Modern Transit Society http://moderntransit.org PO Box 5582, San Jose CA 95150 408-221-0694 To: Council Member Forrest Williams, San Jose City Council Subject: Blossom Hill bridge is easily made safe for walkers Dear Council Member Williams: The Modern Transit Society has been fighting San Jose DOT for about 15 years to remove their illegal prohibitory sign(s) to allow use of the existing Blossom Hill Road bridge over Monterey Highway and the railroad. The top of the bridge has always "allowed" walkers and bicyclists, and they can go east-west or west-east without encountering any prohibitory signs. However, the ramps have prohibitory sign(s). SJ DOT has also made the top of the bridge less safe by poor traffic engineering design, including eliminating the shoulder on the south (eastbound) side. This shoulder needs to be restored for bicycles and walkers. For safety, SJ DOT only needs to paint shoulder lines for bicycles and pedestrians on the ramps and the top of the bridge. They should even post "bike lane" signs, which can, along with shoulders, legally be used by pedestrians where there is no adjacent sidewalk, by Vehicle Code 21966. There is plenty of room to do that, even where the right-turn lane was added. It is important to have shoulders on both sides of the bridge and all 4 ramps because it would be illegal for bicyclists to go "wrong way". They also need to remove the "PEDESTRIANS BICYCLES ... PROHIBITED" and "NO TRESPASSING $1000 FINE 6 MONTHS PRISON" signs. The proof that all this can be easily accomplished is by looking at the next bridge, which is very similar, where Capitol Expressway crosses the same Monterey Highway and the railroad. After a pedestrian was killed a few years ago by stepping on the railroad tracks adjacent to Capitol Expressway bridge, the County settled a lawsuit and built a sidewalk on that bridge. On the other side of the bridge, people use the wide shoulder, which is safe according to the County Expressway Master Plan, Caltrans practice, and FHWA. We forced the County to remove their illegal "pedestrians prohibited" signs banning use of that bridge, which was much safer than crossing at-grade. There is an asphalt sidewalk going along the ramp, between Monterey Road and the sidewalk on top of the bridge (see the northeast corner of the bridge). San Jose staff has, unfortunately, completely stonewalled on compliance with the law. Moreover, San Jose recently posted new signs that say "NO TRESPASSING $1000 FINE 6 MONTHS PRISON" which cites a San Jose municipal code 10.20.140 and 10.08.10 These signs prevent short-cutting to get to the bridge, by walking on the dirt. I saw at least 3 of these signs this week. The painting of shoulder lines can be accomplished in a few weeks. It can be considered an interim solution. An intermediate solution is to build a sidewalk on the bridge on one side, and on the two ramps it connects to. A permanent solution would be to shorten the walking trip: have a pedestrian ramp proceed down to street level from the two bridge corners. This should be on the north (westbound) side of the bridge, because an underpass is planned to be constructed on the southern side along with the new train station. The shoulders on the ramps and the bridge would still remain for bicycle use. There is no need for $7 million for a brand new bridge. Most of this money would be wasted, because the bridge itself already exists. SJ DOT simply wants to use the entire width of the bridge for motor vehicles, by reserving it for future traffic lanes, and by illegally trying to ban walkers and bicyclists today, despite being plenty of room for non-motorists today. This is an outrage! The County highway engineers played the same dangerous "game" for years: prohibiting bicyclists and pedestrians from "bike lanes" and bridges just because they want to reserve the entire road for more traffic lanes in the future. We forced them to keep the bike lanes, AND construct sidewalks on Capitol and Lawrence Expressways, when adding more traffic lanes. Currently, we are fighting for removal of the remaining discriminatory signs on San Tomas Expressway, and to comply with the County Expressway Master Plan that states: "Wide shoulder facilities can serve for occasional pedestrian use." [page 93] In 1989, the San Jose City Council, at our request, repealed all bicycle prohibitions on expressways, and pedestrian prohibitions where "right of access" is not acquired and the definition of "freeway" is not met, to comply with State law that protected the right of walkers to use all public roadways, other than freeways. As a result, we forced the County to remove all "pedestrians