEPS
The findings presented above will be discussed, reviewed, and confirmed with City of Dublin staff. The findings will be used to develop countermeasure profiles for the most relevant safety treatments for the City based on identified collision risk and common collision patterns and trends. This analysis will also be used to determine the locations and projects most likely to provide the greatest potential collision reduction.

Kittelson and the City will work together to identify locations for field observation and project development.

Collectively, the information in this memorandum and follow-on recommendations from the next steps will be incorporated into the City’s final LRSP.
981
October 11, 2022 Page 32
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Next Steps
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attachment A
Collision Database Review
Memorandum
982
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TASK 3.2 – TECHNICAL COLLISION DATABASE REVIEW
This memorandum presents an overview of the collision data available for the City of Dublin (City) and a recommendation on the appropriate data source to use in the development of the Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). It is organized into the following sections:
• Data Sources
• Database Findings
• Recommendations
Kittelson compared collisions provided by the City from its database in Crossroads software to collisions obtained from the public California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. Several discrepancies were found between the total number of collisions and recorded collision severity in the databases, so Kittelson consulted police reports provided by the City to check a sample of collisions from both databases and make a recommendation.

The findings and recommendations of this memorandum establish the approach to compile a consolidated collision database for the Dublin LRSP. That database will be used for the highcollision locations analysis (Task 3.2), the identification of safety goals and countermeasures (Task 4), and the identification of geographic priorities for future projects (Task 5).

Kittelson recommends using SWITRS collision records and recorded severities for the 2016-2020 period and augmenting with the 141 unique collisions from the Crossroads database to create a complete and consolidated dataset for the forthcoming LRSP analysis efforts.

DATA SOURCES
Kittelson obtained the most recently reported collision data from the City’s Crossroads collision database, representing collisions occurring July 2015 through February 2021. Kittelson obtained collision dated from the SWITRS database for the same period (July 2015 through February 2021).

The five most recent available years of complete data (January 2016 to December 2020) will be used for the project’s analysis and were therefore analyzed to compare databases.

Police reports for a sample of collisions were obtained from the City and compared to the matching records in each database.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
October 7, 2021 Project# 26647
To: Sai Midididdi, TE
City of Dublin
From: Mike Alston, RSP; Erin Ferguson, PE; Grace Carsky; Jackson Lynch RE: Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan
983
October 7, 2021 Page 2
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Task 3.2 – Technical Collision Database Review Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

DATABASE FINDINGS
The Crossroads database included 1,366 collisions between January 2016 and December 2020.

The SWITRS database included 1,314 collisions during the same period (Figure 1). These collisions were categorized into different severities (Table 1). The total number of fatal and severe injury collisions was equal between the two data sources, but there were clear discrepancies between the level of other injury collisions and total collisions reported annually.

Figure 1. Total Number of Collisions, 2016-2020
Table 1. Crossroads and SWITRS Collision Severities
Crossroads SWITRS
Fatal 2 2
Severe Injury 15 15
Other Visible Injury 277 141
Complaint of Pain 86 327
Property Damage Only 986 829
Total 1,366 1,314
Kittelson used collision time, date, and location to cross-reference collision reports between Crossroads and SWITRS. Each database contained unique collision records not present in the other database. Of the 1,366 Crossroads collisions, 141 were unique to the database and not included in the SWITRS database. Of the 1,314 SWITRS collisions, 89 were unique to the database. 1,225 collision records were in both databases, and 431 of these were coded with different collision severities between the two databases (Table 2). Most notable is the discrepancy of one collision coded as a severe injury collision in SWITRS and a property damage only (PDO) collision in Crossroads.
277 280
309
329
171
261 266 280
316
191
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of Collisions
Crossroads SWITRS
984
October 7, 2021 Page 3
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Task 3.2 – Technical Collision Database Review Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 2. Comparison Matrix of Crossroads and SWITRS Collision Severities – All Common Collisions SWITRS Collision Severity
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO Total
Crossroads Collision
Severity
Fatal 2 2
Severe Injury 14 14
Other Visible Injury 18 246 264
Complaint of Pain 75 1 1 77
PDO 1 38 70 759 868
Total 2 15 131 317 760 1,225
Note: Bold numbers indicate the number of collisions that were recorded with the same collision severity in both the Crossroads and SWITRS databases.

Police reports for three collisions with different severities were obtained to check the police reports’ recorded severity at the time of the event against the Crossroads and SWITRS databases. One report (D2003567) was selected due to the wide discrepancy between the severity reporting: Crossroads recorded the collision as PDO collision while SWITRS recorded the collision as a severe injury collision. The other two collisions were selected at random as representative other collision records with discrepancies: one where Crossroads recorded a higher level of severity and one where SWITRS recorded a higher level of severity. Table 3 presents the findings of the police report comparison.

Report D2003567 determined the collision to result in a severe injury, and Report D1900667 determined the collision to result as an other visible injury collision. However, both were entered as PDO collisions in Crossroads. The SWITRS database matched the severity of the police reports.

Report D1602575 determined the collision to result as an other visible injury in the collision description, but neither database matched this coding. Crossroads did not match the police reports for any of the three reported collisions; SWITRS matched for two of the three.

Table 3. Comparison Matrix of Crossroads and SWITRS Collision Severities – Specific Collisions Crossroads
Report No.

SWITRS
Case ID
Crossroads Severity SWITRS Severity Determined Severity D2003567 9204895 Property Damage Only Severe Injury Severe Injury D1602575 8131511 Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury D1900667 8810265 Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury

RECOMMENDATIONS
After comparing the Crossroads and SWITRS databases against each other and verifying severity of a sample of collision records using police reports, Kittelson recommends using SWITRS collision records and recorded severities for the 2016-2020 period and augmenting with the 141 unique collisions from the Crossroads database to create a complete and consolidated dataset for the forthcoming LRSP analysis efforts.

This verification step also highlights the need for database maintenance. As the main source of information for city staff to review collision history, having accurate collision information is 985
October 7, 2021 Page 4
Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Task 3.2 – Technical Collision Database Review Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
important. The City could review their Crossroads data input methodologies and could consider regularly taking a sample of police reports and comparing those against data entered into the Crossroads database to verify accuracy of the Crossroads data. 986
Appendix C:

Countermeasure Toolbox
987
1 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
This section presents engineering countermeasures – treatments to reduce crashes and improve safety on roadways – organized by treatment location type:
 Signalized intersections
 Unsignalized intersections
 Roadways
Treatments that are applicable to more than one location type are listed in all applicable categories.

Signalized Intersections
This section presents recommended engineering countermeasures at signalized intersections in Dublin.

Detailed description of each measure is provided further in the document.

Table 1: Summary of Signalized Intersection Countermeasures and Related Information Countermeasure Name CM
ID*
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor**
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
through
HSIP***
Cost
Estimateŧ Emphasis Area Page Reference
Motor Vehicle Treatments
Add intersection lighting S01 40% 100% $ Nighttime Safety, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 3
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back-plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 15% 100% $ Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections 4
Provide advanced dilemma-zone
detection for high-speed
approaches
S04 40% 100% $ - $$ Nighttime Safety, Signalized
Local/Arterial Intersections 5
Install left-turn lane and add
turn phase S06/S07 55% 90% $ - $$$ Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 6 Convert signal to mast arm
(from pedestal-mounted) S08 30% 100% $ - $$$ Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 7 Install raised median on
approaches S12 25% 90% $ - $$$ Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 8 988
2 Countermeasure Name CM
ID*
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor**
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
through
HSIP***
Cost
Estimateŧ Emphasis Area Page Reference
Create directional median
openings to allow (and restrict)
left-turns and U-turns
(signalized intersection)
S14 50% 90% $ - $$
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
9 Signalized intersection
conspicuity treatments Varies Varies Varies $ - $$
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections, Driver
Behavior
13 No Right Turn on Red (RTOR)1 N/A N/A N/A $
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
10 Centerline hardening1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Pedestrian Crashes 11 Convert intersection to
roundabout
(from signal)
S16 35-67%** 100% $ - $$$ Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections 12
Pedestrian/Bicycle Treatments
Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads S17PB 25% 100% $
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
13 Install pedestrian crossing S18PB 25% 100% $
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
16 Install pedestrian scramble S19PB 40% 100% $
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
17 Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 15% 100% $
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
18 Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
S21PB 60% 100% $
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
19 Install painted safety zone N/A N/A N/A $
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
20 Install Protected Intersection
Elements N/A N/A N/A $ - $$$
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
21 *CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2020, LRSM). If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not listed in the LRSM. Local Roadway Safety - A Manual for California's Local Road Owners **Documented crash reduction factors are derived either from the LRSM or the FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted.

An “N/A” indicates that a documented, research-backed crash reduction factor does not exist. ***Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle

10. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the state HSIP coordinator. ŧ $ - $50,000 or less; $$ - $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ - $100,000 or more 989
3 MOTOR VEHICLE TREATMENTS
Add Intersection Lighting
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Nighttime
Nighttime Safety,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
40% 100% $ Yes
What is it?
Lighting may be improved at an intersection, its approaches, or a roadway segment to make drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, enhance drivers’ available sight distances, and improve the visibility of non-motorists at an intersection. In commercial areas or in downtown areas where there is more pedestrian activity, pedestrian-scale lighting may be placed over sidewalks to help pedestrians navigate the intersection safely. Intersection lighting improvements may be considered at intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches.

