|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
If the turnout from Wednesday’s scoping session on potential high occupancy vehicle (HOV) ramps in San Ramon is an example, ramps planned for Norris Canyon Road don’t stand a chance.
A new set of plans, with HOV lanes at Executive Parkway may have a better shot of actually being built. An informal survey of the crowd of about 126 people showed them to be less objectionable, although a number of residents don’t want either option.
The plan for a ramp at Norris Canyon Road, which would allow buses and carpool vehicles to enter and exit directly onto Interstate 680’s fast lane, was unveiled in late 2011. It met with immediate opposition, and some proponents of the idea suggested a ramp at Executive Parkway instead.
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority held the scoping session Wednesday night to get another set of reactions, with both possible ramps.
The CCTA has decided to no go ahead with plans for similar ramps in Danville.
“We looked at that and decided it didn’t make sense, (Danville) didn’t seem to be a destination,” said Susan Miller, CCTA director of projects.
Many of the original protesters were out Wednesday night to view the new plans, to renew their opposition to the Norris Canyon ramps, and to oppose ramps at Executive Parkway as well.
Among the group opposed to either plan was Lowell Lamb, a traffic engineer, who said the CCTA isn’t following its own rules.
“According to CalTrans design guidelines for freeways, there is a minimum lane spacing,” Lamb said. He added that the ramps don’t meet that requirement and said CCTA isn’t being transparent and is proceeding “in bad faith.”
“If they need more capacity, they should reinforce the existing interchanges, they should reinforce Bollinger Canyon and Crow Canyon,” he said. “They didn’t even look at that.”
Lamb also accused CCTA of “cooking the books.” He has pictures of a contracted worker watching traffic, but filling in numbers for the wrong times.
Opposition to both ramps seemed to outnumber those who favor the Executive Parkway HOV ramp. Jim Stewart, who’s lived in the Twin Creeks area for 21 years, worries that either ramp will create more noise — through reflected sounds and increased traffic — and more “visual intrusion” in his neighborhood.
Stewart is also upset about the notifications sent out by CCTA, a small pink postcard that looks similar to weekly announcements about recycling items.
“It looks like junk mail,” he said. Stewart said he approached eight neighbors after receiving his notification, and seven of them had apparently thrown it away and were unaware of the scoping meeting.
There were some who favor the Executive Parkway ramps, though.
Linda Chandlee lives just off Norris Canyon, calling it “my little neighborhood.”
“I strongly support the alternate, putting it down at Bishop Ranch,” she said.
At least attendee at the Wednesday night scoping session said she “loves” the Executive Parkway option.
“I think it has to be done,” said Elizabeth, who asked that her last name not be used. However, she did have sharp questions for Miller about the legalities involved that would bring the plans to a halt.
Miller said she’d heard “a lot of positives” about the idea of putting the ramps at Executive Parkway. She also noted that some of the architectural drawing were hard to decipher, and is considering 3-D models for the future.
San Ramon’s City Council has not officially weighed in on the ramps, but Mayor Bill Clarkson said he’s not convinced the project should go forward.
“Doing my homework, I have some real concerns about Norris Canyon in particular and this project in general,” he said.
Many of those in opposition say that the offices at Bishop Ranch are the reason behind the ramp proposal, although the project was included in Measure J, Contra Costa’s half cent transportation sales tax, which was approved in 2004.
Many also oppose the $102 million price tag, saying the CCTA could find better ways to spend the money.
Miller said more studies will be done by the CCTA, and a set of side-by-side comparisons should be available by spring 2014.
Some good news about our bureaucrats for a change. How nice.
Now, what can we do to get Danville council members to listen to opposition? Forcibly extract their blue-tooth’s?
I OPPOSE the building of SINGLE PURPOSE ramps at either location.
Either build entrances and exits that can be used by anyone (HOV or not)……or don’t build.
I’ll go further and state that:
ALL carpool lanes are a bunch of unproven, unscientific hog-wash that has been perpetrated upon us by SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.
Carpool Lanes should have been declared ILLEGAL years ago. They are discriminatory and don’t accomplish their supposed purpose (especially at a REASONABLE cost, if at all).
Just look at all the land costs, construction costs and time costs (and interuption problems to normal traffic flows for years of continual construction) –and then the on-going maintenance and enforcement costs– that have been heaped upon us Californian taxpayers since the 1970s.
And now the bogus concepts of traffic meters…..and exclusive toll road systems as well.
This has been the incremental DESTRUCTION of the CA Freeway system and the elimination of equal roadways for all peoples.
The people know best what they want and need to drive for commuting and other purposes. Build what we want, instead of what Liberal Planners with a universal agenda deem best for us.
SR, you think you’ve won. I doubt it.
CalTrans and CCTA will get their way in the long run.
Their paid employees will keep working night and day for years and years if necessary, until they get their way.
