SR 05:240 - Laserfiche WebLink

Options for consideration include policies/programs which do the following: · Regulate cut-through route entrances to discourage cut-through traffic. This is infeasible at the initial freeway off-ramps as the ensuing back ups would not be acceptable to CalTrans. It may be feasible at signalized intersections along Hwy 84, but this route is governed by CalTrans. · Regulate cut-through routes' total delay by selectively adding delay along the full route so as to match/exceed the freeway route time. This technique "shares the burden," but it would impact many local trips using these routes, and could increase neighborhood cut-through. · Design new street widenings/extensions/intersection capacity modifications to not be attractive to regional cut-through traffic. · Time new street widenings/extensions/intersection capacity modifications to coincide with regional network improvements designed to accommodate cut- through traffic likely to use such new local capacity. · Segregate cut-through traffic on routes where regional solutions are not forthcoming so it minimizes interference with local traffic. This could mean creating separate "through lane" routes isolated from local traffic via separations, etc. Such options along existing routes likely would be expensive and intrusive. City-Based Arterial Cut-Through Traffic As described earlier, this type of cut-through traffic is not feasible to quantify. Figure 10 shows the destinations of traffic inbound from 1-580 west of the city. It clearly shows traffic leaving 1-580 earlier than desirable and using local arterials to reach destinations within the city rather than maximizing the 1-580 route. Maximizing freeway use - by staying on freeways to ramps which minimize local arterial miles traveled and by using freeways for short, local trips - would shift some traffic off arterials and add them to interchange intersections and feeder streets. It is not clear that such a strategy would reduce total city-wide congestion as intersections near these interchanges are among the most congested. In addition, federal highway policy is to oppose using the interstate routes as local streets. Conclusion: The following are measures which could help minimize local arterial miles traveled without counteracting regional policies: · Consider providing auxiliary freeway lanes where local traffic could benefit by using easy freeway access and exiting. Such mechanisms work best where the exit serves a major attractor, such as a regional mall, and the access is fed by a major arterial. Unfortunately, in Pleasanton's case, the location of the 1-580/1-680 interchange interrupts "free" auxiliary lane options near the Mall. · Consider the measures listed above for minimizing regional cut-through traffic which favor keeping the through freeway traffic moving. This can "deliver" in- bound freeway trips to the most appropriate off-ramp. 17