Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tarver's next question was regarding trip distribution. Mr. van Gelder indicated <br />staff has been doing that yearly and the changes in distribution have been relatively small. This <br />year Pleasanton relied on the Alameda County CMA survey, which only looked at the larger <br />employers. That is a slightly biased database because as a rule, employees of larger companies <br />travel farther. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if the projections considered increases in crosstown traffic due to <br />Highway 84 bypass (if it is built in the next five years) or due to the East Dublin development. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder indicated that was difficult to answer because projections for the business <br />community count on a certain amount of traffic from Dublin, but the rest of the non-Pleasanton <br />oriented trips do not count the East Dublin area because the models don't go that far. Similarly, <br />Highway 84 trips only count diversions now on the street. If, in five years, Highway 84 <br />continued to become congested and more traffic diverts through Pleasanton, those figures are <br />not reflected in the local model because it would be a through trip without origin or destination <br />in Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked for explanation of the figures in Appendix B (Accumulation and <br />Departure Tables) showing 5,000 trips into Pleasanton in the morning and 3,000 trips leaving <br />Pleasanton in the evening. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder explained that a line was drawn around Hacienda Business Park to get <br />some idea on the impacts of the business park on traffic. This is very complex to analyze in <br />light of the residential development in the area. The figures will show trip originating/leaving <br />for the residential; conversely, as commercial/office development is approved, one expects to <br />get a high accumulation. The residential development in the area tends to make a more balanced <br />picture. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver suggested taking counts at the basic points of entry to the city. That would <br />present a clearer picture of trends from year to year. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver then asked about the consultant who prepares the traffic studies and asked <br />whether that work could be done by another traffic engineer. <br /> <br /> Mr. van Gelder indicated the main issue is cost. This consultant has prepared specialized <br />software for the traffic models and to buy that software is approximately $20,000. On the other <br />hand, a new consultant could develop its own software, buy the software from our current <br />consultant, or the City could buy the software and give it to a new consultant. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver encouraged Council to consider using a new traffic consultant to get a fresh <br />view of the situation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta indicated she generally shares the view of changing consultants; however it <br />is a very expensive proposition and needs to be carefully considered before going out to bid. <br /> <br />08/02/94 12 <br /> <br /> <br />