Modern Transit
Society
web site: moderntransit.org
Agenda:
BOS
referral of Dec. 16: Preservation of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and ACR
211
Dear Board Members,
The staff report
by Roads and Airports seeks approval from the BOS to violate the law and BOS
policy by not recognizing the existence of the County Expressway Plan -- while
contradicting major points (highlighted)
-- and by omitting and contradicting ALL relevant legal opinions from
[enlarge]
Photos depict the situation: While opposing
pedestrian --and previously, bicycle-- use of the wide shoulders on Foothill
Expressway (left), Roads and Airports has no such qualms where the name of the
same, County-owned "G-5" road changes to
Background:
Expressway shoulders are
safe for pedestrians and bicycles, and are used if there is no practical
alterative --which is at most locations. VTA policy (approved Nov. 7,
2002) explains why: "This
[road] pattern, based on a hierarchy of streets, forces all trips onto the
arterial network without regard for their ultimate destination, whether by car,
foot, or bicycle." (chapter 4, page 2). Expressways are part of the arterial road network,
and recognized to be arterials even by the
Expressways are
"express" because they have few intersections and few
driveways. These attributes reduce travel time for all users while making
them the safest roads for walkers and bicyclists. Expressway speed limits
are, in fact, no greater than for many other arterials in the County. Not
speed, but history, was the reason for prohibiting bicycles and
pedestrians. (Details are at http://moderntransit.org/expy/whyproh.html
) [Blue text
can be clicked in this document.]
While most expressway
shoulders have allowed pedestrian use for years --or always, in the case of Almaden and Montague Expressways,-- some locations have
"pedestrians prohibited" signs. Most "pedestrians
prohibited' signs have been gradually removed over the years as cities repealed
prohibitory ordinances --all "bicycles prohibited" signs were
likewise removed. Roughly half the remaining signs need removal to comply
with recent repeals of prohibitory ordinances by city councils.
The opposition of Roads and
Airports to sign removal is a repeat of their refusal --over 17 years-- to
remove "bicycles prohibited" and "pedestrians prohibited"
signs --despite violating law and policy-- until forced to do so by higher
authority. A brief history of their violations is in this letter to the
Supervisors: http://moderntransit.org/expy/sups.html
These signs actually
increase danger to pedestrians because:
1) The signs mislead drivers
into believing that they don't need to watch out for pedestrians. Most
pedestrians on expressways are actually crossing the expressway at an
intersection. Crossing intersections, especially on wide roads, is the
most dangerous according to accident statistics, because that is where most
accidents occur. Most susceptible are slow walkers and a
right-turn-on-red situation.
2) The signs force
pedestrians into detours. The detour route, in general, results in many
more intersections to cross than just walking along the shoulder. Again,
this increases danger because intersection crossings are the most dangerous.
The VTA BPAC
"Recommended that all pedestrian prohibition signs be removed from the
expressways" on
The
Roads and Airports staff report:
Staff's disparaging and
false statement about the Modern Transit Society, and staff's innuendo in a
news article --which was included in the agenda packet instead of
http://moderntransit.org/expy/rarebut.html
Roads and Airports combined
two BOS referrals into one agenda item (which appeared at last HLUET Committee
meeting as agenda item #14). Not being given enough advance notice, and
the two minute speech being too short to prove staff wrong-- the staff report
was forwarded by HLUET, but with the stipulation that relevant legal opinions
be attached by County Counsel.
The first BOS referral (on
Oct. 7, 2003) directed staff to explain why the discriminatory signs are still
posted when they violate the Supervisors' policy, and are illegal even
according to County Counsel's legal opinion. These two points are proven
below.
Our request is to NOT
approve posting of illegal signs which Roads and Airports wants, but rather to
achieve staff compliance with law --and simultaneously, BOS policy-- either by taking no action on this referral, or
preferably by directing staff to remove prohibitory signs that are NOT
specifically approved by County Counsel for legal posting.
Clarification note: While
BOS policy supports pedestrians on the shoulders and/or pedestrian paths, signs
can be posted where the prohibiting ordinance by the city has NOT yet been
repealed and "right of access" is acquired. We are working on
the repeals!
The
staff report has the following three major deficiencies:
Fails to
mention and contradicts
Roads and
Airports quote:
"Vehicle Code ...
provides ... authority for the County to prohibit pedestrians ..."
County Counsel quote: "It is the County Counsel's opinion that where
authority to prohibit bicycles on County expressways exists, the authority rests
with the city in whose jurisdiction the expressway or portion thereof may
lie."
Three current
http://moderntransit.org/expy/legal.html
Stipulates, defines "right of access," which staff violates.
http://moderntransit.org/expy/jurisdiction.html States
jurisdiction is by cities, contradicting staff.
http://moderntransit.org/expy/liability.html
Contradicts staff's innuendo in the news article.
The County Expressway Plan
concurs on jurisdiction [page 93]:
"Pedestrian
prohibitions ... are established by city ordinances."
Roads and
Airports is recommending, as detailed in
their table in the staff report, to keep "pedestrians prohibited"
signs posted even where cities repealed prohibitory ordinances, or even where
"right of access" is NOT acquired, such as driveway entrances to
industry.
Fails to
mention and contradicts the County Expressway Plan, approved by the BOS on
Roads and
Airports quote: "[BOS policy] discourages pedestrians from walking
along the shoulders of expressways."
County Expressway Plan quote [page 93]:
"shoulder/path facilities can serve ...
for occasional pedestrian use."
Disregards
a second directive from the BOS:
The second BOS
referral (on
Roads and
Airports omitted from the agenda packet both the
proposed three-sentence text and the joint MTS / SVBC originating letter
--which had the three-sentence text. The omission of the text would
prevent the BOS from even considering the requested policy for preservation of bicycle/pedestrian
facilities. We provide the three sentences
here for your consideration with the hope that action can be taken:
In accordance with State Legislative Resolution ACR 211,
the
County hereby implements the policies of
Caltrans' DD-64 and
"Accommodating
Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach."
Existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on County roads
shall be preserved except in situations where they are relocated.
Such relocation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
where the road has traffic lane(s) added
or is being modified for vehicular traffic purposes,
shall use the construction schedule and funds used to modify the road,
and
shall not use bicycle/pedestrian funding.
Conclusion
I hope that I
have proven to your satisfaction that the Roads and Airports staff report
contains many false statements. MTS and SVBC have always been careful to state
only the truth, and that is why we have always prevailed in the repeal of the
discriminatory, unjust and unsafe prohibitions on pedestrians and bicycles. This conflict between highway engineers and non-motorized
transport is actually described in the FHWA document in the agenda packet, of
which excerpts are at this link: http://moderntransit.org/expy/fhwa.html
On the referral of Oct. 7,
we ask either no action or to direct staff to remove prohibitory signs that are
NOT specifically approved by
On the referral of Dec. 16,
we ask approval of the three sentences (above) to adopt ACR 211 and preserve
bicycle and pedestrian facilities on all County roads --not just expressways.
Sincerely,
Akos Szoboszlay,
Vice-President
--
Modern Transit Society
web site: moderntransit.org