What are some considerations for use?
These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of night-time crashes have occurred at a signalized intersection. Avoid placing the light source behind pedestrians at crossing locations (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Example of Intersection Lighting
Source: FHWA Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks 990
4 Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Back-Plates with Retroreflective Borders, Mounting, Size, and Number
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Rear-end,
Broadside
Nighttime Safety,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
40% 100% $ Y
What is it?
 Lenses: New lenses with LED lighting increases visibility of the traffic signal.  Back-plates with retroreflective borders: This treatment warns drivers of the upcoming signalized intersections by making signal heads more visible in daytime and nighttime conditions. Signal hardware upgrades may be considered where crash patterns indicate visibility of the intersection or signal heads may benefit from enhancements.
 Mounting: Mounting assemblies include mast arms, span wires, and side-mounted vehicular signals.

Upgrading the mounting assembly may improve the longevity of the signal hardware.  Size and Number: Increasing the size and/or numbers may improve visibility of the signal.

What are some considerations for use?
This treatment may be considered when high frequencies of broadside, rear-end, or other conflicting movement crashes are occurring at a signalized intersection related to signal conspicuity.

Figure 2. Signal with Retroreflective Borders
Source: FHWA
991
5 Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection for High Speed Approaches Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Rear-end
Nighttime Safety,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
40% 100% $ - $$ Y
What is it?
This treatment consists of adding new advance detection and signal hardware to detect vehicles that may approach the intersection in the “dilemma zone” of deciding whether to stop or proceed during a yellow phase. The detection system modifies the signal timing to reduce the numbers of drivers needing to make this decision and the potential for conflicts due to phase changes.

Providing advanced dilemma-zone detection can help reduce conflicts due to late-entering vehicles proceeding through the intersection or conflicts arising from hard-stopping vehicles due to the dilemma of whether to proceed or stop during the yellow phase of a signal. Advanced dilemma-zone detection can help reduce the frequency of red-light violations, crashes associated with phase changes, and may provide operational benefits.

What are some considerations for use?
This treatment may be considered when high frequencies of crashes involve hard-stopping vehicles resulting in rear-end crashes, or there is a pattern of crashes related to late-entering vehicles or vehicles running red lights.

Figure 3. Example Layout of Dilemma-Zone Detection
Source: FHWA
992
6 Install Left-Turn Lane and Add Turn Phase
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Crashes related
to left-turning
vehicles
(broadside, rearend, sideswipe)
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
55% 90% $ - $$$ Y
What is it?
This treatment consists of adding a new protected left-turn phase to a signal where left-turns are currently permitted and, if no left-turn lane currently exists, adding a left-turn lane to allow left-turning vehicles to queue separately from through movement traffic. This treatment includes both adjustments to signal timing as well as new signal hardware to provide for the protected movement.

Protected left-tun phasing can help reduce rear-end or sideswipe crashes related to left-turn vehicle conflicts with oncoming traffic or vehicles behind them where permitted left-turns are allowed. This phasing removes the need for left-turning drivers to navigate through gaps in opposing through vehicles.

What are some considerations for use?
These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of crashes involving left-turning vehicles are occurring at a signalized intersection. Adding a protected phase will likely require new signal heads, may require a new mast arm and pole if the existing mast arm could not support the new signal heads, and may require roadway widening.

Figure 4. Example of Protected Left-Turn Lane and Phase Source: Google Earth
993
7 Convert Signal to Mast Arm (from Pedestal-Mounted)
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Rear-end,
broadside
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
30% 100% $ - $$$ N
What is it?
Conversion of pedestal-mounted intersections to mast arms can improve visibility of the traffic signals.

Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection.

What are some considerations for use?
These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of broadside, rear-end, night-time or other conflicting movement crashes are occurring at a signalized intersection that may be related to intersection and signal conspicuity.

Figure 5. Example of Mast Arm
Source: AA Roads
994
8 Install Raised Median on Approaches
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Broadside
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
25% 90% $ - $$$ Y
What is it?
This treatment consists of adding new raised medians on the approaches to intersections to control and restrict movements from access points (e.g., driveways from commercial and retail areas) on the approach to a signalized intersection. Adding raised medians can help reduce conflicts by restricting access-related movements to the roadway on the approaches to an intersection. The raised medians prohibit left-turns into and out of driveways that may be located within the influence area of the intersection to reduce potential conflicts.

What are some considerations for use?
These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of crashes involve left-turning vehicles on the approach to any intersection are present or there is other evidence of access-related crashes on the intersection approaches. At signalized intersections, the addition of raised medians and median noses can be installed to create pedestrian refuge islands, providing an additional benefit to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the intersection. However, implementation of these treatments will need to balance access to businesses where restrictions occurred with safety benefits in commercial and retail areas.

Figure 6. Example of Raised Median
Source: Kittelson
995
9 Create Directional Median Openings to Allow (and Restrict) Left-Turns and U-Turns
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Broadside,
Rear-end,
Pedestrian,
Sideswipe
(involving left
turns)
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
50% 90% $ - $$ Y
What is it?
This treatment may be used at signalized or unsignalized intersections and mid-block locations on roadways that have turning movement crashes near the intersection or at driveway access points. This treatment can improve access control at intersections and mid-block roadway segments. Application of this countermeasure should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need to restrict or accommodate the movement.

Raised medians next to left-turn lanes at intersections can offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.

What are some considerations for use?
A clustering of similar turning movement-related crashes may indicate a candidate movement to restrict.

Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive countermeasures would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment.

Figure 7. Diagram of a Directional Median Opening
Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute
996
10 No Right Turn on Red (RTOR)
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
N/A N/A $ Y
What is it?
This treatment restricts motorists from turning right during the red light. In California, turning right on red is not a default condition of the existing laws. Drivers in California are advised of this restriction with the posting of “No Turn on Red” signs (static or dynamic), according to the sign specifications for MUTCD R10-11 in California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). Dynamic signs can be used to restrict right turns during certain times of day or during certain signal phases.

What are some considerations for use?
No RTOR treatments may be considered at signalized intersections, specifically at intersections with medium to high motor vehicle turning volumes and pedestrian volumes. This treatment may be considered at intersections with exclusive pedestrian phase, and school crossings.

Figure 8. Example of Dynamic No Right Turn Sign (can be included on red phase)
Source: Flickr 2018
Figure 9. MUTCD R10-11 Sign
Source: Traffic Signs
997
11 Centerline Hardening
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes N/A N/A N/A Y
What is it?
The Basic Hardened Centerline treatment consists of five pieces of rubber curb and bollards and/or rubber speed bumps installed on the centerline and extending at maximum of six feet into the intersection. This is a turn calming treatment that addresses intersections with left and right turns.

The Complete Hardened Centerline treatment includes five pieces of rubber curb and bollards and/or rubber speed bumps, “No Parking” markings and slow turn wedge/box markings coupled with flexible plastic posts.

What are some considerations for use?
A Basic Hardened Centerline treatment is installed where one-way or two-way road meets at two-way road. A Complete Hardened Centerline treatment is installed where one-way road meets a two-way road.

Figure 10. Basic Centerline Hardening
Source: NYC.GOV
Source: Kittelson
998
12 Convert Intersection to Roundabout (from Signal)
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
All
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
35-67% 100% $ - $$$ N
What is it?
This treatment consists of installing a roundabout as traffic control at an intersection. A roundabout is a type of circular intersection without traffic signals or stop signs, where drivers travel counterclockwise around a center island. When entering the roundabout, drivers yield to existing traffic, then enter the intersection and exit in their desired direction. Roundabouts are designed to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to exit to the right of the circle. Roundabouts are installed to manage vehicular speeds through the intersection, improve safety at intersections by eliminating broadside and head-on crashes, and help traffic flow more efficiently.

What are some considerations for use?
This treatment may be considered at any intersection with a high frequency of reported crashes, traffic delays, complex geometry (more than four approach roads), frequent left-turns, and/or relatively balanced traffic flows.

Roundabouts work well for intersections with low-to-moderate traffic speeds, and lower traffic volumes. Per the NCHRP 672: Roundabout Informational Guide, the typical daily service volumes for four-leg roundabouts are as follows:
 Up to 15,000 veh/day for a mini-roundabout with desirable entry design speed of 15-20 mph,  Up to 25,000 veh/day for a single-lane roundabout with desirable entry design speed of 20-25 mph, and,
 25,000 – 45,000 veh/day for a multi-lane roundabout (2-lane entry) with desirable entry design speed of 25-30 mph.

Figure 11. Example of Roundabout

Source: Kittelson
999
13 CONSPICUITY TREATMENTS
Countermeasure Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost
Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Install flashing
beacons as advance
warning (Signalized
Intersection)
Rear-end,
Broadside
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
30% 100% $ - $$ Y
Install raised
pavement markers
and striping
(Through
Intersection)
Wet, Night,
All
Nighttime
Safety,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections,
Driver
Behavior
10% 100% $ Y
Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning
What is it?
Flashing beacons are highway traffic signals operates in a flashing mode. This treatment leads to increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety.

Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and improve driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.

What are some considerations for use?
Flashing beacons should be used at signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply.

Figure 12. Example of Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning Source: Kittelson
1000
14 Install Raised Pavement Markers and Striping
What is it?
Raised pavement markers and striping through the intersection can clarify the preferred path of travel through the intersection to help avoid potential conflicts. Providing more effective guidance through an intersection will minimize the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its appropriate lane and encroaching upon an adjacent lane. This treatment should be used where signalized intersection footprints are large, skewed, or have multiple turn lanes for a given movement.

What are some considerations for use?
Raised pavement markers and striping should be used where signalized intersection footprints are large, skewed, or have multiple turn lanes for a given movement. They are most effective at intersections where the lane designations are not clearly visible to approaching motorists and/or intersections noted as being complex and experiencing crashes that could be attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful attempt to navigate the intersection.

Figure 13. Example of Raised Pavement Markers and Striping

Source: Traffic Works
1001
15 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TREATMENTS
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
25% 100% $ Y
What is it?
Pedestrian countdown signals contain a timer display and count down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON’T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than cross illegally.