prohibited" signs from expressways in San Jose except San Tomas, which is only 1.75 miles within the City. For the most part, people walked on the shoulders, but San Jose even prohibits walking on the gravel sidewalk on San Tomas, as shown in the photo here: http://moderntransit.org/expy/st.html =================================================== REQUEST: Would you request SJ DOT, or agendaize that SJ DOT be directed, to immediately paint shoulder lines for walkers and bicyclists on the bridge and the four bridge ramps at the Blossom HIll Road crossing of Monterey Highway and the railroad, followed by removal of all prohibitory signs? =================================================== This link is to our web page for this bridge, including a photo: http://moderntransit.org/expy/streets.html Here is our web page titled: Stop banning bicycles and pedestrians from bridges! http://moderntransit.org/expy/grade.html Please call or email if you have any questions: 408 221 0694. Sincerely, Akos Szoboszlay, President Modern Transit Society ------------------------- APPENDIX: ------------------------ STONEWALLING BY SJ DOT: I predict that SJ DOT will stonewall again, but we can help with this safety effort before the City Council. One tactic SJ DOT used has been to claim that San Jose "probably" does not own the bridge, but Caltrans. However, I don't believe that because the "NO TRESPASSING" signs cite the San Jose code, and those can only be posted if the land, including the bridge, are in San Jose jurisdiction --otherwise they would have "NO TRESPASSING, STATE PROPERTY" signs. Furthermore, the County built the sidewalk and removed their own illegal prohibitory signs on the next bridge, at Capitol Expressway. John Brazil has also stonewalled. If staff claims that shoulders are "unsafe" as they have claimed to fight against bicyclists and walkers using Capitol and other expressways, we can easily refute that. Shoulders are a much safer place to walk than the detours that force additional intersections to be crossed and, in this case, an at-grade railroad crossing. BUDGET TRICKS, NOT SAFETY, IS THE REAL REASON FOR PROHIBITING THE EXISTING BRIDGE Risk minimization for the travel trip is what counts for safety. Considering only the risk in walking on the bridge's shoulders would be a gross mathematical error. That risk is even less for walkers than for bicycling on the shoulder or bike lane, which is considered safe. But the risk in forcing walkers to cross the railroad at grade by crossing either at Blossom Hill or at the nearest formal at-grade crossing, was totally ignored by SJ DOT. This risk analysis error by SJ DOT was actually deliberate and not an error. It's a tactic entirely for political purposes, specifically the budget, to force TDA funds to subsidize adding more traffic lanes. Normally, the lane addition project budget must pay for relocating all facilities like telephone poles, sidewalks and bike lanes. Adding lanes never benefits walkers, so TDA funds should never be used for relocating pedestrian facilities. By prohibiting walkers and bicyclists now, they force using TDA funds to subsidize adding traffic lanes, either by 1) making TDA funds relocate walking facilities, or 2) for the case of this Blossom Hill bridge, pretending that the bridge is for "cars only" (erroneously reported on TV news) and posting illegal prohibitory signs to keep walkers and bicyclists from using it, thus forcing TDA funds to fund a new bridge so the existing bridge can be reserved for new car lanes in the future. This budget "game" has resulted in two fatalities here at this location alone. The County highway engineers have played the same budget shuffling "game" for years, resulting in pedestrian fatalities, for the purpose of forcing TDA funds pay for adding traffic lanes. They did that by first destroying the walking/bicycling facilities, then they claimed that they have an unsafe situation that needs top priority funding for safety. This was a ploy to try to get extra funds from other jurisdictions' TDA funds to pay for the County's lane addition projects. This ploy was recognized and rejected by the VTA BPAC. Their other ploy was to prohibit bicyclists from using bike lanes, such as on Capitol Expressway (formerly, Capitol Avenue), and prohibiting walkers from using shoulders and paths. San Jose staff did likewise on the Blossom Hill Road bridge and ramps, and pretending they are prohibited on the bridge itself to justify their elimination of the shoulder. Therefore, please let me read and rebut any SJ DOT memo in this regard, including from John Brazil, because of SJ DOT's history of making false statements.