Allow drivers to take more direct routes to their destinations and reduce the
total miles traveled, cut trip times and shorten waiting times at major
intersections, models show.

Published Friday, May 27, 2005, in the Oakland Tribune

Pleasanton battles cut-through traffic
Easing gridlock is officials' No. 1 concern

By Matt Carter

PLEASANTON -- City officials remain determined to kill plans to extend
Stoneridge Drive to Livermore and build a new freeway interchange on
Interstate 680 -- even if a study shows the road projects would ease
rush hour traffic congestion within the city.

Pleasanton also will continue to time traffic signals to discourage
freeway commuters from taking short cuts through town.

Policies on roads and traffic were formalized in two votes Tuesday
following a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission.

As officials plan the city's future road layout in an update of the
General Plan, cut-through traffic has been a dominant issue.

With Pleasanton situated at the junction of I-680 and I-580, commuters
from Livermore, Tracy and other cities east of Pleasanton sometimes
use city streets to get to jobs in Silicon Valley.

When westbound I-580 backs up in the morning, some drivers cut through
Pleasanton to reach southbound I-680, using Santa Rita Road,
Stoneridge Drive, First Street, Vineyard Avenue, and Sunol Boulevard.
In the afternoon, the situation is reversed, with drivers exiting
northbound I-680 and cutting through Pleasanton to get to eastbound
I-580.

In a unanimous vote, the City Council decided that future traffic
modeling studies will assume that the city will continue its
"constrained gateways" policy, giving the city the option of
restricting the flow of traffic on some cut-through routes through
Pleasanton.

Although the city has abandoned an attempt at limiting the number of
evening commuters exiting I-680 at Sunol Boulevard by shortening green
light times, it continues to use traffic signals to limit the number
of drivers using westbound Vineyard Avenue to 200 cars per hour during
the morning commute.

The traffic modeling study is important because it will guide
decisions about where to locate future homes, businesses and roads as
the city updates its General Plan, a road map for future development.

After considerable debate, the council decided that the traffic
modeling study will examine how extending Stoneridge Drive to
Livermore and building a new freeway interchange at West Las Positas
Boulevard would affect congestion.

Opponents say the two projects, which are both part of the city's
existing General Plan, would make it easier for commuters to use city
streets as a short cut. Until recently, those fears appeared to be
partially supported by computer models.

But more sophisticated models now being used as part of the General
Plan update suggest that the Stoneridge extension and West Las Positas
interchange actually might ease traffic congestion in the city, not
worsen it.

The models have shown that even if the projects generate additional
cut-through traffic in the city, they would allow drivers to take more
direct routes to their destinations. That could reduce the total
number of miles traveled, cut trip times and shorten waiting times at
some major intersections, the models predict.

[BATN: What a shock! "Revised" and improved modelling by highway
engineers comes to the conclusion that ... more highways are good,
that more highway engineering is needed, and that earlier studies
concluding otherwise were naive and flawed. We're simply astounded.]

There is strong neighborhood opposition to extending Stoneridge Drive
and building a new interchange, and the Pleasanton City Council is
unanimously opposed to both projects.

The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce wants the city to at least continue
to study the plans, and the Tri-Valley Business Council advocates that
the city build the Stoneridge Drive extension.

Transportation consultant Chris Kinzel, who serves on a committee of
the Business Council that studies traffic issues, questioned the
council's unanimous opposition to the projects, given the recent
findings by city staff members.

"There's a feeling on the part of business interests ... that there is
no budging this group on that," Kinzel said. "They don't seem to be
interested in factual information."

City staff members wanted the council to authorize additional studies
of how building either the Stoneridge extension, the West Las Positas
interchange, or both projects might affect traffic flows.

Under California environmental law, the city eventually will be
required to assess the impacts of not building the projects if it
wants to remove them from the General Plan.

But Council members Cindy McGovern and Steve Brozosky said further
studies should only be conducted after the council decides to kill the
projects -- not before. Both said they doubted the accuracy of the
models.