My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN011105
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN011105
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:40 AM
Creation date
1/5/2005 10:47:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/11/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN011105
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
-- Mr. Knowies referred to page 64 of the 2003 baseline report, Table 18, which <br /> describes everything omitted in the model from the General Plan. As staff works through <br /> the General Plan and prepares environmental documents, it must know what would have <br /> happened if the General Plan were built out unchanged. From this point, decisions can <br /> be made on what to add or take out. <br /> <br /> Mr. Arkin felt it would be beneficial to have the political discussion on whether to <br /> delete West Las Positas and Stoneridge and then for the next five meetings that <br /> confusion would be removed. These issues have been discussed for years. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said when discussion reaches the combined alternatives; there will be <br /> models without those streets. There will be many alternatives. However, before you get <br /> to that point and before the General Plan is changed, there must be analysis of what <br /> happens if the General Plan is built as is. There will be models with everything included <br /> and there will be models with many things changed. Staff believed it would be easier to <br /> consider each point individually before getting to those issues of concern, such as West <br /> Las Positas, Rose Avenue, Stoneridge Drive, Foothill Road, etc. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovem asked for an explanation of Level of Service. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated it is in the Baseline Report and reviewed the average delay <br /> per signal light phase for each Level of Service. <br /> <br />-- Mr. Knowles added his remarks to clarify levels of service. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern hoped the goal was that a person did not have to wait at a signal <br /> longer than 55 seconds. <br /> <br /> Ms. Fox inquired about Table I on page 7 and referred to the problems at Santa <br /> Rita and 1-580 eastbound on-ramp. She felt it should be LOS F rather than LOS C. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said on-ramp metering is included at this intersection. When the <br /> intersection gets full, vehicles go to other intersections in the area to get onto the <br /> freeway. The traffic model assumes the ramp meter rate until the year 2025. <br /> <br /> Ms. Fox did not think the LOS C accurately reflected the actual wait to get onto <br /> the freeway and should be changed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Blank felt if the model is artificially limited, he did not think it was providing an <br /> accurate view of the intersection. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said there could be a demand based model output, which shows <br /> vehicles going wherever the drivers want regardless of lanes on the road, or if the <br /> freeway is full. It just shows where the cars go. The current model is a constrained <br /> model, which is based on shortest time and indicates when a particular road is full; cars <br /> will go another route. <br /> <br /> Mr. Blank stated that conceivably the user experience could be considerably <br /> different than what is shown on the model, because the model is constrained. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.