What are some considerations for use?
This treatment may be considered at signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with “WALK”/”DON’T WALK” indicators and where there have been pedestrian crashes.

Figure 14. Example of Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments
1002
16 Install Pedestrian Crossing
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections
25% 100% $ Y
What is it?
This treatment alerts drivers and enhances pedestrian and bicycle safety at pedestrian crossings. Installing pedestrian crossings at intersections can improve pedestrian and bicycle safety by designating a dedicated portion of the roadway for pedestrian and bicycle crossing. This helps to reduce pedestrian-related crashes that occur within 50 feet of an intersection. The use of high-visibility crosswalk markings, pedestrian countdown signals, and appropriate signs can enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety at pedestrian crossings.

What are some considerations for use?
This treatment may be considered at signalized intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements.

They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left-turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double-right or double-left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase. Caltrans HSIP does not provide reimbursement for visibility enhancements to existing marked crosswalks at signalized intersections. However, such improvements (like restriping transverse lines as high-visibility crosswalks) still provide visibility benefit and are worth consideration.

Figure 15. Example of Pedestrian Crossing at a Signalized Intersection Source: NACTO
1003
17 Install Pedestrian Scramble
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
40% 100% $ Y
What is it?
This treatment allows pedestrian movements in all directions simultaneously, including diagonally. This is a traffic signal operation that functions differently than a standard signal operation because it allows for an exclusive pedestrian phase, i.e., all pedestrians to cross in any direction while all vehicles are stopped.

What are some considerations for use?
Pedestrian scrambles may be implemented along with No Right Turn on Red treatment at intersections with high pedestrian volumes.

Figure 16. Example of Pedestrian Scramble
Source: Wall Street of the Rockies
1004
18 Install Advance Stop Bar before Crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
15% 100% $ Y
What is it?
Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety. Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. It also allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers (This dedicated space is often referred to as a bike-box.)
What are some considerations for use?
This treatment should be used at signalized intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur.

Figure 17. Diagram of Advance Stop Bar Before Crosswalk and Bike Box Source: BikePGH
1005
19 Modify Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
60% 100% $ Y
What is it?
LPIs provide pedestrians a head start when crossing at a signalized intersection. LPIs can be easily programmed into existing signals to give pedestrians the “Walk” signal a minimum of 3 to 7 seconds before motorists are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before motorists have priority to turn left at the intersection. LPIs can be provided automatically with each phase or provided only when actuated (actively or passively). LPIs increase visibility of crossing pedestrians and reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. This treatment increases the likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians.

What are some considerations for use?
LPIs may be considered at signalized intersections, specifically at intersections with medium to high motor vehicle turning volumes and pedestrian volumes. LPIs may be considered at locations with particularly high elderly populations, high crash history, or at school crosswalks.

Figure 18. Example of Leading Pedestrian Interval
Source: Go Active Long Beach
1006
20 Painted Safety Zone
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
N/A N/A $ Y
What is it?
Painted safety zones provide a low-cost curb extension that improves pedestrian safety at intersection corners in three ways:
 Creating distance between turning vehicles and waiting pedestrians  Slowing vehicle turning movements
 Improve visibility between drivers and crossing pedestrians What are some considerations for use?
Painted safety zones do not extend the sidewalk or create a formal waiting area but do provide low-cost improvements wherever vehicles are turning across pedestrian or bicyclist paths. Verify vehicle turn templates for vehicles expected to make turns at the treatment intersection.

Figure 19: Example Painted Safety Zone
Source: SFMTA
1007
21 Protected Intersection Elements
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
N/A N/A $ - $$$ Y
What is it?
The elements that form what is commonly called a “protected intersection” combine to achieve the following design goals:

Protected Intersection Element Design Outcome
Bicycle lane extension through intersections (see “A”
in
Figure 20b)
Improve bicyclist and pedestrian visibility to turning drivers Bicycle signals and signal phasing, including Leading
Bicycle/Pedestrian Interval (LBI/LPI)
Improve bicyclist and pedestrian visibility to turning drivers Separate modal movements in time by giving bicyclists and pedestrians a “head start” when the signal turns green
Curb extensions and curb radius reductions (see “B”
in
Figure 20b)
Shorten crossing distance for bicyclist and pedestrians Improve bicyclist and pedestrian visibility to turning drivers Reduce vehicle speeds
Two-stage bicycle turn box (see “C” in
Figure 20b)
Simplify left-turn movement and reduce conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles
High visibility crosswalk markings (see “D” in
Figure 20b) Improve crossing conspicuity
No Turn on Red signs Eliminate conflicts between turning motor vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists
What are some considerations for use?
Protected intersection elements are applicable at both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Some elements are eligible for HSIP funding:
 S21PB: Leading pedestrian intervals
 R33PB: Install separated bicycle lanes (if bicycle lanes do not already exist in the location) 1008
22 Figure 20: Example Protected Intersections
(a) Concept Visualization
(b) Paseo Padre Parkway/Walnut Avenue, Fremont, California.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc; Google Earth
1009
23 Unsignalized Intersections
This section presents recommended engineering countermeasures at unsignalized intersections in Dublin.

Table 2: Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures and Related Information Countermeasure Name CM ID*
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor**
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
through
HSIP***
Cost
Estimateŧ Emphasis Area Page Reference
Add intersection lighting NS01 40% 100% $ Nighttime Safety 3 Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left-turns and uturns
NS15 50% 90% $ - $$ Pedestrian Crashes 9
Install painted safety zone N/A N/A N/A $
Pedestrian Crashes,
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
20 Install raised medians (refuge
islands) NS19PB 45% 90% $ Pedestrian Crashes 24
Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations
Varies. See
page
references.

Varies. See page
references.

Varies. See page
references. $ - $$$ Varies. See page references. 25
Non-Signalized Intersection
Conspicuity Treatments
Varies. See
page
references.

Varies. See page
references.

Varies. See page
references. $ - $$$ Varies. See page references. 26
Install transverse rumble
strips on approaches NS10 20% 90% $ Driver Behavior 29
Install splitter islands on the
minor road approaches NS13 40% 90% $ Driver Behavior 30 *CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2020). **Documented crash reduction factors are derived either from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual April 2020) or the FHWA’s Proved Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted.
***Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle

9. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the state HSIP coordinator. ŧ $ - $50,000 or less; $$ - $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ - $100,000 or more 1010
24 Install Raised Medians (Refuge Islands)
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian &
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes 45% 100% $ Y
What is it?
A pedestrian refuge island is a median with a refuge area that is intended to help protect pedestrians who are crossing the roadway. A refuge island allows the pedestrians to focus on identifying adequate gap in traffic for one direction at a time. This treatment reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians and creates a place for refuge to allow multiple-stage crossings. Refuge island positions pedestrians in the sightline of drivers approaching the intersection. This treatment could also be used as a retrofit opportunity for roads that have medians that do not provide an adequate refuge.

What are some considerations for use?
Per the FHWA Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations, refuge islands may be considered under the following roadway conditions: 1  Any ADT + 2 or 3 lanes (without a raised median) + any posted speed limit  ADT ≥ 9,000 + 4 or more lanes (without a raised median) + any posted speed limit  Any ADT + 4 or more lanes (without a raised median) + ≥ 35 mph posted speed limit This treatment may be considered at locations with inadequate conspicuity/visibility of the crosswalk and/or crossing pedestrian, excessive vehicle speed, or lack of pedestrian separation from traffic during long crossings.

Figure 21. Example of Pedestrian Refuge Island
Source: NACTO
Figure 22. Example of Median (not a Refuge Island)
Source: Naples News
1 Source: Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations (dot.gov) 1011
25 Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations Countermeasure
Crash
Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost
Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Signs and markings
only
Pedestrian
& Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes 25% 100% $ Y
With enhanced safety
features
Pedestrian
& Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes 35% 100% $ - $$$ Y
What is it?
Signs and markings only—Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. These markings will often be different for controlled versus uncontrolled locations. The use of high-visibility crossing patterns ("ladder" or "zebra" style) at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing.

With enhanced safety features—Enhanced safety features include flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features.  Flashing beacons are added at crossings under the pedestrian sign. When a pedestrian crosses the street, the lights flash, alerting drivers to yield before the intersection.  Curb extensions are an extension of the sidewalk zone or curb line into the roadway zone at intersections. Curb extensions are intended to increase safety, calm motorized traffic, and create additional space for pedestrians and the boulevard and furnishing zone.  Advance yield/stop line include the stop bar or “sharks teeth” yield markings placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of a marked crosswalk to indicate where vehicles are required to stop.

What are some considerations for use?
Both these treatments should be used at non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets.

Figure 23. Example of a High Visibility Pedestrian Crossing Source: NACTO
Figure 24. Example of a Curb Extensions and Advanced Stop Bar Source: Move Culver City
1012
26 CONSPICUITY TREATMENTS
Countermeasure Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost
Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Install/upgrade
larger or additional
stop signs or other
intersection
warning or
regulatory signs
Rear-end, rightangle, or
turning crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness
Driver
Behavior 15% 100% $ Y
Upgrade
intersection
pavement
markings
Rear-end, rightangle, or
turning crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness
Driver
Behavior 25% 100% $ Y
Install Pedestrian
Signal or
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon
Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes 55% 100% $$$ N
Install/Upgrade Larger or Additional Stop Signs or Other Intersection Warning/Regulatory Signs
What is it?
Installing larger warning or regulatory signs at or in advance of an intersection can increase the visibility of the intersection, thereby increasing the ability of approaching drivers to perceive the intersection. The effectiveness of this strategy is greatest when implementation involves a combination of regulatory and warning signs appropriate for the conditions on an unsignalized intersection approach.