No working citizen has the time or energy to keep up the unpaid fight against them.
These ramps will get built (maybe with some slight concessions).
Oh, they wanted to do Danville as well.
We wouldn’t have heard about that until too late.
They’ll put that desire on a back burner, until Danville is more of a destination point or “transport hub”.
Both the Norris and Executive Pkwy alternates detract from quality of life for residents living on the West side of the 680 freeway in the Twin Creeks subdivisions.Freeway noise and visual impact is already objectionable . HOV ramps will simply add more noise and adverse visual impact. Noise from busses and vans transiting up/down the HOV ramps will add to the freeway noise.Southbound freeway traffic noise will reflect off the massive HOV ramp structure, further increasing freeway noise forced on nearby residents.The freeway will be 60 ft. wider to accomodate the HOV ramps, forcing the West side of the freeway even closer to nearby residents.(The trees along the West side of the freeway likely need to be cut down to accomodate the expansion.)Flow control lights at the top of the HOV ramps as well as vehicle headlights/tail lights will create “light pollution” for those living nearby. A minority of people opposed to the Norris HOV ramp alternate say they favor the Executive Pkwy HOV ramp alternate. This is equivalent to “HOV ramps are not ok in my back yard, but HOV ramps are just fine in your back yard.”The Executive Pkwy HOV ramp alternate would be extremely detrimental to people living on Santander, Talavera, and Valdivia in the Twin Creeks area. I think we should stick together and oppose equally both the Norris and the Executive Pkwy HOV ramp alternates. Remember there is strength in numbers. Both HOV ramp alternates detract from the quality of life of Twin Creeks residents.
These ideas are put forth by these non-profit organization that the taxpayers pay for. They have to continually validate their reason for existence by coming up with these schemes under the guise of “green house gasses”, transit centers, destination areas etc. As someone said they have the time and the money to accomplish what the general public cannot.
So here’s the FORMULA for what they are really proposing to us:
(excuse the generalities. you fill in the “variable”s with more accurate figures, if you have them)
Let’s take a “year” of construction time, that will result in “1 million” people having “1 minute” of delay and traffic jams each over that year and causing “3” serious injuries or deaths (remember how many people died in the SR and Danville area during the last construction project along 680) in order to build ramps that will service ONLY the carpool lane and “10%” of the individuals utilizing 680 and resulting in “NO” regular entrance or exits lanes for the other “90%” of people and resulting in a lifetime of “increased” detriment to the lifestyle and enjoyment of the residents in the area.
Is this close to the correct Formula?
I know the residents in the area are focused mostly on the impact to their neighborhood. OK, keep on that!
I’m going to focus on the HIGH COST to everyone in terms of time, traffic, and money to build a SINGLE PURPOSE ramp system to only benefit a certain limited segment of society that special interest groups have an agenda to favor and promote at the expense of the bulk of society.
If there is a huge demonstrable NEED for entrances and exits for EVERYONE, then, and only then, talk about taking the time and money and risks to build regular entrances and exits to 680. This is the ONLY proposition that I would begin to support.
So what I don’t understand is, who actually wants this HOV-only exit/entrance ramp? I get why construction companies might want the project, so they can be paid to work on it. And I even see why CCTA might want to be “using up our bond money”, so they can argue for more money in the future. But what “constituent” group is clamoring for this to be built? Is this essentially an “HOV ramp to nowhere”-type project? Just an excuse to spend a ton of money on something that nobody wants, and nobody needs?
Perhaps there are grand plans to have vastly-increased numbers of “County Connection” busses driving around (with no passengers). Or is this all about the slow migration of our freeways into toll-roads, one lane at a time?
I think Bill pretty much gave the only answer that makes sense, C.R.
Unless a constituent owns a asphalt or concrete supply firm and is on a CA state bid list, there is no motivation for anyone local to be in favor.
See, isn’t it nice that right wingers (like PSMac) and lefty pinko’s like me can agree on something?
Make that “an asphalt”.
Maybe it is time we advocate for finally creating the Crow Canyon Freeway. It can connect Crow Canyon at 680 to Crow Canyon at 580, as well as 680 to Blackhawk, Dougherty Valley and on down to 580. It would also be smart to convert the Iron Horse Trail to an electric trolley that services Martinez to Pleasanton. There are many people that could take advantage of that. And it would be really cool to see this eco-friendly transportation alternative zipping through our backyards and neighborhoods, so our kids can see how efficient and effective our government policies are. And the best part is it would service a number of schools, so parents could just drop off their kids and have them whisked to the schools.
wh0cd332713 [url=http://tretinoin.us.com/]Buy Tretinoin[/url] [url=http://rocaltrol.top/]cheap rocaltrol[/url] [url=http://allopurinol.us.com/]allopurinol buy[/url] [url=http://tofranil.top/]tofranil[/url]