CCMIN071602 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Ayala asked if this could be put on the website for people to use. Mr. Knowles said it depended on what level people expected to interact with the model. There are questions of site licenses, etc. He also said he could reenact a scenario on his laptop, but when this is used network wide he was uncertain how it could function. He would change a scenario, then go to lunch or do other things and come back to see the results. He did not think people on the intemet could use the model as it is designed. Ms. McKeehan cautioned that the traffic model is not an interactive computer game. With regard to workshops, staff is happy to share the information and receive input. She is hesitant to say there could be a workshop to show the model reacting to many different scenarios. As Council discusses this model in more detail, it may have suggestions on how to change the assumptions. A workshop could be held to find out what people would like changed or what situations to look at, but that can get onerous quickly. She suggested bringing that information back to Council for it to set priorities. This is not a model when one can push a button and it spits out the answer right away. The first thing staffrequests is for Council to adopt the model as a tool. The second thing is to see if there were changes in assumptions and specific scenarios that Council wanted to see. Regarding the question of when the West Las Positas interchange will come before Council, Ms. McKeehan said that could not be answered at this time. Ms. Ayala asked about the east side traffic study. Ms. McKeehan said staff is still working on that. Carl Pretzel, 3633 Glacier Corot, felt this model was a good work in progress, but he wanted more detailed tables or graphs describing actual capacities on streets. The actual level of service number is more important than the increase or decrease of traffic. He referred to a comment in the staff report about removing some of the streets from residential levels of service because there were no houses fronting onto the streets. He noted that some houses backing onto Stoneridge get a lot of diesel particulates in their yards, which is not covered in the traffic model. That is not officially a pollutant, but is a quality of life issue. He was concerned about adding more traffic signals unless it is demonstrated that they can be synchronized. He talked about the traffic volumes from the Altamont and said if you see it going from 250,000 to 400,000 and the levels go from A to F with only a one per cent increase in the traffic model, then you know there is something wrong. He thought it advisable to validate the information in the model and suggested looking at 1995 traffic conditions compared to 2000 traffic conditions and see how the model predictions agree with the actual situation. He noticed in the model for the West Las Positas Committee the interchange would have a 500% increase on West Las Positas and on page 24 of the current model it showed a 40% increase. He believed that needed further study. He said the earlier West Las Positas model standards showed capacity ratios and in the current model it talks about level of service and quality of service. He felt some way should be found to translate the earlier model to the current model. Finally, he was concerned about some of the mitigation recommendations such as eliminating crosswalks. He felt that was favoring the automobile and taking away amenities for the human factor. He agreed with looking at traffic Pleasanton City Council 10 07/16/02 Minutes