Alamo residents blast Piepho for new lane proposal Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on May 15, 2008 at 9:49 am
District 3 Supervisor Mary N. Piepho says she will request that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council drop its plan to enlarge the intersection of Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road in Alamo after listening to vociferous complaints at a meeting Monday night.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, May 15, 2008, 8:45 AM
Posted by Oxymo Ron, a resident of another community, on May 15, 2008 at 9:49 am
This issue was only a distraction and a campaign stunt to keep voters from seeing the more important abuses be planned behind closed doors in the county and local governments. Did you know that the issue of dividing what is considered Alamo along Stone Valley Road is still being discussed as annexations by Walnut Creek and Danville?
LAFCo and County share counsel and reporters should ask for more information, don't you think? It is an oxymoron for our supervior to use "we need to meet community concerns and protect their interests" because such claims are immediately dispelled by 7 years of actions of the board of supervisors.
Posted by Susan West, a resident of another community, on May 15, 2008 at 10:25 am
Reposted from another forum
Public Works to present the next expansion of Danville Blvd
Around Town, posted by Susan West, a resident of another community, on May 1, 2008 at 4:15 pm
WATCH THIS SPOT FOR MORE INFOMATION ON ROADS IN ALAMO, www.alamoca.org.
May 15, 2008, 7:00 PM, at the regular meeting of AIA, attend a presentation by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department.
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
The goal of Contra Costa County Public Works is to expand Danville Blvd to invite greater volumes of foreign commute traffic onto our roads and lanes. Expansions to date are failures in the business district and have increased traffic in Alamo.
Inform Chris Lau, CCC-PW Transportation, email@example.com of your preferences.
Posted by Lucy, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on May 15, 2008 at 10:35 am
So as I'm reading this article and reading your comments. In your eyes, Alamo residents, what can the Supervisor do to make you guys happy? It seems nothing. Am I right? Don't write a lot of gibberish- in your response, just write what you think should be done for this intersection on Stone Valley Rd.
Posted by CDSI Community Courtesy, a resident of another community, on May 15, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Dear Lucy and neighbors,
At present, among >2000 residents polled by commercial polling and focus interview services, the following are reactions to proposed changes for Danville Blvd and Stone Valley Road in the Alamo business district. Accuracy of the polling is + or - 3% and actual percentage results are confidential.
Most agree that the current roadways should be removed and some form of individual access lanes be throughout of a mall renovation of the district. The key to this response is "Alamo is a destination and not a commute corridor" as very popular commentary.
Versions of that concept include reduction of both roads to one lane in each direction with a single turning lanes. A center divider would run the length of the district only interrupted by a reduced number of proposed turning lanes. As part of this concept, the multiple driveways would be reduced to a single access for each major portion of the shopping district with secondary right turn only access and exits. Access lanes within the district would be realigned for ease of flow.
Further versions reviewed by Alamo Plaza owners are to change the entrance to Stone Valley Road near the Iron Horse Trail and close the current main entrance on Danville Blvd. Streetside retail and commercial would be added along Danville Blvd with parking structures planned as part of such renovation.
Two lesser preferences have been reviewed. A traffic circle at the current main entrance is proposed by a handful in Alamo as a roundabout and the option is a stop light added at the main entrance. Additionally, there is some support for four stop lights in the district at Las Trampas, Stone Valley Road, Current Main Entrance and Jackson Way/St Alphonsus.
**Note: This data was provided by business district representatives as part of their consideration of renovation and rejuvenation of expanded Alamo retail, commercial, professional and high density residential facilities**
As you will quickly realize, all levels of governments in our region look at the Diablo Vista (Alamo) region as a commute corridor and have long-term plans to continuously expand Danville Blvd and Stone Valley Road to be such corridors for foreign and commute traffic volumes. You will also note that no consideration is given to restricting or reducing traffic usage of our region's roads and lanes.
Posted by Lisa Wright, a resident of another community, on May 17, 2008 at 7:47 am
Posted with a smile for the author
Dear Lucy and Lacy, thank you for your commentary,
One need not look too hard to see that Danville is not a model for anything in the Diablo Vista (Alamo) region. Regional neighbors do not see Danville's government as a model for any local government we might approvel. Danville's old town is not a model for any business center our neighbors would support in the Alamo Business District.
It is easy to see the exceptional differences between Danville residents' attitudes and the majority in our region. In earnest, the interests of our region to have Alamo, as our business district, be a destination and not a commute corridor was explained with depth to both of you so you may understand the problems and solutions.
Now we must ask what are your issues with such solutions?
Posted by informed resident, a resident of another community, on May 18, 2008 at 1:58 pm
So Lisa, it appears from reading your post that you believe Alamo is an island? I am just trying to understand your comments (solutions).
From what I understand Supervisor Mary Piepho is charged the responsiblity of Alamo AND all of the communities within her district. Her position and comments printed in the article read pretty good to me. The title was a bit off, but it sounded like she was trying to find a solution to a problem that is not as easy as you may want us all to believe. I think the previous writers were simply asking you a question as such. Maybe I missed something.