What are some considerations for use?
Signs should be used at approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.

Figure 25. Example of Warning Signs
Source: ITE
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings
What is it?
1013
27 Upgrades to intersection pavement markings include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of centerlines and stop bars for stop-controlled approaches. Providing visible stop bars and clearer delineation of lanes on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection.

What are some considerations for use?
Upgraded intersection pavement markings should be used at unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. They are also effective at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection.

Figure 26. Example of Upgraded Intersection Pavement Markings Source: City of San Antonio Public Works Department
1014
28 Install Pedestrian Signal (Including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon [HAWK]) What is it?
A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) is a hybrid beacon used to control traffic and reverts to all dark until a pedestrian activates it via a push button or other form of detection. When activated, the beacon displays a sequence of flashing and solid lights that indicate when vehicles must stop and when pedestrians should cross. PHBs provide active warning to drivers when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. PHBs have been shown to significantly increase driver yielding behavior at uncontrolled crosswalks, with motorist yielding rates exceeding 90% (FHWA, 2014).

What are some considerations for use?
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons may be considered at locations with long pedestrian delay due to few available gaps in traffic, drivers not yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, or noted conflicts at crossing locations.

Figure 27. Example of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Source: FHWA
1015
29 Install Transverse Rumble Strips or Optical Speed Bars on Approaches Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
All Driver Behavior 20%1 90%1 $1 Y
1: Information presented relates to transverse rumble strips.

What is it?
Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. They can be used at any stop or yield approach intersection, often in combination with advance signing to warn of the intersection ahead.

Optical speed bars are transverse bars are spaced progressively closer together at an increasing rate as the driver travels along the roadway. The intent is that the reduced spacing gives the driver the perception of acceleration, causing the driver to slow down.

What are some considerations for use?
Transverse rumble strips may generate noise generated by vehicles driving over them, so care must be taken to minimize disruption to nearby residences and businesses.

Figure 28. Example of Transverse Rumble Strips
Source: Vision Zero North Dakota
Figure 29. Example of Optical Speed Bars
Source: Speed Reduction Mitigation Strategies on Rural
Highways at Two-Way Stop Control Intersections and Curves 1016
30 Install Splitter Islands on the Minor Road Approaches Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Broadside,
Rear-end Driver Behavior 40% 90% $ N
What is it?
This treatment consists of adding a raised median island at minor street intersection approaches. Raised splitter islands create a physical separation between vehicles turning onto the stop-controlled approach and vehicles stopped on that same approach. The splitter island also increases the visibility of the intersection, clarifies movements at the intersection, and provides a space for a secondary stop sign on the approach, if desired.

What are some considerations for use?
Splitter islands may be considered when high frequencies of crashes are related to conflicting movements resulting from movements onto or off minor street approaches. Splitter islands should also be designed to accommodate appropriate design vehicles while still being large enough to be visible to drivers and provide a refuge area for crossing pedestrians.

Figure 30. Example of Splitter Island on Minor Road Approach Source: FHWA
1017
31 Roadways
This section presents recommended engineering countermeasures along roadways in Dublin.

Table 3: Summary of Roadway Intersection Countermeasures and Related Information Countermeasure Name CM ID*
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
through
HSIP***
Cost
Estimate
Emphasis
Area
Page
Reference
Add lighting R01 35% 100% $ Nighttime
Safety 32
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from 4 to 3 and add
a two way left-turn and
bike lanes)
R14 30% 90% $ Pedestrian
Crashes 32
Corridor access
management1 N/A Varies. N/A $ - $$$ Pedestrian Crashes 34 Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes R31 15% 100% $-$$$ Driver Behavior 35
Install separated bike
lanes R33PB 45% 90% $ - $$ Bicycle Crashes 36
Crosswalk visibility
enhancements
Varies. See
page
reference.

Varies. See page
reference.

Varies. See
page
reference.
$ - $$$
Varies. See
page
reference.
37 Roadway/intersection
approach conspicuity
treatments
Varies. See
page
reference.

Varies. See page
reference.

Varies. See
page
reference.
$ - $$ Driver
Behavior 39
Speed management
treatments1
Varies. See
page
reference.

Varies. See page
reference.

Varies. See
page
reference.
$ Driver
Behavior 42
1Countermeasure not included in LRSM.
*CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2020). **Documented crash reduction factors are derived either from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual April 2020) or the FHWA’s Proved Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted.
***Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle

9. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the state HSIP coordinator. 1018
32 Add Segment Lighting
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Nighttime Nighttime Safety 35% 100% $ Y
What is it?
Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation. Segment lighting improvements may be considered at segments with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure crashes on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.

What are some considerations for use?
These treatments may be considered at locations with substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. Patterns of rear-end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.

Figure 31. Example of Roadway Segment Lighting
Source: Pensacola Voice
1019
33 Road Diet
(reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Head-on, Hit
object, Unsafe
Speed
Pedestrian
Crashes 30% 90% $ N
What is it?
Road diets reduce the number of travel lanes on the roadway and provide space to implement pedestrian and bicyclist related treatments including adding bike lanes, and median crossing islands. The most common road diet configuration involves converting a four-lane roadway into three travel lanes (with one lane in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane), often supplemented with bike lanes. Figure 12 shows an example of road diet, i.e., reconfiguration of the roadway. Road Diets are intended to improve access management, increase pedestrian and bicyclist access, and enhance roadway safety.

What are some considerations for use?
Road diets may be considered for application at priority pedestrian and bicycle routes or in urban and suburban areas with multilane roadways.

This treatment may be considered when any of the following factors are observed on site:
 Presence of left-turning conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles; or  Desire to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Figure 32. Example of Road-Diet (Roadway Cross-Section Before and After Reconfiguration) Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute
1020
34 Corridor Access Management
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian
and Bicycle,
All
Pedestrian
Crashes Varies. N/A $ - $$$ Y
What is it?
Access management refers to the design, application, and control of entry and exit points along a roadway.

This includes intersections with other roads and driveways that serve adjacent properties. Thoughtful access management along a corridor can simultaneously enhance safety for all modes, facilitate walking and biking, and reduce trip delay and congestion.

The following access management strategies can be used individually or in combination with one another:
 Reduce density through driveway closure, consolidation, or relocation.  Manage spacing of intersection and access points. Limit allowable movements at driveways (such as right-in/ right-out only).
 Place driveways on an intersection approach corner rather than a receiving corner, which is expected to have fewer total crashes.
 Implement raised medians that preclude across-roadway movements.  Utilize designs such as roundabouts or reduced left-turn conflicts (such as restricted crossing U-turn, median U-turns, etc.).
 Provide turn lanes (i.e., left-only, right-only, or interior two-way left).  Use lower speed one-way or two-way off-arterial circulation roads.

What are some considerations for use?
Successful corridor access management involves balancing overall safety and mobility for all users along with the needs of adjacent land uses.

Figure 33. Access Management Strategies.

Source: FHWA
1021
35 Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Run-off
Road, Hit
Object
Driver
Behavior 15% 100% $ - $$$ Y
What is it?
Edgeline rumble strips alert drivers that are drifting out of their travel lane before they depart the roadway, providing the driver time to correct and stay in their lane. The Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual recommends installing rumble strips along an entire corridor, instead of just in certain spots. Rumble stripes –so called when the pavement marking is in the rumble strip—provide enhanced marking in wet or dark conditions.

What are some considerations for use?
Edgeline rumble strips may have special requirements when installing in locations with residential land uses related to noise. If bicyclists are expected to ride in proximity of the edgeline, stripes should be used to provide for bicyclist comfort and safety.

Figure 34. Example of Edgeline Rumble Strips
Source: FHWA
1022
36 Install Separated Bike Lanes
Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Pedestrian,
Bicycle
Driver
Behavior 45% 90% $ - $$ Y
What is it?
Separated bike lanes can range from painted buffers and flexible delineators to raised curbs, grade separation, and parking lanes. Separated bike lanes are the most appropriate in urban and suburban areas, on roadways with high volumes of bicycle traffic, or where a high number of bike-vehicle collisions have occurred.

What are some considerations for use?
The cost of the treatment can be low to high, depending on whether roadway widening, right of way, or environmental impacts are involved. Treatments should also include signage and markings directing cyclists to appropriate paths, and for motorized users to be aware of where bicyclists are traveling.

Figure 35. Example of Separated Bike Lane
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
1023
37 CROSSWALK VISIBILITY ENHANCEMENTS
Countermeasure
Crash
Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost
Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Install/upgrade
pedestrian
crossing (with
enhanced safety
features)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes 35% 100% $$ - $$$ Y
Install raised
pedestrian
crossing
Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Pedestrian
Crashes 35% 90% $ Y
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (with Enhanced Safety Features) What is it?
This treatment should be used at roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high-use midblock crossing areas and/or multi-lane roads locations. Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety. The enhanced safety elements, which may include curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting, combined with pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.

What are some considerations for use?
When installing or upgrading a pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features, care must be taken to warn drivers of the potential for pedestrians crossing the roadway and enhanced improvements added to the crossing increase the likelihood of pedestrians crossing in a safe manner. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs.

Figure 36. Example of Enhanced Mid-Block Crossing
Source: NACTO
1024
38 Install Raised Pedestrian Crossing
What is it?
Raised crossings are a vertical traffic control measure that can reduce vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian visibility to approaching drivers, and improve pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety by improving drivers yielding. The raised crossing encourages drivers to reduce their speed and provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Signs and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate travel paths should be used in combination with this countermeasure.

What are some considerations for use?
In combination with installing a raised pedestrian crossing, better guidance signs and markings for nonmotorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths.

