East Bridge Street corridor study proposes pedestrian-first redesign and BRT lanes; council raises traffic, parking and phasing concerns

Dublin — Consultants and city staff presented findings July 1 from the East Bridge Street Corridor Study, a mobility‑focused review of about one mile of East Bridge Street (State Route 161) between Riverside Drive and Sawmill Road. The study proposes rebalancing the roadway to prioritize pedestrians, bicycles and dedicated BRT lanes consistent with the Bridge Street District vision and the Envision Dublin transportation paradigm.

The proposal: Five alternatives were developed. All include wider sidewalks, a 12‑foot two‑way cycle track on the north side aligned with the Emerald Trail, center‑located transit stops and dedicated lanes for BRT. The alternatives differ mainly in how automobile traffic is treated: - Alternative A (staff preferred): One through lane each direction between Dale Drive and Dublin Center Drive; dedicated center BRT lanes; wide sidewalks and a buffered two‑way cycle track. Council heard that crosswalks at key intersections would be shortened, and pedestrian hybrid beacons or leading pedestrian intervals would be considered for safety. - Alternative B: Similar to A but removes left‑turn lanes at major intersections (more pedestrian‑friendly but could complicate circulation). - Alternative C: Single lanes with roundabouts and signalization for BRT preemption (complex signal needs). - Alternative D: Retains two through lanes in each direction and major pedestrian/transit improvements (favored by some council members for maintaining vehicle capacity). - Alternative E: Hybrid of A and C (signals at some intersections, a roundabout at Shamrock Boulevard).

Why it matters: The study would change the character and function of a state route running through Dublin’s Bridge Street District, directing space to transit and active transportation at the potential cost of motor vehicle throughput. It also anticipates BRT as part of the LinkUs regional network; the corridor study assumes eventual dedicated transit lanes to preserve bus travel times.

Council discussion and concerns - Lane reductions and congestion: Several council members opposed shrinking the corridor to a single through lane in each direction, citing existing backups during lane reductions and concerns about diverting regional traffic. One member said: "This is a state route. It's a major state route. It's not just local traffic." Several members favored Alternative D—or keeping two travel lanes—at least for an interim period. - Parking and activation: Councilmembers debated the value of on‑street parking. Some supported retaining on‑street parking in targeted locations to promote activation; others argued that parking should be routed to nearby garages to maintain traffic flow. - Phasing and timing: Staff and consultants said the preferred alternative assumes additional grid streets and redevelopment in the area and that the fullest benefits rely on completion of those street‑network changes. Council asked for more detail on phasing, where BRT stops would be, and how the corridor links to surrounding streets. - Transit routing and LinkUs: Staff noted LinkUs phasing puts East Bridge Street on a later implementation track; several councilmembers said they want to see a complete, corridor‑wide plan and test phasing options that would avoid premature lane reductions before surrounding grid streets are built. - Bike and pedestrian connectivity: Several council members urged that bike and pedestrian connections beyond the corridor (north/south crossings, Bridge Park connections) be part of the planning so that infrastructure is useful to actual trips.

Next steps: The study recommends advancing the preferred concept (Alternative A in the consultants’ analysis) to preliminary engineering and coordinating BRT planning with the regional LinkUs work. Staff also suggested near‑term pedestrian safety work (shortening crosswalks, curb ramps, high‑visibility markings and pedestrian hybrid beacons or leading pedestrian intervals) at Riverside Drive and Dale Drive to improve crossings ahead of larger reconstruction.

Ending: The study establishes a pedestrian‑first vision for East Bridge Street but highlighted tradeoffs between transit/active‑transportation goals and vehicle capacity. Council asked staff and consultants to return with phasing detail, cross‑section plots along the full corridor length, and integration plans showing where on‑street parking, on‑street transit lanes and adjacent redevelopment would fit together.