Home Alamo Letter To The Editor LETTER: County And Regional Transportation Agencies Lack Context With Communities

LETTER: County And Regional Transportation Agencies Lack Context With Communities

SHARE

An Alamo resident writes with thoughts about last night’s AOB meeting in his city.

Dear Editor,

Last night, Alamo region neighborhoods attended a county meeting on commute corridor planning by bay area governments that was simply out of context with regional community interests. After a lengthy presentation of commuter flow growth in 24-680 corridor and the tri-valley, county public works turn to the audience for their ideas in improving primary commute corridors in Alamo and its region as Saranap to Blackhawk. Many neighbors simply left without further review or comment because the presentation was fully out of context with community interests.

What was more revealing about the public works presentation was the broad impact in our 24-680 corridor as many commute corridors were detailed for their growing use without any plans by county and regional governments to eliminate such diversion from 24-680 primary commute corridors to community roads, streets and lanes from Orinda to Dougherty Valley. Within your coverage area, several corridors were reported to have growing commuter usage for access to 24-680:

  • Tassajara access via Blackhawk Road, Diablo Road, Green Valley/Stone Valley corridor.
  • Northeast county access south access via Danville Blvd in Alamo into Danville.
  • 24 alternative access from south county via Danville Blvd, Crest Avenue, Tice Valley Road, Olympic Blvd, and Pleasant Hill Road.

Our communities are destinations and should not be prospered by governments as commute corridors. In Alamo, there have been long standing solutions that would dissuade commuters from leaving 680 for Danville Blvd.

  • The simplest concept is to remove Danville Blvd and Stone Valley Road in the Alamo business district and create a mall with access lanes for local shopping traffic. Commuters would learn immediately that Danville Blvd in Alamo is not a commute corridor.
  • The second concept is to use traffic circles, sometimes considered round-abouts, to slow traffic in commute corridors and discourage commuter usage.
  • The broader concept is to reduce access from 24-680 to community roads, streets and lanes. Restricting off-ramps options during commute hours would keep traffic on our primary highways and out of communities and neighborhoods.

For your readers, it is now important to realize that county public works, regional transportation groups and bay area transportation authorities have little interest in the quality of life or public safety of residents in our communities. The goal is to move more commuters along our roads, streets and lanes as alternatives to 24-680 or as feeder routes to 24-680.

Deserves your readers’ consideration!

Sincerely,

Harald Paul Arthur Balle

Alamo