Figure 37. Example of Raised Pedestrian Crossing
Source: PedBikeSafe
1025
39 ROADWAY DEPARTURE TREATMENTS
Countermeasure Crash Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost
Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Remove or relocate
fixed objects
outside of Clear
Recovery Zone
Hit Object Driver
Behavior 35% 90% $ - $$ Y
Install delineators,
reflectors and/or
object marker
All Driver
Behavior 15% 100% $ Y
Install/upgrade
signs with new
fluorescent
sheeting
(regulatory or
warning)
Head-on, Runoff Road,
Sideswipe, Night
Nighttime
Safety,
Driver
Behavior
15% 100% $ Y
Remove or Relocate Fixed Objects Outside of Clear Recovery Zone What is it?
Removing or relocating roadside fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage, trees, or other fixed objects provides a clear recovery zone that allows drivers to correct their path of travel when they leave the roadway.

This treatment is particularly effective outside of curves, along lane drops and in traffic islands where fixed object crashes are more common. A clear recovery zone should be developed on more rural context roadways, as space is available.

What are some considerations for use?
A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate.

Figure 38. Example of Clear Recovery Zone
Source: United States Army
1026
40 Install Delineators, Reflectors and/or Object Marker What is it?
This treatment consists of adding delineators, reflectors, or object markers on the approach and through a horizontal curve. Delineators, reflectors, and object markers provide drivers with a visual cue of the approaching horizontal curve and help drivers navigate safely through the curve.

What are some considerations for use?
Delineators, reflectors and object markers may be considered at any horizontal curve where visibility of the approaching curve is limited or providing guidance through the curve via delineation may provide safety benefits. These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of run-off-road crashes related to a horizontal curve are identified.

Figure 39. Example of Roadside Delineators
Source: Pathmark Traffic Products
1027
41 Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting (Regulatory or Warning)
What is it?
Installing and/or or upgrading signs with fluorescent sheeting provides drivers with a visual warning of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement that they may have missed with existing signs. This treatment is appropriate on roadway segments with a history of head-on, nighttime, nonintersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes.

What are some considerations for use?
New fluorescent sheeting should be installed in combination with additional treatments such as installing or adding chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocating existing signs.

Figure 40. Example of Fluorescent Sign
Source: 3M
1028
42 SPEED MANAGEMENT TREATMENTS
Countermeasure
Crash
Types
Addressed
Emphasis
Areas
Addressed
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal
Funding
Eligibility
Cost
Estimate
Ideal for
Systemic
Application?
Install dynamic
speed warning
signs
All Driver
Behavior 30% 100% $ Y
Variable speed limit
Winter
crashes
(October -
March)
Driver
Behavior 31.6%3 N/A N/A N
Appropriate speed
limit for all users All
Pedestrian
Crashes,
Driver
Behavior
Varies. N/A N/A Y
Install Dynamic Speed Warning Signs
What is it?
This treatment consists of installing dynamic speed feedback signs on the roadway. Speed feedback signs provide drivers with feedback about their speed in relationship to the posted speed limit.

What are some considerations for use?
Dynamic speed warning signs may be considered on roadways that have higher incidence of crashes due to excessive speeds, and on relatively sharp curves.

Figure 41. Example of Dynamic Speed Warning Signs

Source: Radar Sign
1029
43 Appropriate Speed Limit for All Users
What is it?
Posted speed limits are often the same as the legislative statutory speed limit. Agencies with designated authorities to set speed limits, which include States, and sometimes local jurisdictions, can establish nonstatutory speed limits or designate reduced speed zones, and a growing number are doing so. Based on international experience and implementation in the United States, the use of 20 mph speed zones or speed limits in urban core areas where vulnerable users share the road environment with motorists may result in further safety benefits. California Assembly Bill 43, passed in 2021, allows local jurisdictions to reduce speed limits in key areas.

What are some considerations for use?
When setting appropriate speed limits, agencies should consider a range of factors such as pedestrian and bicyclist activity, crash history, land use context, intersection spacing, driveway density, roadway geometry, roadside conditions, roadway functional classification, traffic volume, and observed speeds. To achieve desired speeds, agencies often implement other speed management strategies concurrently with setting speed limits, such as self-enforcing roadways, traffic calming, and speed safety cameras. 1030
Appendix D:

Strategy Toolbox
1031
1 STRATEGY TOOLBOX
This section presents available non-engineering solutions to improve safety on local roadways in Dublin. The strategies require a champion either among, or in coordination with, City staff. The Local Roadway Safety Plan includes recommendations for how these strategies may be implemented, in recognition that Education Strategies
To build a culture of safety, the public must have access to traffic safety information. Public education and collaboration help bridge gaps in knowledge that influence roadway user behavior. The following strategies provide opportunities to educate and learn from the community:

EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS
Roadway safety education programs help people develop safer driving habits, learn how to take alternative modes of transportation, and have a deeper understanding of municipal laws.

Key topics for education programs include:
 Roadway safety for children
 Young driver safety
 Vulnerable roadway user safety
 Dangers of impaired driving
 Dangers of distracted driving (e.g., using cell phones and text messaging while driving) Several organizations offer specialized educational training programs:
 American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) resources and courses:
https://www.aarp.org/auto/driver-safety/
 CarFit program sponsored by American Automobile Association (AAA), AARP, and the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA): https://www.car-fit.org/ Potential partners: Dublin Unified School District, California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Department of Public Health, local community organizations (e.g., Bike East Bay, Community for Independent Living), City of Dublin Public Information Office, Dublin Police Services 1032
2 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY CAMPAIGN
Designed to dovetail with community education efforts, transportation safety campaigns use strategic marketing, advertising, and engagement to foster community awareness of a shared responsibility for roadway safety. Successful messaging reaches audiences using a variety of approaches. Campaigns should be created in partnership with various community stakeholders, including other planning organizations and jurisdictions.

This section presents ideas for a Dublin transportation safety campaign that can be tailored to accommodate limited staff, resources, and budget.

Campaign Tools
Branding: A logo, font standards, and color palette help create a recognizable brand for print and digital products. The City of Dublin already has well established brand standards.

Social Media Strategy & Schedule: A social media campaign is a great way to reach target audiences.

Different demographics use different platforms, so careful implementation can help agencies reach new groups. Social media strategy should use graphics, text, and a post release schedule to create a storyline that Dublin residents can follow and participate in.

Multimedia: Strong campaigns engage audiences through many types of media and events.  Print—Campaign events should have ready-to-share print materials to engage interested stakeholders who may not have time to stick around and learn more.
 Radio and Video—Radio and video spots can help spread the word about a safety campaign.  School Resources—School-based programs can help teach young people that their actions as roadway users have consequences that impact others.

Safety Messaging
Safety messages and infographics on posters and in social media can be tailored to identified safety emphasis areas. These messages link behavioral elements to safety performance trends and educate drivers to be alert and aware to help reduce these collision types. Each safety message should come with a supporting statistic that underscores why this safety message is important, and the larger campaign should provide a timeframe for when to publicize each safety message. This plan provides the supporting statistics that could be used in a campaign.

Figure 1: Example Safety Communications Graphic Developed for Tigard, Oregon 1033
3 Implementation and Partnerships
Successful campaigns use supportive partnerships with jurisdictions, organizations, and individuals to share the messages throughout the community. Partnerships can help ensure campaign branding, tone, and materials clearly and correctly communicate safety messaging.

Potential partners: Dublin Unified School District, California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Department of Public Health, local active transportation organizations, Department of Public Information
1034
4 Equitable Enforcement Strategies
Even with engineering countermeasures in place, road users can fail to obey traffic laws and cause crashes of varying severity. Police enforcement has been traditionally used as a strategy to increase driver awareness, educate drivers on roadway violations, and reduce traffic crashes.

However, if enforcement strategies are to improve overall safety in a community, traffic laws must be applied equitably. Directed enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities and be rigorously evaluated to determine the strategy’s intent and impact.

Dublin Police Services leadership has diligently worked to ensure members of the organization demonstrate a commitment to modeling practices that are contemporary and at the forefront of the policing profession and traffic enforcement operations.

Dublin Police Services recognizes and fully embraces equity and prioritizes all traffic safety concepts and efforts for people or communities that have been marginalized by poverty and discrimination.

SPEED MONITORING TRAILERS
Speed monitoring devices can be used to improve road user behavior and decisions. This strategy was chosen due its applicability to the safety emphasis areas of driver behavior, particularly aggressive driving.

Portable speed trailers visually display a driver’s real-time speed compared to the speed limit and may be effective at reducing speeds and increasing awareness of local speed limits. Portable speed trailers are also deployed to areas of Dublin that warrant traffic calming measures. These devices are most effective when the trailer flashes “SLOW DOWN” or flashes a bright white light that mimics a photo speed camera or a blue and red light that mimics a police car when drivers are moving too fast. In some cases, back-up speed enforcement by officers may be needed when radar speed trailers are used.

Potential partners: Dublin Police Services and local community organizations Figure 2: Example Speed Monitoring Trailer
Source: PEDSAFE
1035
5 PROGRESSIVE TICKETING
Progressive ticketing can be used to improve road user behavior and decision-making. This strategy was chosen due its applicability to the safety emphasis areas of driver behavior, particularly aggressive driving.

Issuing tickets has traditionally been used as the strongest strategy of an enforcement program and is usually reserved for changing unsafe behaviors that other strategies failed to change or that pose a real threat to road user safety. There are three main steps in an effective progressive ticketing program:

1. Education—Establish community awareness of the problem. The public needs to understand drivers are speeding and the consequences of this speeding for road safety. Raising awareness about the problem will change some behaviors and create public support for the enforcement efforts to follow. This is done through proactive enforcement initiatives.

2. Warning—Announce what action will be taken and why. It is common practice to allow the public time to change behaviors before ticketing starts. Fliers, signs, newspaper stories and official warnings from officers can all serve as reminders.

