Town Square

Post a New Topic

Back from the drawing board: CCTA reveals I-680 HOV ramp alternative

Original post made on Mar 15, 2013

If the turnout from Wednesday night's scoping session on potential 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.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, March 15, 2013, 10:20 AM

Comments (11)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Danville
on Mar 15, 2013 at 5:53 pm

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?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by psMacintosh
a resident of Danville
on Mar 16, 2013 at 10:29 am

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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PSMacintosh
a resident of Danville
on Mar 16, 2013 at 10:40 am

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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PSMacintosh
a resident of Danville
on Mar 16, 2013 at 10:49 am

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".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jim Stewart
a resident of San Ramon
on Mar 16, 2013 at 3:25 pm

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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Danville
on Mar 18, 2013 at 7:05 am

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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PSMacintosh
a resident of Danville
on Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58 am

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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C. R. Mudgeon
a resident of Danville
on Mar 18, 2013 at 12:12 pm

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?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Danville
on Mar 18, 2013 at 2:19 pm

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?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Danville
on Mar 18, 2013 at 2:20 pm

Make that "an asphalt".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JT
a resident of Danville
on Mar 19, 2013 at 9:15 pm

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.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Duck!
By Tom Cushing | 25 comments | 1,369 views

The Giving Season
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 933 views

Thanksgiving Transfer Fever!
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 555 views

Thankful season for ValleyCare
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 470 views