My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN021803
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCMIN021803
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:36 AM
Creation date
3/7/2003 3:49:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/18/2003
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN021803
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
She did not like the idea that once it is turned on it can never be turned off. She wanted to <br />pursue some kind of agreement with CalTrans. She inquired about the metering at Ruby Hill and <br />westbound traffic on Stanley. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico said he did not want any metering at this time. He preferred to review traffic <br />on a city-wide basis and to determine policy before making a metering decision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky felt differently about Vineyard because that affects traffic coming in from <br />Livermore in the morning and would impact very few Pleasanton residents. He felt the signal at <br />Stanley and Valley should also be tried. That is completely different than Sunol where people <br />are trying to get home. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico felt there would be a major political backlash from Livermore. Staff has <br />been trying to create positive relationships and there are a number of issues to work togethe~ on. <br />He would like to give them the opportunity to present their perspectives. He felt metering would <br />have a negative impact on overall relations. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked how supportive Livermore was for the widening of Highway 84? <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico said it was working for that and also to get traffic out if its downtown. It <br />wanted Isabel straightened. He believed 84 was a high priority, but the 580 corridor was a <br />higher priority project, since they are having major cut-through traffic problems as well. He <br />noted there is a significant percentage of people from Livennore commuting to work in <br />Pleasanton and vice versa. <br /> <br />Mr. Brozosky asked why CalTrans would not want the ramp meters turned of~. <br /> <br /> Mr. Knowles said Sacramento establishes state-wide policies and that is the policy of <br />CalTrans. It avoids complications later. There is disruption during start up as well as the <br />possibility of degradation of the freeway flow if the meters are turned off. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky felt CalTrans probably wanted all the meters on at the same time, but if <br />Pleasanton is willing to get a head start, they ought to let us turn them off. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan felt it would be a good idea to have a chance to discuss this with <br />CalTrans. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell felt if there is a problem with cut-through traffic and the metering helps <br />alleviate that problem, then he is astonished that someone would want to discontinue it. He <br />would like to continue metering. Mr. Knowles has done a great job in looking at the entire <br />system and he did not feel it was being done piecemeal. He agreed with turning on the 580 on <br />ramp metering and to keep the metering at Sunol. He was not convinced about Stoneridge and <br />Owens Drive. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 23 02/18/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.