3. Ticketing—After the warning period, if offenders continue their unsafe behaviors, officers issue tickets.

It is inevitable that these enforcement initiatives increase interactions between law enforcement officers and community residents. Dublin Police Services is aware of the impact these interactions could have on community members experiencing poverty and discrimination and recognizes those sensitive circumstances and addresses them with the utmost professionalism.

Potential partners: Dublin Police Services, City of Dublin, and Department of Public Information Office

SPEED ENFORCEMENT IN SCHOOL ZONES
Speed enforcement in school zones can be used to improve driver behavior and decision-making. This strategy was chosen due its applicability to the safety emphasis areas of driver behavior, particularly aggressive driving.

Strict enforcement of speed laws in school zones is one law enforcement tool that can improve safety for children walking and bicycling to school and drivers. Potential approaches include a zero-tolerance policy for speeders in school zones and an increase in fines for drivers who violate the posted school zone speed limit.

Potential partners: Dublin Police Services

HIGH VISIBILITY SATURATION PATROLS
High visibility saturation patrols can be used to improve road user behavior and decision-making. This strategy was chosen due its applicability to the safety emphasis areas of driver behavior, particularly impaired driving.

A saturation patrol (also called a blanket patrol or dedicated driving while intoxicated (DWI) patrol) consists of many law enforcement officers patrolling a specific area, looking for drivers who may be impaired. These patrols usually take place at times and locations where impaired driving collisions commonly occur. Like publicized sobriety checkpoints, the primary purpose of publicized saturation patrols is to deter driving after drinking by increasing the perceived risk of arrest. The patrols can be paired with publicity around stepped-up enforcement efforts.

Figure 3 shows the location of Dublin collisions that involved the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Potential partners: Dublin Police Services, Department of Public Information Office 1036
6 Figure 3: Driving Under the Influence Collisions
1037
7 COLLISION VS. CITATION EVALUATION PROGRAMS
It is important to evaluate enforcement actions and to center social equity in doing so. Collision vs. citation evaluation programs are joint efforts between local government agencies and law enforcement to monitor and document the effectiveness of increased enforcement in lowering traffic collision rates at intersections.

In Dublin, a collision vs. citation evaluation strategy can assess whether enforcement strategies are effective and equitable. Disaggregating and evaluating collision and citation data by race and ethnicity will help promote an equitable approach to community safety and well-being.

FHWA and the US Department of Justice provide online resources for establishing a collision vs. citation program as part of a data-driven approach to traffic safety.

For more, see https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/data-driven-approaches-crime-and-traffic-safetyddacts-operational-guidelines.

Potential partner: Dublin Police Services
1038
8 Evaluating Education or Equitable Enforcement Programs Quantifying campaign results can be difficult, but an execution and evaluation framework can help identify actions, recommendations, and opportunities for improvement. An evaluation framework will help track progress and aide future programs.

An evaluation framework can help capture how residents feel about a campaign, what resonated, and what opportunities for change exist. For example, the Fresno Council of Governments’ transportation safety campaign Safe Roads Save Lives used a framework to help them understand whether audience behaviors changed, where the campaign was succeeding, and what aspects needed improvement (see Figure 4). Dublin could easily adapt this table to its programs.

Figure 4: Sample Evaluation Framework—Fresno’s Safe Roads Save Lives Campaign Part of Campaign Evaluation Metrics Evaluation Methods
Branding • Brand/Campaign Recognition
• Approval of Campaign Look/Style
• Intercept survey
• Online survey
Social Media
Strategy
• Intercept survey
• Online survey
• Data counts
• Tracking of jurisdiction, organizational, or
individual participation
Print Materials
• Number of materials produced
• Types of materials most requested
• Location of material distribution
• Language of materials requested
• Material inventory
• Location tracking
Radio and Video
Resources
• Creation of materials
• Airtime
• Count of type of resource used
• Survey of type of media where the resource was
shared (e.g., genre of radio station, television
program, etc.)
School Resources • Number of participating schools
• Types of resources used at each school
• School counts
• Annuals surveys of schools
Overall Campaign • Behavior change
• Before/after collision data
• Survey of transportation stakeholders—law
enforcement, jurisdictions, transportation
advocates, etc.—on the efficacy of the campaign
Fresno Council of Governments Regional Safety Plan (2021), retrieved from https://www.fresnocog.org/project/2021-regionalsafety-plan-local-road-safety-plan/. 1039
9 Emergency Services
Whether a person survives a collision often depends on their access to medical care. Reaching a hospital within 60 minutes can significantly improve collision outcomes, and rural and remote areas or congestion can create additional delays for emergency response teams. Nearby hospitals (The San Ramon Regional Medical Center on Alcosta Bouelvard in San Ramon) (Stanford Health Care—ValleyCare on Santa Rita Road in Pleasanton) are regionally convenient but require of travel outside city limits.

The strategies in this section focus on partnerships with emergency medical services (EMS) that will improve regionwide response times and coordination by sharing real-time information.

PARTNER WITH LOCAL HOSPITALS OR OUTREACH GROUPS
At the collision site, bystanders are often the first people who can offer help. This is especially true in rural or remote areas. Organized through partnerships with local hospitals and outreach groups, public bystander training courses can help reduce severity outcomes. These courses educate community members on safe ways to help at the scene of a collision and can help people feel more comfortable giving aid in an emergency.

Potential partners: Alameda County Department of Public Health, Alameda County Fire Department

EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATION
Working with local hospitals and other stakeholders can help maximize efficiency with response times through evidence-based techniques, including
• Using registry data and EMS records to determine reasons for delay in transport for both ground and helicopter EMS
• Considering process improvement initiatives to increase EMS documentation and data collection • Identifying equipment upgrades, training, or enhancements that would improve patient outcomes.

Potential partners: Alameda County Department of Public Health COUNTY 911 TEAM COLLABORATION
Working with the local 911 team during project planning and design activities will help identify opportunities to improve EMS access and location identification. The 911 team will be key partners for enforcement strategies, EMS grant opportunities, and efforts to develop or modify a system that allows County 911 dispatchers to input reported roadway issues and send the information to the appropriate agency (i.e., the City, County, or other jurisdiction).

Potential partners: Alameda County Department of Public Health 1040
10 Emerging Technologies
New traffic safety technology—like artificial intelligence and deep learning—can enhance the benefits of Dublin’s other engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services efforts.

USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DEEP LEARNING
Artificial intelligence and deep learning on traffic
video feeds (such as existing closed-circuit
television, or CCTV, traffic cameras) can
automatically analyze traffic flow for effective and
immediate roadway safety diagnosis and conflict
evaluation. Combining artificial intelligence and
vehicle-to-everything (V2X) technology can predict
vehicle and pedestrian intent and prevent conflicts
that may result in collisions. Dublin could apply this
technology to test effectiveness of countermeasures
or to supplement collision data by identifying
conflicts or near-misses on its roadways.

Example Application
The City of Bellevue, Washington, used a videobased network-wide conflict analysis to support a community Vision Zero project. This work used
large-scale network screening to analyze video data
from traffic surveillance cameras. Software analyzed traffic volumes, speeds, and near-misses at 40 intersections with varied population densities and land use.

This project helped Bellevue understand what factors impact its transportation network’s safety and leverage that information to select improvements and evaluate outcomes.1 1 City of Bellevue (2020). Video-based Network-wide Conflict Analysis to Support Vision Zero in Bellevue (WA). Retrieved from https://safety.transoftsolutions.com/city-of-bellevue/.

Video detection of road user trajectories can detect nearmisses and conflicts. Photo source: National Operations Center of Excellence, https://bit.ly/3vuXfMG.
1041
11 CROSSWALK MOTION SENSORS
Pedestrian user-friendly intelligent intersections, or PUFFIN crossings, are mid-block push-button applications used widely in the United Kingdom.

PUFFIN crossings have a pedestrian signal and include sensors that detect pedestrians waiting to cross and within the crosswalk. Because the crosswalk detects crossing pedestrians, it can extend the signal to extend the phase if necessary. Studies in the United Kingdom showed pedestrian safety benefits with PUFFIN installation.2 PUFFIN crossings may be useful at signalized crossings where older adults, children, or people with disabilities cross frequently. Tucson, Arizona, and Portland, Oregon, have implemented PUFFIN crossings that can extend the crossing phase.

Alternative vendors exist that provide similar technological solutions.

More information about PUFFIN crossings, visit
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=55.
2 Maxwell, A. and J. Kennedy. Study Compares Accident Frequency at Puffins and Crossings Using Farside Facilities.

Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 51, No. 8, 2010, 317–321.

