Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Pleasant on, CA - City Council <br /> <br />Page 4 of 12 <br /> <br />Mr. Knowles pointed out that the metering rate is set at 450 vehicles an hour from <br />Pleasanton and 360 vehicles an hour from Dublin. With the congestion, there is no reason to <br />assume more traffic would be let on at those locations. It would be unrealistic to set the <br />model to allow more vehicles on the freeway at those locations. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan said in prior models there had been a volume to capacity ratio; basically how <br />many cars can physically fit through an intersection. The new model changed that to include <br />subjective perceptions. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift said the new standards are taken from the Highway Capacity Manual Standards. <br />Council can adopt whatever policy it wishes. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan reviewed the categories and segregated them into downtown, school, <br />freeway/gateway, and in-town. Of the 32, seven are downtown, one is school, eight are in- <br />town and sixteen are freeway/gateway. Half of the LOS E intersections are related to people <br />trying to get in or out of town and from one gateway across town to another. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift talked about the difference between four way stop signs and traffic signals and <br />also various intersections at freeways outside of town. <br /> <br />Mr. Arkin felt staff was looking at the 1996 General Plan as a baseline and then different <br />options will be reviewed. He asked if all land uses could be reviewed pursuant to what they <br />are at present and then add uses and see what the impacts would be. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift said that is an option. Sooner or later it would be necessary to consider network, <br />land use and policy. If one considers existing, plus approved development, on today's <br />network, it does not meet Level of Service D standards. So it is necessary to do something <br />to change the policies or mitigate the situation. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky felt the 1996 General Plan was being changed to make it consistent, even <br />though we know the 1996 plan is not working now and will not work in the future. Let's <br />take what we have today, what is approved, but not yet built, and then work on changes to <br />the model. We can't change what is built or what is approved but not yet built, but we can <br />take that and then work on it. We assume the West Las Positas interchange in the model, but <br />he felt that was not relevant because there are too many other changes that will affect it. <br />Another point is the number of housing units. There is one number for the traffic model and <br />another for the land use. He felt those two numbers should be equal in order to be <br />consistent. <br /> <br />Ms. Hosterman felt it was important to get through these workshops as staff laid them out <br />before we get to those decisions. Last fall, Council asked staff for several model runs for <br />traffic circulation. Staff has tried to answer those questions and she would like to get to that <br />point methodically. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky referred to his notes from March 2003 where Council said it would remove <br />the West Las Positas interchange from the General Plan. However, every model run today <br />still includes that interchange. He felt until a decision is made to direct staff to delete it from <br />any future models, the public would not trust any of the numbers because they don't meet <br />other higher-level objectives given to staff. If one does not believe the assumptions, one will <br />not believe the data from the models. Regarding the constrained input to 1-580, he would <br /> <br />http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/archive/ccwsminutes050 111.html <br /> <br />8/22/2006 <br />