CCMIN101805 - Laserfiche WebLink

Laura Danielson, a Pleasanton resident, believed the ending of the bicycle lane at the roundabouts was not appropriate. She said she drives the roundabouts every day and did not believe they were safe and not well designed for motorists maneuvering into them for the first time. She believed there was an alternative route to guide traffic using Old Vineyard Avenue. Meribeth Detweiler, a Ruby Hill resident, said she had concerns in 2001 when the new road was being discussed which included the proposed roundabouts. She noted the difference between the roundabouts on Vineyard Avenue and Valley Avenue is that Vineyard Avenue has a 40 mph speed limit and is a main thoroughfare and primary access road between Livermore and Pleasanton and several thousand residents in the Vineyard Corridor. While she believed the best judgment was used at the time to install the roundabouts, she agreed with Mr. Arkin's comments that the roundabouts are now a mistake. She mentioned eight reported accidents associated with the roundabouts in the past 16 months, which are a safety hazard for reckless and inexperienced drivers and a nuisance for everyone else. While the School District identified the need for the Vineyard Corridor School in 1992, it has been 13 years and the school is still not in place. She requested Council authorize staff to remove the roundabouts. She expressed her concern related to a traffic signal controlled crossing at Petronave Lane, particularly due to the hill immediately west of the intersectionltrail crossing and a curve in the roadway that restricts visibility at this intersection. Julie Testa, a Pleasanton resident, believed the roundabouts are counterintuitive and did not believe it was an issue of anyone being reckless or driving too fast, motorists do not expect the roundabouts to be there. The roundabouts are dangerous now and when and if the School is built. A majority of Ruby Hill residents were opposed to the roundabouts when they were first installed. She believed Vineyard Avenue is clearly an arterial road that is more than a neighborhood street and should not be treated as such. While she was not comfortable with the traffic signal at Vineyard and Montevino, she believed it turned out to be an adequate solution and reasonable way to mitigate many of the issues along that part of Vineyard and that intersection. She supported the removal of the two roundabouts and was not opposed to installing a traffic signal at the easternmost location on Vineyard Avenue as a solution to address mitigating traffic. Dan Carl, a Pleasanton resident, expressed concern about the safety and adequacy of the roundabouts. For the remainder of Vineyard Avenue, he believed staff had done an adequate job in eliminating the attractive nuisance of the speedway that was on Vineyard Avenue to Montevino. The traffic signal and the radar controlled speed signs are an appropriate solution. He supported the removal of the two roundabouts which would make the roadway safer and lower the accident rate. James Holtz, a Pleasanton resident, expressed opposition to the roundabouts, as they were dangerous and encouraged Council to remove them. Laura Corthell Wu, a Pleasanton resident, expressed concern related to the safety of the roundabouts, which is due in large part to the merging of bicyclists into the roundabouts and oncoming traffic and glare as motorists enter one side of the roundabouts to the other side. While she was opposed to the roundabouts, she believed they did an adequate job in reducing the speed in this area and eliminating cut-through traffic on Vineyard Avenue. She believed the vision for the entire length of Vineyard Avenue should be addressed. She expressed her concerns related to a traffic signal controlled crossing at Petronave Lane, particularly due to the limited site distance to the west and the potential for additional accidents occurring. Pleasanton City Council 17 10/18/05 Minutes