Laserfiche WebLink
13. Review of the Tri-Valley Triangle Traffic Study final report <br />Rob Wilson, Director of Public Works gave the staff report and noted the cities of <br />Pleasanton, Livermore and Dublin, as well as the County of Alameda, have been involved <br />with developing the Tri-Valley Triangle Traffic Study intended to evaluate and prioritize <br />future regional traffic projects in the area mainly bounded by I-580, I-680 and State Route <br />84 (the triangle). To provide policy direction, the agencies established a Policy Advisory <br />Committee (PAC), made up of elected representatives of the participating cities and the <br />County. The PAC met on March 26, 2007 and adopted a final recommendation and the <br />purpose of this report is to review its recommendation. <br />Mr. Wilson noted the Study identified 13 regional traffic improvement projects which were <br />placed in two implementation schedules. The only difference between the two <br />implementation schedules, labeled Hybrid 1 and Hybrid 1A, is that Hybrid 1A includes the <br />State Route 84 widening project from Pigeon Pass to I-680 including interchange and <br />auxiliary lane improvements at I-680 and State Route 84. <br />He noted staff has concerns with the final recommendation. The purpose of the Study, as <br />adopted by the PAC, stated that a plan would be developed by "consensus." Instead, the <br />plan being recommended was selected by majority vote. In response, staff recommends <br />sending a letter to the CMA, with forwards to both the Plans and Program Committee and <br />the Board, highlighting the following points: <br />1. The Study is not a consensus document as stated in the Study purpose. All PAC <br />members have unanimously supported the consensus concept and deviating from <br />this purpose at this time is counterproductive to addressing regional traffic issues. <br />2. The City will request that all future traffic modeling include both "with" and "without" <br />State Route 84 improvements, in order to determine the level of impact of the <br />projects on the City of Pleasanton's local traffic. <br />3. The City will need to more closely scrutinize all regional development projects which <br />are planned without State Route 84 improvements. <br />4. Without a plan for State Route 84 improvements, the City will proceed with pending <br />litigation regarding the I-680 northbound HOV lane project, since it will bring <br />additional traffic to the I-680/1-580 project and result in additional cut through traffic in <br />Pleasanton. <br />Mayor Hosterman gave a history of the process and noted there are a number of regional <br />agencies who came together two and half years ago with this Study funded largely by all <br />involved. The CMA for Alameda County led the Study and at that time the purpose of the <br />Study was to try to identify those freeway infrastructure improvements which would <br />collectively benefit the entire region and get the failing surrounding freeway system moving <br />and working. <br />City Manager Fialho noted that State Route 84 has been found, when modeled, to <br />alleviate cut-through traffic inside the city limits of Pleasanton. Every analysis that the City <br />and CMA have done indicates that construction of Route 84 from I-680 to Pigeon Pass <br />and beyond to the proposed interchange, also alleviates traffic on I-680, but more <br />importantly I-580. <br />Mayor Hosterman pointed out that staff from the City and the Congestion Management <br />City Council Minutes 5 April 3, 2007 <br />