Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Knowtes pointed out that the metering rate is set at 450 vehicles an hour <br />from Pleasanton and 360 vehicles an hour from Dublin. With the congestion, there is no <br />reason to assume more traffic would be let on at those locations. It would be unrealistic <br />to set the model to allow more vehicles on the freeway at those locations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan said in prior models there had been a volume to capacity ratio; <br />basically how many care can physically fit through an intersection. The new model <br />changed that to include subjective perceptions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the new standards are taken from the Highway Capacity Manual <br />Standards. Council can adopt whatever policy it wishes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan reviewed the categories and segregated them into downtown, <br />school, freeway/gateway, and in-town. Of the 32, seven are downtown, one is school, <br />eight are in-town and sixteen are freeway/gateway. Half of the LOS E intersections are <br />related to people trying to get in or out of town and from one gateway across town to <br />another. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift talked about the difference between four way stop signs and traffic <br />signals and also various intersections at freeways outside of town. <br /> <br /> Mr. Arkin felt staff was looking at the 1996 General Plan as a baseline and then <br />different options will be reviewed. He asked if all land uses could be reviewed pursuant <br />to what they are at present and then add uses and see what the impacts would be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that is an option. Sooner or later it would be necessary to consider <br />network, land use and policy. If one considers existing, plus approved development, on <br />today's network, it does not meet Level of Service D standards. So it is necessary to do <br />something to change the policies or mitigate the situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky felt the 1996 General Plan was being changed to make it <br />consistent, even though we know the 1996 plan is not working now and will not work in <br />the future. Let's take what we have today, what is approved, but not yet built, and then <br />work on changes to the model. We can't change what is built or what is approved but <br />not yet built, but we can take that and then work on it. We assume the West Las Positas <br />interchange in the model, but he felt that was not relevant because there are too many <br />other changes that will affect it. Another point is the number of housing units. There is <br />one number for the traffic model and another for the land use. He felt those two <br />numbers should be equal in order to be consistent. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman felt it was important to get through these workshops as staff laid <br />them out before we get to those decisions. Last fall, Council asked staff for several <br />model runs for traffic circulation. Staff has tried to answer those questions and she <br />would like to get to that point methodically. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky referred to his notes from March 2003 where Council said it would <br /> remove the West Las Positas interchange from the General Plan. However, every <br /> model run today still includes that intemhange. He felt until a decision is made to direct <br /> staff to delete it from any future models, the public would not trust any of the numbers <br /> because they don't meet other higher-level objectives given to staff. If one does not <br /> believe the assumptions, one will not believe the data from the models. Regarding the <br /> <br /> <br />