Laserfiche WebLink
high capacity, efficient parallel freeway route and terminating the existing street, Los <br />Positas Boulevard, along a residential neighborhood that was in the 1984 General Plan. <br />When the specific plan was later completed 4 years later, rather than zone the area along <br />the new parallel freeway commercial office, it was thought that this would compete with the <br />planned Hacienda Business Park. Therefore, most of the area was not re-zoned from <br />agricultural to commercial office, but residential. As you know, MTC, in its latest state of <br />the system report, has two segments of I-580 ranked just below the most congested <br />section of the Bay Area freeway transportation system. I-580 eastbound from PM Hopyard <br />to El Charro has 4,320 vehicle hours of delay and I-580 westbound AM North Glen <br />Boulevard to Airway has 5,120 vehicle hours of delay. Combined, this is over 9,000 hours <br />or the equivalent of one year, one month of delay per day. The Hopyard/El Charro <br />segment was ranked number 13 in the year 1998-2000 and now is up to number 3. The <br />Northland Airway segment was ranked 26 in 1998 and now it is number 3. In an article in <br />the San Francisco Chronicle, Steve Creel of the CHP was quoted as saying, The traffic no <br />longer goes away; it just changes directions. Every usable County road is filled with <br />commuters. We have roadways that 5 years ago only handled farmers and a few lost <br />commuters. Now these are bona fide commutes with thousands of vehicles. Even in an <br />economic downturn, the roadways in other parts of the bay area have had some relief but <br />that’s not true of I-580. According to the MTC report, these increases can probably be <br />explained by the substantial number of households that have moved to the eastern fringes <br />and beyond in search of affordable housing in recent years. Even during a slowing <br />economy, large numbers of workers still throng highways in Alameda and Contra Costa <br />counties in route to jobs in San Francisco, the peninsula and Silicon Valley. In 2002, the <br />City of Livermore adopted the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative that <br />basically said north of I-580 there will not be arterial routes built. When this was discussed, <br />this was in the 2002 minutes of the Livermore Plan and brought to their attention. When <br />1985 happened, the City Council never could anticipate the congestion along the I-580 <br />corridor.” She asked the City Council to delete the Stoneridge Drive extension from the <br />current General Plan Working Circulation Network. <br /> <br />James Scanlin thinks what is needed is an addendum to the model that includes other <br />definitions of cut-through traffic to provide a more complete understanding. He felt the <br />model used an extremely limited definition, wanted to discuss our Community of Character <br />and felt this was not an “us versus them” issue. He said we are all affected by traffic and <br />affected by the Valley and Santa Rita intersection. He quoted from the Mayor of West <br />Palm Beach, Florida who was able to revitalize the community by prioritizing pedestrian <br />and bicycle traffic rather than automobile traffic. Benefits included reduced speeding, <br />reduced prostitution and reduced drug traffic. Urban streets can be safe and friendly if and <br />only if the streets are designed to physically and emotionally foster active behavior of all <br />users. Conventional engineering theories be damned; the true test of success for urban <br />streets is if a child pedestrian can independently get from there to here safely and <br />pleasantly. He felt everyone could support the Mayor’s sentiment, felt extending <br />Stoneridge Drive perpetuates the dominance of automobile traffic over pedestrians and <br />will make the community less livable, asked the Council to help protect the community and <br />remove Stoneridge Drive extension from the General Plan. <br /> <br />Brian Arkin, addressed the City Council, displayed a slide, said there is only one section of <br />the traffic report that has the raw data and what is seen, in the AM, it is far better to not <br />have Stoneridge extension in. In the PM, it is 41% versus 58%. He felt if Stoneridge <br />extension is built, 85 intersections get harmed or stay the same and 55 PM intersections <br />as far out as Foothill Drive, and he did not believe it was beneficial to the whole <br /> <br />City Council Minutes 13 May 1, 2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />