Opponents band together to stop Norris Canyon freeway project Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Dec 2, 2011 at 8:24 pm
It didn't take long for opponents of a proposed HOV/Bus access between Norris Canyon and Interstate 680 to organize. They began right at the meeting announcing the first stage of the public process. In fact, one opponent, Jim Gibbon, asked the presenters, "Can the community get together and form a committee to stop it? Most people don't want it."
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 1, 2011, 11:29 AM
Posted by PSMacintosh, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2011 at 10:17 am
1. If there is to be any new exit on 680 between Bolliger and Crow Canyon, it SHOULD serve the interests of ALL drivers and taxpayers. It should not just serve the interests of bus commuters and carpoolers (at Norris they WOULD BE primarially going to Bishop Ranch).
If an exit at that location is a good idea, then it's a good idea for all drivers.
2. Cal Trans's claim that this exit concept is not intended to service the traffic from Bishop Ranch seems to be a blatant lie! Who (what drivers of buses and carpoolers) do they say that it will service and in what percentages?
3. Cal Trans, stop favoring buses and "so-called" carpoolers at the expense of the majority of us drivers, especially us local drivers using these local exits.
4. (Note that, in the future, Cal Trans will probably try to change the requirement from 2-people to 3-people in the carpool lanes.)
5. Hypothetically assuming that a new exit IS installed, wouldn't it be better (for all of us) to split the distance between Bollinger and Crow Canyon by installing a whole new bridge/exit over the freeway to service both sides and incorporate all drivers into it. On one side of the freeway it would service Bishop Ranch directly (and still leave Norris to operate as it does now); on the other side, it would service that residential area (it wouldn't become a major throughthrew on either side, as it would at Norris).
Wouldn't it cost roughly the same amount of money, be less difficult to construct, and have less upset to the existing traffic flows during the construction phase (than at Norris).
(Whereever an exit is placed, I realize that the most immediate neighbors thereto might complain about it for noise or other reasons. So moving it down (south) might incur the wrath of a few more SFRs, than at Norris.) But it is also an advantage to have a closer exit/entrance serving your neighborhood, especially with no strip malls attached.
6. I'm operating on the principal that "any exit should serve to help to distribute the flow of all traffic for all drivers in the area."
Cal Trans needs to get out of the business of trying to do "social engineering" from a socialistically political agenda (versus serving the individual).
Posted by Jim Gibbon, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Residents of Danville,
I would like to chime in to say that what we are fighting for in San Ramon will soon be visited on Danville. The next HOV On and Off-ramp project is slated to go in at Sycamore Valley Road. If you are interested in finding out more send me an e-mail at: email@example.com.
This ramp project is a $500,000,000.00 three ramp project that if completed will eliminate any possibility of some day running a light rail down the I-680 corridor. This will lonely leave the Iron Horse Trail for any rail system solution.
I suggest we stop this ramp project and look for another solution that will not limit our future options. It took the San Francisco Embarcadero Freeway fifty years and an earthquake to correct a flaud plan and get rid of it.
Danville will be next, but Caltrans is smart enough to pick us off one at a time. At the one public meeting we had with Caltrans they assured us that we were not alone, Danville was going to get their own ramp.
We will either band together or we will surely hang separately when the ramp project comes to your town.