Lisa, trashing your Danville neighbors or commuters may not be the best way to make your point. There are a lot of people that see Danville as a good model. From what you posted, you are not representing your own community very nicely or those of your neighbors.
I remain a little confused, are you elected?
You might want to consider changing your approach unless you wish to remain frustrated.
Posted by Oxymo Ron, a resident of another community, on May 18, 2008 at 9:48 pm
We are now seeing the oxymorons created to excuse the abusive and autonomous actions of our board of supervisors. All the abusive, dictorial power of the board of supervisors is made the problem and failure of the voters, and their neighborhoods, that the board was to serve.
It is obvious that using our region's roads and lanes as a commute corridor is only convenient to non-residents. It is far more convenient to the political supporters that want to continue development without consideration of infrastructure, including traffic management, to have little or no concern for the neighborhoods damaged by such traffic imposition.
Mary Piepho has repeatedly demonstrated that she has little concern for any responsibility to our neighbors and their neighborhoods. When she is carefully avoiding any public commitment in her language of non-content, she is simply serving the masters that support her campaign.
For nearly four years we have hoped for representation that serves our region's interests and advisory. In that same four years, public commentary and reality of actions have been repeated oxymorons.
Posted by informed resident, a resident of another community, on May 19, 2008 at 12:00 am
Careful now, you are sounding a bit selfish. Are you suggesting that Ms. Piepho should put Alamo's needs above those of the "non residents"? Piepho represents those "non residents" also, maybe you ask too much?
Are you looking for a supervisor or county staff that will work for Alamo at the peril of WC and Danville/San Ramon?
Many comments posted here suggest you just have not found a single supervisor that is meeting your needs? Maybe that is your oxymoron.
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on May 19, 2008 at 7:25 am
The subject of this forum is the continuing expansion of Diablo Vista (Alamo) roads and lanes for primary usage by foreign traffic as commute corridors. The reality presented in references to government documents confirms that intent by governments and their transportation consortiums. The issue to our neighbors, neighborhoods and ourselves is the loss of access in our region due to traffic flooding our roads and lanes.
The solutions are governments' willingness to continue to expand our roads and lanes into many-laned parkways or simply stop the invasion of foreign traffic by removing Danville Blvd and Stone Valley Road in the Alamo business district and create a MALL with appropriate access lanes.
Alamo and our region should be a destination and not a corridor for foreign traffic.
Posted by Kathy Bell, a resident of another community, on May 19, 2008 at 9:35 am
Posted by request of the author
Thank you, Hal, for restating the purpose of this forum.
Alamo is a destination and not in service to Walnut Creek, Danville, San Ramon or other commuters. 680 provides appropriate access for commuters as a broad corridor to their destinations and our Alamo roads and lanes should not be considered part of such commuter corridors.
WE welcome all to Alamo and our region as a destination but we will continue to demand that our roads and lanes not be commute corridors. More importantly, in review of the webcast we created of the meeting as topic of this forum, we have confirmed that, once again, Supervisor Piepho avoided any real commitment to our region and made no meaningful commitments to the resolve of commuters using our region's roads and lanes.
Let's not innocently believe that we are represented by any current Contra Costa County Supervisor.
Posted by Oxymo Ron, a resident of another community, on May 20, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Let's make it simply so political oxymorons are not created as campaign jargon in defense of any current supervisor.
The Diablo Vista region as the area from Tice Valley/Rudgear to Diablo Road wishes to remove Danville Blvd from Ridgewood Road to Hemme Avenue and Stone Valley Road from US680 to Lunada Lane as part of creating a MALL with appropriate access lanes.
Our region's neighbors welcome all visitors that chose our Alamo business district as a DESTINATION. We do not want our roads and lanes used as commute corridors.
We regret that no answer is good enough because we seem to be providing all the realistic answers in simple, to-the-point language. It also appears that these realities are not good enough because our current supervisors and their regional transportation alliances do not wish to agree with such a simple answer.
Posted by Krak Potts, a resident of another community, on May 20, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Posted, laughingly, with a smile for the author
Dear, oh, dear neighbors,
As we continue to not see the forest for the trees lucy-ly with our pal Infores(t), we can celebrate the reality that we are being challenged to justify that which is already ours. The roads in the Alamo business district and throughout the Diablo Vista region are mostly ours or certainly can be controlled by our wealth and counsel.
It is nearly impossible to believe a region with nearly $10 billion in real assets could not mount a formal reality that would create road usage to our design. It is more interesting that a region with e-outreach to neighborhoods throughout Contra Costa could simply choose their supervisors and recall those not available for election.
Posted by Kathy Bell, a resident of another community, on May 21, 2008 at 9:25 am
Posted as a reminder from the Author
Ultimately the wealth of our region and our ability to impact neighborhoods throughout Contra Costa makes our efforts of interest to governments at all levels. Our regional counsel is focused on Federal, State and broader bay area transportation authorities in specifying Alamo as a destination.
Local discussions and considerations of actions by governments within Contra Costa County will simply be an affect of counsel's results. Local discussions in this forum have an uninformed perspective and do not apply to the results being generated.