Pedestrian sensor at a signalized
crossing.
1042
Appendix E:

Bicycle and Pedestrian
High Injury Networks
1043
§¨¦680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR
BANDON
DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

SAN RAMON RD
SIERRA
CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGE RD

FCI CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SEBILLE RD

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR
12TH ST

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING R
Ma
D
rtin Canyon Creek Trail
Alamo
Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trail
Civic Plaza
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\Collision Analysis\Figure 5- Pedestrian High Injury Network - Final.mxd Date: 6/21/2020 Pedestrian High Injury Network
Figure 5
Pedestrian High Injury Network
Dublin, California
[ 0 1Mile
1044
Martin Canyon Creek Trail
Alamo
Canal Trail
Iron Horse Trai
§¨¦ l
680
§¨¦580

BRIGHTON DR

VOMAC RD

STAGECOACH RD

MADDEN WY

TAMARACK DR

DAVO NA DR

SI VL ERGATE DR
BANDON
DR

SIERRA LN

HANSEN DR

ARNOLD RD

CENTRAL PW

GLEASON DR

LOCKHART ST

YORK DR

KEEGAN ST

N DUBLINRANCHDR

DUBLIN BL

DOUGHERTY RD

POSITANO PW

VILLAGE PW

DONOHUE DR

SAN RAMON RD
SIERRA
CT

FALLON RD

TASSAJARA RD

NORTHSIDE DR

AMADOR VALLEY BL

SCHAEFER RANCH RD

COLLIER CANYON RD
8TH ST

CROMWELL AV

BARNET BL

CROAK RD

RANGE RD

FCI CREEKSIDE DR

HORIZON PW

SCARLETT CT

PERSIMMON DR
ALLEY
6TH ST
7TH ST

SEBILLE RD

SCARLETT DR

PALISADES DR
12TH ST

TOWER RD

SYRAH DR

HILLROSE DR

INSPIRATION CI

ALBROOK DR

EAGLE RD

BRODER BL

INSPIRAT I ON DR

CREEKVIEW DR

HILLTOP RD

DUBLIN BL

STERLING RD
Civic Plaza
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\Collision Analysis\Figure 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final.mxd Date: 6/22/2020 Bicycle High Injury Network
Figure 8
Bicycle High Injury Network
Dublin, California
[ 0 1Mile
1045
Appendix F:

Funding
1046

FUNDING
Both Federal and State agencies offer funding for regional and local transportation projects, policies, and programs.

Federal Funding
Congestion Management & Air Quality (CMAQ)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program provides flexible funding for State and local governments’ transportation projects and programs to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments. CMAQ money supports transportation projects that reduce mobile source emissions in areas designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be in nonattainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards. See MTC’s One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program for how CMAQ funding is distributed within the nine-county Bay Area. OBAG disburses federal funds in accordance with MTC’s regional transportation priorities and associated land-use and housing goals. https://www.transportation.gov/sustainability/climate/federal-programs-directory-congestion-mitigationand-air-quality-cmaq Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program
FHWA
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act converts the long-standing Surface Transportation Program (STP) into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). The STBG provides flexible funding address State and local transportation needs. Funding may be used to preserve and improve conditions and performance on the following: Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on qualifying public roads; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. OBAG disburses federal funds in accordance with MTC’s regional transportation priorities and associated land-use and housing goals.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
National Park Service
The LWCF matches grants for states and local governments to acquire and develop public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The LWCF has provided more than $16.7 billion to state and local governments to acquire new federal recreation lands. Projects can include open space acquisition, small city and neighborhood park development, and trail or greenway construction. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm
1047
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program National Park Service
The RTCA program supports community-led natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation projects nationwide. The National Park Service helps community groups, nonprofits, Tribes, and State and local governments design trails and parks, conserve and improve river access, protect special places, and create recreation opportunities.
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/index.htm
Other Federal Grants
Because the continued existence of these grant programs is at the discretion of Congress, research the current state of funding before considering these sources.

Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
The RAISE Discretionary Grant program provides a unique opportunity for USDOT to invest in roadway, rail, transit, and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Previously known as Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants, the eligibility requirements of RAISE allow project sponsors at the state and local levels to obtain funding for multimodal, multi-jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional department of transportation programs. https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant
USDOT
The INFRA Grants program funds transportation projects that focus on rebuilding existing infrastructure.

To be eligible, projects must be on the National Highway System; a railway/highway grade separation project; a freight project that is rail or intermodal; or improve freight movement within an intermodal facility. Most governmental bodies (e.g., unit of local government, port authority, groups of jurisdictions) are eligible applicants. Minimum awards for large projects are $25 million and $5 million for small projects. https://www.transportation.gov/grants/infra-grants-program Infrastructure Jobs and Investment Act (IIJA)
USDOT
The bipartisan IIJA provides the basis for FHWA programs and activities through September 30, 2026. The IIJA makes a once-in-a-generation investment of $350 billion in highway programs and includes the largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the Interstate Highway System. New programs under the law focus on rehabilitating bridges in critical need of repair, reducing carbon emissions, increasing system resilience, removing barriers to connecting communities, and improving mobility and access to economic 1048
opportunity. Many of the new programs include eligibility for local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Tribes, and other public authorities.

One program, the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program, has appropriated $5 billion over the next five years, with up to $1 billion available in fiscal year 2022. Funding is available for the following activities:
• Comprehensive safety action plans
• Planning, design, and development activities in support of an Action Plan (like this LRSP) • Projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan (like this LRSP) More information on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisaninfrastructure-law/. A list of examples of SS4A funding-eligible activities is available at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A.

State Funding
Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
SB1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, is a long-term transportation reform and funding package. The bill includes new revenues that address a variety of transportation projects, such as roadway safety improvements, street repair, transit, and roadway and bridge construction. SB 1 provides more than $5 billion annually to transportation projects throughout California. http://rebuildingca.ca.gov/
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Caltrans
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the core federal-aid programs in the federal surface transportation act, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST). HSIP aims to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads—including non-State-owned public roads and roads on Tribal land—by funding eligible projects such as crosswalk markings, rapid flashing beacons, curb extensions, speed feedback signs, guard rails, pedestrian refuge islands, slurry seal, and other pavement markings.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvementprogram Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety
OTS strives to eliminate traffic deaths and injuries by granting funds to local and state public agencies for programs that enforce traffic laws, educate the public in traffic safety, and provide varied and effective means of reducing fatalities, injuries, and economic losses from collisions. https://www.ots.ca.gov/grants/
1049
Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grants
California Transportation Commission (CTC)
The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single discretionary grant program that focuses on making California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP aims to encourage active transportation by increasing the proportion of trips made by bicycle or on foot; increasing non-motorized user safety; reducing greenhouse gases; enhancing public health; and ensuring that disadvantaged communities share fully in program benefits. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program State-Local Partnership Program (LPP)
CTC
Created by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 through SB1, the Local Partnership Program (LPP) annually appropriates $200 million from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees. Funds are awarded for roadway maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects. LPP also funds local and regional agency projects that improve aging infrastructure, roadway conditions, active transportation, and health and safety. Consistent with the intent behind SB1, the CTC intends this program to balance the need to direct increased revenue to the State’s highest transportation needs and the need to fairly distributing the economic impact of increased funding. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/local-partnership-program Sustainable Transportation Grant Program
Caltrans
The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program was created to support the Caltrans mission:
provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. Eligible planning projects must have a transportation nexus and ideally demonstrate that they directly benefit the multimodal transportation system. Sustainable Communities Grants will also improve public health, social equity, environmental justice, the environment, and provide other important community benefits.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/regional-planning/sustainable-transportationplanning-grants State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
Caltrans
SHOPP is the “fix-it-first” program from the State Highway System (SHS). SHOPP funds repair and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements on the SHS. Although SHOPP is intended for projects on statutorily designated State-owned roads, highways (including the interstate system), and bridges, it can be used for associated bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Revenues for the SHOPP are generated by federal and State gas taxes and are fiscally constrained by the State Transportation Improvement Program Fund Estimate that is produced by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. 1050
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highway-operation-protection-program-shoppminor-program-shopp State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
CTC
The STIP is a biennial, five-year plan adopted by the CTC for future allocations of certain State transportation funds for State highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements. State law requires the CTC to update the STIP biennially, on even-numbered years, with each new STIP adding two new years to prior programming commitments. CTC staff recommendations are based on the combined programming capacity for the Public Transportation Account (PTA) and State Highway Account (SHA) as identified in the fund estimate adopted by the CTC. To be included in the STIP that is adopted by the CTC, projects must first be nominated by the MTC in its Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), or by Caltrans in its Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
California Department of Parks and Recreation
RTP annually provides federal funds for recreational trails and trail-related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the FHWA and at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP). Eligible nonmotorized projects include acquisition of easements and fee simple title to property for recreational trails and recreational trail corridors; and development or rehabilitation of trails, trailside, and trailhead facilities. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program California Strategic Growth Council
The AHSC program aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through projects that implement land-use, housing, transportation, and agricultural land preservation practices to support infill and compact development and that support related and coordinated public policy objectives. The AHSC program includes transportation focuses related to reducing air pollution, improving conditions in disadvantaged communities, supporting or improving public health, improving connectivity and access to jobs, increasing options for mobility, and increasing transit ridership. Funding for the AHSC Program is provided from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to receive cap-and-trade auction proceeds. https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/
Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program
California Strategic Growth Council
Established by Assembly Bill 2722, the TCC program funds development and implementation of neighborhood-level transformative climate community plans that include multiple coordinated greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects that provide local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities. The TCC Program helps realize the State’s vision of vibrant communities and 1051
landscapes and demonstrates how meaningful community engagement coupled with strategic investments in transportation, housing, food, energy, natural resources, and waste can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, advance social and health equity, and enhance economic opportunity and community resilience.

The TCC Program funds both implementation and planning grants. While the program can fund a variety of projects, transportation-related projects can include developing active transportation and public transit projects; supporting transit ridership programs and transit passes for low-income riders; expanding first/last mile connections; building safe and accessible biking and walking routes; and encouraging education and planning activities to promote increased use of active transportation modes. https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/tcc/
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Grant Program California Natural Resources Agency
The EEM program authorizes the California State Legislature to allocate up to $7 million each fiscal year from the Highway Users Tax Account. EEM projects must contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities. The EEM Program does not generally fund commute-related trails or similar bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. However, EEM does fund recreational and nature trails as part of storm water management or green infrastructure projects. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/environmental-enhancement-mitigation Urban Greening Grant Program
California Natural Resources Agency
Part of the California State Senate Bill 859, the Urban Greening Program is funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other benefits. To maximize economic, environmental, and public benefits, priority is given to projects in disadvantaged communities. The Urban Greening Program funds projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing energy consumption, and reducing vehicle miles traveled while transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective at creating healthy and vibrant communities. These projects will establish and enhance parks and open space by using natural solutions to improve air and water quality, reducing energy consumption, and creating more walkable and bikeable trails.
https://files.resources.ca.gov/grants/urban-greening/
Environmental Justice (EJ) Small Grants Program
California Environmental Protection Agency
EJ Small Grants provide funding to help eligible non-profit community organizations and federallyrecognized Tribal governments address environmental justice issues in areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and hazards. EJ Small Grants are awarded on a competitive basis with a maximum amount $50,000 per grant. EJ Small Grants can be used for a variety of environmental purposes and to augment community engagement, health, trainings, and programmatic opportunities in underserved communities.
https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/funding/
1052
Number ST0122 Program STREETS
PRIOR
YEARS
2022-2023 BUDGET 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
9100 $5,826 $15,454 $21,280
9200 $37,475 $77,105 $114,5809400 $2,120 $2,120
$43,301 $94,679 $137,980
PRIOR
YEARS
2022-2023 BUDGET 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
2206 $43,301 $28,699 $72,000
2214 $65,980 $65,980
$43,301 $94,679 $137,980

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT
2022-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
TOTAL

ESTIMATED COSTSFUNDING SOURCE
TOTAL
State Transportation
ImprovementMeasure BB Sales Tax - Local Streets FundSalaries & BenefitsContract ServicesImprovements

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will provide for developing a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The LRSP will prioritize safety for all users, and provide a framework to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local roads. Aligning with federal regulations, the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and the vision for California, the LRSP would guide the City to data driven solutions for safer streets. It would identify the stakeholders, use safety data to identify safety issues, choose proven solutions, identify the implementation process, and support future safety investments. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs, improve transportation safety by reducing the risk of fatality and injury and improve responsiveness to safety challenges.

The LRSP along with the current update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will propose a transportation system that promotes multi-modal transportation options and community safety. The key goal of the LRSP is to provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along the City’s roadways through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network for all users. The LRSP is anticipated to be completed in summer 2022. The State of California contributed $72,000 towards this project.

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: None
MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Attachment 4
1053
Number ST0123 Program STREETS
PRIOR
YEARS
2022-2023 BUDGET 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
9100 $10,400 $10,400 $20,800
9200 $49,600 $99,600 $149,200
$60,000 $110,000 $170,000
PRIOR
YEARS
2022-2023 BUDGET 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
2215 $30,000 $55,000 $85,000
2214 $30,000 $55,000 $85,000
$60,000 $110,000 $170,000

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT
Measure BB Sales Tax - Local Streets Fund (ACTC)
Salaries & BenefitsContract Services

TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL

ESTIMATED COSTSFUNDING SOURCE
TOTAL
Measure BB Sales Tax - Bike &
Pedestrian Fund (ACTC)
2022-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project will provide for feasibility, design, and construction and modification of traffic signals and roadway safety improvements at locations prioritized and recommended by Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). LRSP is anticipated to be completed by summer 2022. Improvements may include upgrading the signal equipment such as traffic signal poles/mast arms, vehicle and pedestrian signal heads, signal controllers, cabinet upgrades, streetlighting/safety lighting improvements, signal phasing and timing changes, signing and striping improvements, and other alternatives. The project will also provide for evaluating the design and installation of protected intersection elements.

ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: TBD
MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
Attachment 5
1054

7.1 - Local Roadway Safety
Plan
January 10, 2023
City Council
1055
Overview of LRSP
• Introduction
• Safe System Approach
• Vision/Goals
• Safety Partners
• Collision Analysis
• Toolbox - Countermeasures
• Proposed Recommendations
• Implementation
• Next Steps
1056
LRSP Introduction
• Local Road Safety Plans (LRSPs) are becoming a requirement. – For Caltrans HSIP funding, ACTC CIP grants local agencies must have an LRSP or equivalent planning document.
– LRSP is local equivalent of State Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) – Creating an LRSP is an FHWA “proven safety countermeasure” • LRSP basics:
– Provide assessment of roadway safety
– Identify actions and prioritized list of improvements/actions – Identify safety partners (e.g, departments and community organizations)
– Follow federal and state commitment to Safe System approach 1057
Safe System Approach
• Safe System Approach (SSA)
promotes redundancy to
prevent traffic deaths.
• Five key elements have been
adopted by the profession
(see right)
– These are an evolution of
the “E”s of traffic safety
– These elements provide a
framework for action
The five elements to a Safe System
Source: FHWA
1058
Vision and Goals
Vision
The City of Dublin will
prioritize safety in all projects
and will reduce the number of
fatal and severe injury collisions
even as the city continues to
grow. The City will use data and
Safe System principles
recommended by FHWA and
SHSP to promote safety in all
actions.

Goals
• Implement safety
countermeasures to reduce
the risk of future collisions.
• Analyze data to identify and
prioritize opportunities to
improve roadway safety.
• Promote a culture of
roadway safety in Dublin’s
agencies, businesses, and
residents.
1059
Toolbox - Countermeasures
• Background
– Countermeasures pulled from Caltrans Local Roadway Safety manual (April 2020)
– Each countermeasure has a documented Crash Reduction Factor and a relevant Emphasis Area
• Example Countermeasure
Countermeasur
e Name
Caltrans LRSM
CM ID
Documented
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Federal Funding Eligibility
through HSIP
Cost Estimate Emphasis Area
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, backplates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size,
and number
S02 15% 100% $50,000 or less
Signalized
Local/Arterial
Intersections
1060
Safety Partners
• Stakeholder list and comments shared from the
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
• Example Safety Partners listed in LRSP
– Police & Fire Services
–Dublin Schools
–Transit Agencies (LAVTA/BART)
–Community Groups/Local Organizations
(Bike East Bay, Chamber of Commerce,
Health advocacy groups)
1061
Collision Analysis
• Crash Data Analysis
– Data analyzed from Jan 1,
2016, through Dec 31, 2020
– 1,455 collisions in the
compiled database
– 18 Fatal + Severe Injury
– Trends in crash data informed
five key emphasis areas for
targeted improvements
– 15 intersections, 5 roadway
segments
• Emphasis Areas
– Pedestrian Collisions
– Nighttime Safety
– Aging Drivers
– Signalized Arterial/Local
Intersections
– Aggressive and Impaired
Driving
1062
1063
Collision Analysis
Primary Collision Factor
Collision Type
Rear End Broadside Hit Object Vehicle/ Pedestrian Other Automobile Right of Way 1% 32% 0% 2% 19%
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug 7% 2% 15% 0% 2%
Improper Turning 5% 9% 30% 0% 7%
Other Improper Driving 1% 1% 7% 10% 7%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
1% 1% 7% 0% 7%
Pedestrian Right of Way 0% 1% 0% 29% 4%
Pedestrian Violation 0% 0% 0% 22% 0%
Traffic Signals and Signs 0% 33% 1% 2% 4%
Unknown 3% 9% 6% 14% 14%
Unsafe Speed 72% 2% 23% 6% 11%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 7% 3% 1% 6% 11%
Wrong Side of Road 0% 2% 2% 0% 11%
Other PCFs 3% 5% 8% 9% 3%
Total Reported Collisions 406 (100%) 309 (100%) 291 (100%) 51 (100%) 57 (100%) Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS), 2021; City of Dublin, 2021.

Notes: The three highest PCFs for each collision type are highlighted in red. If there is a tie for the third highest, all tied PCFs are highlighted. 1064
Top 20 Priority Locations
Intersections
• Dublin Blvd and Arnold Rd
• Dublin Blvd & Village Pkwy
• Dublin Blvd & Donlon Way
• San Ramon Rd & Amador Valley Blvd
• Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd
• San Ramon Rd & Shannon Ave
• Dublin Blvd & Dublin Ct
• Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd
• Central Pkwy & Grafton St
• Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way
• Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr
• Dougherty Rd & Sierra Ln
• Dublin Blvd & San Ramon Rd
• Village Pkwy & Amador Valley Blvd
• Dublin Blvd & Sierra Ct
Roadway Segments
• Dougherty Rd (north of Willow
Creek Dr to south of 8th St), 0.75
mi
• Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr to
Gleason Dr) – 0.75 mi
• Village Pkwy (northern city limits
to north of Tamarack Dr), 0.69 mi
• Amador Valley Blvd (Burton St to
Dougherty Rd) – 0.75 mi
• Regional St (Amador Valley Blvd to
south of Saint Patrick Way), 0.40
mi
1065
Proposed Sample Recommendations –
Intersections
• Signing and Striping Improvements
• Signal Timing Improvements
– Evaluate Leading Pedestrian Intervals
• Evaluate “No Right Turn on Red”
• Improve Signal Hardware – Ex: Reflective
Backplates
• RRFB’s, Pedestrian Refuge Islands
• Evaluate the Removal of Right Turn Pockets
1066
Proposed Sample Recommendations - Roadways
• Speed Feedback Signs
• Roadway Segment Lighting
• Protected Intersection Elements
• Pedestrian Crossing Improvements
• Corridor Access Management
1067
Systemic Recommendations – Traffic Signal
Hardware Upgrades
1068
Systemic Recommendations – Locations for Lighting Study 1069
Implementation
• ST0123 Traffic Signal and Safety Improvements
• HSIP – Application
– Improve signal hardware at all 14 Priority
Intersections
– Furnish & Install LED Lights and High Visibility
Backplates
– Countermeasure Summary
• Approx. Project Cost = $512,300
• Total Expected Benefit = $8,634,644
• Benefit Cost Ratio = 16.85
1070
Recommendation
Receive presentation and consider adopt the
Resolution adopting the Local Roadway Safety
Plan and find the Plan exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act
1071